User talk:Rosencomet

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

Contents

Archived talk[edit]

Hi Rosencomet, and welcome back. I archived your page for you since it was getting quite cluttered. If that's not what you want, let me know, or if you want something from the archive restored to this page, contact me. For more information bout archiving talk pages, see the link above your talk archive. —Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007[edit]

Information.svg With regard to your comments on Starwood: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please stop your personal attacks on me. It is against wikipedia policy to continue to attack me as you do. This is a warning. Mattisse 12:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse[edit]

Rosencomet, I have asked Mattisse to ignore you, and I expect you to do the same to him. Please do not engage Mattisse in any way, because if you do, I will guarantee that once again you will find yourself blocked. Please listen to me on this. After having an extensive discussion with Mattisse, I realize that Mattisse is only interested in trying to block you and will continue to attempt to bait you at every level. Do not fall for it. Pretend that Mattisse does not exist no matter what Mattisse says or does. This will only make Mattisse look bad, and you will be able to file a harassment report. —Viriditas | Talk 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Whpq clarification[edit]

I hope you don't mind my posting this. If you wish me to not post on your talk page, just say so and I will certainly respect your wishes. I saw your post to User:Viriditas. And I'm watching his talk page because I've been in conversation with him about something else entirely, not because of you.

Although Whpq (talk · contribs) is not an admin, uncontroversial closings of AfDs (such as the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Abelson one) can be made by anyone. Because I withdrew my nomination of the article for deletion, this is considered uncontroversial and the result is to keep the article. When articles are kept after an AfD, it is normal to put a notice on the talk page of the article saying that it had previously gone through an AfD with a link to the discussion so later editors can see the information and arguments made in the AfD.[1] There is nothing sinister or unusual about this action. See point 7 on this Deletion Process page link to confirm this.

As to User:Whpq being a sockpuppet, I personally think this is very unlikely. The account appears to have a steady, active, and consistent editing history since early 2006. Look here. I hope this information helps you understand this particular situation. Cheers, Pigman 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI guidelines[edit]

Again, I apologize in advance if I'm imposing by posting this but a recent comment of yours indicated to me you still do not have a firm grasp of why I (and others) say you are violating Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. At the risk of boring you with material you may already have read, I'd like to post a relevant section here for your consideration.

Self-promotion

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

Examples of these types of material include:

  1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
  2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
  3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
Autobiography
For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Autobiography.

It is not recommended to write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted. If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography.(all bold emphasis mine)

There is more that is applicable to your situation but these are definitely central to the issue. Financial interests are not the sole criteria for COI by any means. If your work advances the profile of an organization you are a part of, that is COI. If you write articles about your friends when no verifiable sources exists, that is COI. And when such writing contains almost nothing but your own knowledge with little in the way of supporting and verifiable sources, that is original research. I don't know why I keep posting this sort of info on your talk page. It seems I've done this several times over the last 16 months. I think I have an ideal that if the information offered and understood, of course you will do the right thing, will address the issues and alter your behaviour. Pigman 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Paul is a bit off in one of these areas: Even when there are third-party sources, it is a violation of the COI policy to write about anyone you hire for an event, per Wikipedia:COI#Examples:
"Producing promotional articles for Wikipedia on behalf of clients is strictly prohibited."
If you hire them for your events, you cannot write articles about them on WP. It's a conflict of interest. And it is certainly COI for you to add mentions of yourself and the products you sell (tapes)[2] to these articles. (Note - As is stated on rosencomet.com, re hiring speakers and performers, whose tapes you then sell: "[Jeff Rosenbaum] is both the primary event organizer and product manufacturer for ACE."[3] and "For speaker and workshop availablility and contact information, please contact Jeff Rosenbaum"[4] and "A.C.E. Office MailTo: for general information, sales, and festival-related details: Jeff Rosenbaum[5]) The only reason this has gone unnoticed for this long is you were working in an obscure area of WP. Just because it hadn't been noticed until recently doesn't mean that what you did was ok. - Kathryn NicDhàna 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


In my opinion, you are distorting the meaning of the guidelines you are quoting all out of proportion, and it seems that some of the arbitrators who have been involved in these issues agree with me.

1. I will say now, and again, and as many times as it takes: All the work I do, and that anyone else does for ACE, is on a voluntary basis, and we profit not a penny by it. I know it is YOUR opinion that this makes no difference, but that is just your opinion. If someone does volunteer work for Muscular Dystrophy or Habitat for Humanity, that does not exclude them from creating or editing an article about those organizations. I do NOT accept the broad interpretation that if any work you do as a volunteer for an organization helps that organization, you are FORBIDDEN to edit that article in any way. I do not consider a link to the website of an organization's program for an event with classes placed solely as a CITATION to support a fact, such as whether the subject of that article actually did perform or lecture at that event, to be improper, even if somewhere ELSE in that website a catalog exists (as many, many organization's websites have). I particularly find it hard to accept that interpretation from one of a group of three editors who act as one posting requirements for citations next to these facts. However, how about if I delete the citation needed tag with a "see talk page" note, and place the external link on the talk page? All I want is for the facts to stop being challenged, because I fear the next step will be to delete the facts, then delete the whole article as "too thin" or "lacking support for notability". I don't consider the ACE website to be commercial, because they pay no employees and all funds generated go back into programming. They provide a public service.

2. The Jeff Rosenbaum article was NOT written by me (nor Starwood Festival, nor Association for Consciousness Exploration for that matter). I have added a bit of information to it, mostly when someone required a citation to support information in it. I have also added references occasionally to make it a better article, more supported, and more accurate. I do not believe this is forbidden; as in, not that there is some guideline saying that it is not best practice, or "not recommended", or "one should avoid it", but FORBIDDEN. I would appreciate it if neither of you would treat guidelines and recommendations as laws. I have seen many, many cases of biographical articles where the subject or someone associated with them has provided information, or objected to information included in the article. (And I'm not impressed with "Other stuff exists"; precedent has to count for something, or all guidelines and rules will be applied unevenly and unjustly.) As for the other articles, I consider Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism to be the posterboy for COI, POV, etc, etc,... but I ignore these issues because I think that in general you two have been contributing to the article being better, even if it does advance the interests of organizations and a movement you are totally involved with from it's very formation. (It's also the posterboy for being WP:OWNy, as Kathryn would say.)

3. I also don't agree that the moment an organization might hire a band, for instance, that means that no one who donates his time to that organization is allowed to either create or edit an article about that band. First, these are not regular employees of the organization, but either self-employed individuals or ones working for/with agencies or their own organizations, engaged on individual instances, and in many cases they are not paid at all. It's like saying that if I ever had UPS deliver a package for me, Domino's sell me a pizza, hired Roto-Rooter, or have phone service from AT&T, I am forbidden to write or edit an article about them. Worse, it's like saying that if I volunteered for Habitat for Humanity, and THEY paid UPS, Domino's, Roto-Rooter or AT&T for a service, I can't edit those articles. Lets say I OWNED a store, totally commercial, and PAID AT&T for phone service, or UPS, or rented a U-Haul Van! Or if you worked with any of the Woodstock concerts, or Comic Relief, or Band Aid, or the Grammys, or Lillith Faire, or Lalapaloosa, well, there's a couple hundred people you can never edit an article about. The same goes for all the personnel that go into making a movie, if you were one of them. It is absurd on the face of it. I don't "hire them for my event", ACE chooses them by committee and ACE hires them. I don't HAVE events.

4. ACE has a lot of different functions, and different people have taken on different ones. There are several directors. One person is the primary financial director, another handles virtually all research, another handles the website, another the graphic arts and mailings, another all recording both audio and video, another all data-base related work (like the mailing list), and so on and so forth. I am not in charge of any of the above. When it comes down to it, my main deal is handling communications - the phones, the e-mail, the travel and other arrangements for events, the information inquiries and shunting them where they need to go: if you have questions about event details, product content, how to apply to perform or speak, how to contact someone in the group, ask me and I'll either answer them or get you in contact with someone who does. That's what all the stuff you talked about above means; I handle inquiries and communication with the public. I also USED to assemble our tapes and CDs, but frankly we just let the CD house do that nowadays (and we haven't produced tapes in many years); I should really tell the webmaster to change that. I don't manufacture the discs or boxes, don't record the original, don't duplicate them, don't assemble them...; I used to do it all back in the eighties. Now, however, I still often write jacket notes and sit in on the making of the inserts; but I don't know Photoshop or In Access or whatever the ACE graphics guys use. I also help edit by reviewing raw footage and making notes. But it's all a group effort, and all the money (when there is some, which is rare) goes back into programming. Except for the CD House, no one makes a penny. As far as sales, I'm the guy who takes the phone orders. I don't fill them, and I don't get anything out of it. I don't handle the on-line or catalog orders, just the phone ones, and they are rare indeed. Almost all sales nowadays are through ebay or paypal, and I never even see them. And truth to tell, they're hardly worth the work; we do it mostly so more people get the benefit of music and lectures by people we happen to think are cool. That's the Goddess-honest truth.

I am not paid to, or hired to, edit Wikipedia. I did it all by myself, the moment I understood that you can, and I did it because I was aware of a lot of people and things that I thought should have articles about them, and qualified for them, and I saw a lot of articles I thought I could contribute to. I did not do it to promote myself or anyone else, and a good deal of the articles I have written are about authors and artists who have never been to any event I have been associated with or even people I've met. I've been cranking out articles about occult authors for months based solely on information I researched, like Nicholas R. Mann, Al G. Manning, Vivianne Crowley, Ed Fitch, Prem Das, Laura Huxley, Sally Morningstar, Gabrielle Roth, Dorothy Morrison, Luisah Teish, etc, etc. I've done it almost entirely with only friendly and/or civil interaction with other editors, until you and your group showed up again. I've edited or continued to protect the articles of people I admire who are dead, like Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary, and Baba Raul Canizares. I don't consider that to be self-promotion. I get nothing out of it.

You two and your friend have NEVER "assumed good faith" with me, and continue to watch everything I do and try to provoke me. I know there are some who say I shouldn't stand up for myself and shouldn't react, but there it is. I know you have the experience and the ability to bury me under mis-applied guidelines you can pretend are rules carved in stone, and I know you can keep poking at me until I respond with frustration, gather the responses and call them "hostile" or "agressive", even on my own talk page. Like when you say I'm attacking you for saying you're stalking me, when you maintain a User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist, and comment minutes later when I edit.

I think my work falls into normal parameters of other editors working here (at least now that I have become somewhat used to Wikipedia; I'll readily admit that when I started out, I made a lot of mistakes). I think it has value, and involves a unique set of subjects that might otherwise not be addressed, or not for a long time. I don't think my work has been commercial or promotional, no matter how much you twist your definitions. I wish to continue working with REASONABLE editors who want to guide and improve my work, but I really doubt that you want to help me, having seen your discussions about me to others over the last week, and knowing our history. I would rather see a truly objective administrator with a sense of proportion work with me, and let me discuss the propriety of anything I do that he/she thinks is controversial, and have you guys leave me alone; because I believe you are prejudiced against me and no fair judge of my editing. I don't know what your real issues are with me, but I do believe you have some, and it makes you pursue me obsessively and treat me unfairly.Rosencomet (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice[edit]

Hi,

The MfD discussion on your user subpage has closed as keep. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither Agressive nor a Violation of the Arbitration[edit]

Here's a snapshot of the work I've done since the arbitration. I can expand this, but I am very sick and must go home now. You can see that hardly any have edits since the arbitration, and the few there are not controversial ones, and there is neither agressive aditing nor edit warring. Out of 39 articles picked alphabetically from my userpage, ten had edits by mesince the arbitration, mostly non-controversial (fix link, new headings, an additional cD, etc). Only one revert; from an unamed editor with only complaints on his userpage.

  • Matthew Abelson – Created Aug. 2006 - No changes by me until nomination for deletion, then only to swap a citation for a better one – Zero additions of Starwood mentions or links
  • Amampondo – Created Aug. 2006 - no changes since arbitration
  • Ted Andrews – created article in October 2007, added much info & bibliography – Zero mention or link to Starwood, etc
  • ArcheDream – Created Sept. 2006 - no changes since arbitration
  • Armor & Sturtevant – Created Sept. 2006 - No changes since arbitration
  • Badi Assad – Created article March 2007, no changes since arbitration, zero mention of Starwood, etc
  • Pamela J. Ball – Created article in October 2007 – zero mention of Starwood, etc
  • John Bassette – Created article in Dec. 2006 – only changes since arbitration fix links & typo
  • Steve Blamires – Created article Aug. 2006 – only changes since arbitration addition of upcoming book & 2 articles – Pigman deletes book and mention of WinterStar workshop from BEFORE arbitration as undue weight – I do NOT revert
  • Gavin Bone – Created article Sept. 2006 – only change since arbitration grammar correction and trimming of repetitious language in November 2007 – Pigman deletes mention of Starwood from BEFORE arbitration in Feb. 2007 – I do NOT revert
  • Brushwood Folklore Center – Created article in March 2007 – no changes since arbitration
  • Baba Raul Canizares – Created article in Aug 2006 – no changes since arbitration
  • Miriam Chamani – Created article in Aug. 2006 – only change since arbitration fix of a link unrelated to Starwood etc
  • Dennis Chernin – Created article Aug. 2006 – no changes since arbitration – Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Chas S. Clifton – Created article Oct. 2007 – Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • D. J. Conway – Created article Oct 2007 – Zero Mention of Starwood, etc
  • Ian Corrigan – Created article Aug. 2006 – no changes since arbitration except adding one mention of a non-ACE CD Corrigan contributed to under “Music
  • Vivianne Crowley – Created article Oct 2007 – Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Phyllis Curott – Created article August 2006 – no changes since arbitration
  • Prem Das – Created article Aug 2006 – no changes since arbitration, Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Jim Donovan – Created article Sept 2006 – no changes since arbitration except condensing some repetitious text and placing DVD as subset of Discography
  • Dr. Strange (1978 film) – created article Feb. 2007 – no changes since arbitration – Zero mention of Starwood, etc
  • Nevill Drury – Created article Oct. 2007 – Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Sally Eaton – Created article August 2006 – fixed a Wikilink to ACE from a tape produced by them, fixed a link to Paramount Record from another album – no other changes since arbitration
  • Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison – recreated article Dec. 2006 per request on Project Neo-Paganism page – added a couple Wikilinks and a book reference – no other changes since arbitration
  • Philip H. Farber – created article Aug. 2006 – no changes since arbitration
  • LaSara Firefox – created article Oct 2006 – no changes since arbitration
  • Ed Fitch – Created article Nov. 2007 – zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Laurence Galian – Created article Aug. 2006 – no changes since arbitration except deletion of sentence “This article appears to be partially a vanity article’ from body of article, with suggestion to express opinions on the talk page
  • Victoria Ganger – added a couple non-ACE-related facts, improved headings. Pigman deletes overlinking, deletes some data as “OR”, then nominates for deletion. I delete some more overlinkage, and Wikilink a book author already there to her article. Pigman deletes book as “inadequate”. Kathryn deletes now-defunct “footnotes” section. I add a CD to discography. I Wikilink 2 city names and a college name. I revert nothing.
  • Michael T. Gilbert – I create article August 2006 – no changes since arbitration – Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Jesse Wolf Hardin – I create article August 2006 – Aug. 2007 added new headings, reorganized data, and reverted unexplained deletion of large sections – deleted “like resume’” tag after re-write – no added Starwood-related text since arbitration
  • George R. Harker – created article Oct 2006 – added a book Nov. 2007 to address notability tag – deleted tag and discussed on talk page – no addition of ACE-related info since arbitration
  • Ellen Evert Hopman – Created article Aug. 2006 (recreated after deletion by 999 Sept. 2006) – no changes since arbitration – Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Laura Huxley – Created article Jan. 2007 – No edits since arbitration - Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Anodea Judith – created article Aug. 2006 – No edits since arbitration - Zero Mention of Starwood etc
  • Amber K – Created article Oct 2007 – does contain mention of and Wikilink to Starwood article. This did involve a revert of an unnamed editor’s deletion, after visiting his talk page and finding nothing but complaints.
  • Richard Kaczynski – Created Sept. 2006 – no changes since arbitration
  • Sirona Knight – Created Nov. 2007 – Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Lehto and Wright - Created June 2007 - only mention of Starwood in Performance Venues section, only wikilink, no controversial edits since
  • List of Marvel Comics mutants - created May 2007 - Zero Starwood etc mention
  • List of Neo-Pagan festivals and events - created March 2007 - only wikilink for Starwood Festival and Winterstar Symposium - Pigman deletes all names without their own articles, I discuss but do NOT revert, putting all deleted names on talk page for future editors to write articles and provide some web links for research.
  • Nicholas R. Mann - created Nov. 2007 - zero Starwood etc mention
  • Al G. Manning - created Nov. 2007 - Zero mention of Starwood etc
  • Louis Martinie' - created Aug. 2006 - various links, citations and wikilinks added, not about Starwood etc
  • Patricia Monaghan - created Aug 2006 - no edits since arbitration except mention of Maybe Logic Academy (not Starwood etc. related)

Please don't characterize me as someone who has "learned nothing", or who has been displaying the same behavior since the arbitration. It just isn't true. I'll expand this list to include EVERY article I've edited since then if necessary. By far the majority of my edits were either to articles with no Starwood etc reference, or the edits I did had nothing to do with Starwood etc, and in that case it was usually to respond to a request for a citation or something.Rosencomet (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Llewellyn Worldwide[edit]

Have you ever had any business relationship (non-profit, for-profit or mutual exchange) with Llewellyn Worldwide? - Kathryn NicDhàna 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


I have never had any relationship with Llewellyn Publications or Llewellyn Worldwide. Back in the eighties, ACE was given permission to produce some out-of-print tapes of theirs when they went out of the business of producing tapes. They were produced under the ACE/Llewellyn Collection label. I never got anything out of it, nor did anyone else associated with ACE. As I've said many times before, everyone who does work for ACE does so on a volunteer basis, and no one profits from it. (By the way, ACE no longer produces tapes; they haven't for many years. Does anyone? Whatever is in their catalog is old stock from at least ten years ago.)
Please stop saying things like "One of the problems with all these artist articles he's been creating is he uses them as a place to insert mentions of himself, his work, the tapes he sells, and his events. By working to raise the profile of the artists he hires, he is also working to raise the profile of his festival and, I think it's reasonable to assume, drive more business his way." I have no events. I sell no tapes. I hire no artists. I do not have a festival. No business is coming my way. I make my money in a totally unrelated way, and I make no money from anything I do for or with ACE. I do not "hire acts" for ACE events; ACE hires them based on committee vote.
As far as writing articles based on "bio blerbs", I stopped doing that long ago because they were not suitable copy for Wikipedia articles, and since I have searched the internet for better sources. In fact, the vast majority of articles I have written since the arbitration have not been ACE or Starwood related. Who's profile am I trying to raise? And I don't accept that the article of any artists who has ever appeared at an ACE event is now a "Starwood-related article". One fact in the entire biography of an individual doesn't mean non-controversial information like additional book titles, albums, ISBN numbers, etc can't be added by me without violating some rule. I happen to be a member of the Neo-Pagan community, and I want to write articles about notable members like authors and major organizations, organizers and related topics. I also write about sixties icons, entheogenics authors, comic books, cartoons, and musicians I like.
Please stop looking at "16 months of activity" when you judge, or discuss, what I've done since the arbitration. If you compare my editing before and after the arbitration was over, you'll see a distinct difference. Also, don't act like material that was up before the arbitration was over is material I've added since that time. Lumping it all in as if I haven't responded to the arbitration is simply unfair.Rosencomet (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, all of this info about selling the tapes and CDs (and the [www.cafepress.com/starwood.8503799 rosencomet thongs], etc.) is contradicted by the info on rosencomet.com. It looks to me like you also sell tapes/CDs in partnership with Llewellyn Worldwide; therefore, it appears to me like you also have a conflict of interest in writing about Llwellyn authors. - Kathryn NicDhàna 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of WinterStar Symposium[edit]

I have nominated WinterStar Symposium, 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/WinterStar Symposium. 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. - Kathryn NicDhàna 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jeff Rosenbaum[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jeff Rosenbaum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination). Thank you. Pigman 06:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Attempted Vote-Stacking on AfDs and Content Disputes[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

WARNING - You are engaging in WP:CANVASSing, specifically of the Wikipedia:CANVASS#Campaigning and Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking sort, as you are only posting to people that have supported your position in past AfDs or content disputes: User:Viriditas, User:Septegram, User:Modemac, User:Dave Null. Rosencomet, if you continue after this warning, what you are doing is a blockable offense, especially as you have done it multiple times before. This is your only warning. - Kathryn NicDhàna 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, canvassing off-wiki for new users to come and "vote" is against policy as well. Stop doing it. - Kathryn NicDhàna 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Festival and related articles[edit]

Dear Fred, I don't know if you are aware of this, but I hoped you might comment on a big problem I have been having. For six months since the arbitration, I have been editing with very little conflict, and mostly creating new non-Starwood-related articles. I have added to and improved a lot of the other articles, mostly in non-controversial ways (like adding books and/or ISBN numbers to bibliographies and info to discographies of people who happened to have appeared at an ACE event), or to satisfy requests for citations. Perhaps I put some of this info under the wrong headings, calling something a reference when it should have been a note or put under "further reading", or whatever. But I have sincerely been trying to support the work I have done, do new work unrelated to the articles that were controversial, and avoid any conflicts.

However, two weeks ago Mattisse, Pigman and Kathryn suddenly appeared, and proceeded on what I can only call a campaign to eliminate as much mention of ACE and it's events as possible. They began with a tagging spree reminiscent of the one by Mattisse and her sock puppets that started my problems before. My immediate response was to ask Thatcher for help and advice, but for some reason he would not respond to me for nearly a week. During that time, it turned out, he was talking to the three of them here [6] without even telling me this conversation was happening. I had asked him if there was still an advocate system, but he never answered me. (I'm not trying to slam Thatcher, I'm just pointing out that I've tried to deal with this without revert wars or other unpleasantness). Since then Pigman has opened discussions here [7] and elsewhere, all with no one telling me so I could respond, and he has a watchlist devoted just to my work.

In the past two weeks he and Kathryn have deleted material from at least thirty articles I've created or regularly edit, nominated five for deletion (two successfully, one not, two pending), and have made some frankly bizzare interpretations of Wikipedia rules. For instance, Pigman deleted mention of the Starwood Festival appearances from Paul Krassner's article, even though he has written two articles about Starwood, been quoted in High Times about it, and appeared at six out of the last ten. He claims that the event must not be important to Krassner because he doesn't mention it by name on his official bio, just as "a Neo-Pagan festival". Even when Paul Krassner himself wrote in to the talk page that it was important to him and why, Pigman has not returned this data. I believe he is hoping I will engage in a revert war, so he can call it aggressive editing and a violation of the arbitration. In fact, he has ALREADY accused me of that; I thnk it is clear that these three want to drive me and my work out of Wikipedia by any means. Another strange rule: Kathryn claims that since in the eighties ACE got permission to re-issue a handful of cassette tapes from Llewellyn, I am not allowed to edit ANY article by ANY author who has ever had a book published by Llewellyn, America's oldest occult publisher, even though I have never worked for nor received a penny from Llewellyn, and my work with ACE is totally voluntary and unpaid. They have changed the copy on the Jeff Rosenbaum article, too, so instead of "he has produced over 100 tapes and CDs" they say "produced and sold" although this is not true, and added "Through ACE, Rosenbaum produces cassette tapes and CDs of the artists who appear at ACE events, and markets them through the ACE website" as if they belong to and are marketed by Rosenbaum who merely takes advantage of the website to make money for himself. This is a lie, and IMO a violation of WP:Bio, and I have said so several times.

In spite of the failed attempts several months ago, which you commented on at the time, to merge the articles Starwood Festival, WinnterStar Symposium, Association for Consciousness Exploration and Jeff Rosenbaum, and even though the articles are expanded since then, they are trying to do it again. Worse, they delete the citations and references for paltry reasons, then delete the facts as uncited, then say the article isn't notable.

I don't know what to do. It's a gang-up of three against one, and I don't have the cadre they do to bully their way to whatever they want. On top of that, I'm afraid to do anything because of the accusations of violating the arbitration. I don't know what I can or can't do, and they claim I can't do anything at all. I desperately need some help. They've already deleted some articles, and they seem to be visiting every article I have ever created or edited, and consider ANY reference to these events no matter how well supported as undue weight or trivial. And any editor who says anything in my support gets confronted. What can I do? Rosencomet (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How about asking for reopening of the original arbitration case and adding these new interested editors as parties? Fred Bauder (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

It is severely frowned upon to canvass users for an AfD. I have reverted your recent canvassing. Please don't do this again. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, really. Don't. Not even "by the rules this time". Really. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have looked over the material about canvassing. The original posts I placed had been taken down by another editor. I replaced three of them with a simple notification that this nomination had been opened, and since they had commented on one before, I thought they'd like to know. The one I did not replace at all was to an editor who seems not to be editing for months. I see the phrase "not set in stone" right at the top. I see phrases like "no mass editing" and "neutral language".
Under "Campaigning", it says "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions." This is a message to three editors only, neutrally worded, and I have nort done this "often" at all. It is also not votestacking, since there were no "mass talk messages". If there is no hard and fast rule, no mass messages, neutral language and only three people contacted, I do not see this as canvassing, and I certainly don't see it as a "blockable offence". Nonetheless, you have reverted this, even though you characterized what I did this time as "by the rules".
I don't understand how I get messages about deletion nominations on my talk page if it's forbidden for me to put any on anyone else's page. Rosencomet (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I linked to the explanation of the block policy in my first warning to you above, with the words "blockable offense". This is the policy: Wikipedia:CANVASS#Responding_to_disruptive_canvassing. The relevant section is this: "Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." - Kathryn NicDhàna 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Violations of WP:CIVIL and other disruptive editing[edit]

Rosencomet, you may have trouble hearing this from me, as you appear to think I have some sort of agenda towards you. However, your editing is getting even more disruptive. You really, really need to treat other Wikipedians with respect if you intend to remain here. I'm referring to your comments about Pigman here: [8], though those are just the most recent in a long history of accusing others of "harrassing" and "stalking" you (I'll provide diffs if you need your memory refreshed). I know that you know this is wrong, as many other editors have tried to talk to you about this during your time here. If you cannot stop insulting people and making personal attacks, you're going to wind up blocked again. That's not a threat, it's just a statement about how WP and the WP community works. You are not an exception to the rules we all have to follow here. You need to take this seriously and stop it. - Kathryn NicDhàna 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your editing as both User:Rosencomet and User:Jeff Rosenbaum[edit]

Jeff, as you have created an alternate account, Jeff Rosenbaum,[9] and now used it to comment on an AfD in which you had already commented as Rosencomet, you need to familiarize yourself with the policies at WP:SOCK. Participating in an AfD under two different accounts is not permitted. Also, an alternate account needs to be indicated as such on your userpages if you are using the account in good faith. I have flagged the accounts as alternates. - Kathryn NicDhàna 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hippie.[edit]

Nah, it's OK. My edits should have been reverted (only now I'm realizing that I've made a good faith vandalism), Your reverts were completely justified. And by the way, we have the same surname...! what are the odds? --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: psychedelic drugs on Moses, abc news[edit]

Could you comment on my plan as presented here? I feel that you have some expertise in this area, and can shed some guiding light. —Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would love to know what you think of this article: Shanon, Benny. "Biblical Entheogens: a Speculative Hypothesis". Time and Mind, Volume 1, Number 1, March 2008 , pp. 51-74. Click on the PDF link at the bottom; it's free. —Viriditas | Talk 13:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

John Bassette[edit]

Hi Rosencomet, and thanks for your kind words about John Bassette. I was also a fan, and found it very strange that the entry's notability was questioned (and on ridiculous grounds, too -- the original comment line was "notability questioned - few Google hits excluding this article" which has nothing whatever to do with the Wikipedia's stated criteria for notability. When, on one of the linked sites, I saw a citation from the Providence Journal about John's performance at the 1967 Newport Folk Festival, I figured I could do my part, as my college library has a full run of the "ProJo" on microfilm; turned out to be quite a find! It was amazing to see the impact John made in a year dominated by Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant Massacreee," and in a newspaper column which erroneously mentioned the then-unknown "Joanie Mitchell" and mis-named her songs, commenting only on her yellow miniskirt! I will try to keep making improvements as I can, and I share your wish that John's orginal recordings be re-issued some day! Best regards, Clevelander96 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet more COI and sock issues[edit]

You may not want to disclose your alternate account but, due to the fact that you have used it on some of the same pages, the only way you can do this and not be blocked for sockpuppetry is to disclose it. Therefore I have reverted your removal of the disclosure notice from your userpage. You can remove it again if you really want to, but I wouldn't recommend it. I am also concerned that you are once again back to editing WP:COI articles of people whom you have hired to perform at the Starwood Festival, such as Gavin Frost, ArcheDream[10], Isaac Bonewits[11], Dagmar Braun Celeste, Jeff McBride (where you also added a Starwood link [12]) as well as the many people in the Gnosticon page you started,[13]. Gnosticon was also an enterprise of Llewellyn Worldwide, with whom you have a past business arrangement (selling the "ACE/Llewllyn" line of tapes and CDs), and whose stable of authors are basically the same crowd you hire for Starwood. I am stunned that you are back to violating these policies that have been thoroughly and routinely explained to you. Do you really want to go there again? - Kathryn NicDhàna 06:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I specifically asked Fred Bauder to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author."
His reply, seen below, was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."
I hope this finally settles this issue, and I can continue editing articles without the constant accusations that I am violating Wikipedia policies by doing so. I have tried to be careful about avoiding original research, properly citing sources (with a preference to third-party sources; however, Wikipedia policy clearly allows for non-third-party sources in some circumstances, such as author's official websites), and other Wikipedia policies & guidelines. In the future, I would ask that you and Pigman limit your objections (if you must object at all) to the actual edits I do, rather than the fact that I am the one who has done them. Rosencomet (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's extremely disingenuous to say "...events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for" when you are the Executive Director of ACE. Monetary issues completely aside (money is not the only kind of COI), ACE is still an group which you are intimately involved in on a day-to-day basis and at a very high level in the organization. You have consistently either misunderstood the policies or appear unable to comply with them despite consistent, persistent and regular reference to them by myself and others. You have been on Wikipedia for almost 19 months; you are neither a new editor nor are you ignorant of policy at this point.
I would also hope that you have a better understanding of Wikipedia structure/process to know that the opinion of a single (former) Arbcom member is not some dispensation of approval from an on-high authority toward your actions and editing. I would also note that Fred's comments show he has not been particularly attentive in these matters, either during the Starwood Arbcom case or to your current activities. Fred is a longtime editor expressing his opinion to you and I would implore you to refrain from using his words as a justification or excuse for disregarding policy.
Yet again I would like to refer you to WP:V and WP:RS since it is my observation that your understanding of what constitutes an independent, third-party source remains somewhat weak.
If it seems that I object to or revise your edits relatively regularly, this is because you persist in regularly violating COI policy with your edits. I've said this a few times to you: I don't have any personal grudge against you, ACE, Starwood, et al. My primary problem has been with your continued violation of policies well beyond when you should have a basic grasp of them. Cheers, Pigman 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what title someone has in an organization, an unpaid volunteer is an unpaid volunteer, and the fact that you and Kathryn have so heavily edited Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism shows how little weight you give to the notion that "money is not the only kind of COI"; except in regards to me. I don't care anymore whether you say I'm being "disingenuous"; I have the same opinion about you when you say you have no personal agenda against Starwood, ACE or me. I feel you have shown you do by your obsessive tracking of my work, your nitpicking and accusations, your setting up a watchlist specifically on me, and your working with a multiple sockpuppetteer who's actions don't seem to bother you as long as they further your goals. When you, Kathryn and Mattisse [Category: Sockpuppets of Mattisse] launch a campaign within a few days to tag about two dozen articles I've written, propose five for deletion, and re-write several, then take even my comments on talk pages about it to Thatcher and two noticeboards trying to make a case that I am starting trouble again, I consider you to be the "disingenuous" one when you use terms like "If it seems that I object to or revise your edits relatively regularly" or claim "I don't have any personal grudge against you".
As an example of your personal feelings impacting this, you have made statements about Starwood concerning your opinions of its connection to drugs and sex (made under the guise of discussing whether mentioning youth programming was "promotional"), implying dangers to children, offering no factual material to back these slurs up. Kathryn agreed with your statements, and she offered to pass on "info" about the same to an editor privately, away from the sight of Wikipedia editors observing the conflicts you two have had with me. In fact, she claimed to have "a bunch of info about this", which she characterized as "the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years". Does this sound like someone with no personal issues about Starwood? (All this can be found on the Starwood Talk Page [14])
In my opinion, you two conveniently at times ignore the difference between a guideline and a policy when it suits you when dealing with my editing, and ignore other editors when they point out that your editing and reversions of my work seem to indicate a problem you have with me and/or ACE/Starwood that goes beyond corrections of editing mistakes, or any real basis for objection to a source or citation. I feel that an objective observer would say that you two have made a project out of following my work, looking over my shoulder, and re-editing what I do with the bar set much higher than normal. Thatcher has theorized that it is because we both edit in a narrow field of interest (Neopaganism and the occult), but even when I edit something about a comic book character, a musician, the Red Dog Saloon, or Turkish Taffy, there you two are, re-editing my work often within hours of my edits. It has made Wikipedia a hostile environment to work in; you treat me as if I were on probation and you were my probation officer, given the job of following me around and constantly reminding me that you are watching me.
Furthermore, I consider the way you just shrugged off the statements of Fred Bauder and implied that he makes statements like this with no thought or consideration, is appallingly disrespectful to him. I also asked Newyorkbrad for a comment, who specifically said that "it might be best if Fred, who wrote the prior decisions, and who has now left the committee so he would not have the problem of prejudging a situation that might come before the committee again, or another arbitrator who was on the committee last year, were to look into the issue." As a Wikipedia editor, I need to be able to speak to someone when I feel that I am being harassed or badly treated by another editor (especially a tag-team), and when I need a clarification of my rights to edit when you and Kathryn make IMO irresponsible accusations and statements about me, such as the untruth that I ever had a "financial relationship" with Llewellyn or that there is any policy forbidding me to edit an article by a Llewellyn author. I would hope that you would not ignore his words and belittle them, with offhand comments that "he has not been particularly attentive in these matters" simply because he doesn't agree with you. I have seen no policy forbidding me to edit them, or edit the articles of people who have appeared at Starwood, as long as the edits themselves are properly supported. Fred Bauder confirms this.
I have looked over the COI info you have pointed to, and frankly I don't agree with your assessment, and I don't think you have looked over WP:Biographies of living persons very carefully either when you shoot down all self-published material or biographical information supplied by reputable publishers about their authors. Also, the fact is that while independent third-party sources are preferred, they are not the only acceptable sources for a citation in a Wikipedia article - and you know it! There are several exceptions to that guideline (and please pay attention when a WP article starts with the words "these are guidelines, not policies set in stone" at the top of the page), among which are self-published material by the subject when there is neither any reasonable doubt of the source, nor is the material controversial. When you do something like delete the word "herbalist" from the author of several books on herbs, who's bios in her books, the websites of her publishers, and two news websites include "herbalist", and she runs a company which gives advice on and sells herbs and herb books, and offer no reason to doubt that she is an herbalist (or a citation of anyone who has questioned it), I call that setting the bar too high, and I frankly think you did so because I wrote the article.
I again ask you to back off my editing. If you truly think I am violating policies, ask someone objective to keep an eye on my editing (better yet, let an arbitrator pick someone to do so; it shouldn't be your choice), or step in when someone else objects to it. I say this because I think it is clear that you and Kathryn have COI and POV issues considering any assessment of my work, and have demonstrated that your actions are both extreme and involve personal opinions of ACE and Starwood. I don't think you can judge my work fairly, nor should you set yourselves up as the "Rosencomet watchdogs" as your creation of this watchlist [15] and your actions regarding me over the last 2-3 months seem to show you have. I'm not happy about having to make statements like this, but your bias is obviously not about any actions I've made about any article you have written; I have never done so. I have asked for help from Thatcher, Fred Bauder, Newyorkbrad, and anyone else I could think of, and I don't think I can be faulted for doing so, nor should their advice be ignored. Thatcher has told you several times that editing you have complained about was not in violation of Wiki policy, I have told you many times that I have no connection to Llewellyn, but you two continue to repeat the same accusations, and when an arbitrator of the very case that you began weighs in, you seem to belittle his input. I think it's time for you and Kathryn to stop picking fights with me and setting yourselves up as my personal scolds and watchdogs. Rosencomet (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ArcheDream[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article ArcheDream, 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 its talk page. 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. BJBot (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge. Fred Talk 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pamela J. Ball[edit]

I have nominated Pamela J. Ball, 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/Pamela J. Ball. 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. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re [16]. Due to Wikipedia's privacy policies I can't reveal the information received via wp:OTRS. However, the deletion debate was based on Wikipedia's policies which requires sourcing and does not allow synthesizing not supported by the sources.
I have emailed both Foulsham and WW Norton asking for more information on their bio paragraphs/pages to disambiguate them, but haven't received any replies yet. If I receive any email replies I'll check for updates on the publisher's pages and put a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pamela J. Ball. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-27t08:58z

AfD nomination of Philip H. Farber[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Philip H. Farber, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Thank you.

A polite word...[edit]

Some of your recent talk page comments have been rather incivil and verged into the territory of personal attacks.[17] Please try to keep your temper. I'd particularly urge you to focus more on the present and current edits to articles rather than the past. I'd also gently remind you that arguing over reinstating mentions of Starwood in various articles deleted by other editors is probably not a good idea.[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] This hasn't reached the level of edit warring but your argumentative tone still concerns me as does your continuing aggressive advocacy for Starwood/ACE related info/mentions in articles. Cheers, Pigman 02:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sally Morningstar[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sally Morningstar, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Morningstar. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pigman 03:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove deletion tags[edit]

Are you "Sally Morningstar"? Don't remove deletion tags from AfD articles. It's vandalism. Qworty (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Halley DeVestern[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Halley DeVestern, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halley DeVestern. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pigman 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dennis Chernin[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dennis Chernin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Chernin. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pigman 03:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nicki Scully[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nicki Scully, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicki Scully. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pigman 04:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Your comments on Talk:Nevill Drury[edit]

I thought your comments on Talk:Nevill Drury weren't entirely on topic so I'm moving the discussion here.

While of course you don't need to provide footnotes for a talk page discussion, if you make assertions about how often Drury is quoted compared to other authors, I think it appropriate that you provide some proof or source for this claim. In other words, neither I nor other editors can just take your word that this is true.

As to your accusation that I'm just targeting for deletion articles you've written or contributed to, I think my contribs show otherwise. You continue to be unclear about both notability for people and verifiable sources. I really suggest you look at those a little more closely. Cheers, Pigman 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Vote-Stacking, Again[edit]

Jeff, I just saw your e-mail to Oberon Zell-Ravenheart which asked him to forward around your request for people to open new Wikipedia editor accounts in order to vote for your position in edit and deletion disputes. Tacky, to say the least.

I suggested to you before that your inappropriate promotion of Starwood, etc., in Wikipedia wasn't doing you any good as the audience you were reaching here already knew of it anyway. Look, to use some ad-speak, you're not reaching new eyeballs, and you're pissing off the old ones, to put it bluntly. You're going to get banned if you keep this up.

I have nothing against you. From what I've heard over the years, outside of Wikipedia you're a fairly cool guy -- but you're being self-destructive over this. I hate for good people to be their own enemy. With all respect, you need to change your behavior with regard to Wikipedia. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Davidkevin, I know you mean well, but you are misrepresenting what I said in the e-mail. On top of that, the e-mail should not have been circulated, but just went to people who I have spoken with, and was a continuation of conversations I had had with them; without that context it should not be viewed, and Oberon should not have just forwarded it to anyone but simply talked to people about it. Those I spoke to know that I was NOT AT ALL trying to just have people support MY position, but that I wanted more people in our community to get involved, see these articles, and express their OWN opinions. I think more magical folks should create accounts, watchlist these articles and others in related fields, and defend them from undue deletion and/or vandalism when they believe that such is happening.
There are many folks who jump in and revert vandals on Wikipedia articles of all sorts that they are interested in, and without this aspect of Wikipedia it would be a useless resource, full of personal attacks, falsehoods, and vandalism of the "he's a poopy-head" type replacing the original text which may have been the result of many, many hours of hard work by honest editors. An arbitrator has pointed out to me that one problem I have had is that I edit in a small-interest universe and will inevitably bump up against the same few people who I have had conflicts with again and again. I just wanted to get more people involved; I specifically said in my e-mail (regarding articles nominated for deletion, for instance) "Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions." I've seen many other articles of all sorts which have their watchers who help maintain them and their integrity, which is as it should be. I want the same for articles of this type.
And frankly, this has nothing to do with promoting Starwood. (In fact, if you look at my contributions over the past many months, you'll see little that could be called "promoting Starwood".) Several of the articles I discussed were of authors like Nevill Drury, Sally Morningstar, Morwyn, Pamela J. Ball, Vivianne Crowley, Chas S. Clifton, and others who have never appeared at any event I have ever been associated with. But the recent tagging spree on magical authors moved me to try to get more magical community people involved, something I've encouraged both privately and publically for over a year. I am sorry you saw this as vote-stacking; I see it as addressing the problem of too few editors with knowledge and interest in the field involved, which leads to a small group of editors making all the decisions. If this group has a bias, only a bigger audience and more general discussions will help alleviate the problem. Rosencomet (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that I mis-represented you above; personally, I think if anything I erred on the side of minimizing what you wrote, but rather than waste time and space with the two of us arguing over my text above, other editors can make their own judgements.


Again, I don't dislike you or have any vendetta against you or ACE, which I think does valuable work. I voted KEEP on Nicki Scully as I agree with you about her notability -- but I think you're handling many of these disputes badly.
I really do wish you well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion on your actions has been opened[edit]

I have opened an WP:ANI discussion on your canvassing off-wiki for people to participate in AfDs. Here is the diff and here is a link to the specific section. Please come and participate in the discussion. Pigman 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to keep balance[edit]

I can understand your concerns, but the language of your letter does seem a bit worrisome. We've got a lot of POV warriors trying to stack the decks, and any advice which seems to counsel stealth rather than openness on the part of new editors you recruit is going to set off alarms (see the current CAMERA controversy). (My userpage, for example, is bedizened with blatant declarations of my interests and opinions, so that nobody can claim that I have a concealed interest or POV on much of anything.) You have to be conscious of the fact that you are perceived as a POV pusher trying to get more attention for your community without acknowledging notability concerns of other editors not part of that community. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal e-mail[edit]

Please stop posting something that was not addressed to you on my talk page. That e-mail was a personal one to friends, Oberon included, and should NEVER have been forwarded to ANYONE without my consent. I have spoken to Oberon about this, and he has apologized. You used the term "tacky"; how much more to keep publicizing a private e-mail, especially in a way that it can be taken out of the context of the private conversations it was a follow-up to and used to damage me. You say you have nothing against me, but I have a hard time believing it. Perhaps if you viewed my contributions over the past six months or even since the arbitration, you'd realize that I am just trying to get more Magical people involved in Wikipedia. Maybe then I wouldn't have to defend these authors so often myself.
Also, my intent is not to promote Starwood. Most of the articles I've written in the past year, like Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Sally Morningstar, Pamela J. Ball, Vivianne Crowley, and many more have never been to an ACE event. Pigman has been scouring Wikipedia of mentions of Starwood and ACE that pre-date the arbitration no matter how appropriate a mention might be judged on a case-by-case basis; I have usually either let it go or responded on talk pages, not revert warred or been aggressive, which is exactly what I was told to do. -- Rosencomet (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That e-mail was posted to four separate YahooGroups -- two connected with Oberon's Grey School of Wizardry and the Grey Council, one connected with the revival of the CAW, and a private groups of friends of mine populated by my personal invitation only. In no way was it described as confidential.
You said I misrepresented what you wrote, I don't think I did. If anything, I minimized the extent of what you were asking others to do. I first tried merely linking to your letter, than copied and pasted it after I found the link would not work, so that other editors could make their own judgements from your own words what your intent was rather than go through my interpretation which you claimed was inaccurate.
As for the letter's context, no, I certainly didn't participate in the larger written exchange of which it was a part, so perhaps I am mistaken about that, but from my admittedly limited point of view it certainly looks to me like a crass attempt to proverbially stuff the ballot box.
I make no claim of perfection, and perhaps in fact I am wholly misinterpreting, and then again perhaps I am not. I can only go by what I have read plus what I (no doubt incompletely) know of your past actions with regard to Wikipedia.
Yes, I really do not have anything against you...but it does distress me that you seem unable to grok that some of what you do in the context of Wikipedia is seriously inappropriate. I myself have a hard head and have made similar faux-pas from time to time and been taken to task for them, sometimes with kindness and sometimes with malice, so it distresses me to see someone who I know to be an otherwise righteous person subject himself to the same. I really am trying to help you in my less-than-perfect way. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

words of advice[edit]

Hey Rosencomet, I hope you are well.

I intend to stay out of this situation, as I don't think I have anything to add, unless something particularly catches my eye or someone asks me to comment. However, I would like to give you one piece of advice that I hope you will follow:

Never put anything in writing that you do not want the whole world to know. As regards Internet -- and that includes e-mail and instant messaging -- never put anything in writing that you do not want the whole world to know tomorrow.

Many, many people I know have learned this the hard way. Your time on Wikipedia is not going to get any easier if you make comments about Wikipedia other places that you wouldn't want repeated here.

Regards - Revolving Bugbear 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are so right! I'm, learning the hard way, and I don't know what I can do about it now. You can't stuff the toothpaste back into the tube.
Any advice you can give now? I don't feel like I have anyone in my corner, and if I seek support I get accused of canvassing. What do you do when the people who watch you and mess with you already have their support system established so they don't HAVE to contact them? And here I am with my chin hanging out.Rosencomet (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Although it may feel like cabalism, the fact that the pushback against what you are trying to accomplish is so broad and seemingly coordinated should indicate that, at the least, a large segment of the community opposes it. Like it or not, the principle that the community as a whole has voice to overrule the individual is ingrained in the principles of Wikipedia. That is something you are going to have to accept.
The canvassing was definitely inappropriate, and I hope you can see why. Although every voice (or at least those who approach the process in good faith) is recognized on Wikipedia, and (by and large) equally, it is very easy to tip the scales to an artificial appearance of consensus by seeking out support for (or opposition to) something specifically. The wiki process demands that these things come about organically, or at least that someone seeking out opinions on a subject in dispute takes a neutral and balanced approach. Your approach was definitely neither neutral nor balanced and, as you see, did you a lot more harm than good.
There are many thousands of editors on Wikipedia, and each editor needs to put his goals and ideas into context -- they are undoubtedly important, but they need to be pursued within, not in spite of, a community mandate. Without the broad cooperation of a community actively trying to forge consensus within itself -- rather than bring in outside influence to try and alter the consensus -- Wikipedia would descend into chaos.
My suggestion to you, honestly, would be to steer clear of anything that could give even the appearance of a conflict of interest, at least for now. Whether you see it or not, your personal connection to these topics is interfering with your ability to assess them neutrally. Take some time to edit articles with which you have no personal connection. That way you can more thoroughly familiarize yourself with the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy and, at the same time, build up some political capital by demonstrating yourself to be a positive and good-faith contributor. When you have stronger ties within the community and the solid backing of people who are confident in your good faith, positive track record, and neutral point of view, you may find it much easier to forge a new consensus (after all, consensus is always evolving), rather than trying to fight the existing one.
I hope this is helpful. And, if I can help you further, please let me know.
Cheers. - Revolving Bugbear 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am still unclear about the canvassing policies, which seem just plain screwy to me. For instance, some editors seem to keep their friends on a watchlist, or drop hints about things they'd like others to help with or votes they'd like them to weigh in on. Some act in obvious cooperation. Some just plain ask for help. I get accused of canvassing when I try this.
In a case like mine, where a decision is being made about blocking me (in a conversation that seems to include my whole history, not just the canvassing issue, and I'm being tarred by association with the Ekajati Sockpuppets, something I had no knowledge of back then), under what circumstances and in what manner could I suggest either to those who supported me in prior mediations or arbitrations, or have simply been civil and helpful to me in the past, that this case is even happening? Pigman, who opened the case, is already counting up the block votes mere hours after I posted my apology and just one day after opening the case.Rosencomet (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the chart at the top of the page WP:CANVASS. You sent a statement with a specific intention urging specific action to a large and partisan group of people, secretly. I'm afraid it's pretty clear cut. You're not necessarily wrong to want a broader set of eyes on these articles, but what you did was clearly an attempt to influence the process in spite of community consensus. You need to appreciate the fact that community consensus should evolve organically and through transparent, fair means.
I understand that you want to learn, and that you want to integrate yourself within the community, but you're not really trying hard enough, I'm afraid. You need to take the time to thoroughly understand both policy and process -- how things work around here, and why. And you need to respect the way the community operates and the conclusions that leads to.
Generally, asking one or two people in a neutral manner for their opinion (rather than, say, telling them how to vote and giving them detailed instructions) and in a transparent way, if you have an established trust with those users and those users are in good standing in the community, is not inappropriate. I hope you can see the difference between that and what you did. Take the suggestion about the Paganism WikiProject to heart -- that would have been both much more neutral and much more transparent. And take a look at the box at the top of my talk page that says I like "friendly notices", and read the section it links to.
I am going to weigh in at the noticeboard, trusting that you actually do intend to work on these issues honestly and intensively. Please do not violate that trust. - Revolving Bugbear 21:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you at all; my question had to do with what I can or can't do NOW as far as asking for support, not whether I was wrong about the e-mail. I admit I was wrong, and I apologized for it on the case's page, and have contacted the people I e-mailed and told them I was wrong to send it and asked them to ignore it and take no action about articles I might have written. I will not violate your trust. I'm just wondering if I should ask Fred Bauder, Thatcher, and Newyorkbrad to weigh in, too. Fred has always been particularly kind to me. There are also a few editors like Septagram and Wjohnson who have been supportive. Is there a way to bring this case to their attention in an appropriate manner before it is closed?
One thing I would like to note: I only e-mailed a few people, and reached about 5 or 6. None have expressed an interest in the project; of course, I took it back within a pretty short time. One of these friends, however, misunderstood the nature of my suggestion and posted it on four yahoo groups he's a member of. This (besides the fact that I did something so ill-conceived and inadvisable in the first place) is what caused the problem. He has apologized to me, but the damage is done.
I will not violate your trust; I said in my apology that I'll never violate canvassing policies again, and I will abide by that. I greatly appreciate your understanding. Rosencomet (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If I were you, I would stay far away from anything that appears to be soliciting an opinion for quite some time. I am familiar with both Fred and Thatcher, and will ask them if they'd like to weigh in. - Revolving Bugbear 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent events[edit]

What the heck were you thinking? I suggest you get on your knees and start begging for forgiveness because the future isn't looking too good. I'm pretty upset that I spent all that time mediating for you and arguing your side of things, only to find that you haven't learned anything. I would say that now is a good time to apologize to the community for your actions and take a new step in the right direction. The patience of the community is exhausted, and you are one step closer to an indefinite block. I suspect that wasn't the result you wanted; It's never too late to change. You know, it's really ironic. Everything you are attempting to do and being called out for, can be done legitimately onwiki using skillful means. Did you ever once stop to consider that the resources of Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism are meant to be used for this purpose? Please, take a moment to think before you act. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Rosencomet, per NPA and CIV policies this is not acceptable and I suggest you remove it. To an outside observer, it appears to be an attack upon Kathryn and Mattisse. I don't care if you think you are defending yourself, it is simply not allowed per Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. You may be able to get away with rewording it on a subpage dedicated to dispute resolution, but I would suggest you show some good faith and start a new chapter on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going to take the bold step in removing it. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed here. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And try to remember, when you write stuff like "Pigman, Kathryn & Mattisse just can't accept it" - that also reads like a personal attack, even though you are trying to make a point about your situation. Your best strategy is to explain yourself in relation to your edits, not other editors. From now on, do not make any negative comments about any other editors. You are just giving your enemies ammunition to shoot you down - permanently. If you want to stay here, you are going to need to make some radical changes. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And, think about this for a moment: so what if your articles are deleted? They can always be re-created with better sources and content that meets the objections of the AfD. Let it all go, Embrace the inevitability of impermanence and see it for what it truly is. Nothing lasts. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Long comments[edit]

Rosencoment, a bit of advice: the less you say, the more people are willing to take you seriously. When you leave long screeds on the AN/I board and user talk pages, most people will just ignore it. The cardinal rule is, remember your audience. Wikipedians want information quickly and have very little time for long messages. That's just the nature of the culture. So, I suggest keeping all your future comments extremely brief and to the point if you want people to listen to you. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet editing[edit]

The impression being given by Mattisse, Pigman and Kathryn is that I have not changed my editing since the close of the Arbcom that ended Mar. 29th, 2007. Here is a snapshot of my editing since then. It is alphabetical and presently includes just the articles I originated, but I will gladly continue it until it includes every article I've written or edited, so anyone can see that starting from the first edit I've done and dragging us through the entire Mattisse - Ekajati/999/Hanuman Das thing in this one-sided way is unfair. My editing has not been contentious since the Arbcom, though I have IMO been provoked by tagging sprees, and I have restrained myself in almost all cases while asking for help from Arbitrators like Fred Bauder, Thatcher and Newyorkbrad. Fred Bauder has stated that I was free to edit any articles I choose as long as the edits themselves are cited and not Original research, so the frequent accusation that I am violating COI policy by editing them is not true.

The truth is, my editing has improved a great deal since the Arbcom. This was even stated as part of the Arbcom's findings. I have been mostly writing articles about people that have NEVER been to one of the events I've worked on, I have NOT been adding even internal Starwood links to articles much less the external ones that the Arbcom was about (I've even occasionally deleted some existing ones myself, like on Sally Eaton and Children of Earthmaker), have NOT reverted anything more than once (not just once in a day, but at all, and that rarely), and except for vigorous support on discussion and nomination for deletion pages I have stood by and watched as work I've done has been deleted without opposing it, even when I thought the motivation was personal or the basis was flimsy.

Here is a record of all my edits since the Arbcom on articles I've written. It contains 69 articles, 5 of which have been deleted (4 recently), and two deleted and re-directed: WinterStar Symposium to the ACE article, and Grey School of Wizardry to the Oberon Zell-Ravenheart article.

Twenty-seven of them have been created since the Arbcom, and only 5 of those had any connection to ACE or Starwood. Of those 5, two had Starwood mentions in them which were deleted by Pigman with no comment or reverting from me; the other three have not, and I think at least two are not controversial even to him (In Amber Wolfe, a discography link to ACE due to 3 Llewellyn Worldwide meditation tapes re-issued by ACE in the eighties with no connection to Starwood; and in Fred Schrier, a link to an obituary of longtime partner Dave Sheridan by Schrier published exclusively in an ACE periodical in 1982 with no Starwood connection. Neither Wolfe, Schrier nor Sheridan have ever been to an ACE event.). Also, the article WinterStar Symposium was deleted and re-directed to the ACE article.

I not only do want to improve, I HAVE worked to that end. But some editors who IMO have their own problems with me, ACE and Starwood simply won't recognize this, and insist on instigating conflict in the hope of pushing me to do something blockable... and I must admit they are very good at it.

P.S. I've begun reviewing the 170 articles I've edited but not originated. Of the first 65, 56 either had no connection to Starwood etc or no Starwood-related edits by me since the Arbcom. Some of the remaining nine had non-controversial ACE-related edits, like discography links, or edits on the ACE article itself.

A

  • Matthew Abelson – created Aug 16th, 2006. Only 1 edit since Arbcom: replaced a citation for a better one. Starwood link exists since before Arbcom, along with links to other events.
  • Amampondo – created Aug 17th, 2006. No edits since arbitration. Starwood mention was deleted by Mattisse sockpuppet ABSmyth Aug 22nd, 2006, I did not revert; no mention in article. I have not edited it since the Arbcom.
  • Ted Andrews – created Oct. 10th 2007. Never been to Starwood, never linked to it. Most recent edits March 2008; improvements not Starwood related.
  • ArcheDream – created Sept. 17, 2006. No Starwood references since before Arbcom. I improve in March of 2008 to satisfy notability & orphaned tags, no Starwood related edits.
  • Armor & Sturtevant – created Sept. 18th, 2006. Lots of work up to May of 2007; last edit by me May 7th: removed clean-up prod due to major work by User:Badagnani. Starwood mention only in Past performances section, linked to its article by User:Badagnani
  • Badi Assad – created Mar. 8th, 2007. No Starwood connection or mention at all. Only edits March 7th, 2008 to provide citations/sources as per Mattisse tag.

B

  • Pamela J. Ball – created ?: Presently deleted as per Guy nomination. No Starwood connection at all. Author of over ten books, several by notable presses like Foulsham and Random House
  • John Bassette – created December 8th, 2006 soon after subject’s death. Non-controversial Starwood links to performance venue section and Discography. Last edit by me Nov.7th, 2007.
  • Steve Blamires – created Aug 15th, 2006. WinterStar mention with citation deleted by User:69.19.14.30, who had multiple blocks and warnings. I never return it, but make some non-ACE related improvements to satisfy “no citations” prod. Presently no links to ACE or Starwood
  • Gavin Bone – created Sept. 1st, 2006. Starwood mention deleted by Pigman Feb 18th, 2007. I do not revert. My only edit since Arbcom Nov. 13th, 2007 – not Starwood related. Article not linked to Starwood.
  • Brushwood Folklore Center – created Mar. 9th, 2007. Contains a non-controversial link to Starwood, the biggest event held at this facility. Also, link to Starwood Festival website, along with links to 4 other event websites. There’s never been any contention about this article.

C

  • Baba Raul Canizares – created Aug. 14th, 2006. Since April 24th, 2007, only 1 edit by me, a revert of massive vandalism. Contains a non-controversial (IMO) link to Starwood article, there since before the Arbcom closed; Pigman had deleted external link, but left the internal one.
  • Miriam Chamani – created Aug. 14th, 2006. User: Kathryn NicDhàna deletes Starwood and WinterStar mentions without explanation; on some other facts she merely tags requesting citations. I do no revert her; presently no links to Starwood etc.
  • Dennis Chernin – created ?: presently deleted by User: Blnguyen giving meatpuppetry as reason, but supplying no proof. Pigman cites this Admin Noticeboard/Incidents thread still in progress. (I find this to be premature; proof that someone on the ADF was a sockpuppet should still be provided.)
  • Chas S. Clifton – created Oct. 10th, 2007. Never been to Starwood, etc. Only edits May 4th, 2008, not Starwood related.
  • D. J. Conway – Created Oct. 31st, 2007. Never been to Starwood, etc. Several edits Nov. 5th-7th, 2007, none Starwood related, adding citations, ISBN#s, book publishers’ names & pub. Dates, etc. No edits since.
  • Ian Corrigan – created Aug. 14th, 2006. My only edits since Arbcom were non-controversial: May 1st 2007 added a non-ACE event subject organizes, May 31st, 2007 added a CD he was on, and some clarifications in Jan of 2008 (changed “real” name to “legal” name, and de-linked band “Starwood Sizzlers” from article on restaurant “Sizzlers”). No reverts despite major re-writing by Pigman March 30th, 2008.
  • Vivianne Crowley – Created Oct 23rd, 2007. No Starwood etc connection at all. Last edit Nov. 5th, 2007. None controversial.
  • Phyllis Curott – created (or recreated, I’m not sure) Aug. 20th, 2006. My last edit April 2nd, 2007. On Mar. 24th-25th, 2008 Pigman removes citation of subject at Starwood Festival by American Civil Liberties Union, an article (one of 2) by Paul Krassner citing same, an article on Witchvox website citing same, leaving one article by paul Krassner still there, and deletes mention of Starwood appearance, leaving every other appearance intact. I do NOT revert. (But, IMO, someone should.)

D

  • Prem Das – Created Aug. 15th, 2006. Never been to Starwood, etc. Only edit since creation was to supply two citations on talk page to satisfy citation requests, and remove tham. (should revisit: no one ever placed the citations in the article.)
  • Jim Donovan – created Sept. 3rd, 2006. Contains uncontroversial (IMO) links to both Starwood and SpiritDrum Festival along with others at which subject taught workshops listed as “teaching highlights”. Only edits since Arbcom were Dec. 11th, 2007 (condensed repetitious text, separated discography into CD & DVD subsections), and Mar. 24th, 2007 (fixed a link and deleted a few redlinks). No contentions.
  • Dr. Strange (article about made-for-TV movie) – created Feb 7th, 2007. No Starwood etc. connection. No edits since creation.
  • Nevill Drury – created Oct. 12th, 2007. Added bibliography Oct 23rd (did not notice I was logged out, so it’s attributed to User:76.227.134.57. May 6, 2008 Pigman tags for notability, primary sources and refimprove, in spite of list of over forty books. I supply citations and some bibliographical info, others add more. Pigman deletes notability tag May 9th, 2008.

E

  • Sally Eaton – created Aug. 24th, 2006. Nov. 30th, 2006 Pigman nominates for deletion based on notability. I do not participate; unanimous vote to keep. Deleted Starwood mentions MYSELF Jan. 29th 2007. Oct. 8th, 2007 linked existing tape in discography produced by ACE to its article. No edits since.
  • Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison – re-created Dec. 7th, 2006 with additions as per Neo-Paganism Project request. (original deletion nomination results: 6 keep, 2 deletes with one changing to a merge later in the AFD, and 3 merges. Somehow User: Doug Bell decided the result was merge and redirect, but it only got redirected.) Added references and a link Sept 25th, 2007. Pigman tags for notability and primary sources May 6th, 2008. I add that he is now in his third term as Archdruid of ADF, and fix a couple typos May 7th.

F

  • Philip H. Farber – recreated ?: presently deleted. 1st article nominated by Mattisse for deletion Aug. 29th, 2006. Results 18 Keep (1 Keep & Expand), 10 Delete; somehow User: FireFox decided the result was Delete. Article restored Sept. 3rd, 2006. Nominated again September 3rd, 2006: Results 8 Keep and 1 abstain. Nominated again by Pigman Mar. 27th, 2008. Result 5 keeps, 7 deletes. (Unfortunately, I am out of town and miss this nomination of article I wrote.) I truly think this one needs a deletion review.
  • LaSara Firefox – created Oct. 12th, 2006. No edits by me since Arbcom except April 2nd, 2007 (added a reference) and May 2nd, 2007 (rearranged existing data into different sections). Article has been linked to Starwood is section about venues subject has taught workshops since before Arbcom ended.
  • Ed Fitch – created article Nov. 14th, 2007. No connection to Starwood etc. No edits since creation.

G

  • Laurence Galian – created Aug. 14th, 2006. No edits since Arbcom. Article linked to Starwood since before Arbcom
  • Victoria Ganger – No info on date of creation. Nominated by Pigman for deletion Dec. 20th: result 5 delete, one keep.
  • Michael T. Gilbert – created Aug. 14th, 2006. A heated debate between User:Calton and User:Hanuman Das about the mention of subject’s Starwood appearance and his work included in the ACE periodical Changeling Times (both accompanied by citations) ended with User:Salix Alba deleting Starwood mention (this took place Oct. 26th thru Nov. 10th, 2006). However, what they left was the phrase “He also contributed to their magazine, Changeling Times” with no idea of who the “their” was. I noticed it on Mar. 23rd, 2008 and changed it to “He also contributed to the ACE magazine, Changeling Times[2]. For clarity, accompanied by a link to a Pdf of the issue, among a list of other magazines subject had contributed to. User:Calton reverts it to the former, unclear version with the notation “spam, spam, spam, spam”.
  • Gnosticon – created Mar. 6th, 2008. No connection to Starwood etc. No contentions.
  • Grey School of Wizardry – created? No connection to Starwood etc. Deleted and redirected to Oberon Zell-Ravenheart April 18th, 2008

H

  • Jesse Wolf Hardin – created Aug 15th, 2006. Since Arbcom, I have expanded the article on Aug 14, 2007. Pigman rewrites much of it Dec. 24th, 2007 including deletion of a Starwood link from before the Arbcom. No edits by me since.
  • George R. Harker – created Oct 5th, 2006. My only edits since the Arbcom were and addition to the bibliography Nov. 5th, 2007 and a deletion of a notability prod placed by User: Montchav Nov. 27th, pointing out on the talk page that there had already been an Afd on it which resulted in Keep, and the article had been expanded since then and included new books. No contention or comment since from Montchav. Mattisse deletes a Starwood mention from before the Arbcom on Dec. 26th, 2007. I neither revert nor did I edit since Nov. 27th, 2007.
  • Ellen Evert Hopman – created ?: re-created by User: 999 Sept. 6th, 2006. Feb. 15th, 2007 User: Kathryn NicDhàna deletes only Starwood from a list of 28 appearance venues. On Feb 17th she deletes the entire list. No reverts or edits by me since before close of Arbcom. No link to Starwood etc
  • Laura Huxley – created Jan. 31st, 2007. No connection to Starwood etc. Nov. 5th, 2007 rearranged text, added a section, tweaked. Dec. 17th, 2007 reverted an ungrammatical change. No other edits.

J

  • Anodea Judith – Created August 15th, 2006. No edits since Arbcom. Extensive rewriting by Pigman & Kathryn, which I neither revert nor revisit. One non-controversial (INO) ACE link, via tapes & CD produced by them.

K

  • Amber K – created Oct. 21st, 2007. Had a Starwood mention, deleted by Pigman Dec. 24th, 2007. My only edits since are to add a reference and some items to the bibliography on Mar. 16th, 2008, and delete a prod in the bibliography section saying this article contains lists, since ALL bibliographies are lists. Did not return Starwood mention, nor edit otherwise.
  • Richard Kaczynski – created Sept 10th, 2006. User: Kathryn NicDhàna deletes a Starwood mention from before the Arbcom. I do not revert, but add a couple references Dec 25th, 2007 unrelated to Starwood as per tags. User: Kathryn NicDhàna deletes them the same day as not really third party (but at least calls my edits “good faith” ones).
  • Sirona Knight – created Oct. 31st, 2007. No connection to Starwood at all. Haven’t edited it since then.

L

  • Lehto and Wright – created article June 28th, 2007. Included list of 16 performance venues, one of them the Starwood Festival. Many other edits in following months, unrelated to Starwood. Pigman deletes entire list as “unencyclopedic” Jan 29th, 2008; I do not revert. No edits by me since.
  • List of Neo-Pagan festivals and events – created Mar. 8th, 2007. By April 2nd, 2007 had expanded it to 39 events; yes, Starwood and WinterStar are included. Oct. 9th, 2007 Pigman deletes any that doesn’t already have a wikipedia article, reducing it to thirteen. I create a list of all the ones he deleted on the talk page the same day as a work list editors can use to create articles about them, and include links to the websites of each event. [23] Added Gnosticon on Mar. 6th, 2008.

M

  • Nicholas Mann – created Nov. 13th, 2007. No connection to Starwood etc. Reformatted bibliography & added ISBN numbers Nov 18th, 2007. No editing since then.
  • Al G. Manning – created Nov. 1st, 2007. No connection to Starwood etc. Added bibliography and expanded Nov. 2nd, 2007. No edits since.
  • Louis Martinie' – created Aug 15th, 2006. Dec. 5th 2007 and Dec. 17th, 2007 various minor tweaks, 2 external links & created section for them, added “author, liturgist, percussionist” to bio. Dec. 25th, 2007 Mattisse deletes a link to a Witchvox article offered as a citation claiming it is “a related weblink to Starwood/ACE www.rosencomet.com”, which it is not. I do not revert, but point out the error on talk page and ask for it to be returned, which does not happen. Dec. 27th fix a link by fixing a typo. Dec. 28th Kathryn deletes various things, including Starwood mention there since Arbcom. Jan 27th I add a new CD with subject on it, produced by ACE. Jen 28th, Kathryn deletes it. No edits by me since, though Kathryn does minor ones.
  • Patricia Monaghan – created Aug. 14th, 2006. My only edit since Arbcom is May 8th, 2007, mentioning that subject is on faculty of Maybe Logic Academy. Kathryn deletes Lecture Appearance Venues section Dec. 26th, 2007, thereby deleting Starwood mention there since arbitration. I do not revert.
  • Sally Morningstar – created Nov. 20th, 2007. No connection at all to Starwood etc. January 26th, 2008 Mattisse places prod to turn lists in article into prose; the only list in article is the bibliography. Mar 16th, 2008 I delete prod. April 18th, 2008 Pigman places speedy delete prod notability prod, which says you may remove it if you object in any way. I delete same day, pointing out subject has over 15 books distributed in both USA and UK, TV appearances, musical performance, etc. Kathryn replaces prod, ignoring instructions on it that I properly followed, and says “An editor has given a valid reason for questioning notability..”. Kathryn reverts herself April 20th. Pigman nominates for deletion same day. Two editors claim books are either self-published or from non-notable presses. I list one-paragraph descriptions with website links of three quite notable presses that publish her books, one a division of Little, Brown & Company. Nomination results: 4 Keep 3 Delete. This is listed with banners on talk page by User:Jerry as a Keep result April 26th. Pigman changes it April 27th to no consensus (default keep). Same day Pigman deletes several facts from article reducing text to three sentences. My only edit is May 7th: adding back “divination” as a topic the subject writes books on. User: Ning-ning adds more books, bringing “non-notable” author’s book count to 26.
  • Dorothy Morrison – created Nov 1st, 2007. No Starwood etc connection at all. Various expansions & additions Nov. 10th & 12th, none controversial. No edits since.
  • Morwyn – created Nov. 18th, 2007. No edits by me since. No connection to Starwood etc at all.
  • Ann Moura – created Oct 25th, 2007. No connection to Starwood etc at all. No edits since.

N

  • New Orleans Voodoo Spiritual Temple – Created Aug 21st, 2006. No links to Starwood etc at all. Added to Aug 25th. Added a category Oct 28th, 2007. No edits since
  • M. Macha Nightmare – created Aug 15th, 2006. Only edit since Arbcom Dec. 15th, 2007: added reference section with two references, added two citations per tags, deleted tags. Article has Starwood Festival in list of 12 Performance venues predating Arbcom. No edits since.

P

  • Owain Phyfe – created Oct 5th, 2006. Only edits since Arbcom Nov 27th, 2007: added some references. Starwood is one of five festivals mentioned in text of article since before Arbcom.

R

  • Lauren Raine – created Sept 12th, 2006. Pigman nominates for deletion Oct 28th, 2007. Lots of work to expand and improve Oct 29th, 2007. Deletion nomination results in only two votes, both keep. Article had mention of Starwood in a list of six appearance venues until list deleted by Pigman Jan 19th, 2008. I do not revert. I create “Notes” section with Kripalu Center facilty bio Jan 27th. No other edits since.
  • Red Dog Experience – created Oct. 27th, 2007. No Starwood connection at all. No edits since Oct. 28th.
  • Gabrielle Roth – Re-created article Nov. 2nd, 2007. No Starwood etc connection at all. Did a great deal of work improving and expanding article Nov. 4-5th. Last edit April 10th, 2008: reverted deletion of discography, Video, TV appearances by User:Glorifiedmonkey13 claiming they violate biography policies.

S

  • Fred Schrier – created Mar 16th, 2008. Improved Mar 16th, 26th, and May 13th. Contains ACE link to obituary of long-time partner Dave Sheridan written by subject and exclusively printed in ACE periodical Changeling Times, with art by both.
  • Nicki Scully – created ? Nominated for deletion by Pigman May 11th, 2008. Result was 5 deletes, 5 keeps. Closed by User:Blnguyen, citing meatpuppetry as partial reason (though no evidence given). Pigman states this canvassing case probably affected this decision.
  • Bernie Siegel – created Jan 31st, 2007. No connection to Starwood etc at all. No other edits.
  • Chas Smith – created Sept 10th, 2006. A great deal of work to improve since Arbcom, especially since subject’s death Oct 16th, 2007. Contains IMO non-controversial Starwood links dating back to before Arbcom. Last edit Nov. 24th, 2007.
  • Jay Stevens – Created Aug 15th, 2006. No Starwood links since Arbcom. My only edit since then was a reverting of vandalism.
  • Stratospheerius – created Sept 15th, 2006. No Starwood Connection since Arbcom. No edits since then either.

T

  • Luisah Teish – created Oct 25th, 2007. No Starwood etc connection at all. Additional work Oct. 27th, 2007. Last edit Mar 21, 2008: corrected typo.
  • Patricia Telesco – re-created Oct 29th, 2007. Expanded and improved Nov. 11th. Article cut greatly by Pigman Mar. 16th, 2008. I expand, provide citations, and replace text. Last edit Mar. 19th, 2008. Article has Starwood link from original text of re-created article dating from before the arbitration.
  • Trance Mission – created Aug 17th, 2006. No edits since Arbcom. Pigman deletes Starwood mention dating from before then on May 12th, 2008. I do not revert.

W

  • Harvey Wasserman – created Aug 25th, 2006. Only edit since Arbcom creation of “Partial discography” section with tapes lecture Nov 2007. Article contains links to Starwood that predate Arbcom.
  • WinterStar Symposium – created? Article deleted and redirected to ACE article Jan 3rd, 2008. Result was 8 Delete, 1 Delete or Redirect, 1 Delete and Redirect, 6 Keep
  • Amber Wolfe – created Oct. 25th, 2007. Contains ACE link in Discography for three Llewellyn tapes re-issued by ACE in the eighties.

Rosencomet (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

editing / ANI[edit]

I'm really not sure what you're trying to demonstrate with this essay. The argument is not that you should be blocked because you have never done anything positive on Wikipedia. The argument is that you should be blocked because you have done something which is extremely harmful. That is undoubtedly true. Additionally, attempting to cast Pigman and Kathryn as out to get you is not likely to get you anywhere -- Pigman and Kathryn are known and respected on Wikipedia, so you will lose that battle.

You have a reputation for conflict of interest and abusing the process on Wikipedia, and I honestly can't say I disagree. Trying to argue that these things are not true, or at least overstated, is not a tactic that is likely to get you anywhere. If you want to have any sort of future options on Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate -- not just say, but demonstrate -- that you accept and understand not only what you have done wrong but also why it was wrong. People's patience is wearing extremely thin, and you need to demonstrate that, if they give you another chance, you're not going to make the same mistakes again.

Also, I don't know whether you know this anonymous IP or not, but if you do, you might want to let him know that he isn't helping you at all. - Revolving Bugbear 15:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I absolutely swear that I have no idea who User:70.243.80.195 is. It's obviously someone who knows their way around Wiki policy better than I do; I know nothing about Wiki copyright violation policies and such. As loathe as I am to pass up help from any source, I don't know if this IS help and I'm afraid he/she may be angering editors as much as anything else. Please don't make decisions based on his/her zeal; it's not coming from me. All I'm doing at this point is trying to document that in contrast to the impression that some editors are trying to create, I HAVE improved my editing over the past year, and I hope people will not be drawn into re-trying the Arbcom and assuming that just because I am accused of continuing the same behavior re: Starwood-related articles that it is actually so. Also, I have not been contentious; in fact, through more than 50 articles my work was deleted from and nearly ten nominated for deletion, I have either not commented at all or simply discussed them on talk pages in all but a few cases. I also clearly HAVE "ventured outside of my walled-garden of interests" (not that Wikipedia requires this). And I have never even been accused of responsibility for Ekajati's sockpuppetry, which far preceeded and was far broader than my editing.
This has nothing to do with the fact that I should not have sent that e-mail, and that it WAS canvassing, for which I sincerely apologize and vow never to do anything like it again, and must accept whatever is decided. I just want to point out that this should be the only issue on the table, not Ekajati's sockpuppetry from a year and a half ago or false statements that my editing hasn't changed since then. Rosencomet (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe you on the IP. He is being troublesome, though. You might want to distance yourself from that position. (He's saying that posting the e-mail was a copyright violation, which in itself is a very flimsy position to take.)
If the case goes to ArbCom, you'll have a chance to defend yourself. But I don't think it will. In the meantime, you're really protesting too much. Nobody is going to take the time to go through a list of every article you've worked on or discussed on its talk page and look at your edits. Make your point and get it over with.
And, as I said, the majority of the problem has nothing to do with the Ekajati situation or any of that. It's the long-term disruption that you've caused -- and, whether or not you meant to, you have in fact caused disruption. That's what people are upset about. - Revolving Bugbear 17:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How? What can I do to take back my canvassing? I have sent e-mails or spoken to the people I sent the e-mail to telling them that what I did was a violation of Wiki policy and that they should disregard and not act on it. As far as I know, not one person I've spoken to about this has actually acted to become editors or input anything on Wikipedia. If words are not enough, what more must I do that will demonstrate my committment not to engage in canvassing again? Rosencomet (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not going to happen overnight. The point is that you can't "take it back". What's done is, of course, done. The Wikipedia community operates on a principle of trust. Right now, a lot of people don't trust you, and telling them that you've learned your lesson isn't going to change their minds. You need to prove, over time, that you can be trusted. It's not just about not canvassing, and it's not just about having "good edits". It's about being a positive, constructive force in the community, interacting with other Wikipedians in a way that makes them feel confident about your contributions. It means respecting policy and community consensus and engaging in positive discussions within their frameworks. It means, in short, acting like you truly have the goals of Wikipedia at heart when you edit here. A lot of people don't believe that about you, and building up that trust is going to take time and effort, not a long explanation of your edits. - Revolving Bugbear 19:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ArcheDream[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, ArcheDream, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArcheDream. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pigman 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

your status[edit]

Hi Rosencomet,

I have to say, I think your apparent decision to take some chill time off from Wikipedia was probably a good one. Hopefully you will return with a clearer head about things.

However, as you will notice, you are not blocked. The conversation went stale. That being said, I think you will agree that the discussion turned up some points that you should work on if you want to integrate yourself successfully into Wikipedia.

I am volunteering myself to you for this purpose. If you are interested, I will work with you on the various fine points of Wikipedia until such a time as you can operate as comfortably and productively as possible. This decision isn't mandated by community decision or anything; I am offering this because I believe it will help you.

Please let me know what you think.

Regards - Revolving Bugbear 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried to e-mail you this message, but you don't seem to have e-mail enabled. Feel free to enable it and then send me an e-mail (mine is enabled).
Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sally Eaton[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sally Eaton, 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. Bwrs (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

deleted articles[edit]

Dear Revolving Bugbear,

I'd like to try to beef up some of the articles that were deleted earlier this year and see if they can be brought up to Wikipedia standards. I'd like to access the text of the last version that was up, and I don't know how to do that. Could you tell me how to retrieve them, or do it for me (preferably the former).

The one's I'm most interested in right now are Philip H. Farber (who now has a new book out from Red Wheel, a Samuel Weiser imprint), and Nicki Scully (I think it would have been kept if not for the controversy about me). I'd also like to retry Grey School of Wizardry, but for that one I'd also have to deal with a redirect page presently up to Oberon Zell-Ravenheart.

Also, how do I enable an e-mail address for my Username? Thanks for your time.Rosencomet (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Some deleted articles are in the Google Archives or on a Wikipedia mirror ... you can do a Google search for an exact phrase that you know was in the article. However, you're not actually allowed to do anything with these articles, because the original authors have to be credited, per the GFDL. Otherwise, only admins can deleted articles. You can ask an admin to restore a deleted article to your userspace. Due to my involvement in your history, I'm going to have to suggest that you ask another, uninvolved admin.
Your e-mail can be activated on your preferences screen. Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I was the author of these three deleted articles. Rosencomet (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You're not the sole author. GFDL requires attribution of all authors who contribute to the article. I see other editors in the history. You can still get the document (including its history) restored to your userspace. - Revolving Bugbear 05:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources discussion on the Muruga Booker article on ACE[edit]

I just started a thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about the Muruga Booker article that you're continuing to use as a source. I did mention your name in my post so I wanted you to be aware of it. I'm hoping that the discussion might be of benefit to you. I may learn something as well. Here's a link to it: WP:RSN#Unattributed website article as RS. Cheers, Pigman 00:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mead[edit]

That was a valiant attempt to clarify, but I fear the section in question remains as opaque as ever:
"The legendary drinking, feasting and boasting of warriors in the mead hall is echoed in the mead hall Dyn Eidyn (modern day Edinburgh), and in the epic poem Y Gododdin, both dated around AD 700".

  • Dyn Eidyn was not a mead hall, it was a city
  • It is in the poem Y Gododdin, that we find the description of warriors feasting "in Eidin's great hall", so what can 'both' refer to?

Thanks for any further light you can shine
--Yumegusa (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Ohio[edit]

An invitation to join WikiProject Ohio[edit]

The Farm[edit]

Thanks for your edit, I had absolutely no idea that it still existed. It seems that the matter is quite complicated, so I have proposed to create a new section on the article just to describe The Farm. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oooooh, I hadn't seen that one. I see a couple of "citation needed" tags on statements that are covered by the sources that I put on Gaskin's pages. I definitely will have to look at it. Thank you very much for telling me about the article :) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry[edit]

You should take your evidence to WP:SSP. - Revolving Bugbear 00:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record I am not a sock-puppet of Ekjati. I merely failed to log into the system before editing.

I opposed the first Greenfield article early on because it was merely a self-promotional piece written by Allen Greenfield himself, one intended to sell his books and promote his home-brewed religious movement, "Congregational Illuminism." That is NOT why WikiPedia is here!

Since the deletion of the first article a second article was created. This article has since been edited, modified, and mutated and is fast begining to look like the first article. The section I deleted contained a list of unverified and dubious achievements which were in dire need of citations. Beyond Mr. Greenfield's own, personal promotion web site there was no verification for these achievements.

I'll be honest here. I have known Allen Greenfield for 20 years and the man is a shameless self promoter and began his authoring career through a press that he was part owner of at one point. It seems that the current Greenfield article is fast turning into an advertisement for Greenfield's books, metaphysical services, and religious sect. Eyes down, human. (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So were/are George M. Cohan, Al Jolson, Al Franken, Elvis Presley, P.T. Barnum, Stan Lee, Mark Twain, and Ronald Reagan. One can be a shameless self-promoter and still be notable. It is not up to us to "punish" a subject of an article because we don't like something about him/her/it by denying an article to a notable subject. Rosencomet (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The first Wikipedian meetup in Ohio[edit]

Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis[edit]

Cannabis leaf 2.svg You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Astroturfing and COI[edit]

I see you're back at it: [24] Do you really want to continue down this road? - Kathryn NicDhàna 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no link to the ACE site in this entry. The wikilink to the Starwood Festival provides a context for the Nemeton having been set up there. The citation provided is not to the ACE website, but to a third-party book. A single entry can hardly be called "Astroturfing". I will provide a broader context for the entry. Rosencomet (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Any kind of link to the organization and festival which ArbComm has determined you have COI on, is astroturfing. Doesn't matter if it's a Wikilink or an external. Now I see you are willing to edit war over it: [25]. I am reverting it. It seems to me you do want to go down this road. Also note that it's inappropriate for you to try to circumvent ArbComm. Fred's opinion is only Fred's opinion - it does not substitute for an ArbComm ruling. - Kathryn NicDhàna 21:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Starwood COI caution redux redux[edit]

What follows is substantially what I said on the Nemeton talk page about your conflict of interest (COI) concerning Starwood references but I wanted to make sure you read it and had a chance to look at the linked articles.

Given your COI re: Brushwood and Starwood, it's hard to ignore your continued violations of COI guidelines. Arbcom did find that you have a conflict of interest.

You continue to insert references to Starwood despite the caution by Arbcom to refrain from this. This is practically textbook Astroturfing. Please refresh your understanding of the policies and guidelines around COI by looking at the following links:

I strongly recommend you discard your belief that you are somehow exempt from these policies/guidelines. Really. Your tendentious editing around Starwood remains strong and obvious. Please don't continue this behavior. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The following statements refer to my activities over the past approx. two and a half years of editing. I have continued in accordance, IMO, to the statements of such editors and arbitrators as Fred Bauder, Thatcher, Revolving Bugbear, Newyorkbrad, and the Arbcom in which I was cautioned against "aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages." Clearly, by aggressive editing, they mean contentious editing, and I have not engaged in any such thing in the over two years since then.
You have a very peculiar reading of the Arbcom results, IMO. For one, although they agreed I have a conflict of interest, they did not say I should not place Starwood links; in fact, it says: "The arbitration committee declines to rule on the appropriateness of such links." It also says: "He has made good faith attempts to understand policy and participated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened." Oh, and I am in no way connected to Brushwood, and have never been accused of having a COI concerning it, nor does the Arbcom you cited use the word Brushwood even once.
As far as COI, the very same Arbcom states quite plainly "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages editing of articles concerning matters you have a substantial personal interest in, such as articles about an organization you are deeply involved with. However, such editing is not prohibited, if editing is responsible." (my bolds) You seem to refuse to acknowledge the second sentence, even when Fred Bauder restated it specifically in regards to my editing. You and Kathryn keep saying I should not be editing these articles at all.
You also have an odd definition of astroturfing, IMO. The definition in the article about it is a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause. In Wikipedia, that would include vote-stacking and the use of multiple sock-puppets to make it seem that many editors share the proposed opinion. I have done nothing of the sort, and I don't even see how what I'm accused of (placing inappropriate wikilinks in assorted articles) is anything like that. Linkspamming, perhaps, if there is such a thing related to wikilinks, but what has any of this to do with astroturfing?
What it boils down to, IMO, is that you object to ME rather than my edits. You can't offer a reason that a particular edit I make is improper, only that you don't think I should be allowed to make it. That is not how Wikipedia policy works, IMO. If I use puff language, if I use a citation that is insufficient for the purpose it is used for, if I add a link to an external site that is purely commercial (like a catalog), if I express opinion rather than verifiable fact or use original research, by all means say so. But to say I cannot make edits which are legitimate simply because I am who I am is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy or the findings of the Arbcom.
1. As I have said many times before, I derive absolutely no money from the Starwood Festival or the organization that runs it. I derive no money from editing on Wikipedia, either. I have NO "financially-motivated edits".
2. I have not self-promoted since the arbitration 2 1/2 years ago. I haven't written a bio about myself (although I did edit one someone else wrote, which was deleted back in 2007), or linked any article to a personal website. In fact, I have no personal websites. I have not linked any article to an "advertising link", a "personal website link", added any "personal or semi-personal photos" or any photos at all, and the material I have added for the most part consists of simple data with 3rd-party citations to verify it. I have refrained from adding links to any website I am connected to. I derive no monetary benefit from the subjects I edit.
3. I have striven at all times to edit in a neutral voice. I make flat statements of fact, with 3rd-party citations of the best type I can find. I do not use "puff" language, and in fact delete the same when I see it. (Frankly, the "soapbox" section seems to contain guidelines on how to edit subjects one may have an interest in, rather than saying you are forbidden to edit them at all.)
4. I don't completely understand this section. It seems to me to say that disruptive editors evade detection by not being disruptive. They don't edit much, they either edit only a few articles OR a wide range of articles, are civil and don't attack anyone, and mostly confine their edits to the talk pages. So what exactly makes them disruptive? Sounds like they choose to edit, and someone else simply doesn't like their edits.

Looking towards the definition of disruptive editing, I don't engage in "disruptive cite-tagging" (though it's been done to me a lot), I strive for verifiability at all times, I maintain a neutral voice, I always respond to editors inquiries about my sources and discuss them at length, I appeal to arbitrators when there's a sign of impending conflict rather than engage in contentious editing, and I do not ignore the opinions of impartial editors, or even those who are NOT impartial. Rosencomet (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LaSara FireFox[edit]

I've noticed the current drastic revisions of this article and brought it up at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#LaSara_FireFox to get some feedback and more eyes on the article. You might like to participate in the discussion. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Unexplained Edits to Ann-Marie Gallagher[edit]

The edits were done at the request of Ann-Marie herself. I am her partner. She did not know that there was an entry for her and asked me to remove the errors. The books that she did not contribute to and does not want to be associated with were the ones removed. She does not live with her three children, they are all grown up and live with their own partners. I don't know who you are but I think Ann-Marie and myself are more qualified to to write an entry for her.Stevil54 (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RAW[edit]

Hi. I've edited the Bob Wilson page from time to time, and have seen your work there. Nice. Yesterday I added, and then removed, lists and a template concerning occult (List of occult writers, for example) but then wondered if Wilson considered himself an occultist. Would you think these would be appropriate for the page? See Template:Occult navigation, which I added and removed. Thanks Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ted Andrews[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ted Andrews. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Andrews. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ted Andrews got deleted? Man, that makes NO SENSE. He was a best-selling author and remains one long after his death. Was this another Qworty deletion? Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
On top of that, the "vote" was eight deletes to TEN keeps! The whole thing stank. I was pretty much alone arguing with someone named User:Cunard, who began with out and out falsehoods, claiming his books were all self-published when he had 17 Llewellyn titles. I kept presenting evidence of Andrews' notability, he kept ignoring it, and a few people just said "Delete per Canard" or words to that effect. I would love to see the article returned. (Amber Wolfe as well, a recent speedy delete with NO discussion that should have been given time for community input.) You can see the kind of ridiculous nominations for deletion, even speedy deletion, that I've had to deal with in the Pagan and consciousness fields: Nevill Drury, Gabrielle Roth, Bernie Seigel, Nicki Scully, Trance Mission... I usually won, but I lost on Philip H. Farber, Ian Corrigan, ArcheDream, Dennis Chernin, Pamela J. Ball, and the WinterStar Symposium (merged). and David Jay Brown; but that one is back! Rosencomet (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

RAW Occultist, naw[edit]

Hi, and I don't recall seeing anywhere where RAW called himself an occultist either. I probably added the link because he may be seen by others as one, and because links are fun to add, and it is such a loose and "mysterious" term to use. Now if you'd ssk him, he'd probably say, "What second? At 11:03 p.m. on May 4th of last year I considered myself an occultist, as I was reading an old copy of Fate Magazine, but that's all I can recall." So of course, let's remove those references. Good catch. Wanna help with the section on Sch. Cat and Historical Illuminatus? The other '81 novel sits right there in the middle of those, standing alone, shining, one of his masterpieces in my h. opinion. Thanks, and Happy Sanhain Halloween. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about the sequel with Shea, that would have been very interesting. Shea's son has up a website with some of this data on it, he seems bitter that RAW started to write books on his own. I did know but didn't focus on the five of Historical, I was hoping for the fourth book. But, alas, a trilogy emerged, Bob's faith to be known for trilogies, inc. Cosmic Trigger. A good point though, about the planned 5. In a way, but not officially, "Masks. . ." almost fits where the fifth book could have gone. That may be the best book of all, although hard to choose. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks, and I will give he online book a read or at least a good look. But, not tonight, as I leave to see the Halloween spirits flow past. Happy Samhain, Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

GAR notification[edit]

Letting you know I've opened at GAR for Stewart Farrar, an article you are one of the top editors to. You can see my concerns at Talk:Stewart Farrar/GA1. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Rosencomet! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 1,971 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. M. Macha Nightmare - Find sources: "M. Macha Nightmare" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  2. Louis Martinie' - Find sources: "Louis Martinie'" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vicki Noble[edit]

Hi, a question has arisen concerning the article Vicki Noble. Could you comment on whether the tours referred to on the Matriarchy Information website are the same as the ones referred to in her CV here. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We have no peyote... but we could really use your help[edit]

Flag of Cleveland, Ohio.svg You are invited to participate in Project Cleveland, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about Cleveland, Ohio.


(Honestly!) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of M. Macha Nightmare for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article M. Macha Nightmare, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Macha Nightmare until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

JEWITCH TERMINOLOGY[edit]

Hi Rosencoment,

I have written some new articles

Postmodern religion

Postmodern Neopaganism Postmodern Wicca

I did not write this one but it exists - Postmodern Christianity

I am trying to include the term Jewitch or Jewitchery in the article Postmodern Neopaganism - I think it is reclaiming and positive but reverts are say delete and that I should refer to semitic neopaganism.

My one concern is that the average user searching online may use the term jewitchery rather than semitic neopaganism!

I want a page to link to Jewitchery and I want to make the connection between Wicca and this tradition.

I noticed you made a comment on the talk page and I was wondering if you would consider the term Jewitchery inappropriate or demeaning?? I think it is a positive term?

It seems that I get reverted whenever I attempt to include the keyword WICCA??

I would like to establish that wicca, witchcraft, jewitchery etc. forms a strong part of the postmodern interpretation/perspective

Do you feel that the article on jewitchery was redirected because the argument was that it was demeaning? Some perspective would be great as I don't want to use the wrong language choices.

--Kary247 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion of article (occultism) – keep or delete[edit]

Hi Rosencomet. I have created a new article: biography of the Wiccan priestesses Murry Hope. I consider you very indicated to analyze the right now discussion for keeping or delete the article: (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murry_Hope#Murry_Hope). The issue has been around the references, there are secondary source references, but nobody gave much importance. Personally I agree the references and article should be improved but not deleted. Murry Hope was a celebrity in New Age (30 books distributed around the word), and still opera singer in London. Seems more than enough, no? I already argued that but apparently made little effect (incomprehensible). The five pillars of Jimmy Whales have changed? Now an article has to be born perfect? The article fits enough rules to keep in Wikipedia, but if even all rules failed, that should be a part of the judgment (again the 5 pillars) and not the verdict, or else Wikipedia will be just a bureaucrat dead encyclopedia. Thus may I ask you to give your opinion and call another specialists in the subject? Thanks. Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, it was nice. I owe you one and also Wikipedia do. Call me if you need some help for articles. English not is my strongest language but I can help with researches. You made great difference (a good one). Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC).

Definition of Paganism[edit]

I'm not sure if your extremely broad definition of Paganism, that is, any religion that doesn't worship the God of Abraham, is entirely practical in terms of Wikipedia categories. It would ultimately lump Hinduism, Shinto, and countless completely unrelated ethnic religious traditions together. I think a more narrow definition would be more appropriate, although I am not sure what the parameters should be. Your thoughts? Asarelah (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, first of all, it's not my definition. I refer you to any dictionary, and to the Paganism Wikipedia article as well. Yes, it is broad; in fact, there are far more Pagan religions than non-Pagan ones. I suggest that if you wish to refer to Neo-Pagan traditions, you say so, but the term "Pagan" far pre-dates the existence of the Neo-Pagan movement. A narrower definition of Pagan that excludes the vastly greater numbers of Pagans (hundreds of millions) than the numbers of Neo-Pagans (probably in the hundreds of thousands; certainly no greater than the low millions) might be more convenient, but would certainly be less accurate. Rosencomet (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
True, if one follows the dictionary definition of "Pagan" those people are "Pagans", but my main issue is that it seems highly Eurocentric and Judeo-Christian-centric to lump all these totally unrelated poly/pantheistic/animistic traditions together purely in terms of their "otherness" from the monotheistic tradition. It may be semantically correct put Hindus in the same category as Wiccans, but its totally useless (not to mention misleading) from the standpoint of serious research. Furthermore, many practitioners of these non-Neo-Pagan traditions are quite wary of cultural appropriation by Westerners (such as in the case of Hinduism) and would probably take issue with their distinct traditions being placed under this over-arching umbrella. Asarelah (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not particularly interested in changing the definition of words because of some unnamed people's "wariness". And, yes, the definition of the word Pagan IS both Eurocentric and Judeao-Christian-Centric, but that's the way it is; THEY coined the term. If you don't think the term is useful for what you consider "Serious research", don't use it in your research. But as you have said, that IS the dictionary definition, and New Orleans Voodoo worships a polytheistic pantheon of gods originating in an African tradition of Pagan spirituality. Paganism is Paganism, and there is no reason to stop using the term as defined in the dictionary either because a new movement also uses it (as well they might, since Neo-Paganism is a sub-set of Paganism and a tradition within the category) or because some Pagans may not wish to be associated with some other. By the same token, Catholics and Baptists are both Christians no matter how much some members might not like to share a category with them, and Shakers, Quakers, Amish, 7th-day Adventists, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Church of England, and a host of others all are included, whether they handle snakes, burn crosses, perform exorcisms, or believe that Christ visited America or incarnated as a woman.Rosencomet (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
If one follows the dictionary definition of the term "native", anyone born in the United States is technically a "Native American", regardless of ethnic background. Placing all individuals born in the United States into the category of "Native American people" would indeed be correct by the dictionary definition of the word, but it would render the category functionally useless for anyone searching for information on the indigenous people of the United States. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you seem so adamant that New Orleans Voodoo is polytheistic, given the fact that the very Wiki article on Louisiana Voodoo states that "The core beliefs of Louisiana Voodoo include the recognition of one God who does not interfere in people's daily lives and spirits that preside over daily life." and that "Today, most followers of Voodoo also practice Catholicism and see no conflict between the two religions." Lastly, the wiki article about the Loa states that "Contrary to popular belief, the loa are not deities in and of themselves; they are intermediaries for a distant Bondye." It is my impression that the Loa are no more "gods" than the Catholic saints are, which is one of the reasons why they were syncretized so easily with them. Asarelah (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, the term Native American (capital "N") refers to the indigenous peoples (and the descendants thereof) of the Americas from before the European invasions, NOT simply Americans who were born here (as you know; you are not stupid, just argumentative). Second, the article we have been discussing is not the Louisiana Voodoo article, which refers to a general category of religious traditions, but The New Orleans Voodoo Spiritual Temple, a particular religious organization. I have personally spoken with the co-founder and high priestess of this temple and other clergy of it, and heard them lecture about their beliefs for many years, and they consider themselves Pagan. For the record, the members of the New Orleans Voodoo Temple are not Catholics, although some Pagans do recognize the possibility of being able to worship the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic god, though the Abrahamic religions generally REQUIRE their adherents NOT to worship other gods, and some don't even recognize these gods' existence. The fact that many Pagans are far more inclusive than Judeao Chistians and Muslims and respect the gods of other religions IN ADDITION to their own pantheon does not make them non-Pagan, any more than the fact that many Muslims accept Jesus as at least a prophet and most consider Allah to be the same god as Jehovah makes these Muslims Christians or Jews. Different sects of a religion may and often do have very different stands on certain issues. Some Christians, for instance, consider anyone who has not accepted God as the one and only true god and Jesus as their personal savior to be damned for all eternity; other Christians believe no such thing. Some Jews believe Catholics to be guilty of idol worship or, more accurately, violating the law against graven images; others believe no such thing. And then there's the Jews for Jesus (or Messianic Jews, as they prefer to be called nowadays). You will find that different sects of Voodoo differ on whether they consider loas to be gods, and different Pagans differ as to what they consider gods to be in the first place (actual entities or archetypes), just as different Christians and Jews differ as to whether they consider Bible-originated theology to be literal or metaphorical; and the controversy as to whether Jesus was a man or god has existed almost from the origins of the religion. Rosencomet (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. Anyway, like I said on the talk page of the article, if you can find a source that the temple leaders consider their religion Pagan, then I would have no issue with reinstating the category. Asarelah (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Chicago AfroBeat Project[edit]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chicago AfroBeat Project, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.chicagoafrobeatproject.com.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gini Graham Scott[edit]

My apologies. Extensive bibliographies with no third-party sources to demonstrate notability tend to be indicative of a vanity page, but, as you've shown, there are always exceptions. I've nominated the article for deletion here. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius[edit]

There is a discussion about these edits going on at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Church_of_the_SubGenius. For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with the removal of the information: the information was a blatant violation of our BLP policy, and I hope you will not reinstate the material. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Issues at Gini Graham Scott: plagiarism and use of primary sources[edit]

While I see this article survived an AfD, there are serious problems with it.

First, it appears that you copied whole sentence from the sources you cited, such as Writers.net and Songworks.net, with little or no changes. This is plagiarism and copyright violation. You must absorb the information from the sources and then write it in your own words. Really, given the amount of plagiarism the article should be deleted and should be started again.

Second, the sources used are not reliable because they are affiliated with the subject. Songworks.net is a site owned by the subject. Writers.net accepts user submitted profiles and the page you used as a source was clearly written by the subject herself. We cannot source degrees, awards, or any other self-serving claims solely to websites created by or controlled by the subject.

You really should start the article completely over, using sources not affiliated with the subject. I will give you some time to do this, otherwise I intend to gut the article and base it on whatever third-party sources are available. Yworo (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Richard Kaczynski for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Citations for videos[edit]

I was asking for credit citations. What role did the subject play in the creation of the video? How are they listed on the official credits for the production. I don't understand how you could cite something billed as a television production to a podcast page. Also, you can't cite to the subject's own self-published website. That's not reliable, people can claim whatever they want on their websites. Yworo (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't know what you wanted. I don't see citations on bibliographies and discographies in general. The items exist. I will see if I can get specifics about what Kaczynski's contribution was, but I doubt if I can find a third-party citation in a magazine or something about his contribution. I think you are setting the bar a bit high here. Rosencomet (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, please do not cite to bare links. You've been on Wikipedia longer than I have. If you don't know how to properly format a full citation, you need to learn right now. Yworo (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know what you mean, and frankly I don't appreciate the scolding tone.Rosencomet (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A bare link looks like this [26]. A citation looks like this: "Different Worlds Publications - DW#37-47". Diffworlds.com. Retrieved December 7, 2011. 

That is, a citation includes as many fields as possible such as the author's name, the text title of the work, the publisher, the date, etc. What you are doing is lazy and only makes work for other editors. Stop making bare citations. Disingenously claiming you don't know what a citation is is simply unbelievable. Click on the link, WP:CITE, if you are really ignorant of citation style on Wikipedia. And read it. Yworo (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I ask you to maintain civility. Veiled insults like "www.stupid.com" are far from civil, and you know it. I have no idea who you are or who you think you are, but I have done nothing to deserve your snotty attitude or accusations of being disingenuous, which, by the way, is the proper spelling. And there is nothing wrong with a catalog listing for a class that is part of the curriculum of an event, if it is not being used to support notability.
OK, I guess I owe you an apology on this one. www.stupid.com is a real website, and a mildly amusing one, and I suppose it is an example of a bare link. Sorry. Though the link I replaced the Starlist one with is not a bare link.Rosencomet (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
No offense intended or taken. I didn't even notice the previous response until you made this one. Nice gag items, aren't they? I particularly like the "Jesus Shaves Mug" and can recommend the astronaut ice cream. Rehydrates right in your mouth. Yworo (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The "Jesus Shaves Mug" WAS the one that caught my eye.Rosencomet (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Event announcements[edit]

Event announcements are made on behalf of the subject by an organization with a financial interest in the event. The speaker blurbs are usually written by the speaker themselves and are self-promoting. Yes, they are third-party but they are not independent. And they do not help establish notability. That requires a independent third-party report or review of the lecture or lecturer. Yworo (talk) Yworo (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not everything in an article has to do with notability. This citation was only supplied to confirm how long ago the subject began giving lectures.Rosencomet (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not a reliable source because it is not independent of the subject. Find a report or review of a lecture. Yworo (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with a catalog listing for a class that is part of the curriculum of an event, if it is not being used to support notability, just as you can use the catalog of a school to show that someone has taught a particular class at a particular time there without offering a "report or review" of the class.Rosencomet (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
But we don't cite by example. That citation might support a statement that the subject was a presenter at specific events in specific years. It does not confirm that he lectured on magick, it's just a list of names. It doesn't specify what they did, whether they lectured or juggled. Yworo (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope you are beginning to see why we don't cite by example. You can't provide multiple event notices and synthesize them to make the statement "has been a lecturer on magic since 1990" because that is original research, which is prohibited. We don't write an encyclopedia from primary sources. You have to have a reliable independent third party biographical source that actually states the fact that you want to include in the article. Yworo (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I firmly disagree. You are offering one criticism at one point, then when it is resolved, you come up with another. You also don't seem to know the definition of "Original Research". A listing of lecture appearances to support such a statement would be cumbersome and unnecessary, but it would not be original research. This argument sounds very familiar, and I wonder if you have edited under a different name in the past. Rosencomet (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Still wrong. I'll take it to the reliable sources noticeboard then. Our biography of living people policy states that all sources used in a BLP must be high-quality, independent third-party sources. The only exception to this is that non-selfpromoting and non-contentious facts (like birthdate, place of birth and other mundane necessities) may be sourced to the subject's own web site. Do please click through the links that I present and read the pages. They have very likely changed since the last time you looked at them, if you ever have. Yworo (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and to answer your unstated question. This is the only Wikipedia account I've edited from. I did previously edit from a single static IP address which was provided to me by a previous employer, but when I left that employer I created this account. Yworo (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "not in source" template[edit]

I've clearly explained in the section just above what you need to support that statement.

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Richard Kaczynski, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not. I believe you are trying to start a fight of some sort with me. You stated that the list I originally provided did not state what he lectured on, and I provided a link to the program for the event that clearly lists and describes the lecture he presented. That is a resolution of the problem as you stated it; a "report or review" is unnecessary, since it was only provided to support the statement that Kaczynski has been lecturing in this field since 1990. I think it is ridiculous to provide every subsequent lecture since then, and a review would only supply someone's subjective opinion of the quality of the lecture, about which the article makes no statement and therefor needs no citation. I refuse to engage in a revert war with you, however I grow increasingly suspicious of your motivations here. Rosencomet (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong. The reason you cannot find a reliable source is that this subject's activity is simply not notable by Wikipedia standards. If it were, someone would have written about it in a reliable source. If you disagree, go ahead and ask on the reliable sources noticeboard. Present your two sources there and ask if they can be considered reliable for citing that particular fact. That's what that resource is for. I believe our standards for biographies of living people have become much stricter since you started editing. You need to catch up. Yworo (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking, the best way to source this might be from an interview. Surely some interviewer has brought up his lecturing, and there would be nothing wrong with something like "In an interview with so-and-so or such-and-such publication, Kaczynski stated that he has been lecturing on magic since 19xx. Yworo (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

I've opened a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Richard Kaczynski. I've not mentioned you by name there, because this is a sourcing issue, not a personal one. Feel free to just wait for the answer to my question or present your arguments there, as you will. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Service award[edit]

This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

In recognition of your contributions to Wikipedia, I present you with this service award. Though you've been here since 2006, you have only just over 5,800 edits, but this puts you less than 200 edits away from the next level of award, "Experienced Editor". There are other forms of this award available at WP:SERVICE, including a userbox version if you prefer. Yworo (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you! I'll try to transfer this to my User Page, and contact you in 200 edits!Rosencomet (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
No need to contact me, it's on the honor system, just upgrade as you go. Yworo (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, hey, you might also find this userbox amusing. Being of Native American ancestry myself, I couldn't resist the double entendre. Yworo (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps konquest.png This editor is here at the behest of the Secret Chiefs.


Just another name for the Illuminati... the real ones, not that Bavarian crowd. Rosencomet (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of Gabrielle Roth[edit]

A tag has been placed on Gabrielle Roth, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Famousdog (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bernie Siegel for deletion[edit]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations to support additions to Bernie Siegel[edit]

Hallo, I see you've added some facts to Bernie Siegel, but without supporting evidence. Since evidence is what the AfD discussion is/will be about, could you possibly add citations to show the sources for the facts you've added? Otherwise, the new material constitutes forbidden WP:OR ("Original Research") which will actually hasten the article's deletion.

More to the point, what is needed is proof of WP:Notability, which again means evidence via reliable independent sources that Siegel is worth including. Additional biographical detail makes the article more readable but establishing notability is key. For what it's worth, it seems clear to me that he is well-known in new age circles, but that fact needs to be proven with specific citations.

with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Helpful hint[edit]

Take a look at WP:NBOOK. If a book is a best seller and you can also find two mainstream reviews of it, it is notable enough for its own article. Then take a look at WP:AUTHOR: an author of notable books is himself notable. Yworo (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep it in mind.Rosencomet (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Telesma for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 19:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Promotional edits and COI[edit]

You clearly are very familiar with our guidelines on COI, and yet you continue to make edits, such as those at David Jay Brown, which are clearly COI. Consider this a formal warning. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree. I would add that you should never again edit Association for Consciousness Exploration or Starwood Festival, as your COI edits extend to those articles as well. In fact, your username is the same as the URL for Association for Consciousness Exploration. It's quite possible that it'll turn out that none of the three articles is even notable. Apparently you've been getting away with this disruptive promotional abuse for over five years. Why you haven't been stopped by now boggles the mind. But now people are aware of you and the editing must stop. You are headed for a hard block if you persist. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Please take these editors' concerns seriously. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't it look like I am taking it seriously? I am asking for your help. I have followed the guidelines I have been given, and have not had a conflict in years; suddenly, over a dozen articles have been gutted, and Qworty is saying I have no right to even supply a citation or simple bibliographical data. This is exactly the opposite of what you yourself have told me in the past. PLEASE examine what is going on here. In some cases, all sources are being deleted, then the text is deleted as "unsourced", then the article is nominated as non-notable. What should I do?Rosencomet (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Although I agree that not editing articles that present a COI is something that you need to be careful of, it does seem to me that Qworty is being a little too overzealous with his "deleting". Using the David Jay Brown article and looking at this history Qworty deleted a section of books and things that the person wrote as unsourced. There is not nor has their ever been a requirement to provide a "source" for a book the individual wrote that is clearly visible with the individuals name in it. Come on lets show some common sense. Thats like requiring a citaton for a citation. Although I do think that Rosencomet needs to adjust their editing a bit it does seem like they are trying to ask for help. Let's try and provide it please. Also, I would not that, although Qworty appears to be doing these changes in good faith, its possible given the very systematic approach and limited scope of the articles they are reviewing that there may be a COI issue with that user as well. That might be something that someone might want to look into before we assume that Rosencomet is trying to pursue their own agenda, which has been inferred in at least 2 different places now. Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your honest appraisal of the way this editing has been done. I feel very much alone out here, and I appreciate your input more than I can say. It saddens me that you are in retirement (or at least kind of), because I very much need a voice of common sense here. I'm having a hard time getting real guidelines as to what I can and can't do, and I do not want to be blocked or driven out of Wikipedia completely, yet I wish to preserve valid work and notable articles.Rosencomet (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
That feeling is common out here in WP and one of the reasons I retired from editing. It seems like there are more people trying to tear it down and delete everything than build it up. I got tired of the drama myself that's why I quite editing. Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I do not believe I have been canvassing. I have not directed my comments to "an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote", just to an editor's behavior, with a plea for help and/or advice. I certainly wasn't vote-stacking; I am not aware of any votes taking place concerning this, nor have I suggested anyone vote in any particular way about anything. I have contacted two administrators about a problem I am having with this editor, hoping to avoid a conflict, and I informed an editor who protected a page of activity taking place on that and related pages. I will be careful not to canvass, and I welcome any advice you might have as to how to properly handle my dilemma.Rosencomet (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping is not cool.[edit]

I see you're having a problem with Quorty, but forum-shopping is not the way to solve it. Toddst1 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "forum shopping" is. I'm looking for advice from an administrator, and he is one I know. If you know "the way to solve it", PLEASE advise me.Rosencomet (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
From the link in the header:

Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful. It doesn't help to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question. See also Wikipedia:Policy shopping.

You can take it one place, but don't blast a bunch of folks with the same complaint.
I haven't looked at the merits of your complaint, but complaints about WP:Hounding are usually taken to WP:ANI, but they have to be pretty blatant. Toddst1 (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding reliable sources[edit]

Hi, Rosencomet. The pattern I've seen emerge in your contributions is your inability to add reliable sources. This is especially true for unsourced biographical stubs. I think you could eliminate 90% of your conflicts if you focus on adding good sources to contested content. You've been informed of this many times now, and I'm concerned that your simple refusal to add sources will end up with another block. Please don't let it come to that. I should note, that this has happened so many times now, that it appears to others that you refuse to follow the sourcing guidelines. It's no longer 2004 but 2012 going on 2013. We are heading into Wikipedia 2.0 now, where every statement or paragraph is attributed to an inline reliable source. I realize that this might be difficult if you are still editing like it was the early 2000s, but times have changed. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Viriditas! Nice to hear from you again. I agree that I have had a hard time finding reliable sources sometimes, although sometimes the bar for "reliable" gets set pretty high when I'm the one posting the source. But truthfully, your critique is much more valid on my early stuff, and a lot of that is still out there, and I haven't revisited them to improve them as I should. Sometimes other editors with similar interests take them up, sometimes not. I certainly need to improve that, but I don't have as much time as I used to.
However what's been going on with Qworty is very different. Whole bibliographies, for example, complete with ISBN numbers are being deleted as "unsourced", and when I challenge it he basically says nothing I've done can remain or is valid because of my COI. If an author appeared at Starwood in 1984, like Michael T. Gilbert, he says I can never contribute to the article, even simple additions to a bibliography or the supply of a citation. Recently Qworty posted a proposal that the article Association for Consciousness Exploration be merged into the Starwood Festival article. Generally, such proposals include an announcement on the talk pages of both articles and those of the creators of the articles and of editors who heavily contributed to them. Then over a week or so, they and other members of the community get to discuss the merits of the proposal and informally vote on it. In this case, Qworty posted it to no one, just on the ACE article's talk page. I responded with a list of the 26 newspaper and book references he had deleted from the article that supported notability... and within a half hour he simply deleted the ACE article and redirected it to the Starwood Festival article.
More than 30 articles have been affected by Qworty's IMO overzealous editing in the past three days, and there seems to be no let-up. Almost every one is being challenged on COI (including some I have no connection with), most with notability tags (including ones that have recently been voted a "Keep" when questioned, like Telesma, or clearly notable subjects like Selena Fox, Phyllis Curott or Muruga Booker). Sources are deleted wholesale, then text is deleted as unsourced, then the article is called non-notable.
I would welcome your advice and your help on this and any Wiki matter.Rosencomet (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said before, if your articles were properly sourced, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The policies are designed to favor deletionism, placing the burden of keeping an article on the editor who is able to improve it up to standards. Viriditas (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Qworty deletion of bibliographies & references[edit]

Here are just a few examples of Qworty's deletion of bibliographies, discographies and similar material as "unsourced", including whole sections of references. I will add more. In some cases, Qworty then nominates the article for deletion, usuallu as non-notable.

Qworty removed filmography from David Jay Brown as “unsourced” [28] Qworty removed foreign translations bibliography from David Jay Brown as “unsourced”[29] Qworty removed Contributions to Other Books and Publications from David Jay Brown as “unsourced” [30]

Qworty deletes reference section of Michael T. Gilbert, [32]

Qworty deletes bibliography, discography, and all data about works of Nicki Scully as “unsourced” [34]

  • I don't understand the edit wars over this article. I replaced the photo with the original file. I am the photographer and I licensed it under Creative Commons 3.0

It appears that there is a concerted effort to remove this article from Wikipedia and this man is a published author whose work is well known to people dealing with psychedelics. Perhaps a mediator or senior editor needs to review this edit war. It is out of control and Qworty appears to be incredibly aggressive. It seems almost personal.Canticle (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the "Fringe Wars". Basically, any subject this group of editors deems "fringe" gets slated for deletion. That's actually the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works and there's nothing whatsoever about deleting "fringe" theorists in any guideline or policy. What's going on here is that we have a group of editors who are working together to remove "odd" people and ideas from the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
"This group". Please elaborate what "This group" is. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest[edit]

I feel it necessary to make a statement here: I have been accuse of COI in a number of cases by Qworty; in fact, I have been accused of creating no articles except those of "friends who have attended my non-notable event", and of promoting them because I make my living via this event. These are flat-out lies. I can show you over thirty articles I have created that have nothing to do with the Starwood Festival or the organization that runs it; MANY more that I have contributed to. Furthermore, I derive absolutely NO income from either; in fact, my purely voluntary involvement with them costs me thousands of dollars a year.

Also, the notion that just because someone once spoke at or performed at Starwood means I should not be allowed to edit that article is faulty logic at best, and was NOT the decision of the 2007 arbcom. For instance, Michael T. Gilbert came to Starwood for free and talked about his comic book Mr. Monster in 1984. Since then, I have had no contact with him, nor has he appeared at any event I was involved in or attended. I liked his work before and after that appearance, and created his article; since then many editors have contributed to it. What possible benefit can I derive from his article? I am a comic fan, and also created Fred Schrier, who has never been to Starwood, Dr. Strange (1978 film), List of Marvel Comics mutants, and Sequoia (comics), and contributed to many more comics-oriented articles.

There are other similar examples. John Bassette appeared at Starwood in the 1980s. He died in 2006. Raymond Buckland appeared there over thirty years ago; I've had no contact with him since. What is the conflict of interest?

I think that the issue is the actual edits, and I believe the administrators expressed the same belief. Qworty (who I firmly believe has a problem with me personally and is probably someone I've locked horns with in the past under a different name) has been posting very nasty messages about me, using 5 year old material, and terms like WP:RATSASS, and "notorious wiki-spammer", calling my editing an "atrocity". Meanwhile, Qworty has been deleting whole sections of perfectly good references and properly-constructed bibliographies as "unsourced", and slapping COI and Non-notable all over the place. I urge you to look over my relatively meager contributions over the last, say, two years and judge for yourself based on content, not personalities.Rosencomet (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Qworty list[edit]

Articles heavily deleted by Qworty include (* indicates no connection to any event I am involved with.) - COI & Notability tags have been removed.: Amampondo, Badi Assad*, Association for Consciousness Exploration, John Bassette, Phyllis Curott, Sally Eaton, Selena Fox, Michael T. Gilbert, Jesse Wolf Hardin, Anodea Judith, Stephen Kent (musician), Liquid Soul*, Patricia Telesco and Harvey Wasserman

These articles have tags for citations and other issues, but not COI or Notability: Raymond Buckland, Laurence Galian

These also contain tags for notability, but no nomination for deletion: Armor & Sturtevant, Gavin Bone, Muruga Booker, Vivianne Crowley*, Prem Das*, Jim Donovan (musician), Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison, Ed Fitch*, Yvonne Frost, George R. Harker, Owain Phyfe, Lauren Raine, Red Dog Experience*, Nicki Scully, Chas Smith, Starwood Festival, Jay Stevens, Stratospheerius, Telesma, and Amber Wolfe*.

These Qworty nominated articles have had their discussions ended.: Matthew Abelson - Keep, David Jay Brown - Deleted, Brushwood Folklore Center-Deleted, Baba Raul Canizares - Keep, Ian Corrigan - Deleted, Jim Donovan (musician) - Keep, LaSara FireFox - Keep, Kenny Klein - Keep, Donald Michael Kraig - Keep, Louis Martinie - Keep, Patricia Monaghan - Keep, M. Macha Nightmare - Keep, Luisah Teish* - Keep, and Trance Mission - Keep.

Association for Consciousness Exploration has been redirected to Starwood Festival with no opportunity for community to discuss the proposal. Reverted by D. Rosencomet (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Both the ACE and Starwood Festival articles are now being heavily edited; The entire reference section of Starwood Festival, for instance, has been deleted. That's over 40 references!Rosencomet (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the Qworty list[edit]

Qworty took up deleting massive amounts of article information and then declaring that there are no reliable sources associated with them again in April 2013 (it appears to have started around April 2, 2013). Articles include, but are not limited to Andrew Helm and Roberta Brown. When s/he finally creates a page suggesting deletion, s/he becomes verbally abusive claiminh s/he has the right to delete all knowledge placed on a page by others because of "policy." TaramTaram (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:AFD mutual combat. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rosencomet. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added by Theopolisme at 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Issues of Religious and Other Prejudice in the Qworty Campaign[edit]

At first I thought this was only about me and Starwood and someone who wanted to re-litigate the 5 year old arbcom, and I didn't agree with those who saw it as an attack on magickal and Neo-Pagan article subjects, even after seeing this:

She's a witch, LOL. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Article was created by an arbcommed wikispammer who has written dozens of articles about people who've attended a "witch festival" that he hosts. Qworty (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC) at [37]

and this: Non-notable campground used occasionally for nude body-painting, and New Age arts and craft shows, and witchcraft seminars, and open-air sorcery conventions, and non-notable music festivities, and outdoor dosing stations, and sparsely attended Wicca coordinations, and often featuring a line of porta-potties for visiting high-level Druids. I wish I was making this stuff up. Anyway, it's not notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, etc. Qworty (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC) at [38]

But THIS puts a whole new light on Qworty's editing. [39] I fear this campaign may be one of religious prejudice and an attack on other people's world-view, which should have NO place on Wikipedia, and would certainly IMO be reason for an indefinite block. It should be noted that this widespread attack on the articles of so many notable figures in the Neo-Pagan community has attracted attention in and outside of Wikipedia, and issues of WP:Bias have been brought up.Rosencomet (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Around April 2, 2013, Qworty started a campaign to delete biographies about people who might be veiwed as associated with strong, independent women (gender studies in Germany and the television show Queen of Swords which also had elements of Tarot in it. Your thought that s/he is on a campaign to attack other people's world-view is very valid. I just do not know how to block Qworty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taram (talkcontribs) 14:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving[edit]

Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Starwood Festival subpage[edit]

I've created User:Rosencomet/Starwood Festival. I'm hoping you can get started on implementing task #1 on this subpage, which in your words, involves restoring the 40+ references. Once you've restored them to the subpage, you can then attempt to restore the material here and yes, you will need to add inline references. But do the work on the subpage and I'll lend a helping hand. If you want you can address the other tasks you've listed here as well. When all is said and done, we can work on merging these changes into the current article in mainspace. But you've got to do the hard work before we get to that point. The less you focus on Qworty et al. and the more you focus on improving the actual content, the faster you can move on to the next article. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see new comments and suggestions over at User talk:Rosencomet/Starwood Festival. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Rosencomet/Starwood Festival#Use of lists. You are on your own now. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't help you anymore. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Dispute[edit]

Hi Rosencomet,

I was not ignoring you, I assure you. I have not been active on Wikipedia recently. I will get back to you if I can find the time to assist. In the meantime, if you have an issue with another user, you should try some of the avenues at WP:DR.

Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Amber Wolfe[edit]

I came across this page as a result of someone else placing a {{close paraphrasing}} tag on it which listed it at WP:CP. I removed a paragraph as a likely copyright violation which was also overly promotional for an encyclopaedia. While doing this I noticed that the page appeared to be eligible for deletion under our A7 speedy delete criteria as it did not give any indication of how this person might meet out notability guidelines. I also did a quick search myself and could find no indication of them being notable. Hence I deleted the page. Dpmuk (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the proper thing to do would be to nominate it for deletion rather than just decide to delete it, and give the community the chance to comment on it and/or to beef it up and add material to support the subject's notability. Just deciding on your own, with no notice either to the creator of the article or anyone else - heck, not even a speedy delete notice - that this author of at least six books and producer of at least three spoken word recordings by a notable publisher, Llewellyn Worldwide, is not notable enough for YOU, seems an overly quick action. Couldn't you have allowed others to have some input?Rosencomet (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I stand by my deletion but it is possible that I may have erred - it's not often I delete something for A7 - so I have no problem if you wish to take my deletion to deletion review. Dpmuk (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Project Qworty[edit]

While I agree with your efforts to restore content removed by Qworty, you will still need to add inline sources, especially for the material you are adding to BLPs. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Inline sources are needed in some cases; in others, there were never any necessary, like when he deleted a properly-created bibliography as "unsourced", or deleted a link as "dead" that wasn't. For now, I just want to crank these articles back to the pre-Qworty versions so ANY editor can improve them as needed, and hopefully if an editor thinks a citation is needed he'll tag it as such and give editors time to comply rather than simply gut the article. And one good thing that happened here, is that tags requesting citations from as far back as 2007 on articles that have had subsequent new material and citations added since then are finally having those tags dropped. Of course, if editors feel a specific fact still need a citation, they are welcome to tag it, or even supply one themselves. Rosencomet (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please remember that you will need actual reliable sources consisting of newspapers, magazines, and books. The links you are adding back to websites and blogs are not sufficient. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree - on items that REQUIRE a citation. But, for instance, on lists of speakers and entertainers that have appeared at Starwood (which I did not return, but I am tweaking & improving), are citations really necessary? On similar lists, such as List of Lollapalooza lineups by year and List of performances and events at Woodstock Festival, no citations seem to be needed at all. Every speaker and entertainer on the Starwood lists can be sourced to the programs of Starwood Festivals over the years on the festival's website. If this is sufficient, a lot of work can be saved. I've tried to go above and beyond the call and supply articles and book entries for as many as possible; I doubt you'll find as complete an inclusion of citations for any similar list on Wikpedia. As always, I'm trying to satisfy those who cannot BE satisfied, because their demands were agenda-driven and dishonest. I don't mean you, of course, I mean sockpuppeteering editors like Matisse and Qworty.Rosencomet (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, a while back you referred me to "some quality festival-related articles for you to look at and compare". Among them were Ashton Court Festival, which contains a list of notable acts that have performed there with no citations, and the Glastonbury Festival, which cites their own website for all the performers on their list.Rosencomet (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
What I did, is I pointed you to articles that had been vetted for quality on Wikipedia, in this case two GA articles. As you can see, they both have enough secondary sources to support the topic. When we use primary sources in the way you are using them, we use them to augment the secondary, not supplant them. I'm not sure why you are still arguing over this point when you've been told how to use them for years on end now. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
(stalker) - I think what Viriditas says is generally true. However, primary sources *can* be used if the information can be easily confirmed by a non-specialist and does not require the drawing of any conclusions. So, a list of people who appeared at a festival, the website for that festival is a fine primary source for that particular claim, IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, who am I to contradict a Jedi Master? :-) Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, is anyone researching Qworty's possible sockpuppets? Is there a link to a page about it? Rosencomet (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jay Brown[edit]

Please see the current discussion at User_talk:Spinningspark#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jay Brown. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I agree that this article should not have been deleted. It had six "votes" to keep and six to delete, but one to delete was Qworty and I suspect at least one more was a sock of his. The author was obviously notable, and it certainly seems to me that the nomination for deletion was part of Qworty's personal agenda.
IMO, there are other articles worth re-examining, like Ian Corrigan and Amber Wolfe. I'm sure there are others I am not aware of. Thanks for your work and attention to all this.Rosencomet (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Saw the news[edit]

Hello,

I just read the news article about the Qworty's campaign against articles about paganism, especially yours. I know we've not always agreed about things, but back when we last interacted I found some of the content of your talk page to be interesting reading (though also kind of annoyed that it's so long due to never being archived). So I am wondering, do you think your problems with Qworty at all related to your previous problems with Mattisse?

Yworo (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hard to say. Qworty affected over forty articles I created and/or heavily edited; 14 were nominated for deletion, of which four were deleted. The editing style and the choice of targets, both on my articles and others, and the Wikilawyering, and reaction to confrontation, does have a lot of similarities. On the other hand, Qworty may have, in part, been a copy-cat. The dates of the major Mattisse sockpuppeteering and harassment of me do correspond with the emergence of Qworty and his attack on witches like Raven Grimassi. I broached the possibility of Qworty's and Mattisse's sockpuppets having at least an overlap a while back with a couple administrators, but got no reply. I never formerly requested a sockpuppet check on Qworty, though. I'd be very interested in the results of such a check, on the editors who supported his nominations for deletion, for instance. (It's also world music and consciousness exploration articles, BTW, like Amampondo, Badi Assad, Telesma, Stephen Kent, and Trance Mission, and David Jay Brown, Jay Stevens, Michael T. Gilbert, Association for Consciousness Exploration, Nicki Scully and Prem Das.) Qworty kept accusing me of only creating articles about people who appeared at the Starwood Festival, which anyone who looked at my edit history could see was not true. Mattisse used to falsely identify some articles I wrote or edited on people that never were at Starwood of being Starwood related, and even created articles (like Musart) and links (like Anne Hill) via sockpuppets and accused the "Starwood folks" of being "at it again". The strangest thing about Qworty's stalking of my articles is that he based almost everything he said about me on things I did, or Mattisse accused me of, from 2006-2007, and ignore the results of the arbcom and the years of subsequent changes I made to satisfy criticisms and the years of improved editing I've done since then. A few editors pointed this out, but that fact was ignored; he kept calling me a serial wikispammer and such, and referring to some of my editing as an "abomination" (perhaps a Biblical reference to the supposed abomination of witchcraft? or a joke along those lines?).Rosencomet (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that he might be Mattisse? Can you post links to that previous discussion you mention above? Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This one. Seemed to be a previous targeting of articles on paganism by somebody using sockpuppets."However, two weeks ago Mattisse, Pigman and Kathryn suddenly appeared, and proceeded on what I can only call a campaign to eliminate as much mention of ACE and it's events as possible. They began with a tagging spree reminiscent of the one by Mattisse and her sock puppets that started my problems before." Yworo (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I would not accuse Pigman or Kathryn of targeting Paganism; in fact, I believe they ARE Pagans, and are involved in Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. As far as I know, Mattisse is not, but I don't remember anti-Pagan comments from Mattisse, either. I have not had any problems with Pigman and Kathryn in a long time, and have even occasionally worked with Pigman improving an article. I think they were convinced by Mattisse to join his/her campaign against me; why his/her massive sockpuppeteering didn't bother them is a mystery to me. Maybe it finally did. I hold no ill will towards Pigman & Kathryn, and hope they hold none towards me. I do see similarities between Mattisse's massive attacks on the work of those editors she/he picked out for personal attention and Qworty's, in both method, scope, proliferation, and side comments; possibly in the use of sockpuppets as well, but that is IMO still to be fully revealed. Researching Mattisse's edit history (and her 29 socks) is an even bigger (and, IMO, more entertaining) project than Qworty's; put aside some significant time if you are interested. It is truly bizarre at times. But I find it strange that Qworty's first batch of attack edits, and his insulting comments about Pagans and New Agers, began right around the time of Mattisse's actions against Starwood-related articles. What launched Qworty's new campaign in November of 2012, and his repeated references to my editing and the arbcon of 2006-2007, I do not know. Rosencomet (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean to suggest that P. or K. were socks of Mattisse or that they were part of an anti-pagan cabal. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was just noting that many or most of the ACE articles are pagan-related, so in a way M. was going after mostly pagan articles. However, it's the repeated references to the arbcom that suggested to me that perhaps Qworty had been one of the user's associated with that. The only one really whose behavior resembled Qworty's was Mattisse. It's just curious, don't you think? Though of course Mattisse had multiple sock-puppet checks so it's hard to imagine how one would have escaped notice. Perhaps an ally rather than a sock? Too long ago to be fruitful to pursue, I expect. Yworo (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Ally, copycat, inspiration... who knows? There was a less prolific sock-puppeteer back then named User:Backmaun who is another candidate, who kept adding accusations of satanism to the Starwood Festival article. But being anti-Starwood/ACE or anti-Pagan is not the same thing, of course. I've locked horns with people who were more against the Leary/Wilson/McKenna folks than the Pagan ones. Qworty, though, has that documented history of obvious prejudice against Pagans, Witches and New Agers. Rosencomet (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Qworty clean-up[edit]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Qworty clean-up. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Time to roll up our sleeves and get to work... Rosencomet (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, it requires good judgment to restore content. For example, BLP's that have good sources, but had their content deleted are easy candidates for a restore. However, you recently restored the content to Stephen Kent (musician) without these sources.[40] In fact, you restored content to a BLP without any sources at all. Now, I'm sure you've read WP:BLP by now, and you know that you can't do this, so I don't understand why you keep doing it. Please demonstrate that you understand how this works by taking the Trouser Press article and "Life Among the Neo-Pagans" articles and formatting them appropriately for use as inline sources. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I intend to revisit these articles and improve them, but my first priority was to reverse the carnage caused by Qworty. I don't have time to simultaneously correct all the faults on all the dozens of articles affected. If you review my editing, you'll find that some articles have had citations supplied and tags eliminated, like Anodea Judith, and I hope to revisit as many as possible that need it. But this way, with the articles restored to pre-Qworty versions, OTHER editors also have that opportunity and may help improve them. Please have some patience; you might also tag the specific changes or citation needs you think are necessary so everyone watching the article gets a heads-up. Rosencomet (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Rosencomet. Please see my recent upload of a selected list of uncivil AFDs targeting Pagan and occult writers made by User:Leibniz at
I do not know if this "retired" user (active 2006 - 2010) is another Qworty sock, but both the deletionsism and the use of repetitiously similar uncivil descriptions of the targeted Pagan and occult writers show extremely strong resemblance to the work of Robert Clark Young. Note also the targeting of a "mainstream" writer who had received favourable reviews -- a seeming "leakage" of Young's other major obsession into this primarily scientistic and anti-occult account's persona.
P.S. You might also enjoy a short editorial piece i wrote about Qworty here:
Thank you for your attention. Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Amber Wolfe[edit]

Restored to User:Rosencomet/Amber Wolfe. Yes, that was the paragraph that I was most concerned about but I have enough concerns about the other paragraph that I don't want to restore it. Dpmuk (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Give Your Opinion[edit]

Hi Rosencomet: I saw your as a member of the Project Qworty effort.

I would like to invite you to come to the Erica Andrews article to give your thoughts and wisdom to what has gone on. I was one of the main editors of the article. I researched a lot about Andrews' life and career and placed most of the information on the page. One day in comes Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher. To cut a long story short, it became very ugly between me and them as Qworty, LGR were deleting information out of the article. They would claim there citation source was weak and even when I would prove to them that the information was factual through sources, it was never enough. The article became a hot battleground for them and me. It got ugly. Very ugly. I stepped away for a while as I really have no desire to fight on Wikipedia with anyone. Then I was very surprised to see Qworty being exposed for what he did and got banned. Shortly after that LGR got banned. So as part of Project Qworty, I returned to the Andrews article and replaced the information that they had deleted. However, now I'm running into yet the same arguments with Coffeepusher and Howicus. So I would really like to invite you to review my edits and what they've reverted back to. My edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Andrews&oldid=557673661.

The Andrews talk page contains my comments on my replacement of content per Project Qworty. They have claimed the content I have placed back is contentious. I have asked just what part of actual career achievements is contentious? Andrews really did win her titles, really did act in 2 movies, really did perform on stage, really did appear in music videos, and really did host shows and performed. Nothing I have placed there is malicious lies. I have not made up anything. I will agree that sometimes the source is not from a mainstream outlet like NY Times, Washington Post but it does not mean the information is erroneous. The information has weight and carries value for a reader who is seeking to learn more about Andrews in her bio. I hope you can chime in and make some sense. Thank you for your help. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI, Lightspeedx is currently Canvassing [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], because their previous Forumshopping didn't give them the results they desired. Dispute resolution page, Talk:Varifiability page, Talk:Videos page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Erica Andrews. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Coffeepusher, seriously dude, chill. Take a big chill pill and really re-examine why you are so obsessed with following me around and pushing your edits and agenda around regarding the Andrews article. For me, at least I have reasons - I am a fan of Andrews and I did work on researching for content on her and would like to see that her article has some integrity. You don't know Andrews, you don't really give a dang about Andrews and you are not in the least interested in her career. What's it to you about this whole thing? If it's a pissing contest you want me to partake in, I'm not interested. I really am not. You really have no need or reason to keep shadowing me. What's it to you if the Andrews article is shredded to bits or if it wins Featured Article status? Really. Go find something in your life to fill your time with. It's not worth you daily obsessing and jumping up and down trailing me around trying to diminish my reputation. Despite what you think, I'm not worth your time and I really don't care about you or what you think of me. Your obsession is not healthy. If you are transphobic or homophobic and really want to see to that the Andrews article gets beat up, then come on out about that. Please stop the nonsense. OK? Lightspeedx (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ted Andrews bio[edit]

Okay, the Ted Andrews biography has been rewritten with scholarly cites. I consider the present article to be a solid core upon which more detail may be (and should be) draped. Please add to the biography as you see fit. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart[edit]

I rewrote the Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart biography based mostly on encyclopedia entries. I think it is much better now, with notability firmly fixed and problems with sourcing totally eliminated. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Nevill Drury[edit]

Talk:Nevill Drury, 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/Talk:Nevill Drury and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Nevill Drury during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. KDS4444Talk 09:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

DS alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read the following notice:

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.

Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.

vzaak 21:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

pseudoscience and fringe science[edit]

I don't understand the post you placed on my talk page. I have not edited pseudoscience or fringe science. I don't see how this DS applies to me. I DID change your flat statements that the scientific community considers his theories to be pseudoscience to "some members of the scientific community", as I don't believe anyone speaks for the entire community, or that it is a unified entity for that matter. It seems to me that you are slapping a refutation or critique after every idea of his contained in the article, and what looks to me like an attempt to create a "chilling effect" by this ominous mention of a DS on articles I haven't even edited. I see a similar treatment of Rupert Sheldrake. I wonder if you have some sort of an agenda. IMO, such critiques belong in a section of their own with the heading "Criticism" rather than accompanying each idea. You, of course, may disagree. However, I do consider the post on my talk page to appear to be a warning, even a threat, as if there might be consequences for disagreeing with you. That should not be.Rosencomet (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The DS alert is a just a notification, informing you of the presence of discretionary sanctions. The template should say, "sanctions for topics relating to pseudoscience and fringe science" (as opposed to just the articles pseudoscience and fringe science). vzaak 02:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If you think these new DS alerts suck, your input is needed here. Re McKenna, please see my last edit comment on the article; if it is unclear then discuss on the article talk page. vzaak 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mike Hinton may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Sammy Piazza ([[Hot Tuna]]}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mike Hinton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Bill Graham, John Schneider, Steve Miller, Commander Cody, Youngbloods, Michael Warren, Jimmy Smith, Geoffrey Palmer, John Dawson, Matt Kelly and Bobby Black

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Terence Mckenna[edit]

Hi you may be interested in taking a look at the comment I just left on the scientific community section of the Mckenna talk page, as it is in validation of some of the things you have been saying. Hope you are well Screamliner (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Owain Phyfe for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3[edit]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)