User talk:Sweetpoet

Reply to your comments on my talk page

Sweetpoet, check my talk page for my reply to your post. Thanks so much! - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Giving up on Arius

Sorry, Sweetpoet, but I just don't have the energy or the desire to go toe-to-toe with User 96 anymore. He wants to trash the Arius article; he wants to refer to my objections to his changes as (well, let's not use the term he used; you can see it on the article's talk page if you're interested!); he says my objections lack a single molecule of "substance"--as I said in my last entry entitled "I Quit:" if I cared more about the article and about Arius himself, I would go toe-to-toe with him forever, taking it to wherever in the Wikipedia hierarchy it had to go to put this to rest. But I don't care anymore, and so I've decided to spend my time more profitably doing other things. Arius will be a crap article, a slanted, weasel-worded apology for the man worthy (as I observed in "I Quit") of any Protestant, Mormon or Jehovah's Witness polemicist (nothing against those religions on my end, mind you!). What it will NOT be anymore is a neutral, viable encyclopedia article. I'm sure User 69 will edit the article much further, coverting it into a pro-Arian tract (as he's already done in the intro) that will in the end provide just one more illustration why real academics treat Wikipedia as a sick joke. But you or other editors who may be interested in this subject will have to take up that fight. I'm done. I'm sorry, my friend; you really tried to encourage me, and while we may have disagreed a time or two in the past, I always felt you respected me, and I hope you felt like I always respected you and your opinions (even those I might have disagreed with). There's just no talking to User 69, and I don't have time to waste with that gentleman (or lady) anymore. I appreciated your words of encouragement, and I wish you luck if you or any other editors decide to get involved. Thanks again for everything! Take care, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean... He seems stuck on doing this. I mean, I see his point to some extent, but he's just too blatant, and obviously is NOT "neutral". The word "target" is a loaded word, as you pointed out, and should not really be used right off the bat like that. So I agree with you. As far as uptight academics and their view of "Wikipedia", it's funny in a way, cuz there are many "academics" themselves who edit and create articles on Wikipedia....lol. I do see the problems and neurotic issues with Wikipedia (and have experienced it myself directly more than once), but I also see the good....WITH the bad. It's the biggest online encyclopedia in the world, with many interesting and copious references and citations and pionts that you simply won't find anywhere else. There are mess-ups and warrings and insanities and stressful annoying things to be sure. (I'm moving on soon myself, as I have things to do). But Wikipedia (overall) has more good than bad, I think. Though the bad can be appalling at times. But the "academics" who overly criticize it, and maybe bashing it completely, tend to be uptight and elitist anyway. Wikipedia is useful and even beneficial. Citations and words that can be looked up. If a college won't allow Wikipedia ITSELF as a citation, they can't stop someone from looking at a Wiki article and seeing the article's own citations and footnotes, and references. Sometimes awesome things are there. So it depends. Academics may have elements of truth in their view but it just depends sometimes. As far as this person constantly doing this to the first paragraph of Arius, well I was tempted to revert it myself, but I don't want any trouble or problems right now... (so I can relate to you). And probably some time soon there'll be someone else to undo or change it around. It would be nice if maybe some kind of compromise could be reached somewhere. By the way, did you think to bring this to Admin's attention and get their take on this particular matter? Sweetpoet (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I just got into a real knock-down, drag-out slugfest with User 96 a few minutes ago on the Arius talk page, and I ended up really losing my temper and letting myself say some pretty mean-spirited things to him. It was just hard to take, him calling my objections what he did, and saying that they were "lacking in substance," while offering the drivel he offered up there at the end. If his objections had real merit, I'd concede the point readily to him, as I have done with others in the past, but as I told him in my apology, I let myself become the very thing I accused him (rightly or wrongly) of being, and I was wrong to do that. I've spent forty-odd years looking for God, and recently, He found me and showed me the real "way" of living, one that focuses on others and their needs, rather than me and mine--and then I let myself get led by my own pride and temper into this. On the one hand, I feel what I said needed saying, but on the other, I should never have let it get to the place that it did there at the end. I think I'm just going to take a siesta from Wikipedia for a day or two (or more); I need to go back and relearn what an old friend of mine once said: "it's nice to be important (or right), but it's much more important (and right) to be nice." I don't blame you for not wanting to get involved; since I really don't care all that much about Arius or the article anymore, I'm just going to leave the field of combat to him, and go on with life. As I observed to him, I don't think compromise is possible between us, and that's okay by me. It's just not worth fighting over anymore, and it certainly wasn't worth what I lowered myself to this evening. Thanks again for everything, and thanks for talking! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Arius Article

I took a look at the Arius article today, and I notice that you've been editing on it with User 69. Though I don't agree with the edits he/she has offered, I do sincerely wish you both well on it (and I sincerely wish you both well in general). I am personally ashamed of some of my comments to User 69; even though I think he/she was out of line in some of what they said, I definitely realize that I, too, was WAY out of line in some of the things I said to him/her. I've decided to wash my hands of the whole thing, and since I figure I may not hear from you anymore after this, I thought I might take this opportunity to express my thanks again for your earlier words of encouragement and support, and wish you (and User 69, whom I will address on his/her talk page) well in the future. Thanks again, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I unlinked the Arius article from my watchlist, because I just got tired of looking at the destruction that's taking place with it. I had previously written this long reply to you here, "going off" on User 69 for all the changes he made--but the Lord started talking to me today, and He told me (I believe) that I need to just let it all go. To forgive, and truly forget it all. I don't agree with User 69's changes; I believe the article has become simply a polemical apology for Arius, not a neutral, usable encyclopedia article. I haven't changed my opinion on that in the slightest. But, all my rage and anger against User 69 (which I expressed quite vehemently in the article's talk page!) was wrong, and put me on the wrong side with the Lord, Who said: "love your enemies, and do good to all who despitefully use you." That's very hard for me to do, but I want to at least try to do it here. So I deleted all that stuff, and put this stuff in, instead. If you've already read my earlier entry here, I apologize for putting you through that diatribe against User 69. If not, so much the better. At any event, you've tried to be a voice of reason and sanity in the Arius article, and I deeply applaud your efforts. I just don't want anything to do with it anymore. Thanks again, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See also section

I agree that a "See also" section would be a worthwhile addition to the Ecumenism article. The trick would be to find some concepts that are related that are not yet linked in the article. Concepts such as Religious pluralism, Universalism, and Syncretism, are similar, but broader, and might be useful in a "See also" section. Sunray (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

hello....thank you for writing me.   And telling me your point.   But this is the thing.   While I understand what you're saying, the problem is why is it that many OTHER articles have wiki-links on their "See also" sections THAT ARE ALSO in the body of the article too?   In other words, I've seen it, and it IS done anyway, for handier convenience and for quick referral.

Also, that policy thing that you cited (which I appreciate), did NOT DOGMATICALLY say that links in a "See also" section could not be links that were in the main body of the article either.   It seemed to be an "it can go either way" situation.   NOT a dogmatic "rule" or "policy" per se.   But again, will you agree that there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that have the same wiki inter-links in both the body and the See also?  

As to the Ecumenism article, it has NO "See also" section at all, and I, sincerely, felt a need for one, for EASIER access to those links that you mentioned that are in the body.   Meaning sometimes there are people who don't read the whole article right away, but skim or peruse parts, and then like to see the "See also" section for other articles related, QUICKLY.   Whether those same links are in the body of the article or not.  Meaning, IMHO, it depends, and it CAN be done.  At least from what I've seen.   And again, the Wikipedia policy is not dogmatic on that.  And that's all I was saying.  

Also, I was curious as to why you just didn't leave the "See also" section that I put there, and maybe (if you thought the links were redundant etc) simply put links there that you thought were maybe better.   (By the way, there WAS one term in the "See also" that was NOT a link in the rest of the article, the term "separated brethren".   That's not linked at all, in the body of the article.   So that probably could have remained in the "See also" section.)   But anyway, let me know what you think.   thanks... Sweetpoet (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You say that many articles do include links in the "See also" section that are also in the body text. No doubt you are right. You are also correct that the MoS and Guide to Layout are guidelines. However, if you look at featured articles or good articles, you will see that they generally adhere to guidelines. Our task, as editors, is always to collaborate in making the encyclopedia as good as it can be. The problem is that people do come along and add their favorite links, so observance of the guideline gets eroded over time in many articles. Guidelines are, of course, a only guide, rather than an absolute. However, most of the terms that you put in the "See also" section were well described in the article, so I couldn't see much rationale for including them, including "separated brethren," which I believe you also linked.

One of the problems we face with Wikipedia is over-linking. So the guidelines provide direction on how best to handle this. The general rule is link only first use of a term. You will find that most of the best articles adhere to this.

I really appreciate your taking the time to discuss this. That is how the encyclopedia improves, IMO. I would be happy to collaborate with you on adding a useful "See also" section. What did you think of the terms I suggested? Sunray (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's cool.   And I had the feeling that it is true that the better and more careful articles do stick to the suggestions more (though they are not absolutes as we both agree).   Also, I noticed that you did leave the "separated brethren" that's in the body of the article linked, from what I did, where it wasn't prior....which I do appreciate.   But yeah, not all articles HAVE to have a "See also" section, but I guess it's generally nice to have one though.  For easier or quicker access and referral.   Some extra links.   I was a LITTLE surprised that there wasn't one already.   I know that not all articles do, but it seems that most (from what I've seen, I could be wrong) do have one.  It depends.   Anyway, thanks for your help. Sweetpoet (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your run in with Novaseminary

I noticed that you have had some issues with Novaseminary. He is one of the most vicious, vindictive, destructive people in Wikipedia. Pretty much his entire interaction with others in Wikipedia is picking fights with and fighting with people. He is so vindictive that he stalks people he has had fights with.

What makes him so unusually destructive is the he is so expert at playing the Wikipedia game, and USING the Wikipedia system as a way of fighting, and disguising his fighting as legitimate Wikipedia work. He is expert at fooling Wikipedia administrators who do not have the time to do the through review and investigation. You probably had some flaw which he capitalized on

Novaseminary also hides his “rap sheet” by badgering everyone to never write him on his own talk page, and then continuously and immediately erasing everything written on there so that it would be a huge amount of work to review his history on how he relates to others, which is basically manipulating the Wikipedia system to have nothing but fight after fight after fight. Feel free to copy and use this to inform others when needed.12.7.82.66 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother. And it's sad that most Administrators don't see it, or don't see just how bad this uptight petty neurotic maniac actually is. I mean, yes, we all have to be careful with sourcing or this and that...but this sick troll Nova goes WAAAAYYYYYYY beyond that, into insufferability with his outrageous edit-warring, goading, exasperating, over-restrictiveness, lack of understanding of true WP guidlines and principles, not understanding or caring about "stand-alone" topics, points that are sourced, but not to his precise liking simply cuz the exact word may not have been used, flaking out on agreements, discouraging boldness and open free information. He has this jerky habit of running to the notice board over every little thing, real or imagined, like an uncool schmuck-turd...and of course many Admins who are busy, give a cursory surface sometimes even sloppy view to these things, and by Nova's manipulation and leaving out of facts, conveniently and dishonestly,....

Also, about 3 of my blocks in just the last couple of months were only just cuz of Novaseminary. My other 3 this year (Admins don't see this) should never even have happened arguably. Two in February, one cuz of copyright violations that were not intentional, and was overturned the same day.... Another one later in February for "edit-warring" on an article, where one of the editors actually came to my defense to the Admin who blocked me to say it was a misunderstanding, and the Admin admitted he made a mistake, and it was NOT as "open and shut" as he thought, and he overturned it immediately. And another one a couple of months later because of uploading a picture supposedly without the right tags, but I meant NO harm at all. And some uptight Admin blocked me for a week....no disputes or edit warring, just a picture, that I meant well with. And now the last 3 blocks in the past 2 months ONLY CUZ OF NOVASEMINARY.....and his antics. So, in reality, maybe maybe only one block of the six I had this year were actually valid valid. But Admins don't generally see that or care about that......and make hasty decisions. And give that lowlife Nova a free pass, cuz he knows how to be slick and manipulate things fairly well. Anyway, I don't know who you are, as you posted from an IP address....

But I already know that I'm not the only one that Nova has victimized. "Jotamar", a very established and accomplished editor, recently, was also a target of Nova's constant uptight wiki-lawyering and insanity....(check here) And other editors have made comments about Nova's crap.... Some Admins did threaten to block Nova a couple of times..... But I wish Admins would finally see the full extent of this person, and ban him/her from Wikipedia for a good three years... That should wake the person up. (And also free other editors on WP from horrible nerve-racking stress and inane garbage.) peace out... Sweetpoet (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"NO OWNERSHIP" DOES NOT apply to personal user pages......and Glenfarclas does NOT grasp that, and he is STALKING AND HARASSING me...

Glen, you're just as bad (obviously) as Novaseminary.....in actually NOT understanding true WP policy and recommendation and guidlines. First of all, you're STALKING me. How would you even know about some IP address writing me out of the blue, and then my response? Unless I was on your watchlist with you stalking over me, like a neurotic overbearing creep?

stop harassing me...

also WP policy (get educated) does NOT apply to an editor's own page. FOR REAL.....I'm not just making that up...

The nonsense you wrote on the noticeboard that I "failed 'No Ownership'" shows what kind of sloppy biased person you are (meanwhile overlooking how Novaseminary constantly deletes everything some editor writes on his talk page...)

I'm sure some sloppy Admin will give another surface look to this nonsense, see that I got blocked a few times this year, not care about the circumstances (that like 5 of the 6 were not really justified, and many were overturned immediately by Admins who realized it was not warranted), or will see words that I said like "troll" or "insufferable" and get uptight about that, not realizing that Nova (and now you) HAVE been that horrible,

and I was merely responding to some anon IP address, ON MY OWN TALK PAGE.....and you have NO right to get in and whine about it, or harass, hassle, or stalk me about it, or give me your sanctimonious lectures about it. I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU, YOUR OPINIONS, THE OPINIONS OF BUSY ADMINS WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT ALL THE FACTS, NOVASEMINARY'S OUTRAGEOUS NONSENSE, OR BLOCKS. (And your jerky suggestion for "extension of the block".....lol....I DON'T CARE....I'm busy with other things actually) Don't you get that? Stay away from me, Glen....serious.

I know that you only went, like the vindictive troll that you yourself are too, on the notice board page to simply have my "block" extended by some Admin. Like I really care much about that, at this point. You and Nova have serious issues. I was perceptive about you too, and I was right. Who knows.....maybe you ARE Nova, as an alter....(I wouldn't put it past Nova, since he IS a psycho....) But regardless, you need to seriously get lost....

please don't drag me into nonsense on the notice board page, as I have other things to deal with, and I don't need or care for the stress of your vindictive stalk-ish behavior and dealing with Admins' anything-but-reliable judgments on things, depending on their moods, time-constraints, or how easily they're manipulated by trolls like you (and Nova). Seriously.....DON'T BOTHER WITH ME....

I am personally attacking you (and Novaseminary) cuz both you nuts RICHLY DESERVE IT.....

and and and I DON'T CARE ANYMORE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA OR BLOCKAGE OR OTHER STUPID CRAP.....I've had MORE than enough of it.

Idiot Admins like "Dougweller" stupidly says that he has no confidence that I will change my behavior, while totally blindly overlooking Novaseminarly's insane behavior and yours now......why? CUZ SOMETIMES NUTS LIKE YOU AND NOVA ACTUALLY SOMEHOW SLICKLY BECOME ADMINISTRATORS.......lol....and it's obvious that Dougweller (who was uptight also on the Columbus article, I have to say....and I won't hold back anymore....) was one of those uptight idiots himself.

so "I have no confidence" that every Admin will have brains enough to see the sick manipulations and insanity from lowlife psychos like Novaseminary or Glen....

and he can't see that I'm only getting this way CUZ OF BEING HORRIBLY PROVOKED.... I never had this much garbage with ANY OTHER editor on WP, and I've had my run-ins. But NOTHING like this.

And it's lovely how Dougweller did not see that you were wrong for stalking me (he makes no correction with that) and how you were wrong for thinking you can control someone's user page, and then claim "No ownership" when that does NOT apply....

So I take Dougweller's dopey comments about me on the notice board for what they're worth....NOTHING.

If he can't see your outrageous behavior with me, and only BECAUSE OF OBVIOUS BIAS, sees stuff from me.

It was the IP address that came on and wrote me out of the blue attacking Novaseminary, and I merely agreed and elaborated, on my very own talk page........GET OVER IT....and get LOST.

the fact that you would be monitoring me, my talk page, my edits, my activity (which has been like zero for the past days now), and jumping on it, on my own talk page......SHOWS YOU'RE A CREEP AND STALKER-TROLL.....with serious brain issues.

And that you're probably Novaseminary. (I would not be shocked if you were the same person...cuz you sure ACT the same...nutty and horrendous and stalk-ish and uncool and uptight and vindictive as hell...)

again, as for WP guideline for editor's OWN USER PAGES.....the "No ownership" DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL THERE REALLY....

look what it says.....verbatim

"Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred."

"Preferred" does NOT mean mandated. So NO "No Ownership" policy is being "failed" or violated, as you wrongly stupidly said on the notice board page.... As I said, and I'm serious.......STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ME.....BOTH you and Novaseminary. Thank you. Sweetpoet (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)