User talk:Wikipediatrix

What about fair application of rules

Hi Wikipediatrix, I think we share some librarian mind together. So, you as a Wiki oldtimer could be helpful to keep in Wikipedia rules. Unfortunately those we not applied just now on the A.S.I. article. What shall we do? Misou 02:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the last hint. That helped improving the article. Misou 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correction

Hi Wikipediatrix and thanks for the correction on the Dianetics page. Anteaus has given me some advice on where to look to edit. I'm also interested in history, especially the history of psychology. My bias is towards skepticism in the scientific field, and I have done some studies on misattribution in pop psychology and the development of mind myths. I'll have a good look at where and how best to add facts, and may well ask for your advice on possible additions/clarifications. Sincerely Helen Wu 04:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for vigilance

Wikipediatrix, thank you for reverting the vandalism of Streamlight. I think this user will need some administrator attention soon. --Fahrenheit451 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps David Gerard can run some more IP address checks. I think it's interesting that Streamlight, who had been dormant for a couple months, sprang back to life on May 1, the same day that Spirit of Man ceased posting. Also, Olberon joined that very same week, on April 26, and his very first act on Wikipedia was to immediately take up the exact same edit-war on the Fair Game article that 87.227.20.229 (RIPE, a European ISP) had been doing the day before. None of this necessarily proves anything, of course. But it is curious. wikipediatrix 18:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep calling other contributors sock puppets? --Nikitchenko 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey look, now Nikitchenko's suddenly back, how about that! In the above paragraph, I haven't directly accused anyone of being a sock puppet - yet. wikipediatrix 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of dubious tag

Why did you revert my addition of the dubious tag without discussing it on Talk:Office of Special Affairs? --Nikitchenko 01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

The Mediation Cabal: Case change notification

Dear Wikipediatrix: Hello there. I'd like to let you know that in a Mediation Cabal mediation case that you are involved in, or have some connection with: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology I've made the following changes: Made a preliminary analysis of the case, and requested that parties write a concise summary of their precise issues (here) I would be most grateful if you would please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation, that's perfectly OK. :-) If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

The Mediation Cabal: Case change notification

Dear Wikipediatrix: Hello there. I'd like to let you know that in a Mediation Cabal mediation case that you are involved in, or have some connection with: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology I've made the following changes: Nikichenko has now been blocked, case closed [1] I would be most grateful if you would please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation, that's perfectly OK. :-) If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suppressive person

What do you think of the recent rewrite of the article? Did you have a chance to compare it to the old version? Futurix 09:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Monkey power

Looks like ChrisO got it already. Let me know if something like that happens again; I'd be happy to place such blocks in the future. Ral315 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Thanks for your no-nonsense stance on original research/speculation at the Eyes Wide Shut article. Could I ask you to please take a look at the article for Broken Flowers, specifically the section "Ending interpretations", and weigh in on the Talk page? It's the same problem them, but one guy is very agressive about reverting back to the version with his long spiel, and I need community opinion behind me. CRCulver 02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actresses with lesbian proclivities

Nice call. - Glen 18:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Horst Rechelbacher

I notice that you added a "sources/references" tag to the Horst Rechelbacher article. The article cites eleven references already, some of which can be read online. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you would like to see referenced and how? Crypticfirefly 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

With Jimbo's increasing pressure for articles on living people to be assiduously cited and sourced, it's increasingly more important to have direct references attached to specific sentences, or at least paragraphs. Note the specificity of articles like Ann Coulter, David Miscavige, or Ashlee Simpson....... wikipediatrix 03:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Newbie needs help

I went through a subject today Family Affairs because i was generally interested. there was absolutely no sources - it just seemed to be a fans unhappiness that the soap had been dropped by the network. I corrected the grammer and made the paragraphs more readable - but i inserted a lot of { { not verified } } flags where i though there were problems and some POV flags. Should i have done that without discussion? i checked on the talk page and there seems to be no discussion about any edits. Did i do bad? :-S Mike33 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, my advice is never be afraid to be WP:BOLD when you see blatant violations of WP:OR. I think you should remove the offending statements entirely, because statements like "amazing storylines", "to everyone's shock", "which wouldn't be surprising", etc. are all matters of opinion, not facts, and thus can never be verified or cited. wikipediatrix 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks on chiropractic page

Wikipediatrix, thanks for the help with the revert on the chiropractic page! You're timing was so perfect. You are certainly welcome to keep an eye on the page. --Dematt 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Clash

I just came upon your (repeated) deletion of sourced info on this article, from the Westway to the World DVD. I recognise it is difficult to cite a DVD, but Strummer's own, verifiable, on-the-record opinions on factors in the breakup of the Clash wouldn't really be OR, would they? --Guinnog 18:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a specific diff-link to what you're talking about. If a proper quote was properly cited as being from Westway to the World, I'm sure I wouldn't have deleted it. Did you note my post to the article's discussion page, explaining my edits? wikipediatrix 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[2] was the diff. Yes, I noted your talk comment under the heading "POV, OR and unsourced info". Yes, I agree that the info needed trimmed. I don't think deleting it was the best way to go. --Guinnog 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The passages I deleted are obvious opinionated violations of WP:OR and are not presented as direct quotes from any source at all. I still don't understand what it is that you're defending. wikipediatrix 03:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Chuck Cunningham syndrome

Done and done :) - CheNuevara 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Breakout character

I've reduced the article back to stub status; I hope you're happy with that? It's totally free of anything remotely resembling original research now (Perhaps we should also go request that it be protected, too, in the meantime, in case someone tries to put it back in).

In any event, I was sort of waiting for some sort of consensus to develop on Talk:Fonzie syndrome#Merge suggestion regarding that move, since you usually don't make such bold moves to existing articles without trying to get it. Feel free to add your comments there.

Respond to this message at your leisure. Daniel Case 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How to renominate an article for deletion

To answer your question, use the template {{subst:afdx|2nd}}. Articles should be renominated only after looking at why they were nominated and kept. In general, renominating a no consensus keep won't cause much controversy, unless a very short period of time has elapsed Lurker ^{your words}/_{my deeds} 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing your block

In your unblock request you indicate that PMA is involved in content disputes with you. Can you please provide diffs? Thanks. Nandesuka 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nandesuka.... well, when I began trying to nominate WP:OR-violating fancruft articles for deletion, two users - PMA and Daniel Case - simultaneously began harassing me and leaving personal insults and disparaging comments, attempting to cast doubt on my nominations by casting doubt on the nominator. [this] is a classic example. He also had sharp criticism of me on the talk pages for articles that have since been deleted .... can't remember now, but it was either Fonzie Syndrome, Lazarus Cunningham, Reverse Cunningham, Montgomery Burns' state of mind, or all of the above. Most of PMA's disagreements with me have been regarding these AfD issues. Unfortunately, when an article is deleted, record of activity on it disappears from our contribution pages.

PMA is also a contributor to an article I am currently nominating for deletion, List of one-time characters from The Simpsons, although to my memory, we have not directly discussed it with one another.

If you look at my block log, you can see that PMA blocked me twice on 30 July 2006, one coming only seconds after the other, but after ending the previous one early. Apparently the purpose of this was to speed up the process and fast-track things to the point where he can give me longer and longer durations of being blocked. I didn't even know any of these other blocks had occurred, until the present one. wikipediatrix 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The fact you use terms like "fancruft" only confirms my view of you as one of those "only Shakespere and nuclear physics" types. PMA 00:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Wikipediatrix, thanks for your comments at List of cults. Sorry to read that you have been blocked, considering I don't have admin powers is there anyway I could help? Looked at your user contributions, can't see anything problematic, mostly requesting sources etc. Anyway, let me know... Addhoc 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked you, since I don't believe PMA has adequately explained why you should be subject to a 75 hour block. However, since I have unblocked you, that means I am now in part responsible for you, and thus will be keeping an eye on your edits. Vigorous editing is part of being a good editor, and there is nothing wrong with arguing your point ardently, including nominating articles for AfD. Please, however, keep in mind that civility is of paramount importance here, and I urge you to avoid even the appearance of seeking revenge or conflict with PMA, Daniel Case, and others. Kind regards, Nandesuka 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be a good egg (as always)... but I just tried to edit a page and it says I'm still blocked. It appears PMA has banned my IP address separately from my username. wikipediatrix 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The autoblocker may have blocked your IP address. Use the "Email this user" link on my talk page to send me your IP (or just post it here) and I'll unblock it. Nandesuka 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi...I tried to email you and it wouldn't let me. Sigh. Can you email me at wikipediatrix@gmail.com? I'd rather not post my IP address here, in light of the aggressive and uncivil behavior already directed towards me. wikipediatrix 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

BPD discussion

I noticed your message to tbsdy, that you claimed that Wikipedia's article on BPD used non-scientific terms such as 'non-BPD'. However, I think those words, while not being scientific now, are probably gaining currency in scientific circles. I've read psychological articles that use the terms you've suggested are un-scientific; they don't seem to be recognised as scientific but they're still flung around, almost like colloquial/slang form. It's interesting to think about... - Geelin 14:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Barnstar of Diligence Awarded to Wikipediatrix for her diligence in ensuring that articles have reliable sources. Addhoc

POV/"Heaven's On Fire"

Removing POV is one thing, editing out fact is another. I had listed (with a reference) information of the KISS song "Heaven's On Fire", stating its international chart history, which you removed. That was fact (again, with reference) not POV. Darwin's Bulldog 03:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the removed text included "one of KISS's most reconizable songs from their non-makeup period", which did not have any supporting reference. Following Wikipediatrix's involvement, you reworded the copy, without including this unreferenced material, which is the current version. Have a look at [3]. Addhoc 14:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiled brats

Weird, I didn't know I did. I'll put it back. --Awiseman 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, guess you already did. How strange, I remember the only difference I saw on my watch list was your comment that said "Exactly..." which was after my Lisa Simpson one. --Awiseman 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate you

Now I have that stupid Green Acre's theme song stuck in my head now thanks to you. Whispering^(talk/c) 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

*smooch* wikipediatrix 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

Hate to break this to you, but yor recent edits to Jack the Ripper were universally horrible and unencyclopedic. You removed a whole section about the legend and researchers, you claimed "ovaries don't just fall out" missing the fact that they certain can if the entire lower half of a body is split open, said an ovary is an organ (gosh, thanks for that news tip, the article said no organs were TAKEN, the ovary was not TAKEN, it was left there), and all sorts of other changes that were simply unjustifiable. I would hope that you take the time to read Wikipedia policies and participate on the article talk page before making such drastic edits for no good reason. 172.134.109.34 17:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And simply blind reverting to your preferred version with its multiple mistakes and omissions is not how things are done here. Again, I suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies before attempting to make such drastic edits. 172.147.224.125 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First, use the article's discussion page. Second, stop being condescending and uncivil if you really want to have a discussion. wikipediatrix 18:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I HAVE been suing the article talk page... See the discussion on the "has not been determined" POV phrase. Second, You sure have no room to talk about civility when your posts on the discussion page there have been nothing but personbal attacks. You have not made any attempt to justify your edits, despite my taking the time above to point out why they are incorrect, you merely revert to you version and personally attack my credentials and supposed lack of posting history when you. in fact, have no history on that article and no understanding of the policies in question. 172.147.224.125 18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to discuss anything with you until you stop being condescending and telling me I have no understanding of policy. I think I understand them perfectly well. If you continue to respond to my requests for SPECIFIC (not general insults like "universally horrible") explanations, then feel free to take this to an RfC. wikipediatrix 18:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As you are the one who erased whole sections of the article without giving any reason beyond just POV/OR when the multiple editors editing that article for YEARS never saw any problem with those sections, you need to be the one to try to justify your edits, and you really need to stop being condescending before your complaints can be at all taken seriously. Furthermore, recent edits have included factual corrections that you have erased in your blind reverts to your version of yesterday. DreamGuy 19:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First I'm NOT taking any sides. 2nd, do you have any new info on this matter ? This is about a horrific murder that had taken place long ago in what is now the United Kingdom. I've seen matter on the "Documentary TV Channels" about this murder case from time to time. One theory says that a member of the Royal Family was the killer and was terminated to end the murder spree. Martial Law 19:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Due to certain Wiki-protocol, I can't state this at all. Martial Law 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland

Your nine edits to this article on 20th aug 06 were not helpful, in my opinion as one of the editors of the article.

1] You have edited the Career section to say "Hoagland co-produced with WTIC (AM) a Peabody Award-nominated radio program, "A Night of Encounter,".... Can you cite a source for his credit as co-producer? Surely the point here is that he falsely claims to have co-produced this show? If you do not revise this in four days I intend to insert there.

2] In the Controversies section, you reverted my edit of the previous day without adequate explanation. Please read the cited article on Europa. Please also read the citation I gave for Phil Plait's refutation of Hoagland's claim.

3] Several insertions of are facetious. If you really feel that citations are required for Cydonia and platonic solids, please go to the Enterprise Mission web site (cited in External links), derive the appropriate links and insert them yourself. If you have not done this in four days I intend to remove your tags (once only, I don't go in for revert wars). Cheers, El Ingles 16:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The full sentences you refer to are "He claims that the face was part of a city built on Cydonia Planitia by extraterrestrial intelligences" and "...his Iapetus theory revolving around Base 60 and the numeric factors of platonic solids." As for the former quote, any statement that says "He claims..." that is not followed by a source is putting words in his mouth. As for the latter, since Iapetus theory is redlinked, we need to cite proof for the article's claim that Hoagland has proposed a theory by this name. And finding source links for these claims are the burden of the editor who wants them to remain in the article, not on editors who remove them for being unsourced claims about a living person. And as for the "controversies" section, you cannot use opinionated POV language like "clearly" and "shown it to be false". That is endorsing Plait's work, and as editors, we are supposed to be impartial. wikipediatrix 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow University Labour Club

Also note that this University club is up for deletion if you wish to comment. Astrotrain 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments to Afd's

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wallis and Futuna national football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association, you stated ur reason for speedy delete was CSD A7.

Now, I'm not an expert with CSD or anything, but when I went to the page, and looked up A7, I saw that it was this:

Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author.

Either I'm getting something wrong here, or you've been using the wrong ref for your nomination for CSD. --Nishkid64 19:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're getting something wrong here. Go here, and scroll down to the "Deletion templates" section, where we find that CSD A7 is for bios, bands, clubs and groups in which notability is not established. wikipediatrix 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Wikipediatrix. I was looking at the wrong thing. --Nishkid64 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Listcruft

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination) ... your 2¢ would be appreciated. --Dennette 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

David L Cook Article

Here we go again with you. You continue to remove a cite that takes you right to Mr. Cook's religious books? Yet, this is the second time you have removed the cite we have done and placed your little "citation needed" on this article. The cite even shows a picture of the books with Mr. Cook's name all over them? As far as the ICGMA, that is a brand new award and they have not updated their web page to show the recent winners. We cannot control what they do but it does not preclude the information from being factual. We cited the web site and if people want to contact the ICGMA to confirm the information, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. I am beginning to believe as the other writer does that you have a problem with making this article personal for yourself. You do not correct anything yourself which is the purpose of Wikipedia, yet you go on these Rambo edits with these tags. You then put things in the discussion that you think the writers are the same people and that it may be a sock issue and so on and so on. That is not Wiki, that is a personal opinion and should not find itself in this forum!If you want to be a good Wiki, then quit strong arming people with your tags and do some editing so that you will stop making people mad at you. I have read the things that people have put on your profile site and it seems that there are many who have a problem with your editing style. Now, I would like for you to explain why you are removing the cite for Mr. Cook's religious book materials? IAMAS Corporation 11:06 Aug 21, 2006 (UTC)

Linking to the ICGMA site as a source IS NOT A SOURCE if it doesn't contain the information stated in the article. As indicated in WP:RS, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. When I remove something from an article or place "citation needed", it means you have not provided proper sources for it, it doesn't mean that I doubt it's factual. Did you see Tony Sidaway's response to your attempt to circumvent the process? It's here. I'm not going to engage in further dialogue with you as long as you continue to insult, berate, and question my motives. wikipediatrix 12:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL (Internet slang)

Whoop! You're a braver Wikipedian than I am. I will help defend the slimmed down article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

David L Cook Article

Wikipediatrix, no one is berating you! It is you who has the ability to do these random Rambo tags withouot giving specifics on what needs to be done in order to satisfy you. As far as showing me what another editor has said about your abilities, I do not need to reflect upon that because there have been more editors and administrators who have called you down for your tagging antics for not giving the writers explaination or assistance and just placing your tags all over everything. I think above all people on here you are probably the most diligent at reviewing these articles, I just think that you need to take some time to edit if you are going to go so far as to tag. You still have not told me why you are removing the cite for his religious books? That cite takes you right to the book, yet you continue to remove it. We also gave a cite for Crabbottom USA which has video footage of the show and you removed it as well? I think you need to explain yourself. I await a proper and curtious response. Carl Taylor IAMAS Corporation 12:41 22 Aug 2006 (UTC)

"random Rambo tags"? "administrators called me down"? It is you need to be courteous (note proper spelling) before I attempt further communication with you. Be WP:CIVIL, assume good WP:FAITH, and Have a nice day. wikipediatrix 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Again Wikipediatrix you are taking this to a personal level. You still have not explained to us the cite tags for David's religious books? See this is what I am talking about. Instead of you explaining things so that people can understand what you are wanting done, you turn it into a personal atttack of some sort. If you look further up on your discussion page you will find others who are having the same issues with you. We appreciate your contributions and invite them, but if you cannot explain why you are tagging stuff or removing things, please just leave our articles alone and allow another editor to help us. It seems we are never going to get along and that is sad. Now, again I ask you to explain your reasons for tagging this article. My request is not to much to ask. I will await a "COURTEOUS" (Spelling Noted) response. IAMAS Corporation 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not taking your bait. Until then, my explanations on the talk page and my edit summaries should suffice. You DO read the edit summaries, don't you? wikipediatrix 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are just plain nasty. Saying things like that are hurtful and I hope the administrators of Wikipedia admonish you for your rudeness and lack of Wikipedia standards! Please do not bother us again. IAMAS Corporation 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said anything uncivil. If you feel I have said something uncivil to you, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. wikipediatrix 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Noncompliant tag at "Unsolved problems in mathematics"

I noticed you added the "Noncompliant" tag to "Unsolved problems in mathematics". I'm unfamiliar with advanced mathematics, so I was wondering why you felt the article departed from Wikipedia content standards. (The template itself referred me to the talk page for more detail, but I didn't find anything there.) Have a great day, and thank you for your efforts here! Omphaloscope » talk 22:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey there.... thanks for asking. At the time, I felt (and still do) that all of the "unsolved problems" articles were inherently POV/OR. However, this article is one of the better ones - at least it's not laid out in question format like Unsolved problems in medicine. Other than that concern, my main problem with the article is that none of it is sourced, even though the blue links do lead to articles that may (or may not) be sourced. Also, I disagreed with some entries like Four color theorem, which I've since removed. I'll soften the noncompliant tag to a "needs sources" tag. wikipediatrix 22:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

David L. Cook

Hi Wikipedrix ... I have been following your monitoring of the David L. Cook page and I admire your non pov stance. Keep up the good work and don't give in !! This is one of those articles that does need constant attention ... Please keep up the good work (I don't think that the constant contributor has any bad feelings, but in order to keep thigs just so we need editors just like you and me both DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, what a mess on the talk page over there! I think you've done a pretty good job maintaining a civil tone and sticking to good policy interpretations, despite being personally attacked by the now blocked IAMAS Corporation. I've taken a quick look and made one minor edit to a cite, and I'll get back to it as I get more time. --Satori Son 05:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bat-signal to all

I figure Scientologists know Scientology best. Farix and Orsini were incapable of taking the word of a non-Scientologist, and simply reading the Wikipedia page on Xenu, so the only other method I see of getting through to them is the word of a Scientologist. My bat-signal is not selective, but it seeks out the best of the best. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the Good edits

You seem to be fair, even handed (mostly) and want NPOV keep it up ... Scientologists do know Scientology best but tend not to be objective about it, but the same goes for Anti-Scientologists as well (and the pro's and anti's of any subject) so the articles really need to be edited by both and neutrals, and moderated by neutrals (like yourself) ^Jaster 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, whenever it was

BTfromLA 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! wikipediatrix 20:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

I see you've revised your age ..... ;-) ^Jaster 07:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lil Flip246

Thanks for your message. Please see User_talk:D_C_McJonathan#Lil Flip246 and User talk:PageantUpdater#Small world for my thoughts on the matter. -- Longhair 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be time for an RfC... There's not much more I can do if editor's are going to ignore solid advice and warnings. As you've noted, many have tried before I came onto the scene. A block may be a little harsh here for now, but with broader community input, it may be the only way ahead eventually. -- Longhair 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the user's high level of incivility combined with her now-deliberately-flouting-policy edits, I certainly don't think a block would be "a little harsh". Besides, WP:BLOCK and WP:LIVING make it clear that unsourced gossip and original research are to be even less tolerated on articles about living persons: "Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." wikipediatrix 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I'm in a good mood today, so it may be clouding my judgement. I think we've got a teenager here who doesn't exactly understand what we're asking of her and one who isn't interested in reading policies. I take onboard your note about incivility and fully agree she's been making rash assumptions regarding your edits, taking things a little to far in suggesting you're purposely creating stubs to eventually aim for deletion. I'm away this afternoon for a few hours. I'll think about it some more when I'm offline. I just don't like blocking editors whose intentions are to help improve Wikipedia. I think she's got good intentions, just that her intentions aren't in line with the rules as such. -- Longhair 02:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left a pretty clear warning on their talk page to give it some thought at least, or face a block. Let's wait and see the reaction. -- Longhair 02:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Pillar of Fire Church

You're right to be persistent about this church. Keep up the pressure. There's something not too kosher about it. Norton has pulled a paragraph I wrote making his church look less than clean. I shall keep hammering the point. see PoF discussion page if you're interested. Ohconfucius 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Improper reversion R2-45

Wikipediatrix, please do NOT treat my good-faith edits on R2-45 as vandalism. If you have something to say put it up on the talk page and we can bounce it around as I did with "Captain Bligh". I am totally willing to work with others and for consensus. Thank you. --Justanother 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about. Did I say the word "vandalism"? I don't think so. I gave my reasons for my edit in my edit summary. And just because you don't like it doesn't mean my edit was "improper" (it was not a reversion - it used elements from several different editor's versions). wikipediatrix 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD

If you would like to throw your two cents in on what I consider to be an obvious delete, you can find the AfD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATO helmet. Shazbot85^Talk 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Omnivore?

Wow--what don't you edit? Theology to mathematics I understand....

The Only Band That Matters to KISS? A bit harder.... Billbrock 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the inspiration

I have written a brief guide for the edification of visitors to my page: User:Fahrenheit451 --Fahrenheit451 16:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sagan quote in T poisoning

Yeah, I like this much better. (The original version didn't identify it as a quote and therefore appeared to be POV editorializing unless the link was investigated and read carefully). Good stuff. Pete.Hurd 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

KISS merchandising

Nice work on the article so far. One suggestion - instead of sorting the list by Past and Present, what do you think about sorting it by category (toys, cosmetics, etc.)? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My thinking was that if we did that, it might encourage overzealous fans to try to include everything that ever existed, like coffee mugs and t-shirts. (Then again, they probably will anyway.) I'd prefer to see the article only focus on the biggest of the big. There's only one coffeehouse, one VISA card, one coffin, etc., so where would such items go in a category-based list? (I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea - I still haven't thought out exactly how this will all play out.) wikipediatrix 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable. The pinball machine should definitely go in there. Also, I have some of those old bubble gum cards, I'll scan one and put an image up this week. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the blue wrapper? The wrapper is even cooler than the cards. Actually, I've been pondering it and now am thinking maybe we should just put the whole list in one big, alphabetically ordered, section. It might save squabbles later on over what's "present" and what's not... Kiss-opoly, for instance, is technically discontinued, but remaining stock is still available from some vendors. wikipediatrix 23:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I just have individual cards, unfortunately. I also like the idea of either having an alphabetical list, or listed by category. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 00:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

KISS/Elvis

Regarding the statement - "Their instantly recognizable image has enabled them to promote themselves not just as a band, but a brand: KISS merchandising far exceeds that of any other musical act, including Elvis Presley."

What is your source for that? Thanks. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing clickable... I just remember Gene saying it in some interview, and I was just taking his word on it, heh. I was in a hurry to establish the article and planned on hunting sources later. But I just did a Google and found this article that brags about how Elvis' product licensees number "over 100", whereas this says that KISS have "over 2500". wikipediatrix 13:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion currently underway at List of major opera composers, List of important operas and the article Opera regarding POV and sources

I read your comments during the AfD of the List of important operas and thought that you would be interested in reading what is currently happening on the page Talk:List of major opera composers and Talk:Opera regarding sourcing materials and correcting POV statements. It seems that there have been quite a bit of sloppy editting going on in the area of Opera for quite some time and that there is a great deal of resistence to change. I would like to have your view of these discussions and perhaps some ideas for solutions, if you've got time. cordially Musikfabrik 09:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't threaten me.

I'm not inserting "pov-laden edits", everything I have put in has source. You are welcome to stop threatening me and behave in a civil manner any time. Blainetologist 19:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to take the matter to an admin if you feel I have threatened you or been uncivil. I haven't. wikipediatrix 19:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given him one last warning. If it doesn't take, I'll deal with him. --InShaneee 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Watchman Expositor

I'm a bit surprised that you think the Watchman Expositor "is not a valid source per WP:V and WP:RS". It's a long-established hard-copy publication, so it's eminently verifiable; what are your grounds for saying that it's not? -- ChrisO 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "not a valid source" was a bit harsh, but nevertheless: watchman.org is a Christian site that is indeed critical of Scientology, but they're also highly critical of many other faiths (including other Christian ones) and in fact, practically everything else in modern life as well, from Oprah to Star Wars. Their blatant and open bias greatly weakens the weight their Scientology analysis should carry. wikipediatrix 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientology and celebrities

You may want to drop in at Scientology and celebrities -- Justanother (talk · contribs) is claiming that even though the information he wants to remove was verifiably reported by the Washington Post, because what was reported on was the speculation by former Scientologists about the CoS's role in Michael Jackson's marriage, it is automatically "poorly sourced" no matter who is reporting it -- and if you look at the discussion he and I had on my user talk page, which he already obligingly copied to the article talk page, he's already pretty much announced his intention to violate 3RR and pretend he isn't bound by it because supposedly he's just following WP:BLP which trumps everything, blah blah blah. Would you keep an eye and do what you can? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He's already back to edit-warring again, fresh from his being blocked. Keep an eye on his contributions. wikipediatrix 13:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and he's been re-blocked already. He told some falsehoods to SlimVirgin, claiming that "I did back off after another editor entered the fray" (in reality, he committed three more reverts after AndroidCat stepped in) "even tho both editors edit from the same POV" (this is either an obvious tautology, that the two people who reverted his attempts to remove verifiable information both had the same POV about his attempts to do so being wrong, or it's an ad hominem argument suggesting that our individual opinions are less meaningful because they coincide on many points.) SlimVirgin made an offer to unblock him if he would stay away from the article for 24 hours and not make the same edits elsewhere. Slim thought he was agreeing when he said "I promise not to remove the offending material there or anywhere else for that period" but he was really saying "I won't stay away from the article, I just won't make those edits again." As Slim pointed out when she re-blocked him, that was a completely useless "promise" for him to make, since if he did make those same edits again he would just be adding to his violations of 3RR. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard and wogs

"As Hubbard had been an officer in the U.S. Navy during World War II, his usage may have derived from the maritime rather than the racial meaning."

I didn't intend 'may' to indicate speculation, rather an alternative. There are good reasons for thinking that a maritime derivation is valid, but they are not conclusive. They are on my Wog FAQ webpage as is a lot of other material not in the wiki article, but I can import a referenced arguement or just reword to avoid 'may'. "Probably"? --Hartley Patterson 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Stanley

Oh, it's recognizable all right :) I was wondering how long that image was going to last... Oh well, it's on Commons if anyone ever needs it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on October 7 2006 to Make_Love_Not_Warcraft

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

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Since my edits spanned across two days, I didn't think I was violating WP:3RR. I will take your word for it and assume that they must have taken place within 24 hours of each other, despite crossing over the date line. Regardless, I would never have deliberately violated 3RR and had no idea I had done so until blocked. wikipediatrix 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your question about Jack Sarfatti

Why so much discussion about Jack Sarfatti's rebelling against Wiki rules in the article about his life seems now to be mainly coming from Calton Bolick who obviously has an intense vengeful agenda against Sarfatti. In all fairness he should be blocked from commenting on Sarfatti as he is obviously abusing his position of power in Wiki and does not have the sense to simply recuse himself. This illustrates one of the structural defects in Wiki mentioned by the editor of Britanicca in the Wall Street Journal. :-) Britjones

'Make Love, Not Warcraft'

I think I must be one of the few existing Wikipedia editors who found the article through Digg. I have removed a huge chunk of, what was basically, cruft and crap. Lets see how long it lasts...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

..and it goes on. Still - I think you two have done a great job in trying to sort that article out. Johan Aruba 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

• Good going on the ongoing NPOV dispute. It clearly seems like other editors are trying to turn this article into a smear campaign and/or attack page, which as you say would clearly be against WP:BLP. Yours, Smeelgova 23:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

Purple Barnheart

		The Purple Heart
		I, Smeelgova, award this barnstar to Wikipediatrix for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. Thank you. Smeelgova 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(feel free to add to your user page if you like). yours, Smeelgova 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Urinotherapy

Please comment on the Afd. I'd welcome your views. --Dweller 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Useful contribution. I'd guess you'd therefore be in favour of making it a redirect to Urine therapy? --Dweller 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. Definitely not a merge, though, as this would only compound both article's problems with lack of sources. wikipediatrix 13:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed verification of off-line reference

See Talk:Erich_von_Manstein#Quotes for an example where exactly that happened. Lupo 16:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Steven R. Gerber

Well, while I was carefully composing a note to the author asking him to rewrite the article in his own words, someone else blocked the author as a paid publicist. Oh well. If I ever get a free Wikimoment (unlikely), I might go back and see if I can rewrite it myself. Thanks for the heads up, NawlinWiki 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain your removal of my link

Wiki History page.
You gave your reasons as corrected grammar, removed inappropriate citation to a Wikipedia user page, I'm unclear as to where it says it's inappropriate to refer to a Wikipedia user page. I added it as there was a broken link, the person didn't seem notible enough to have thier own page, then I found there user page. I thought that would be a good start and allow peole to go from there. (leave reply on my user page if you'd like)Mark1800 03:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to a Wikipedia User Page is obviously an extremely inappropriate and unprofessional thing to do, not to mention also being a personal attack against Anton Hein. For example, note the difference between pages User:Jimbo Wales and article Jimbo Wales. Also note Mr. Wales' warning at the top of his talk page regarding confusing the two different pages: Talk:Jimmy Wales. Yours, Smeelgova 04:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Warning

I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing me of doing things in bad faith. Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. The Crying Orc 22:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I accused you of nothing. I said "possible" bad faith, based on the current RFI against you. Not only did I give you benefit of the doubt by saying "possible", I abstained from voting in most of your AfD nominations. wikipediatrix 22:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:CC80

I'm going to have to recuse myself from using admin powers regarding this account. I suspect that this is a sockpuppet account of someone I've disputed with in the past. See User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. I would wholeheartedly support a user WP:RfC and serious investigation. If this is who I think it is, he's been disrupting Wikipedia for two years through a sockfarm and a variable AOL IP and has never been held responsible for his actions. That's a strong accusation to make and I have strong reasons for believing it. The vandalism summary I wrote is a couple of months out of date so I could supplement it with diffs to show why this duplicates behavior I've observed elsewhere. Durova 20:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Durova 03:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute with Terryeo

Hi, just FYI, the dispute started with Terryeo accusing me of uploading a high-resolution copyrighted image intended for Fair Use. In fact, the image was 72 pixels per inch, which is quite clearly low resolution. There is really nothing else to discuss with him as I have complied with Wikipedia policy and the Fair Use doctrine. The CofS's jihad continues, however.--Fahrenheit451 20:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Movie stars and Scientology

Template:ScientologySeries: "I know of no other religion template that bothers to list famous adherents. Hayes' contribution to the church has been minimal anyway"

Scientology treats celebrities differently to any other religious group, so your reasoning is not a debate killer. However, the celebrities are covered in the body of the article and their Wikipages add nothing to the reader's knowledge of Scientology, which template items should. Argue along those lines on the Talk page and you have my support. --Hartley Patterson 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the importance of celebrities to Scientology, but I still maintain the "People" section should stick to people who are key to the organization and not include famous adherents. No one else has complained about my removal of them so far, so it seems to be a non-issue for now anyway. wikipediatrix 22:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Smeelgova

You were right, I should not have granted the user request to delete their own talk page. I went back one edit and it looked pretty innocuous. I should have gone back two edits, which showed a long and contentious talk page including an 8 hr block. My mistake, sorry. I've restored the history.

I suppose this lengthens the time before I can call you something other than Wikipediatrix.  ;) NawlinWiki 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations of Vandalism

I would appreciate it if you would not notate that *I* accused you of vandalism. Although at this point I'm starting to agree with the person that did. Your "contributions" to the article and discussion are not helpful.BlazinBuggles 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, my edit summary wasn't directed at you. Sorry if you thought it was. wikipediatrix 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Medical claims in Scientology doctrine

You are right with regards to using the word claims. I supposed I was a bit reluctant to use it because some are a bit reasonable (but it's actually what they are from a neutral point of view;) Jpierreg 21:40, 26 October 2006 (GMT)

Terryeo's ban question

Hi, Wikipediatrix. You raise a good question. Given Scientology's anti-Psychiatry doctrine, it seems correct to say that articles on psychiatry fall into the "Scientology-related" category for purposes of that ban. I do think that some sort of communication to Terryeo (and Justanother) about this is called for--in my opinion, it isn't such a self-evident breach of the ban that they should just be censured without warning if Terryeo makes an edit. Disappointing to me that Justanother is suggesting such a thing to Terryeo--in general, Justanother seems the most reasonable and competent Scientologist editor to have appeared at Wikipedia. Enlisting Terryeo to sneak around his ban (indeed, teaming with Terryeo at all) undermines his credibility. BTfromLA 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: I've reposted the above on Justanother's user page, alerting Terryeo to it as well. BTfromLA 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Fan Club" is Wikipedese, a term taken from Hollywood where every star (and many people of far less than star status) have their "fan club" which follows them around when they go shopping, to the gym, when they walk their dog, etc. The result of being well enough known to have developed a "fan club" results in, as you can imagine, a certain loss of freedom of motion for the actor / actress. A "fan club" being both, you see, a blessing and a curse. Terryeo 21:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point, or are you just jabbering non-sequiturs for no reason? wikipediatrix 21:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

sure Wikipediatrix, here you go: User_talk:Terryeo#Here_is_a_good_one Terryeo 21:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So why would you post a response to some other conversation as a response to this one on my talk page? That makes zero sense. We are not talking about "fan clubs" in this discussion. wikipediatrix 22:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Terryeo is suggesting that you and I, Wikipediatrix, have formed an organization that follows him around, with our autograph books in hand and papparazzi cameras poised, hoping to grab an embarrassing shot when his skirts hike up indiscreetly as he exits his limo. BTfromLA 22:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi; I have replied on BT's page. Have a nice evening. --Justanother 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your readings

So what conclusions have you come to after all that reading and listening? --Justanother 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 'tech' itself, about 80 percent of it is factually incorrect and/or arbitrary, self-contradictory and meaningless, and couched in unnecessary Hubbardese jargon and preposterous axioms to conceal this meaninglessness. As for the other 20 percent, there are enough things that ARE true and that DO work, that Hubbard could have founded a legitimate program around these things, instead of choosing to go the direction he did with it.

Of this 20 percent, however, most of it I agree with only because it's obvious and not because it's any great revelation, such as the supposition that survival is the goal of all life. I do agree with the importance of a gradient scale approach, the usefulness of three-dimensional models in experiential learning, the basic concept of an engram, etc., but these are concepts that were appropriated by Hubbard, not originated by him.

I even agree with the basics of Scientology Ethics, believe it or not, even though many anti-Scientologists find this to be one of their most frightening and chilling aspects. But the concept of moral relativism didn't originate with Hubbard, either. wikipediatrix 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you perhaps see how I might feel that your believing "about 80 percent of it is factually incorrect and/or arbitrary, self-contradictory and meaningless, and couched in unnecessary Hubbardese jargon and preposterous axioms to conceal this meaninglessness. [emphasis added]" might equate to the tech "making little sense to you"? So I stand by what I said; You are trying to be fair with material that makes little sense to you. Not condescending at all but a simple statement of fact; assuming that you are trying to be fair which, I for one, believe you are. I never said that editors had not read the material; I said it made little sense to them. --Justanother 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand the tech just fine. It is by my understanding of it that I know that it is incorrect. (That I think in strictly scientific terms helps also.) The "If you think it's BS, then you just don't understand it" argument is the defense mechanism of apologists for all religions. You continue to misinterpret me as saying Hubbard's work makes no sense to me - I haven't said that. It makes perfect internal sense, relative to its own constructs. But something can "make sense" and still be dead wrong and batshit crazy. When Hubbard says "Reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence", I am not suffering from a lack of understanding, I am suffering from an unwillingness to go along with Hubbard spouting such axioms that are mere philosophical meanderings at best and pseudoscience at worst. wikipediatrix 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that we will continue to disagree on your "understanding" of Scientology. If you do not see the truth in that axiom then you do not see it, and if are unwilling to find the truth in it then you are unwilling. We make up our own minds and you have made up yours. But apropos of that quote, compare the "reality" of Scientology on the internet to the "reality" of Scientology among Scientologists (and no, we are not all brainwashed, that argument too is a "defense mechanism") to the "reality" of Scientology among theologicians. Three very different realities based on three very different sets of agreements. You chose that quote well indeed. --Justanother 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing personal against Scientology. I could pick apart any other religion for scientific inaccuracy just as easily. I only bring all this up because you asked. And I never said anything about "brainwashing". (That topic comes up when discussing the Church itself, and its Orgs. So far I have only been talking about Hubbard's writings.) wikipediatrix 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I asked and I have no problem with your answers. They reflect your reality and, without being critical, it seems the reality of a skeptic. I simply present the concept that someone that does not believe it is 80% meaningless and the other 20% is trivial and derivative; that such a person might do a better job of presenting the beliefs and practices of Scientology in an "understandable" manner, meaning as understood and as understandable by another, than a skeptic that, at heart, sees it as nonsense, even if the skeptic honestly desires to be fair. The brainwashing reference was only to make my point that Scientologists can have a valid "reality" of what Scientology is; as valid as "netizens" or theologians or Christian fundamentalists or atheists or . . .; for "Reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence". --Justanother 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

At least you put "Reality" in qualifying quotation marks to indicate the relativism involved. Hubbard didn't. As with Buddhists, New Agers, Robert Anton Wilson devotees, etc., it's hard to have a discussion with anyone who maintains that there is more than one reality. It makes for an instant "out" in any debate. Who needs an encyclopedia when no matter what any article says, it's doomed to conflict with someone else's "agreed upon reality"? It's a real conversation-killer. wikipediatrix 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To the left. Well, the nature of reality has been tackled by philosophers through the ages. Hubbard says reality, even down to the physical universe, is a "artifact" composed of agreement. The concept that the universe has an ambivalent existence is not unique to Hubbard nor is it scoffed at by philosophers or scientists. Only by putting strict limits on the nature of reality can it be fit into a box. Those limits are artificial and uh, limiting (need a better word but oh well). Point is about Scientology is that you DO something with the knowledge. It gives you power and that is the best test of the truth of a piece of knowledge, does it enpower you. Since I know that "reality" is agreement and I know the theory of the three universes, I have, IMO, a tool that I find of benefit in my life and in my dealings with others. And that is what Scientology is really about. --Justanother 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Justanother, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you don't believe in it too, then you just don't understand the batshit crazy science behind it like I do. Until you understand the FSM tech you just won't ever be at my level of understanding of batshit science. 67.190.61.6 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, parodies are certainly fun and that is a great one. But we are talking philosophy here, not the science in the strict sense that the unwitting followers of Scientism think describes all that can be described. We are discussing things which cannot be "proven" except to the degree that they allow one to predict and affect human behavior and, guess what, Scientology does that perhaps better than any other theory of human behavior extant, obviously IMO. The Scientology philosophy serves as a model for human experience; models are theoretical frameworks that seek to describe some phenomena that can be observed and allow predictions to be made. We can observe that someone got mad at us; the Scientology model can tell us why and how to "repair" the situation, it is predictive. This is not about the physical universe, this is a spiritual undertaking. If you are not interested in the spirit then, for god's sake, why bother with Scientology? Guess that is something I don't quite get. --Justanother 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to laugh cause I just came up with a great analogy for what goes on here in these POV areas such as Scientology. Present company excluded, of course. To be blunt, a lot of it is fanboy shit. "My Scientology rok0rz." "No way, lamer, Scientology suxx0rz." Both these fanboiz, like many fanboiz in other subjects, edit in an immature and disruptive manner. Hopefully, since we have mad skillz, we can see that there is another position to take and edit appropriately. --Justanother 17:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are those comments directed at me, or to 67.190.61.6 ? wikipediatrix 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The tone is directed at the IP. I think you and I understand that we are discussing philosphy. I really don't know your stand on the spirit in general but I get the sense that you have spiritual beliefs, but that is, of course, just an assumption on my part. My comments about Scn being a model are a point that I would make also to you, however. --Justanother 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But are you a practicing Scientologist (if so, may I ask where on the Bridge you are?) or just someone who is very interested in the subject? I would think to acknowledge that Scientology is just a "model" would be considered giving too much of the Game away as far as the Church is concerned. wikipediatrix 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very much a practicing Scientologist in that I have integrated Scientology into my world view and the use of it is a natural part of my life. But I could say the same of science or math, I have integrated them into my world view and the use of them is a natural part of my life. I am also a trained auditor, years on staff, spent plenty on the Bridge over the many years. I've stood on picket lines as a Scientologist; etc. I don't reveal more particulars here.

Interesting that you would think that calling Scn a "model" gives something away. LRH describes it that way from the get-go in DMSMH. I don't have DMSMH here but he always says that all this business about engrams being cellular memory is just a theory; one that seems to explain his results. You can check that if you have a copy handy.

What this is really about is how does Scientology fit into one's world view. For me Scn has always been a tool, something that is "less than" me; i.e. it has to fit into my worldview, not the other way round. Some people, however, take Scientology, or what they envision as Scientology, to be the entirety of their world view. That is not Scientology's fault although it might be Hubbard's and they can perhaps be forgiven for that as Hubbard would have that Scn is, by definition, the study of knowledge, and would constitute the entirety of everything. But if that is what he created then it had its growth frozen while still an infant when Hubbard decided that the "workable path" was more important than development of his "new" philosophy. I can understand that viewpoint although I am less than convinced. I can understand that someone would feel that this world needs Scientology so much right now that development can wait; right now we have a big mess to clean up. I applaud such people for their dedication and their effort. But even given what I said previous, I don't think Hubbard wanted you to subvert your viewpoint to his (there is another "sub" word I really want here, subsume?). He wanted you to try it and see if it worked for you. The trouble is that many people are "intellectually lazy" and once they find something to believe in they are done thinking. Again, the structured nature of Scientology lends itself to that but it is not part of Scientology. Most of the problems and excesses of Scientology are just the nature of people and of groups; you can even see them here, in this group. Hubbard said that no group, including Scn, could be trusted with justice.

I should admit my own level of "intellectual laziness". I don't want to do all the work, reading, and research that Hubbard did. I like what he came up with and, to the degree that it is "true for me", I will use it. I also use the work of other philosophers and writers that I come across and that have meaning for me. I am constantly looking to flesh out my framework of reality.

Interesting also that you think there is some game I would give away. One of the basic principles of Scn theory of games is that it requires "determinism for self and no (or limited) determinism for others"; self-determinism. When playing chess you play your pieces and follow your stategy. The second you start taking responsibility for both sides, looking for a win-win, the game goes away; you are practicing "pan-determinism". For example, debate is a game; seeking agreement as to what is is not. What game do you think Scn is playing that I might give away? --Justanother 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard would call Dianetics/Scientology a theory on one page and then say it's a proven science on the next. I don't think the CoS of today would like the inference that it's merely a model (in a scientific sense), since that sounds too much like saying it's just a theory. That's all I meant by "giving the game away". Anyway, your statement "For me Scn has always been a tool, something that is "less than" me; i.e. it has to fit into my worldview, not the other way round" is quite refreshing, because it must mean, then, that there are some elements of Hubbard's teachings that you do not accept. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing about what parts of Scientology you disagree with, or at least have no use for. I'd also be curious to know if there are any elements of the CoS that part of you distrusts on some level, maybe even fears - Miscavige? The Sea Org? The RTC? It sounds like your experience with Scientology has been a pleasant and rewarding one, but surely you understand that it has been a total nightmare for many, many others, and seemingly through no fault of their own. wikipediatrix 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would not call any even partially workable model of human existence "mere". Regarding the rest of your question, perhaps another time. For now, this: Scientology = Hubbard = Hubbard's claims = The Church of Scientology = Miscavige is a case of A=A=A=A=A, abberation. Both in the case of Scientologists and the case of critics alike. Sanity is the ability to discern differences and similarities. I like to think that I am sane on the subject of Scientology. I don't fit in well with zealots on either side. I probably understand both but sympathize more (but not exclusively) with Scn zealots; their motives are clear to me (the "world without war, etc." thing). I regret that Scientology no longer seems to have one of Hubbard's most endearing qualities; the ability to laugh at himself. Hubbard was always one to be aware of and point out those aforementioned differences. --Justanother 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I bring these things up is that it brings us back to where we started this discussion, which is why I edit the way I do. Although I don't think anti-Scientology zealots automatically deserve "equal time" just for their own sake, I do think that it's appropriate that articles be weighted in such a way that reflects the Church's long history of misdeeds. I think it's common sense that once an entity reaches such infamy, it can't be glossed over in the interest of "appearing fair". This is why the Ku Klux Klan article doesn't devote equal space to detailing their personal philosophy, beliefs and tenets. This is why no one cries POV with O.J. Simpson's article mentioning Nicole's murder in the very first paragraph. There comes a common-sense point when it is no longer POV to call a serial killer a serial killer, or to call a criminal a criminal, etc. Clearly, Operation Snow White and Lisa McPherson alone are enough to put the CoS over that line of obviousness. wikipediatrix 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Snow White was an (illegal) error in judgement with the perpetrators tried as criminals and tossed out of Church leadership positions. What more do you want there? Lisa was a tragedy that should never have happened and that the Church handled with an out-of-court settlement to the family. Maybe you want more there but OK. Scientology is mostly "infamous" on the internet. Many non-Scientologist think well of Scientology. Scientology has faults and those faults may be important but those faults are not "Scientology" and they only "fully define Scientology" for the critical zealot. Scientology is practiced 24/7 by hundreds of thousands of people. What that is and describing that is certainly more important that describing the occasional or habitual misdeeds of the a few members of the organization. I say more important but not exclusive. Go ahead and do a great job describing those misdeeds but realize that you are describing misdeeds of a few, not Scientology itself or the actions of the many. --Justanother 20:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I know, I know. It's not a conspiracy theory. The article for Watergate doesn't blame the entire Republican party for the misdeeds of its leader and a few cronies, but nevertheless, it happened on their watch and the buck had to stop somewhere. I think most readers are astute enough to know that Operation Snow White did not involve all Scientologists everywhere, en masse, and that the average Scientologist has never even heard of McPherson.

I agree that it's unfortunate that Scientology itself has to get dragged into the misdeeds of the Orgs, but that's the way it's set up by the CoS itself: you know and I know that anyone can get some Bibles and open a "Christian Church" on any street corner and preach any wild variations on it they like, but no one is allowed to take Hubbard's books and open a "Scientology Church" next door and preach variants of it without getting sued into oblivion. The who, where, and how of practicing Scientology is so micro-managed by the Church itself that it and its Tech are inextricably linked. And it's a shame, but... "this is the way he wants it. Well, he gits it." wikipediatrix 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I just looked at the Roman Catholic Church to see how the sex scandals of the recent years may have affected the tone of the article. It is presented, certainly, but does not seem to have much affected the tone of the article; the RC Church is not presented as a massive cover organization for pedophiles and pederasts. It is presented in context. And the fact that it seems to have been pervasive and covered up for years by Church heirarchy, again, does not seem to alter the fact that it is presented in context. Your Watergate example is also a good one. Look at the Republican Party article. Watergate only gets two passing mentions and those are not even linked to the Watergate article. So you see my point? All I ask for is context. The Scientology article should tell what Scientology is, especially what it is to the many many that practice it daily. To do otherwise is a disservice both to practicing Scientologists and to the readers of wikipedia. Present the "bad side" too; but not at the expense of the other. ps I doubt anyone could take a bunch of Bibles and open a Roman Catholic Church and call their church "Roman Catholic" if it were heretical according to the RC Church. I am sure they would be hearing from the RC Church's version of Helena Kobrin. Plenty of people use Hubbard's ideas in their practices or their group; they just can't call it Scientology. Example: Traumatic incident reduction, I could give you lots more. --Justanother 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the difference is that the CoS micro-manages what goes on with its members and in its Orgs; the Republican Party does not. The Catholic Church micro-manages to some degree (though not as much as the CoS), which is why their article reflects greater culpability as an organization in general. And the Catholic pedophile priest incidents are roughly comparable to Scientology's Gabriel Williams incident, which you must admit is hardly being belabored on Wikipedia. If the Catholic Church comes up with their own Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout tomorrow, you can bet the tone of their articles will change.

The Republican Party doesn't have as many black marks on its permanent record as Scientology, that's why you're seeing the "context" that you do. If they had dozens of Watergates, it would be different. The CoS has dozens of Watergates.

And finally, you're way wrong about the RC version of Kobrin - there are many, many schisms from Catholicism out there, and though they aren't recognized by the Vatican, they also are not threatened by attorneys with cease-and-desist letters for misusage of the Pope's intellectual property and "trade secrets". wikipediatrix 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

On the last point first, could they call themselves "Roman Catholic"? Can you give me an example of that? Next, you don't really think that one incident of a Scientologist committing a crime is analogous to a historical and pervasive pattern of behaviour known about and concealed for, likely, centuries. Tell me, please, that you do not. --Justanother 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was only comparing modern incidents, since it's unfair to compare an ancient religion's track record with that of a religion that started recently. And I doubt a schism would want to call itself Roman Catholic - but they can and do call themselves Catholics. wikipediatrix 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I stand by what I said: "I doubt anyone could take a bunch of Bibles and open a Roman Catholic Church and call their church "Roman Catholic" if it were heretical according to the RC Church. I am sure they would be hearing from the RC Church's version of Helena Kobrin." On the sex scandal, what do you mean modern; the sex scandal IS modern, it just happens to have been going on for a long time. It ain't "ancient". It's right now. The truer analogy, I think, to the RC sex scandal would be the harassment of critics, whether you call it "fair game" or not. Here you have a long repeated pattern of abusive behaviour concealed from the rank and file members for the purposes of the heirarchy. See my point. If the sex scandal does not color the entire RC article then neither should the harassment color the entire Scn article. --Justanother 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! As far as I'm aware, you're the very first pro-Scientology editor who has acknowledged that a "a long repeated pattern of abusive behaviour concealed from the rank and file members" exists. As for the rest of your argument, my answer is the same as with Watergate: for every scandal Catholicism has had in modern times, Scientology has had twenty. This, along with the fact that Scientology's fundamental status as a "real" religion is disputed by many, is why there's a very different context.

My unsolicited advice to you and to any other prospective Scientologist editor would be to let the criticism stand - even when it seems to be overwhelming - unless it's unsourced. Trying to put a positive spin on the Church's hopelessly negative past (and present) just isn't possible. "If a battle can't be won, don't fight it." However: I would support and defend any edit that expands information about Scientology itself. Not Terryeo-style insertions of multiple links to Scientology-owned sites that don't even contain the exaggerated claims being cited, but real and useful information, like, for instance, I'm amazed that there's no article on the Bridge to total freedom. I would have created one myself long ago, but I'd prefer to use the standard image of the chart, which can't be done in low enough resolution for Fair Use, alas. wikipediatrix 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ. I think that Scn has not had so many scandals at all. I am going to be presumptuous, but I think that you have only been exposed to one side. I am talking people, not books or tapes. You have been reading a lot of stories from disaffected members and cannot balance them as I can with knowing hundreds of actual Scientologists and knowing their stories, good and bad but real stories. I think that if you knew a few Scientologists your ideas about Scientology might change; really knew them. At least I would hope so. I hope that just by knowing me a bit that perhaps your ideas about Scientology have changed if only to the extent of "Well, at least one Scientologist can make some sense . . . sometimes". Take care. --Justanother 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I can balance them in my own head just fine. But "Knowing hundreds of actual Scientologists and knowing their stories" isn't something we can use in the articles. You still seem to think I have more of a negative opinion about Scientology than I actually do. But my opinion doesn't matter in Wikipedia. It's all about the sources. Even if I personally knew dozens of people who reported major wins from Scientology, that doesn't affect my editing. wikipediatrix 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. By the way, I don't think you would, but my remark about "a long repeated pattern of abusive behaviour concealed from the rank and file members" should not be quoted as "a Scientologist admits". As a Scientologist, I have no more knowledge of that than you do. I have no OSA or GO history. My awareness of it is based on no more factual or "inside" information than yours is. I read all the critical books starting with "The Scandal of Scientology", which I read about 25 years ago, and some that you may never have heard of that predated that one. I've read all the "modern" criticisms and seen the material on most web sites. The difference between me and you, I think, is that I had Scientology and Scientologists right there, intimately, in front of me and I could judge the truth or falsity of the claims. I also have first-hand experience of much of what the books cover. Often, like the film "The Bridge", actual Scientology is broadly or subtly altered to cast it in a bad light. While that might be understandable (if not acceptable) in critical materials, I hope we do not have to continue that here. Later --Justanother 12:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I should have mentioned earlier that Helena Kobrin, as I remember her, is a very nice person and was only mentioned as a well-known and aggressive defender of Scientology's legal rights who, I am sure, has a counterpart in the RC Church's legal team (though not so well-known perhaps). --Justanother 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly understand your wanting to come back and clarify that... if I were you, I wouldn't want to piss her off either ;) wikipediatrix 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh! But what I say is true nonetheless. --Justanother 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ophelia Benson

The Ophelia Benson article is better than it was before, with several reviews added as references. Could you please take another look at the article? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you again Wikipediatrix

It's always nice to know that you are being followed through Wikipedia by someone. Great to see you again. I need to add a feed to you so we can follow each other LOL. See ya Junebug52 17:42, November 1, 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubblegum, but the Marijohn Wilkin article has been on my watchlist since the day of its creation, before you began editing it. wikipediatrix 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's ok cause I like ya wikipediatrix. I think you are a hoot. Junebug52 22:41, November 1, 2006 (UTC)

Neil Bush

I know you don't agree with the edits of several other editors on the Neil Bush article. Might I would encourage you to engage them further on the talk page there. It might be frustrating, but wouldn't it be better than continuing a revert war with them?--67.101.67.197 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the only one restoring the removal of the info, far from it. The talk page shows I tried to communicate with the single-purpose accounts and got only insults in return. The section doesn't even accuse Bush of any actual wrongdoing, so I really don't see what the big deal is. I will continue to defend properly sourced information. I welcome anyone to take it to the vandalism board, arbitration, mediation, what have you. wikipediatrix 03:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article for your attention

Wikipediatrix, I came across this article, [5] I think you would be the perfect editor for this one. How about giving it a look? I was going to edit it, but I just see you written all over it. Junebug52 23:45, 2 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipediatrix, this guy here [[6]] seems to be on some form of vadalism mission in my opinion. He/she added some vandalism to the Lucedale page and to another on as you can see from their contributions page, can you please look at this and tell me what you think? We may need to watch this one. Junebug52 8:20 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Our recent talk

Re that talk. I really was not trolling you so I won't apologize there. But I will apologize if my method of trying to understand your opinion was annoying. It is kinda annoying to have your words rephrased. After all, you know what you are trying to say, why doesn't the other party just get it. When I have a bit more time, I will ask you the specific questions I have on your position without trying to rephrase your words. --Justanother 15:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how Scientology is supposed to improve communication when you have to ask me what I mean by 'such'. I'm reminded of David Miscavige's hilarious court testimony:

Q: Mr. Miscavige, do you have a high school education?

A: I don't know what that question means. [7]

Word clearing and Duplication might help in some situations, but I think it's clearly demonstrated how it can turn one's brain to mush if you try to apply it to ordinary conversation... "How are you doing, Joe?" "What do you mean by 'doing', exactly? Be patient with me, I'm trying to understand." wikipediatrix 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "such" is ambiguous by its very nature. "Such dogs are aggressive." Unless we both know exactly what sort of dogs we are talking about then I cannot understand you if you are making that remark. Do you mean breeds like pit bulls or chows; do you mean trained attack dogs, rabid dogs, hungry dogs, injured dogs, nursing dogs? All can be aggressive. See my point? If you are unwilling to explain exactly what you mean by "such infamy" I have no hope of understanding what that means to you. Really, no reason to mock Scientology here. I think my point makes sense to anyone, Scientologist or not. This is not "ordinary conversation"; this forum is more debate or negotiation, and clear understanding is a requirement there to a degree not normal in "ordinary conversation". But even if we were having a beer together I would ask you to clarify. --Justanother 17:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, "Such infamy" referred to the infamy that Antaeus Feldspar and I had already outlined for you in considerable detail on the talk page. "Oh, you mean THAT dog right in front of us that we're both looking at! Well, gosh, you didn't specify." wikipediatrix 17:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that infamy. I guess than rather than the specific bits, I thought there was a decriptive degree. Like so much infamy that the good doesn't matter (sorry for the phrasing thing but I am not saying they are your words). I guess I am trying to understand what "3 lbs of infamy" (or a ton, I am just making the point that it is a finite amount) means to you. If I grant the validity of every single decently-supported claim of Scn wrong-doing and call that "one ton of infamy", how do you feel that stacks up against all the decently-supported claims that Scn helped someone or did some good. I would include all reported success stories including the 16,000 mentioned as I strongly feel that they are genuine. Can we leave those in? In other words, I am asking you to wear a robe and a blindfold (seeing as we just had Halloween) and put them on your balance. --Justanother 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think. If the good things that the CoS does are as notable and as major as their negative ones and are properly cited with third-party sources, then by all means, add them to the articles. If the good things that the CoS does are as notable and as major as their negative ones and are properly cited with third-party sources, then by all means, add them to the articles. But I can't think of many. Their success in Australia against the Chelmsford Hospital is one, and that's amply covered here, here and here. Their opening the anti-Psychiatry museum is conceivably another, and it has its own article. wikipediatrix 17:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Left. OK, then is seems that we would have two tiers of information. The upper tier consisting of RS and the lower tier consisting of POV sources. On the upper tier we have reported good deeds of Scientology and reported misdeeds of Scientology. All that is admissable information. On the lower tier we have assertions by the CoS on their controlled sites and assertions by critics on their controlled sites. That material is suspect. Do you agree with me there? I am not trying to state your position for you; I am trying to find common ground. --Justanother 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. You keep trying to arrange things in a false duality that provides Scientology more benefit of the doubt than it deserves. Do you really need for me to point out that in the common-sense world, no amount of good deeds can make up for one major misdeed, such as treason or wrongful death? The black marks on Scientology's reputation - and thus the tone articles must take - cannot be undone, any more than Baby Face Nelson can suddenly become NOT a bankrobber. wikipediatrix 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am really struggling here. You just said "If the good things that the CoS does are as notable and as major as their negative ones and are properly cited with third-party sources, then by all means, add them to the articles." You seem to be presenting a concept that you already denied; The one I presented as "Scientology has reached such a level of infamy that the infamy outweighs any possible good so by attempting to present the two sides equally in an effort to be "fair" one would be making an error." Are you deliberately trying to be slippery? --Justanother 18:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was comparing them in terms of Wikipedia notability, not in relative "goodness". Like an earthworm, if you dissect words too much, you end up with nothing but pieces of mush. Asking me what tiers I would structure these things in my mind is pointless, because I am not the only editor here. If there are good things the CoS has done that you want to see in articles, name some. Or put some in articles, and let the community see if it agrees. Simple as that. wikipediatrix 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

<conflict> If you think one wrongful death condemns a group to infamy forever then you have precious few groups to place your trust in. Not even Pizza Hut or McDonalds.[8] That must be tough. --Justanother

There you go again. You know quite well that I am not talking about just one wrongful death. I am talking about the mile-long list of Scn misdeeds which we've already discussed. wikipediatrix 18:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

But you said "no amount of good deeds can make up for one major misdeed". I took that at face value as being your feeling. --Justanother 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can see that you do not want to be pinned down (my opinion, not your words!) I can understand that and I respect it. --Justanother 18:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already stated my position in the clearest English possible. wikipediatrix 18:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I will not belabor you further. I will instead allow what you have said to perhaps gel in my mind. Later. --Justanother 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile

Actually, my time is best spent trying to understand the process here. The Helena thing was just because it is unfair. Unfair that the cashier at the local supermarket or the teller at her bank might be interested in wikipedia Scn articles, might recognize her name when she presents her credit card and might have the gall to mock her as the "infamous Helena Kobrin". Unlikely? Absolutely. So instead of her teller it is just some reader getting a laugh at Helena's expense. Unfair. No thank you. You don't saddle someone with "infamy", at least here and unsourced. --Justanother 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert it, of course. Any source to verify the claim would come from Usenet itself, which isn't encyclopedic under Wikipedia policy. But it was a very picayune point to make, considering that the net is filled with information about Kobrin being voted Usenet Kook of the Year. wikipediatrix 18:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Alison Garrigan

A while ago, you nominated Alison Garrigan for deletion with the comment:

non-notable actress who's appearing in a local community theater production of Rocky Horror in Ohio. Fails WP:BIO and reeks of vanity. wikipediatrix 04:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was eventually deleted as a result of the discussion. I didn't participate in that AfD discussion, but after someone reposted the article (and someone else added a {{csd-g4}} tag to it), I took a closer look, and as far as I can tell the theatre in question is a fully professional one, and Alison Garrigan is both a notable stage actor and costume designer. I added some references. Could you please take a look at the latest version of the article to see if it now satisfies your notability concerns? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A new subject

I think we have recently witnessed a new subject coming into existence - Scientrollogy.--Fahrenheit451 09:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nikhil Parekh

I have just placed this notice on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Parekh page, and am bringing every voter's attention to it as promised.

Comment. Sigh. Despite the inevitable tirade that this will unleash, I am sorry to have to bring new information to the table. I have this morning received an email from Vijaya Ghose, editor of the Limca Book of Records. "Dear Mr (----), We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry.

I don't know whether this changes your vote, but thought you should know. Vizjim 06:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Eva Pigford

Hi, I was running housekeeping checks on citecheck template transclusions and noticed you added this one to the article on November 9. Please state your specific reasons for choosing this template on the article talk page. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo permablocked

I've just permablocked Terryeo. Wandering by WP:ANI and verifying that the situation is as I described might be helpful. Phil Sandifer 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tentacle Rape/Sex Comment

wikipediatrix I thought you should know you are famous now "Some tentacle sex is consensual, you know." [[9]]

Thanks for the heads up

Work prohibits me from spending lots of time here these days, but I'll certainly keep my antennae out when I do look in. Based on that one note, the authorial "voice" of Slightlyright didn't strike me as Terryeo's, though if it is Terryeo under another name, his non-sequiters will give the game away soon enough. I'm a bit surprised that Terryeo hasn't been loudly protesting his ban. BTfromLA 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The voice seems different. Maybe they've given his job to someone else. yandman 18:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the voice seems different, although looking at old Terryeo posts, he sometimes went into that mode himself. I always kind of felt that at least two different people were using the Terryeo account, because sometimes he could spell and form coherent sentences, and other times he couldn't. Also, he sometimes seemed to edit around the clock, without sleep. (Although Dianetics reduces the need for sleep, I hear tell.) wikipediatrix 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Neil Bush mediation

Here's a heads up that you will want to comment here. --67.101.67.107 13:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you put in your 2 cents there when you get a chance. : ) Cowicide 04:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bold Face

Wikipediatrix, please do not make reverts on issues that have no bearing. Everything that was bold was a name or proper title of importance. The fact that things were put in bold face have no rules on the integrity of an article. Edit when needed not at desire or personal dislike. If you have a problem you take it to a talk page. I do not want to have to say this again or I will go to an admin to stop you again. Thank you for your help. Junebug52 10:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Spare me your attitude, and go educate yourself at MOS:BOLD. If you still don't understand it after reading it, go ask someone else about it. wikipediatrix 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am not being rude to you, but I am tired of you going onto pages that other editors are working on and just ripping things apart without putting it on a talk page first. You need to learn respect for others work not just your own. If you have a problem with that then I wonder if you should be editing. We work just as hard as you do and you need to respect that. I also see you are still following me through Wikipedia. I see you have posted on the same admins page as I did. I wonder if there is a rule about Wiki stalking? Junebug52 11:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Report me if you think I've done anything wrong. Good luck. wikipediatrix 05:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

HELP

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim_Douglas"

SOME VANDAL HAS ADDED A NOTICE TO MY PAGE SAYING I'M A SOCKPUPPET, I NEED TO TALK TO SOMEONE, AND FAST. LOOK AT MY PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Professor Sunderland 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC) At 17:09pm on the 15th November 2006

Question

A resent edit of yours tags the Triva section of the Anton LaVey article. could you please explain your reasons (or redirect me to the proper wikipedia policy article(s)) so that I may begin clean up for that particular section. Thank you very much. AlexanderLevian 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings from talk pages

I've also seen plenty of cases where administrators decline to block when users remove warnings. It depends on the circumstances, in his case it was his first warning, for an action he apologized for and himself reverted (see Wikipedia:Don't_bite_the_newbies). In any case, now it's a third party (me) removing the warning, not the user himself. I certainly won't give him the curtosy again, but under the circumstances he should get a second chance and not have his talk page marked up for life. Vpoko 15:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the extremely insulting (and Wiki-knowledgable) nature of his very first post to Wikipedia indicates to me that he's possibly not a new user, that he is possibly a single-purpose account (possibly a "bad hand" account), and that the day may come when it will be important for admins to see that he's had prior warnings. I find it highly unlikely that he so quickly found this private page of User:Justanother which he himself made an addition to: [10] wikipediatrix 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

His sudden appearance and immersion into Wikipedia was very suspicious, which is why I requested and got a checkuser on him that said his IP address was unrelated to Terryeo's. He could still be a sock of someone else, of course, (even Terryeo's from a proxy account) but he might just be a user who's interested in Scientology and saw Justanother's user page on some of the Scientology talk pages. I understand being offended by what he said (it was really offensive), and I also really understand being suspicious when dealing with Scientology-related topics (I, myself, am very leary of the group), but I don't want us to turn into a bunch of editors who go after Scientologists on sight. It's definately fair to keep an eye on him, and being that he's had his warning & time to read up on wikipedia, he has no more excuses for outbursts like that. Vpoko 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Scientology. My reaction would be no different if the outburst had taken place on the talk page for Egg nog. This doesn't even come close to "going after Scientologists on sight". wikipediatrix 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Read this and all the things it links to. After these rather long discussions, consensus was to remove the "Wr" templates and consider talk page reversions as harassment. Can't say I agree with it myself, and it makes it much harder to spot vandals, but then again I'm not the dictator of all Wikipedia. Yet. Just thought I'd let you know. What I do is write the name of the warning being given IN CAPS in the summary, which makes it easier to know which one is due. I think we'll be keeping an eye on all these new hubologists... yandman 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent AfD commentary.

Template:Civil0 Disagree with me if you want, it won't be the last time, but accusations of disruption and accusing me of dishonesty are not good at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to misquote and misrepresent a specific sentence in WP:BIO by leaving out a crucial part of the sentence, I will continue to point it out. If you think I am in error, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. wikipediatrix 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the sort, as I have explained. Please stop with the false accusations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think I am in error, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. wikipediatrix 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you continue to do so, I may have to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

HEY VANDALS

Someones blanked the entire article of Jarrow and wrote. Jarrow is a S******* Please warn this Ip, it is their SECOND, warning now

Southeast Christian Church

I just thought you'd be amused by how I ended up making a minor contribution to the above just now. I was adding some text to the hemp oil article, and, having finished, thought to look at the history to see who else had been active. Spotted you. Looked at your contribs. Spotted Southeast Christian Church. Read it. Hit edit. WP can be quite a trip. You just never know where you're going to end up. Waitak 12:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Professor Sunderland is a sockpuppet

The user Professor Sunderland is no professor. But an abusive vandalising sockpuppet, who created a new account after his old one User: Molag bal got indefinitley blocked for vandalism, I discovered this earlier, as they have the same IP address. User: Galactian 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I can obviously tell he's no professor, lol... his writing style is that of a child. If you can back up what you say by providing diffs, you should report this to WP:AIV and mention that he's just now vandalized his own talk page. wikipediatrix 22:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Very busy

Sorry, can you do it for me. I' am very busy. Galactian 22:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget that, I've reported him, forget all of it... Galactian 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)