User talk:Teledildonix314

Who am i ?

My personal information is on my User Page ~ i'm Kevin Hutchins the Bellinghamster in real life, and in online fora i'm Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1

excellent criteria for debunking superstition and religion

Non Sequitur - the Invention of Ideology - http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/nq/2009/nq090111.gif

The following is copied and pasted directly from User:Mccready because it is so awesome to find such a concise summary of logic which works for most any dispute in which evidence-based activity (e.g., scientific research) is in conflict with fantasy-based notions (e.g., religions and superstitions):

Points commonly made by pseudoscientists

1. Pseudoscience is an offensive word and a POV label.

• Wrong. It's a perfectly useful word and should be used when appropriate. If other people find it offensive, we can't help that. As encyclopedists we don't pander to people's feelings. We describe things accurately.

2. You need to cite a source before using the word.

• No. We are perfectly at liberty to draw inferences in writing an encyclopedic article. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. If it fits the definition as above then use it.

3. My pseudoscience has lots of scientists working on it. But I know it's a possibility that it's not fully supported by science.

• Yes there is enormous effort being put into research in all sorts of areas. Usually the underlying theories (eg meridians in acupuncture or vertebral subluxation in chiropractic) are not supported by the scientific method and studies are usually disputed. The fact that research exists, even in peer reviewed journals may not be enough to avoid fitting the definition of pseudoscience.

4. My pseudoscience is supported by governments or universities.

• Governments usually make decisions for political, not scientific, reasons. The lobbying power of some psuedosciences is enormous and of course we have the problem of cultural memes. Universities these days are unfortunately more market driven than otherwise. Thus government or university support does not change the fact that your field may be a pseudoscience. Don't forget how many people thought the world was flat.

5. My career is built on this pseudoscience. I've been trained. I'm an expert. I've seen with my own eyes.

• See regressive fallacy. Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron. We need replicability before such claims can be accepted in an encyclopedia or by science.

6. You can't say that one day my pseudoscience might be proven and we are working on it. Scientists say further research needs to be done.

• True. But in the meantime the appellation might fit and we are writing an encyclopedia here not speculating and not providing material for scientists to pad their research applications with. Perhaps enough research has been done to conclude that your pseudoscience is not a good bet.

7. The onus is on you to disprove my pseudoscience.

• No. You can't prove a negative.

8. You're not being balanced about my pseudoscience.

• Balance is a weasel word which people seem to prefer instead of truth or accuracy. The notion that balance has to be given to the idea, to pick an example I hope will offend nobody, that the moon is made of blue cheese is unacceptable. Maybe it is legitimate to put more brickbats than bouquets in an article about your pseudoscience.

9. Whether the moon is made of blue cheese is subject to scientific research. There is no scientific consensus over whether or not evidence supports this. Please replace the bolded words with your pseudoscience. You may then be able to see that perhaps this form of words is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. It may be a POVish attempt to place your pseudoscience within the realms of science, as noted variously above.

copied and pasted on 090103_0559PST Teledildonix314 ^talk 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Greater Victoria, British Columbia

Thanks for finding what you called an exhortation. In fact, it was political. I find comments like that all over wikipedia regarding Canadian sites that have land claim disputes. This particular one was added 2008-02-13, but somehow I missed it. I guess I will have to check my watchlist more often. I already do it at least once a day, but if two changes are made on the same day I might not see the first one. Then again, it was right before Valentine's Day... my mind might have been elsewhere!!! LOL -CubBC (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dzoosotoyn Elisen Desert

what is the proper Wiki way the link the two articles and mark them as needing attention? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hi, i am new with these tools, so i'm not sure, but here's what i found.

• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers
• Dzoosotoyn_Elisen_Desert
• Gurbantunggut_Desert

The problem is, i am not educated about this geography topic, so i don't know for sure that it's correct to Request a Proposal For Merger. Do you have any reference materials on Xinjiang topics which could verify whether they are synonymous? Can you tell me where to look for the verification that they are truly supposed to be Merged? I'm sorry, i don't know any technical information about central Asian desert geography, i only edited the article for minor cleanup, and i don't even know how the administrators and editors get those Mergers finalized. Please write to me here again if you get totally stumped, and i will read some more Help Pages to see where the explanations might be hidden, assuming you know about some reference materials which verify our need to Merge. Thanks very much for asking, please let me know how i should help you proceed.

With your help I found what looks like a proper merge template and stuck it in. They are probably the same thing in two languages, but I don't have enough sources to be sure. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren

Apologists for despicable [professional] charlatans (i.e., christians and other religious people who can't distinguish supernaturalism from realism) managed to prolong an edit-war until it led to a lockdown on the article. Sadly, the bio reads like a puff-piece written by a minion of Warren's public-relations office, and his contributions to the deaths and suffering and denial of basic human rights to millions of people (in American and Africa, or anywhere else where his tentacles [money and influence and brainwashing] reach) will be judged by history as monstrous. It might appear polemic to point out the criticisms of the man while the news about his activities is still "controversial" (i.e., unflattering to christians such as Warren and his anti-humanist ilk); however, in the future, people will come to realize that only an apologist would write such a toadying article about such an odious [inflammatory] person, while forbidding any reports which cast Warren and the other anti-secularists in a poor light! Teledildonix314 ^talk 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed "reactionary" from the article. You have not provided any citation for any work that might support this characterization of Warren; it is something entirely of your doing, unsupported by anything resembling a reliable source. Further, as I look over the article for reactionary, I think it is clearly incorrect to say that Warren "seeks a return to a previous state." This would require some kind of false history in which Christians were running some kind of dictatorship here in the U.S., which has clearly not ever been the case. Warren and others like him often put forward this false notion that he is putting things back to where they were, when in fact they propose something completely new that has never existed before (and never could have, for that matter.) This is a ploy for legitimacy on Warren's part, falsely asserting a return to something that once was; I take it you would not be one to help prop him up and inflate his status (already overinflated as it is) by buying such a ploy.

If you are expecting other editors who support Warren to withdraw edits (such as the "America's Pastor" nonsense) for which they cannot put forward reliable sources, you will also have to abide by the requirement for reliable sources, particularly in this most glaring instance. You have today added some other material that also doesn't seem to refer to any reliable source but that draws associations and conclusions of your own. I will also eventually be removing those. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You (Mike Doughney) are clearly mistaken here, with demonstrable evidence and a most unambiguous example to refute your stance. The passage of Proposition 8 to strip people of civil rights when they had already been upheld by the state's high court is one of the most explicit and overt examples of 'Reactionary' politics we could possibly see in our country. The Reactionary voters are trying to force the community to revert to a previous state of affairs in which the progressive secular values are destroyed and oppressed. How is that not the most obvious sort of Reactionary behavior you've ever heard?!? You are wrong, Mike Doughney, and you don't have to argue with my choice of words, you can look up the definitions in any dictionary and learn for yourself. Once again, here is the actual article: Reactionary!

Teledildonix314 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your regurgitation of what I suppose is Marxist terminology is quite quaint. Again, let me say this very slowly and in small words in a short sentence so perhaps this time you'll understand what I'm saying. You will need a citation from a reliable source that indicates that Warren is a reactionary. Without that, the term is inappropriate, and it doesn't matter what you or I think of the guy, you will need a citation to support using that term.

I will also caution you that since what you are editing is a biography of a living person, the Biographies of living persons policy applies. I suggest you go back and read that policy before making any further edits. That policy prohibits you from adding characterizations of living persons that are not verifiable. In particular, your accusation that what Warren is doing is slanderous had to come out of the article. I think it also applies to your characterization of Warren as a reactionary sans verifiable sources to support that. Repeated violations of the BLP policy could get you blocked or banned. I will start that process without hesitation if you continue to add such BLP policy violating material to the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Rick Warren. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Rick Warren. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Rick Warren, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rick Warren. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to destroy my contributions. Rather than argue with you, rather than dispute some choice of words, i have merely added direct quotations and verifiable citations. But you keep erasing my citations and overt attributions. This makes it impossible to contribute constructively to the improvement of any article. If you don't like my contributions, why don't you just offer some of your own to counter mine? Why do you have to keep erasing all of the links and footnotes which i've added? What is the point of having an encyclopedia which is supposed to be open to any editor, if you just destroy each of my edits and my citations? Teledildonix314 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you have the right to edit on Wikipedia. I am not here to destroy your work or reputation. All I am telling you is to follow the rules carefully. I sincerely and strongly apologize if your edits are good faith. But you need to think carefully about what you are working on before you edit. Willking1979 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to Talk:Rick Warren. PXK ^T /_C 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Please see this. PXK ^T /_C 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, back away from User:Straight Edge PXK. If they are causing some sort of problem let me or any other administrator know and we will deal with it. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being discussed at WP:ANI

Please see [this.] _{(URL edited 2009-01-04 by Teledildonix314)} Also, when given a final warning, making a personal attack against a user is a bad idea. PXK ^T /_C 00:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did those warnings because it is poilcy to report any incivilty. The personal attack you did was my editor review. And for the record, I'm not an adult, I'm 15. PXK ^T /_C 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PXK, please back away from this editor. You have filed a report. Now let it run its course. Further fighting will not help anybody. Jehochman ^Talk 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#User:Manutdglory_-_another_issue_of__bad_editor_behavior_connected_with_the_Rick_Warren_article And now i've felt the need to comment further there. Sigh. Teledildonix314 ^talk 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: thanks

You're welcome. By the way, I have an email set. Just look at the bar on my talk page. PXK ^T /_C 19:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not helping

Hi. You are doing your cause no good by editing under a username that people are likely to find offensive, and by not adhering to basic good Wikisense in your edits. Listen to what people are telling you, provide references, etc. then you can object about ideological bias if you're reverted. In the meantime, I suggest you change your username -- what's wrong with "Kevin Hutchins"? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody offended by a word as innocuous as Teledildonix314 is obviously too prudish and hypersensitive to be able to deal with the realities of reading an encyclopedia. Fear of human form and function is no basis for education nor editorializing. Teledildonix314 ^talk 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this can end a bad beginning, and begin a good New Year. I need to improve civility, and i need to stick strictly to trivial edits which will trouble no squawking hordes! I must raise my ethical standards, never lower them. I have much learning to do. Teledildonix314 ^talk 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good research. You might also want to look into the effort to delete Saddlebacking. It doesn't look like it can succeed, but every bit of support helps. Spotfixer (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he's trying to trick me into violating WP:3RR, so I'm going to have to let the whitewashed version stand. Sorry. Spotfixer (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably a simple tactic, and i'm getting dragged into the 3RR situation as well, so if they delete the latest citation, i'll probably have to let it stand for a while until other editors can be brought in to fix it. Teledildonix314 ^talk 05:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I decided to report him after his 5th revert. His behavior is unacceptable, and he had many chances to stop and undo. Spotfixer (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although you have not crossed the 3RR line you have still been engaged in edit warring. I strongly suggest that you make greater attempts to find a consensus on the article talk pages instead of using multiple reverts. If that fails, then there are better methods of dispute resolution available. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

COI request

I've noticed on spme of your recent edits, you've accused another editor of a pretty major conflict of interest, being a part of one of the churches discussed. Do you have any DIFFs that show where he admitted that? It would certainly help your case. Dayewalker (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The example i find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddleback_Church&diff=prev&oldid=234207404

It doesn't imply that they are a senior administrator or owner, but i surmise they might be in some kind of Public Relations department (given the type of edits they did). Teledildonix314 ^talk 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. Dayewalker (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

It seems that you supported my proposed text here [1]. Would you mind saying that here?Talk:Rick_Warren#Proposed_Content_.22B.22 Thx... Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh nvm, it was archived. I'll make a RFC again soon. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm skeptical of RFC's actually doing anything, I'm still willing to chime in. Spotfixer (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you commented in the new RFC, please dont forget to vote if u have a decision. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote, but i don't know if it's helping in this situation. The admins seem to be going by raw "head count" rather than application of common-sense (o goodness, maybe i shouldn't use that term) in order to decide which edits stay or go. And unfortunately, as is often the case, a mob of determined voices are able to clamor and drown out anything sensible you've presented so far. It's so frustrating because i just get tired of the uphill slog. Teledildonix314 ^talk 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A Conversation

I see that you are trying to be open minded and civil and made an attempt to apologize to Collect; this is admirable and I applaud you for it. However, in doing so you used offensive language in your "apology." To wit: "Religion is the opposite of education; faith is the opposite of intelligence; fantasy is the opposite of reality; superstition is the opposite of demonstration..." Was this really your intent?

To use "religion", "faith", etc. in opposition to words you deem positive (I think they're words positive as well) is not only again offensive, it is quite naive. If you would care to take a journey of study you might find that of people who believe in God, many are highly educated. As you must know from history, many of the major scientists were men and women of deep faith in God. Today, there are an immense number of highly educated people, including scientists, who believe in God, not just as matter of faith but also from careful study of science, historical evidence, etc. "Faith" is an interesting word. We have faith (or trust) in many things we can't see or touch. It is evident to me, as a Christian, that many people who disregard the evidence of our Creator put "faith" in things that have far less evidence to support their belief. I assert that it takes far more faith to be an atheist that it does to be a Christian.

If you would like to pursue this journey/investigation I would be happy to suggest a couple introductory books. CarverM (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, but i do not believe that my neutral declarations of opinion are offensive. I believe they are basic statements of atheism and rationalism and secularism and humanism and science. I don't want to ever say anything religious or offensive or disparaging. I am truly sorry if anything i say is offensive to you. I am honestly being as ethical and polite and civil and dignified and trying to encourage mutual Good Faith because it is the best and brightest and honourable thing to do, i do not want to argue or fight or win an argument or own an article. I want to be very friendly and never insult you. Please do not be offended by my generalizations of my opinons, i would never never never put those on an Article, i would only say those things in the utmost civilized way to have an ethical and friendly conversation with you. You are very patient to try to help me be more gracious. Thanks Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was simply pointing out another world view. Doing things via text instead of in person is not the most effective manner of communicating. I know we can have a respectful conversation, you have expressed that and I am committed to that. I read through a little of your UserPage and it appears you've had a tough time in life. I am sorry. You may not understand or accept this, but over the last few days I have specifically prayed for you. I have experienced pain in my life as well. But, I have also found love, forgiveness and hope. Along with these has come a community of people who love and care for me and have allowed me to do the same for them; we are joined together in the journey of life in fellowship. Life is not easy, but it can be joyful. This is what I pray for you, that you may find joy and peace and hope. CarverM (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you for your support of Ben. He really needs it, and it would be such a loss to Wikipedia too lose him. God bless. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Being nice

The next time you let loose one of these: "or whether you just loosened your last little screw?" you will be blocked. Enough is enough. Kevin (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying i'm not being civil enough, despite the fact that i've been tolerating their COI for a couple months? Gee, i thought i was actually being rather patient, and somewhat reserved in my language. In real life i would have found a way to ramble obscenely, but around here i was just being all polite and prissy. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 08:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So talk about the COI, not your perception of their mental state. Kevin (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"talk about the COI" has no effect; the editor in question, whose presence has been continuously disruptive and who has offered zero constructive suggestions with respect to improving the article, consistently avoids limiting their involvement with these two articles and if anything only intensifies his defiance with every mere suggestion that his COI is a legitimate matter for discussion. Threatening other (exasperated and justifiably angry) editors with blocks, and blocking them, serves no apparent purpose. I suggest that you and VS reconsider your methods of dealing with this situation. Mike Doughney (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto from me Teledildonix - Kevin only just beat me to warning you and I concur with his assessment - any further occasions and I will block also.--VS ^talk 09:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

@Mike - sorry I know it may be hard for others to understand but I have absolutely no interest in Rick Warren and associated articles, indeed I am not concerned at all with what makes it in the article (except of course in relation to Wiki Policies); nor the politics of the two juxtaposed positions of editors coming to the page. If you can try to accept that then you may similarly try to accept that my only interest is to try to perform my duty by assisting in the creation of an environment that allows everyone to express their point of view in relation to content without expressing their uncivil point of view in relation to the editors themselves. Indeed if you look at my blocking log you will note that I have personally blocked a variety of editors from both sides of the Rick Warren political divide including (twice) the editor which Teledildonix referred to and which you do now. It would be nice of course if we administrators had an alternative magic wand that enforced the idea of "comment on content not on editors" but we don't and so we only have the tools of page protection, warnings, and blocks. Because these are overriding tools they will by their very nature polarise the opinions of editors - and whilst that is unfortunate (and unlikely to make us many friends) from my perspective, I will continue to use those tools where I think they provide some peace from the constant thrust and parry, especially where they revert to lower forms of harassment, incivility, and downright rudeness. On the other hand if you can think of another way of enforcing civility that does not involve these tools I invite you to come directly to my talk page and make your point so that I can trial that idea. As I say please come to my talk page because I would rather do that than usurp Tele's talk page. With thanks. --VS ^talk 10:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Making incivil comments is pointless. You can open a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users on User:Manutdglory and perhaps others. User:Manutdglory already admitted his COI so you can just ignore him or if he disrupts anything, you can just report him. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Over my head

Just so you know, a topic ban is where an admin bans you from an article or set of articles for a period of time. As for taking things over my head, see WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM.

I made the threat of blocking or a topic ban because you persist in commenting on other editors, rather than the article content. As you have been told before, it is OK for an editor to have a COI, so long as the edits are neutral. If they are not, then discuss why the edit is not neutral. You cannot assume that just because an editor has a conflict that all their edits are worthless.

Finally, did you miss the part about continuing away from the article talk page? Kevin (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is unpleasant to find that the rules and policies are applied unevenly. You insist on harping on my commenting on other editors although you can't specifically find an actual "attack" or comment about other editors which isn't precisely about things such as COI and Outing Themselves. So you spend time disheartening me, making me feel as though it's not very worthwhile to try to play by the rules and contribute politely, when in fact the actual rulebreakers go about unhindered by you even when they have outed themselves and have been caught red-handed. This is just sad, and it makes me feel like i'm wasting my time around here. More energy gets spent on scolding me simply because i choose to be rather explicit and unforgiving in my speech when i deal with rulebreakers (although you'll never find any actual example of profanity nor "attacks" in anything i've ever written on any Wikipedia discussion) and less energy is spent on actually editing the encyclopedia and applying the rules and policies to the people in the situations where there should be legitimate concerns rather than the sort of bluster you so easily give to me. In the past couple months i have watched several other very productive editors give up in frustration and walk away from here because of this type of situation. So i guess i might not be the most productive editor, but i, too, am frustrated enough to give up and walk away. Congratulations on a job well done, administrator. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 02:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(Oh, yeah, that last sentence was sort of sarcastic, so i guess you can add that to the list of "personal attacks" that you seem to think i've created. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 02:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Hey. I understand your anger. Really. But, next time your angry, just dont make any incivil comments to User:Manutdglory or the admins. Just open a Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users on User:Manutdglory with arguments (like the stuff he did and said) and diffs, without making any personal comments. I'll sign that RFC. As a result of that RFC, he could be warned or banned or whatever. And if that RFC doesnt work, we can go to Arbitration, which is quite serious. It's all here in: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The best way to deal with these types is to follow Wiki procedures. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

I know that you know that Lyonscc is not joking, so why do you say that he is. Making light of another editors concerns in this fashion is not civil, but I know that you know that as well. Kevin (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How dare you be so blatant in your double-standards? That editor repeatedly referred to my contributions as a "radical gay agenda", but you never made any attempts to dissuade them from such behavior. Instead of getting up in arms, i chose to make light of the situation by pointing out how their most nonsensical statement on that page was actually quite funny. This is much better than telling them how absolutely unintelligent they sounded. If you are going to scold me for pointing out the obvious joke in what they wrote, i'm going to insist that you also speak to them (and anybody else over there) about the way they behave towards me. If you keep up this double-standard, i will take your behavior to the attention of somebody over your head, starting with the person from the Mediation Cabal on that page, and continuing with whichever other administrators need to be notified of the way you are treating me, particularly with respect to the way you are not treating other editors similarly. I've had enough of your highly selective targeting of some comments while willfully ignoring others. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 06:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Read the comment by Lyonscc more carefully Tele - he is not saying you have a radical agenda.--VS ^talk 06:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is totally bogus, and you can't deny it. Look at that page and its archives and consider how many times i was treated dismissively and abusively. Then tell me you don't see a double-standard. I'm furious, but i'm remaining civil. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 06:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that I apply a double standard, and I have spent more time watching the article recently to try and avoid missing things. Steve is right though, Lyonscc wasn't referring to you, and indeed made this clearer in a later edit. Had this been directed at you I would certainly have warned him for it. Twice now you've mentioned taking things over my head, as you put it. I strongly recommend that you do. Find someone uninvolved whose opinion you respect and get their thoughts on the situation and your treatment. Kevin (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, i will do exactly that. I will honestly listen to constructive criticism and subsequently will improve my edits and tone and demeanor. But i will not appreciate unfounded censorship nor outright dismissal of what i say without giving it at least some consideration as to its literal correctness. Please give me a little while to find another uninvolved person, and i will point them right here. Thank you Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 10:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is where i started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mccready#request_for_your_assistance_please_as_an_uninvolved_and_objective_outsider

Also, i would genuinely accept constructive criticisms from ZimZalaBim if they have anything to suggest, but i don't know if this is an appropriate wish, because ZimZalaBim is already involved to a certain extent in the discussions where you raise your possible concerns about my conduct. I don't know if they watch my Talk Page, but if they do, i would seriously be thankful for their viewpoint, because they have behaved in what appears (to me) to be a totally civil and constructive manner. Is it also okay for me to point out that i never had any kind of Welcome Wagon and i never had anybody discuss any sort of policies, civility, or wikipedia guidelines with me until just the past couple of months, and i had to basically do all my own research and self-education and get up to speed very quickly here, all the while tolerating what i feel have been very dismissive and unconstructive comments from several editors? I don't say this because i want some kind of sympathy or pity, i say this because i am trying to show you how i have made a learning curve from zero to (one might argue) excessively prissy and politically correct for the sake of not being accused of personal attacks or disruptive abuse. At least, that's how i see it, and if you see where i'm wrong, i will gladly adapt. Thank you kindly Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Btw, since you were the first one here about Rick Warren. When did you start discussing it? I wanna be able to say, this has been going on for X months. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In my Contributions History i found my first diff for Rick Warren on 25th of December 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Warren&diff=prev&oldid=260128079 Then you can see the edit-war and the sidetracking of issues on SaddleBack Church, etc etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090203111430&target=Teledildonix314 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Teledildonix314

So just looking at my history, and not mentioning Mike Doughney who was there earlier i believe (because i felt like he was the first to Bite The Newbie when i contributed), it is now precisely two months since i began my self-education of Wikipedia by jumping headlong into the whole mess. I learned some things, but i'm afraid i have caused people to spend so much time unnecessarily on stuff which really shouldn't be so important. I feel like i'm walking on eggshells because i have had my language policed to the point where i am becoming hypersensitive and crazily politically correct to avoid using my own preferred style of language which was deemed too blunt and not helpful. I wish i had never said anything in the first place, and had a more soft and gradual approach to all of this, instead of such a horrible First Impression which i seem to have blundered to smithereens. Oh well, live and learn, i guess. Well, i try. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your frustrations at Kevin's page

Tele - I can understand your frustration (and I am damn sure Kevin can also) but your latest comment concerning Lyonscc and then your biting Kevin with regards his warning relates to the latest comment by Lyonscc in which case he is not referring to you personally. I am picking you up on this belief by you only. I might also ask that you look at my history of interaction with you personally, to reiterate I couldn't care less about your sexual preference, your user name etc so you have no fear there; indeed I also do not care one iota if you are for or against religion; for or against Warren; nor the Saddleback Church, etc. Indeed look through my user contributions - see how I have blocked both sides of the debate, and only yesterday indefinitely banned one particular user of the Rick Warren group who can no longer be trusted by the community? Trust me - no matter how busy I am if you or any other editor of this group comes to me to complain about any other regular editor's lack of civility (and I'n not talking about dredging up something of a week ago but rather coming to me within a short period of less than 31 hours) then I will block that editor within a day or two (given my real life requirements). That's a standard promise to all - indeed point to this diff when you come to my talk page - and of course point to it again if you (or others) get caught in the same collateral damage.--VS ^talk 07:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Noticed the comment, subsequently withdrawn at my talk page. Tele I just want to reiterate I have no absolute difficulty with you and believe it or not (althought Rick Warren is not the best place to test this theory let me tell you), almost all of the other, more than 1,000,000 editors here do not either. Indeed my take on you is that you have most likely had to confront others from time to time in your living effort to exemplify to all that diversity of opinion, interests, persuasion etc is what colours and betters the world, yes? Can I kindly remind you that Wikipedia is just another worldly dimension - even if it is a relentless world because every single thing we do in it is recorded. My advice if I may - sweep away the eggshells; be kind to others but especially to yourself, treat all editors similarly and absolutely never ever lose your cool (become Mr Unflappable as you put it); oh and pull up all that thick skin that you have left slip to your ankles but which you have already cultured in the real world; until such time as a direct insult requires you to seek some admin armour support. My best wishes.--VS ^talk 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work today

Just wanted to let you know that I really appreciated your comments today. Now maybe it's time to "step away from the keyboard" before somebody... oh, never mind. I'm sure lots of nonsense will now ensue. Cheers. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My head almost exploded when i finally caught on to this spectacular COI due to your diligent investigation, MikeDoughney, and i must say i am grateful and enthusiastically thankful for all the help you have given me, despite the way i really got off On The Wrong Foot with you a couple months ago... if it weren't for your occasional words of scintillating sanity, i probably would have completely given up on some of the principles i was holding rather dearly in these processes! You have been immensely gracious in your efforts, and i am going to learn from your example, thank you kindly --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COIN#Rick_Warren_and_Saddleback_Church_and_Saddlebacking

I'm going to need a major wikibreak to avoid going completely batshit-insane supernova-ball-of-flame tantrum-flinging screaming-hysterically at the amount of frustration this has caused me needlessly for nine weeks, impugning my actions and contributions, forcing me to jump through their hoops of Gaming The System while constantly tricking me into thinking i had to accomodate their concerns. I would have said this is one of the most unethical things i have ever seen outside of the world of money and financial greed; but actually when i realize that Rick Warren and the Saddleback Church and CarverM and all the other employees of the megachurches have a personal vested interest in the ongoing social acceptance and financial profits of their tax-exempt institutions of anti-humanist discrimination, slander, scapegoating, hatemongering, and superstition purveying, then i realize it is just another example of how some people will put personal gain ahead of the ethics of friendly interaction whenever there is religion and serious money involved. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, good work by you 2. Teledidonix, request VirtualSteve to agree to mediation for you while you are blocked, then rest for a week and then come back :) Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility block

I have provided an outcome with regards the complaint you commenced in light of CarverM's COI however as I have stated to you previously you should be careful to not lose your own civility and good manners also. Towards that end the diffs provided by THF and commented on by others (here at my talk page) are further examples of such continuing poor behaviour - brought about to some extent by your tendency to be both too adamant and loquatious - and are very recent examples of lack of civility which I will not ignore. I am going to give a 7 day holiday - you have three choices: (1) appeal the block; (2) accept, consider your own tendencies a little more and return as an "unflabbergastable" editor; or (3) accept, not consider and come back to repeat your transgressions. I hope that you can do number 2. I will post a normal block notice below this message to give you the necessary links should you choose 1.--VS ^talk 23:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing civility concerns as detailed at my talk page (link provided above). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS ^talk 23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Teledildonix314 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To paraphrase another editor, Your objections are purely subjective and seem to confuse the act of criticizing commonly held religious beliefs in American culture with "personal attack." There is clearly a difference. In this case, those commonly held religious beliefs apparently are being used to justify a rather relentless effort to sanitize a number of articles of anything other than information that portrays the subject in a positive light. As such, they are open for discussion and are relevant to the dispute at hand. In particular [the criticisms] accurately describe the dynamic evident in what's been going on at Talk:Rick Warren over the past nine weeks. Furthermore, the blocking is supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and you are applying this for a two-month old situation for which i already apologized repeatedly and did not repeat, and that situation was revealed to be particularly inflammatory to me because i was a newbie being goaded by editors who have now been successfully identified as imposing their Conflict Of Interest on my efforts. Despite nine weeks in which i was doggedly forced to Assume Good Faith and not be unCivil to the very people who were subjecting me to personal attacks and dismissing my work as merely the product of a "radical gay activist" (as they repeatedly posted on numerous discussions besides just that one quoted, which you Virtual Steve must have witnessed for two months) i still maintained the guidelines and spirit of Civil policies by avoiding any obscenities and by using strictly the language which could be clearly supported by objective diffs and citations. Then insult was frequently added to injury as i (refraining from editing contentiously even before the articles were edit-protected, going to the TalkPages and asking editors for consensus!) tolerated accusations of "religous" editing and endured abuse from the COI editors who were dismissive and biased, until you finally had to Warn and Block some of them. Then when editors such as Spotfixer realized the pattern of your behavior (shoot first, ask questions later, cover your own butt by going back with retroactive impugnment rather than preventative education which would have been more appropriate from experienced administrators and mediators) they said they would point out your Conservative Bias Cabal, and you slapped a Block on them despite their months of justifiable outrage, then you slapped a block on me today even after i had already proven to you for several weeks that i made no personal attacks and no improper edits to any article whatsoever. Your claims of neutrality and detachment are only believable if your actions follow the guidelines for Prevention, rather than Punishment and Retribution. Perhaps you are feeling personal anger at having to spend so much of your valuable time dealing with editors who refused to give up their wiki principles despite an onslaught of coordinated COI ("the squeaky wheel gets the grease", but at what cost?) and rather than acknowledge the destructive treatment i have endured (which would have caused even more experienced editors to squeak a lot more loudly) you try to claim constructive aims while defending their insistence on trying to forbid me from using certain words they don't like or certain criticisms which don't give sycophantic deference to their religious beliefs. If i had used obscenities then you might be able to make some kind of a case; but when i take the time to deliberately sanitize my language to be politically correct and use only defensible objective words such as "superstition and hatemongering" rather than the appropriate obscenities for this type of anti-humanist anti-encyclopedia anti-information-sharing behavior, you feel you should block me despite those words all being one hundred percent accurate, verfied from reliable sources, frequently cited with diffs; and actually i would say i was above and beyond what should be expected for the sake of CIVIL, as no less than five other editors on those TalkPages attested to the frustrations which were being intentionally manipulated against me-- those other editors also including the official Mediator and random people who came over to respond to the Requests For Comments. This is an abhorrent case of censorship being combined with clearly improperly applied punitive administrative actions, and after nine weeks of dealing with these disgusting abuses i have yet to receive any sign of an apology from the people who were proven to have Applicable COI or from the administrators such as Virtual Steve who were supposed to be helping rather than choosing sides.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= To paraphrase another editor, ''Your objections are purely subjective and seem to confuse the act of criticizing commonly held religious beliefs in American culture with "personal attack." There is clearly a difference. In this case, those commonly held religious beliefs apparently are being used to justify a rather relentless effort to sanitize a number of articles of anything other than information that portrays the subject in a positive light. As such, they are open for discussion and are relevant to the dispute at hand. In particular [the criticisms] accurately describe the dynamic evident in what's been going on at Talk:Rick Warren over the past nine weeks.'' Furthermore, the blocking is supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and you are applying this for a two-month old situation for which i already apologized repeatedly and did not repeat, and that situation was revealed to be particularly inflammatory to me because i was a newbie being goaded by editors who have now been successfully identified as imposing their Conflict Of Interest on my efforts. Despite nine weeks in which i was doggedly forced to Assume Good Faith and not be unCivil to the very people who were subjecting me to personal attacks and dismissing my work as merely the product of a "radical gay activist" (as they repeatedly posted on numerous discussions besides just that one quoted, which you Virtual Steve must have witnessed for two months) i still maintained the guidelines and spirit of Civil policies by avoiding any obscenities and by using strictly the language which could be clearly supported by objective diffs and citations. Then insult was frequently added to injury as i (refraining from editing contentiously even ''before'' the articles were edit-protected, going to the TalkPages and asking editors for consensus!) tolerated accusations of "religous" editing and endured abuse from the COI editors who were dismissive and biased, until you finally had to Warn and Block some of them. Then when editors such as Spotfixer realized the pattern of your behavior (shoot first, ask questions later, cover your own butt by going back with retroactive impugnment rather than preventative education which would have been more appropriate from experienced administrators and mediators) they said they would point out your Conservative Bias Cabal, and you slapped a Block on them despite their months of justifiable outrage, then you slapped a block on me today even after i had already proven to you for several weeks that i made no personal attacks and no improper edits to any article whatsoever. Your claims of neutrality and detachment are only believable if your actions follow the guidelines for Prevention, rather than Punishment and Retribution. Perhaps you are feeling personal anger at having to spend so much of your valuable time dealing with editors who refused to give up their wiki principles despite an onslaught of coordinated COI ("the squeaky wheel gets the grease", but at what cost?) and rather than acknowledge the destructive treatment i have endured (which would have caused even more experienced editors to squeak a lot more loudly) you try to claim constructive aims while defending their insistence on trying to forbid me from using certain words they don't like or certain criticisms which don't give sycophantic deference to their religious beliefs. If i had used obscenities then you might be able to make some kind of a case; but when i take the time to deliberately sanitize my language to be politically correct and use only defensible objective words such as "superstition and hatemongering" rather than the appropriate obscenities for this type of anti-humanist anti-encyclopedia anti-information-sharing behavior, you feel you should block me despite those words all being one hundred percent accurate, verfied from reliable sources, frequently cited with diffs; and actually i would say i was above and beyond what should be expected for the sake of CIVIL, as no less than five other editors on those TalkPages attested to the frustrations which were being intentionally manipulated against me-- those other editors also including the official Mediator and random people who came over to respond to the Requests For Comments. This is an abhorrent case of censorship being combined with clearly improperly applied punitive administrative actions, and after nine weeks of dealing with these disgusting abuses i have yet to receive any sign of an apology from the people who were proven to have Applicable COI or from the administrators such as Virtual Steve who were supposed to be helping rather than choosing sides. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= To paraphrase another editor, ''Your objections are purely subjective and seem to confuse the act of criticizing commonly held religious beliefs in American culture with "personal attack." There is clearly a difference. In this case, those commonly held religious beliefs apparently are being used to justify a rather relentless effort to sanitize a number of articles of anything other than information that portrays the subject in a positive light. As such, they are open for discussion and are relevant to the dispute at hand. In particular [the criticisms] accurately describe the dynamic evident in what's been going on at Talk:Rick Warren over the past nine weeks.'' Furthermore, the blocking is supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and you are applying this for a two-month old situation for which i already apologized repeatedly and did not repeat, and that situation was revealed to be particularly inflammatory to me because i was a newbie being goaded by editors who have now been successfully identified as imposing their Conflict Of Interest on my efforts. Despite nine weeks in which i was doggedly forced to Assume Good Faith and not be unCivil to the very people who were subjecting me to personal attacks and dismissing my work as merely the product of a "radical gay activist" (as they repeatedly posted on numerous discussions besides just that one quoted, which you Virtual Steve must have witnessed for two months) i still maintained the guidelines and spirit of Civil policies by avoiding any obscenities and by using strictly the language which could be clearly supported by objective diffs and citations. Then insult was frequently added to injury as i (refraining from editing contentiously even ''before'' the articles were edit-protected, going to the TalkPages and asking editors for consensus!) tolerated accusations of "religous" editing and endured abuse from the COI editors who were dismissive and biased, until you finally had to Warn and Block some of them. Then when editors such as Spotfixer realized the pattern of your behavior (shoot first, ask questions later, cover your own butt by going back with retroactive impugnment rather than preventative education which would have been more appropriate from experienced administrators and mediators) they said they would point out your Conservative Bias Cabal, and you slapped a Block on them despite their months of justifiable outrage, then you slapped a block on me today even after i had already proven to you for several weeks that i made no personal attacks and no improper edits to any article whatsoever. Your claims of neutrality and detachment are only believable if your actions follow the guidelines for Prevention, rather than Punishment and Retribution. Perhaps you are feeling personal anger at having to spend so much of your valuable time dealing with editors who refused to give up their wiki principles despite an onslaught of coordinated COI ("the squeaky wheel gets the grease", but at what cost?) and rather than acknowledge the destructive treatment i have endured (which would have caused even more experienced editors to squeak a lot more loudly) you try to claim constructive aims while defending their insistence on trying to forbid me from using certain words they don't like or certain criticisms which don't give sycophantic deference to their religious beliefs. If i had used obscenities then you might be able to make some kind of a case; but when i take the time to deliberately sanitize my language to be politically correct and use only defensible objective words such as "superstition and hatemongering" rather than the appropriate obscenities for this type of anti-humanist anti-encyclopedia anti-information-sharing behavior, you feel you should block me despite those words all being one hundred percent accurate, verfied from reliable sources, frequently cited with diffs; and actually i would say i was above and beyond what should be expected for the sake of CIVIL, as no less than five other editors on those TalkPages attested to the frustrations which were being intentionally manipulated against me-- those other editors also including the official Mediator and random people who came over to respond to the Requests For Comments. This is an abhorrent case of censorship being combined with clearly improperly applied punitive administrative actions, and after nine weeks of dealing with these disgusting abuses i have yet to receive any sign of an apology from the people who were proven to have Applicable COI or from the administrators such as Virtual Steve who were supposed to be helping rather than choosing sides. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= To paraphrase another editor, ''Your objections are purely subjective and seem to confuse the act of criticizing commonly held religious beliefs in American culture with "personal attack." There is clearly a difference. In this case, those commonly held religious beliefs apparently are being used to justify a rather relentless effort to sanitize a number of articles of anything other than information that portrays the subject in a positive light. As such, they are open for discussion and are relevant to the dispute at hand. In particular [the criticisms] accurately describe the dynamic evident in what's been going on at Talk:Rick Warren over the past nine weeks.'' Furthermore, the blocking is supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and you are applying this for a two-month old situation for which i already apologized repeatedly and did not repeat, and that situation was revealed to be particularly inflammatory to me because i was a newbie being goaded by editors who have now been successfully identified as imposing their Conflict Of Interest on my efforts. Despite nine weeks in which i was doggedly forced to Assume Good Faith and not be unCivil to the very people who were subjecting me to personal attacks and dismissing my work as merely the product of a "radical gay activist" (as they repeatedly posted on numerous discussions besides just that one quoted, which you Virtual Steve must have witnessed for two months) i still maintained the guidelines and spirit of Civil policies by avoiding any obscenities and by using strictly the language which could be clearly supported by objective diffs and citations. Then insult was frequently added to injury as i (refraining from editing contentiously even ''before'' the articles were edit-protected, going to the TalkPages and asking editors for consensus!) tolerated accusations of "religous" editing and endured abuse from the COI editors who were dismissive and biased, until you finally had to Warn and Block some of them. Then when editors such as Spotfixer realized the pattern of your behavior (shoot first, ask questions later, cover your own butt by going back with retroactive impugnment rather than preventative education which would have been more appropriate from experienced administrators and mediators) they said they would point out your Conservative Bias Cabal, and you slapped a Block on them despite their months of justifiable outrage, then you slapped a block on me today even after i had already proven to you for several weeks that i made no personal attacks and no improper edits to any article whatsoever. Your claims of neutrality and detachment are only believable if your actions follow the guidelines for Prevention, rather than Punishment and Retribution. Perhaps you are feeling personal anger at having to spend so much of your valuable time dealing with editors who refused to give up their wiki principles despite an onslaught of coordinated COI ("the squeaky wheel gets the grease", but at what cost?) and rather than acknowledge the destructive treatment i have endured (which would have caused even more experienced editors to squeak a lot more loudly) you try to claim constructive aims while defending their insistence on trying to forbid me from using certain words they don't like or certain criticisms which don't give sycophantic deference to their religious beliefs. If i had used obscenities then you might be able to make some kind of a case; but when i take the time to deliberately sanitize my language to be politically correct and use only defensible objective words such as "superstition and hatemongering" rather than the appropriate obscenities for this type of anti-humanist anti-encyclopedia anti-information-sharing behavior, you feel you should block me despite those words all being one hundred percent accurate, verfied from reliable sources, frequently cited with diffs; and actually i would say i was above and beyond what should be expected for the sake of CIVIL, as no less than five other editors on those TalkPages attested to the frustrations which were being intentionally manipulated against me-- those other editors also including the official Mediator and random people who came over to respond to the Requests For Comments. This is an abhorrent case of censorship being combined with clearly improperly applied punitive administrative actions, and after nine weeks of dealing with these disgusting abuses i have yet to receive any sign of an apology from the people who were proven to have Applicable COI or from the administrators such as Virtual Steve who were supposed to be helping rather than choosing sides. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

FYI

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Teledildonix if you require it (whilst you are blocked) I will be happy to add any agreement or disagreement comment to the page detailed by Phoenix on your behalf. If that is your desire please add your comment below in this thread and I will copy and paste accordingly.--VS ^talk 01:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)