User talk:65.78.13.238

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (65.78.13.238) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Monique De Wael

I saw your edit summary regarding the name of Monique De Wael, so I created a redirect to Misha Defonseca. Yngvarr (c) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Misha Defonseca

Hallo - i have added some biographical informations about Misha Defonseca. I d' ont agree with your idea to merge the bookstory with the person (or to create a redirect). yours Christophe.Neff (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jane Daniel

for continuing the discussion : Jane Daniel would merit a biographical article in wikipedia, because it was her tenacity who in fact delivered the true story ! Christophe.Neff (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to Talk:Misha Defonseca. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fragment

Please asume good faith instead of reverting blindly. I said Fragment is unlikely to be the search term for that publication; I said nothing about the likelines of the book itself. Further more, readability goes over guideline, which is sated is that exact same guideline. Please read MOS:DAB more carefully. — Edokter • Talk • 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

again Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years/Broder

Hallo 65.78.13.238 - interesting to see, that you read and write fluently german; I have added this source, some days before to one of the first versions to the biographical article. This source is more or less the key for understanding the whole process of the book story, - the “surprisingly dubious” role of the publishing editor Jane Daniel etc. Its clear that nobody has read Henryk M. Broder in 1996 attentively, because if somebody has done, this entire story, would never had happen. I have to work now, - but just a personal word for finishing. You should have real name on wikipedia – (or an account using a alias) – why hide behind a number ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm afraid I'm not really fluent in German, but I'm good enough that if I use one of the automated translation services on the Web to translate most of a passage, I can translate most of the parts that the automated services don't get right. (Although with this one, I admit I'm not totally sure about the translation of "Bis auf den "Kompaß"" as "aside from the compass" -- all the translation services render that passage as "up to the compass", but that phrase implies a time sequence in English which doesn't really make sense in the context (it implies that there is objective proof of some parts of Misha's story, but that all those parts occurred after the compass.)

As for whether the deception would have been stopped in 1996 if people had only read Broder's article more attentively... I don't know. Broder points out some ways in which Misha's story is improbable, but nothing that really says "impossible". While I don't really trust everything Jane Daniel is saying (after all, a jury did find that she had hidden money in offshore accounts) I think there is something to what she says about every Holocaust survivor's story, no matter how true, being and sounding improbable. Then again, maybe if more people had listened to Broder voicing his suspicions, maybe it would have come earlier to the attention of people who could turn up the real evidence -- the baptismal record and school record, et cetera. Who knows for sure? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Survivre Avec les Loups

Oops, typo - fixed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Urantia book and spam

I've never spammed in my life. In my opinion, the only way you can make a mention of Mullis commenting on the Urantia book NPOV is to make it clear what some of his other opinions are (I withheld from pointing out that he's wrong about his statements on the Urantia book). Exactly what is spam about what I wrote? He's not a reliable source, so either it needs to be pointed out or removed if it is going to look as though he might be.Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as you told me, you weren't the editor who wrote that edit summary. Many apologies.Doug Weller (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say

Thanks for your work on helping to tidy up the Frederick Lenz article. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Majeston

Look at his user page, he was warned last May about labelling edits as vandalism when they are just a difference of opinion. Back to ANI if he doesn't stop, and if he continues to label all his edits are minor (his excuse for this will be that it is vandalism). Or I can bring in an administrator, which I may do.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at the same thing. "Hunh, looks like he was warned back on the 29th, that was only -- wait, the 29th, today's only the 27th -- he was warned not to do this a year ago and he's still doing it??" Whatever you do about this, whether it's back to ANI or calling in an administrator, I'll try to back you up. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again he is calling people vandals, marking major edits as minor (he doesn't mark talk page edits as minor, so he knows what he is doing I presume, and accusing me of stalking (and telling 2 other people that ScienceApologist and I are a tag team, whereas in fact we haven't been in contact at all. This is on other articles, eg Nephilim, [{Garden of Eden]] etc. where Majeston and others have inserted Urantia stuff and it's been removed. I presume you know what his name means?--Doug Weller (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed that he was up to those tricks again, yeah. TBH, I don't know if anything will be done about it, despite the obvious fact that something should be done about it, but if you have any ideas for how to bring it to the attention of someone who'd take the appropriate measures, I'm all ears. (I don't know what his name refers to, no.) -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Majeston is a true person, the personal and infallible center of reflectivity phenomena in all seven superuniverses of time and space. He maintains permanent Paradise headquarters near the center of all things at the rendezvous of the Seven Master Spirits. He is concerned solely with the co-ordination and maintenance of the reflectivity service in the far-flung creation; he is not otherwise involved in the administration of universe affairs." I guess another ANI complaint if he continues.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hunh. Well, no one can accuse him of not thinking big, I guess. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

While I'm in complete agreement with your reverts, do be mindful of WP:3RR. I've left a warning on Majeston's page since by my count he or she has reverted 4 times in the past 24 hours on The Urantia Book, and if this needs to eventually go to the 3RR noticeboard, the edits and reverts of everybody will be looked at. One more and you're in the same boat as him, and it's not worth getting a block over. Wazronk (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I need to warn you that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day. If you repeatedly revert, you may be blocked from editing even if you don't exceed three reverts in 24 hours. I recently blocked Majeston for edit warring. Be advised that if you continue to revert, you may get blocked, too. Consider pursuing dispute resolution if necessary. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the friendly alerts. Heimstern, Majeston has already been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for a very clearcut case of wikistalking, and absolutely nothing was done about it. What can be done to make sure that this time his open defiance of the rules is dealt with?

Re: Escape to Witch Mountain

Sorry, I separated the films from the key article in a hurry. I'm not really familiar with the films, so I don't know if I can write an adequate summary for any of them. The new film articles could use more referencing, though... there is no useful information besides what came from the film itself (plot and cast details). I started new articles because I created Race to Witch Mountain and saw that a little reorganization was in order. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, please

I'm sure Justallofthem appreciates that you reverted vandalism on User:Justanother, but you made a mistake in continuing to edit the page. And especially to edit war with him..! Please read WP:3RR, and note especially the rules about the userspace here: WP:USERPAGE. In a nutshell: leave other people's userpages alone unless yoou're invited to edit them. And especially, do not under any circumstances revert the owner of the page. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

Create an account?

Hello! I've noticed that you have edited Wikipedia without logging in to an account. It's great that you've been contributing; however, I urge you to create an account. Here is a list of the benefits of having an account:

• You can create new pages
• You can use watchlists
• You can upload images
• You can keep your account from being unfairly blocked if you share an IP address
• You can use scripts to better fight annoying vandalism
• After four days, you can edit semi-protected pages

There are no cons to signing up for an account. In fact, you can find even more pros at the "why create an account" page! Signing up is completely free and you don't need to enter any personal information! Plus you can have a user page, which you can use to show your interests, style, or nearly whatever! So, unless you can think of a con, please sign up for an account right now! Cirt (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair Game

Content moved to Talk:Fair Game (Scientology). -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Steven Fishman has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Thankfully, my edit was in fact fully constructive. As acknowledged by WillOakland (talk · contribs) himself on the talk page ([1]), the actual author of the source being used for the claims about proposed defense witnesses Ofshe and Singer and their intentions was not James Richardson, but Dick Anthony. Dick Anthony is of course not a third party source; he himself was involved in the Steven Fishman litigation as an expert witness for the other side and one who specifically argued against admitting the testimony of Ofshe and Singer.

Therefore, there was a need to correct the false impression given by the use of the citation "Richardson, James (2004). Regulating Religion. Reno: University of Nevada.", which incorrectly uses the name of the editor, James Richardson, in the fields reserved for the author, and completely omits the name of the actual author -- who, again, happens to be a party involved in the litigation, not a third party source. I am sure that now this has been explained to you, you will no longer seek to restore the erroneous version of the citation. In fact, I'm sure you will realize that I am in fact being very fair-minded by allowing Anthony's opinions to remain in the article once they have been correctly cited as Anthony's own opinions, when I could point out that Dick Anthony as a party to the litigation is very definitely not a third party source as called for by the letter of WP:RS, and press for those opinions to be removed on that basis.

Thank you, and may your future anti-vandalism efforts be more successful in reverting actual vandalism. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Jayen466's creation of Jason Scott case?

I agree with you and you raise valid points. Perhaps you should register and create an account. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment on Cirt's talk page, I believe it would be inappropriate to create, or recreate, an article for Jason Scott, as per WP:ONEEVENT. The event, however, was notable, not least for its far-reaching legal implications, and hence should be covered. I accept the point that a 1800-word section on the case in Rick Ross's BLP would constitute undue weight in that article, hence the spinout. At any rate, since Ross was not the only defendant, and the case was, as I said, notable, it merits its own article. The section in Rick Ross (consultant) should focus on Mr Ross's involvement in it. Shupe is a reliable source, for WP purposes, for the statements he makes, regardless of whether these are included in the Rick Ross BLP or in Jason Scott case. I am not, btw, aware of Shupe's account of the case, which has been published for a couple of years now, having been challenged, nor am I aware of Ross ever having denied forcibly abducting and confining Scott. Shupe states quite clearly that he merely summarises the information available in court documents, and gives references. An online source outlining the case that is independent of Shupe is http://www.cesnur.org/press/Scott.htm Jayen466 01:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)