User talk:Hilarleo

Hello Hilarleo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! NikoSilver 10:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello again

In what exact way may I be useful to you? I briefly checked your links and saw they are astronomy-related, but I have no idea on the dispute(s) at hand (not to mention about astronomy as a subject in general). The best advice I can give you, is to find independent, verifiable and reliable sources, and to paste those sources as references along with the changes you wish to make in these articles. Check out WP:BLP for the first one also. Be sure your views are represented in due proportion within the article, and also to be civil to others (even when provoked) and to discuss your changes. That should do it, but if it doesn't, there are steps for dispute resolution you can follow. Cheers, and good luck! NikoSilver 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, babelfish translated Watch out literally! (like as if the watch is out for partying). Anyway, I still don't understand. Who did what when and why? Why is that bad? I really can't help if I don't know the basics of the dispute. I don't even know if there's a dispute to begin with... NikoSilver 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the sources are not that reliable yet, then I'm afraid Wikipedia doesn't give a dime. Wikipedia does not care about The Truth^TM; it only cares about what is verifiable. So, these sources have to fight their battle elsewhere, to become more reliable, more academic, more mainstream, more cabalistic, and professed by esteemed scholars, before they make their way into WP. I respect your view (and I really know zilt about the issue), but you have chosen the wrong medium to propose it. Wikipedia merely reflects what people say out there. Not what the truth is, no matter how right, how against the media/whatever cabal, or how good that is. Sorry for not being able to help in this site, and pardon my bluntness in my last advice: find reliable sources -or- try elsewhere to make those sources deserve the "reliable" label. NikoSilver 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Eckankar has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'groups\.yahoo\.com' (link(s): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SFS) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Eckankar do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'groups\.yahoo\.com' (link(s): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SFS) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonny Rollins and narcotics

You've been expanding this section today. Any chance of adding some references - for example on the extent to which a lifestyle-recovery was unusual at that time (relative to others - say Coltrane?) and Rollins own fears? Otherwise the paragraph is open to Citation-required notices. AllyD (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As indeed I see another editor just did! AllyD (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad ya din't bother to link to the article/section in question. I dunno what you're off about. But pleeze, *FEEL FREE* to add all the useful material ya got there. Tschuss! Happy nu-YARRR!!!Hilarleo (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Rick Santorum and other things

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time at the moment to do major editing work like breaking up this page - if you think you can do it yourself, then I encourage you to be bold and just go ahead and do it. If not, I should be able to properly look at it myself later this week.

As for Alexander Zhukov - the article was on a minor Russian professor who didn't seem particularly notable. You may have him confused with Viktor Zubkov (Russian prime minister and President Medvedev's successor). But if you feel the article should be restored, feel free to make a request at WP:Deletion review.

Lastly, as for my user name - it's not any commercial fantasy character that I'm aware of, it's a name I made up myself (for a fantasy roleplaying game) and use on the Internet. There is a Marvel comics character called Terrax, which is quite similar, but I only found out about that after I chose the name.

If you have any other comments or messages, please send them - if not, happy new year, and happy editing! Terraxos (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Calpernia Addams

Um...what? Otto4711 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

William Leonard Pickard

I find your edits problematic, most notably in terms of NPOV, BLP, and REF. Please review those three pages and begin making use of references whenever you add content. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas- Have you any particular interest in the William Leonard Pickard case- Or do you simply seek and follow new editing activity? I wager the latter- or, I maintain, you'd be aware of something of the nature of particularly difficult research. This Pickard case is not new- but the article reads as if. Why? Allow me to refer you to two quotes from Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

“Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily. As with a house, knowledge takes time to build. Don't be the inspector, prying the seams apart before the product is even near-presentable…”

"Wikipedia, the potential "sum of all human knowledge", as a general rule, is a work-in-progress. Wikipedia is not published all at once. It evolves and grows. Every article is still being written, albeit slowly..."

Wikipedia (WP) guidelines have an inherent bias around our own prejudices against counter-cultures, undergrounds, criminals, etc.- our cultural 'shadow'- in that the guidelines assume an unlikely 'good faith' matrix of freely-available data- and an educated culture. It's unpopular for Americans to consider, but cultural/political forces do have means & motive to warp 'verifiable sources' of the most widely-disseminated information. It's a centralized science. Chomsky has related this process to CIA "Nation building": In the USA, numerous journals still notoriously carry CIA material and 'planted' writers- part of a decadent Corporate system designed to support the status quo and to be impenetrable to democracy. And this process indicates a new magnitude of :notability for affected data. So- Does WP care? No.

But some examples illustrate how it should inform Editorial consensus: A century ago, culturally-biased "verifiable sources" told us Africans were closer to brute Hominids than white 'humans'. Today we say we have protections in place. But it's a convenience; a facade. With significant revelations concerning fundamental problems within the FBI (a primary source of what defines 'verifiable information' to a still-rascist society) the only criticism on that page or linking to it concerns safely-dead J. Edgar Hoover. This is not balance. It's incredible. But it's not all the fault of our apolitical masses of WP Editors. It's partially a result of "Nation Building"- culturally assumed and culturally directed propaganda- anf a situation inviting contextual Deconstruction.

Officially-tolerated information concerning non-co-optable counter-cultures (increasingly defined as Crime, Nationalism, Terrorism) has become vanishingly rare in the corporate New world order (NWO); by design such prominent subjects appear increasingly less-notable (Nonpersons) in NWO's 'official', 'verifiable sources' and its dominant culture. "Official State" cultures today deny the legitimacy or prescence of media in prisons and most other war zones. But does the response indicate suppressed matters are unimportant? Paradoxically the situation can actually indicate a far greater import to events- as both rare material and as profound elements of the Jungian 'shadow'. Does this mean WP has no ability to present these matters encyclopedically and responsibly? Not at all.

But it means the balance to the article must be approached all the more carefully- and boldly. WP:Policy is not promotion of WP:Truth- so this has to remain an Editorial agenda. Other Editors will find it pays to distort consensus to the status quo...

I've only been with this page for a few weeks; but even I can see that removing every (non-libelous,) "controversial" (ie., unpopular, difficult to reconcile, and/or unsourced] bit of info as they arrive will tend to move this article 2-steps back. Editors attracted to the article lose the historic consensus (generally reported and remebered) picture in favor of a pendulumn swing back to the Lowest common denominator, and the work to construct the most accurate picture of the situation suffers. Demanding obscure, 'contoversial' data be removed before it can even be verified is drive-by editing at its worst.

Reconciliation of the issue will not lie at more subtle layers of WP policy. But a culture of "Drive-By Editors" must become mature enough to deal with a more-nuanced etiquette. Better and more productive is to research- to build and to validate development of the best possible articles and create a consensus of informed readership. Surely there's something more construvtive we could be doing than simply pointing out the obvious to demand deletions on the points of a blind ideology. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v 09:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Halton Arp Critics

Hilarleo, I don't edit much on Wikipedia anymore, but I have noticed that the Halton Arp "Critics" section is still an incoherent POV mess. Do you want to have a shot at cleaning it up, or would you rather wait until I get around to it (which could be a long wait)? LowKey (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" vs "Alternative theoretical formulations"- dANGER aHEAD

LowKey, <3-2...LOVE to. Just realized this same Editor crowd was the November 2006 focus of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience; & it's been going on far longer than that.

I do feel that to fight a broad and reasoned Editors' consensus, a (tiny) minority has consistently used tenacity- plus pointy defs of what is a specific "verifiable" source. Among specific competing science journals, claims are made that "My journals are more verifiable than yours". This is abuse of Policy. It's clear what we have here is WP:NPOV#Alternative theoretical formulations. All this stuff is 'mainstream' science; fully published (just maybe not always in America).

So the resulting contentious articles are of course messy, impenetrable jargon. Yet the positions inherently described are actually impressively intuitive, a full magnitude beyond the current Academic position (ie., the "98% indetectable, 'dark-matter' universe" [that's a religion- my native Catholicism]). I'd assume this foul result is the objective of the minority- to denigrate Arp's potentially revolutionary elegant (and competing) work. BTW I learned one of the minority works at Max Plank- as does Arp...Is this so petty?

Resolution may one day fall to further WP policy like Alternative theories, and more pointy defs of what is a specific "verifiable" source among specific competing journals. But this is approaching stupid. Policy is being abused by pointy-ness for win. In fact, just to scare off previous mediators (one assigned), the minority's pulled out technical arguments only experts can follow, and we're 'off to the races' again, without the mediator. My own observations supporting existing consensus have likewise been attacked by the minority as part of the "pseudo-scientific" consensus oppossing the 'more reasonable', more familiar "Standard Cosmology". But...ew, can science be both 'Standard' AND a "Alternative Theory"? American know this intuitively- There can be no 'alternatives'. We have huge investments and constructs surrounding yesterdays' 'theoretical formulations, and they serve us well enough. Capitalism <3's Big Science, so it's the one true BS. In our increasingly polarized, floundering culture, there's just not enough money to go around for competitive science. Anti-Arp minorities must defend status quo sciences... like Nukes, they cannot compete alone.Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v 11:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Remove This Page

but 1st things 1st- Taint no thang if we move yer righteous name off-page- Arite? -Kthnx

Pointy-headed editors inevitably tend to be over-represented. They exploit a WP flaw which allows such to make the most of small talents via use bots instead of brains. However life teaches us the way to improve things is to become involved. Conversely I have on occasion seen destoyed interests which I'd unfortunately withdrawn from. Others may have mentioned elsewhere that Mr Rane might himself tend to alientate the same associates who might otherwise care about deleting this page for the sake of his private endeavors. Is there even any appropriate Greek tragedy?

Ew..."private endeavors"? Joel may or may not have more to say (see below) than he allows- we'll see indeed. So in the spirit of full participation and as immolation for any WP 1st-Person squeamishness Joel feels**, I offer- from my Google Mail Achives dated 15Feb2009 [& with my interpolated appeals]...

Subject: Barrington Hall page on Wikipedia

Greetings, friends,

[Ah- :-) we are back to 'friends' 2day? Well- - 8-D Howdy Doody U2]

If you navigate to the Barrington Hall page at wikipedia:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBarrington_Hall

You'll see at the top that a Wikipedia editor has challenged it once again.

[An 'editor'? 'At the top'?? Heavy WP moj'...]

I suspect that most of the page will soon be taken down.

[LOLs. This community's survived boring BS before; it will survive yer willfull ignoring]

In fact, if you click on the word "Discussion" at the top of the wiki page, you'll see that I am doing my best to provoke that reaction.

[Ew? Click 'Discussion' for magic? I've seen discrete 'editors'- ie., individuals- frustrate mediators into haole paralysis, but never vanish pages- not w/o some legal mojo. You cant get this page by begging- But you can get yer name took out w/ jest a lil' request. Go ahead, Real.]

I am not completely happy that ANYTHING about Barrington Hall is on the Wikipedia.

[Welcome to WP, Editor]

But "there is another"...for a few years I've owned the domain

"http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.californiawiki.org",

[ FaceBook sells domains? The matter of internet 2nd & 3rd party ownership is an evolving and squiqqly affair]

-with the intention of creating a tour guide. I've been told for years by my folks that my encyclopedic knowledge of LA would make a ripping book (blush),

[Our chapbook author's parentals' compliment- How faux-naif .

Rane does have some broad experience of Cali locations; his posts & sentiments here express the depths of his sediments]

but I think the wiki is a better format than a book.

[You may seek a second opinion on that... (if you havent already) chat up an accountant]

I've got the MediaWiki software up and working, and thanks to this complaint at Wikipedia I have my first page up:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.californiawiki.org%2Fwiki%2FBarrington_Hall

Yeah, I just stole all the code from Wikipedia,

[considering the material's freely available, this appears self-characterization]

but what I'd like to do is make this the REAL Barrington page.

[ie., RANE'S?]

Once I figure out how to configure the user permissions,

[U & FB]

I'd like to create a user group just to edit this page. In fact, I'd kinda like to create a user group just to SEE this page, but I'll open that one up in the discussion board. Please use the discussion board rather than individually replying to this message.

I want California Wiki to be a personal page, with individual stories and named authors, and it will be "closed", so that only people I know (or perhaps that know them) can add to it. For now the Barrington Hall page is wide open...in case you can't contain yourself. Thanks and if I have blown you a kiss yet...smack!

- Joel

So does Mr. Joel Rane prefer no proliferation of Barrington information- No competition? He insists on being the sole REAL? How deep. Yet he will now depend on contributors. Perhaps some lack of interest in the ways of competition half-way explains why he believes his contributors' posts in Facebook will become 'his'- and not FB's. Typically he who pays the online piper has the hidden small print to call this tune; bon chance. At least now there's now some evidence of precedence & intent here.

-leo "all that smack is not sweet" sullivan

(:**btw there's a cure which involves no chemical: Barringtonia - & anything and everything Barrington Hall- should be represented in the Barrington Collection of The Bancroft Library. This is the scary-fun Sanctum Sanctorum of Cal; and deserves patronage from all CalBears _{[& the Bancroft HAS returned to the permanent, hermetically-controlled underground location @north end of the Doe Library complex]}. Please consider gifting all your USCA/BA ephemera to the Bancroft in your wills- your grandkids sure wont care.) Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

Barrington but 1st.Astanhope

• • Just in case you didn't see this on the Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Barrington_Hall --AStanhope (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • P.S. In terms of me excising that note, in rethinking it, I realize that I did so because it felt like it was there to torment Joel and I didn't think we needed to do that. No hard feelings towards you. The anti-Barrington jerks who revert everything we do in that article don't need any more ammo against the article - and Joel is a living, breathing person who I am fond of and didn't want to see him get slapped around publicly. If you want to beat up Joel online, maybe do it in the Facebook group instead? --AStanhope (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AS: Your rationale which you posted at [[User talk:Hilarleo#but 1st (& I recommend it 2 all concerned with the issues this page raises) is no more than the sentimental, reactionary impulse on display elsewhere. "We" post nothing. *I* post for my own ends, which you do not ken. But you admit your reasons are invalid as WP policy while you construe effective argument as personal attack- the kind of thing you evidently feel free to engage in with me. Do not project your issues on me. OTOH IF you rilly need to infantilize little lost Joel, pull the damn page down as he requests. What a muddle you offer. No wonder the page attracts haters.

And as for your "jerk" Editor(where, btw, such language is objective personal attack on Minderbinder, more aggressive than anything required by he or I, b/c *We* offer valid arguments)- This article is poorly sourced according to the current development of WP guidelines, and Mb serves "Us" well to illustrate that it's common knowledge. Who takes a position he can't win when there are options? OR are you puppetting for other, banned Editors? Your defense of this page is degraded; It's disingenuous of you to argue your preferred end justifies every discourtesy you choose to employ against those who oppose whim. And any connaivance you suggest speaks for itself.

In spite of- or b/c of the liberal cant, I begin to suspect your process has yet to be bothered with reflection anywhere near up to the issues you encounter. The problems humans face are not produced by dialectic. It is the means of our evolution... except for the oblivious who can internalize failure and iaolate from the real. I begin to appreciate some of Joel's objections about this page.

Hilarleo00:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re countercultures & 'reliable published sources'

Hi. This doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article, more an escaped bit of talk page discussion; so rather than propose it for deletion I have moved it into your user space at User:Hilarleo/Re countercultures & 'reliable published sources'. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you. but I dont understand what's happened. Indeed it is an escaped page of mine talk page. But the page and my info seems to be deleted now, so it or I may be back...Hilarleo (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The page in article-space has been deleted, but your material is still there in your user-subpage where I moved it: click on the blue-link in my note just above. JohnCD (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your very prompt help John. Hilarleo (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure. JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Shambhala wiki

Hey Hilarleo, I'm working on a Shambhala wiki. Any interest in helping? Or reviewing the format? I'm looking for experienced wiki editors for feedback and to help. The site is at labelingthoughts.org if you have a moment. thanks! - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan King/GA2

Hey, I'll be reviewing this. You should get some feedback by Thursday at the latest. — R² 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

David D'Or

I noticed your comment in the David D'Or GA review: You seem to have an enthusiastic group of 5 recent editors- correct? The fact is that three of them are the same person:

• Ethelh
• Epeefleche
• 68.173.101.114

I have not yet reported it as sockpuppetry because there seems to be no evidence of vandalism or harassment and because I don't have the time to detail all the evidence, which at times is subtle. I am not the only person to have noticed it. See: User talk:68.173.101.114#User pages and User talk:Smerus#68.173.101.114.

I don't know if this affects your review or not, but wanted to let you know. Contributions/12.76.152.200 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)