User talk:Vivaldi

Archives
Nov 7, 2005 – May 14, 2006 May 14,2006 – July 14, 2006

Andreas Heldal-Lund

Hi, Vivaldi -- a while back you added to the intro of Andreas Heldal-Lund a little information to clarify that he opposes the Church of Scientology because of the management being criminal and corrupt. I went to put a citation to his exact words and couldn't find where he'd said it in those words. Could you find the citation, or replace it with a cited quote? Thanks! -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been a while since I made that comment. Perhaps it is from the video of Andreas in California. I will take a listen to it soon and see if that is the proper source. Vivaldi (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I sourced it to the XenuTV article, although I don't specifically remember doing so, nor can I recall the exact place in the video where he says the words "criminal and corrupt". The videos are longer than I remember and I don't feel like listening through another 45 minute round of watching them to locate those two words. I believe you can remove the quotes and just state that the video is a source that demonstrates Andreas's viewpoint that he believes in the freedom of religion and the freedom for people to practice Scientology, but that he objects to the criminal abuses of the cult, such as deception and fraud. The video mentions these ideas very quickly in the first few minutes of video number one. Vivaldi (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

More about Hyles

I've been following the Hyles controversy for some time and there are a number of things that trouble me, not the least of which is the timing of Sumner's rehash of the whole thing in the July 2003 publication of his paper, the Biblical Evangelist. Hyles, of course, is unable to defend his position. That oddity aside, here are some other peculiar things: 1.) this whole thing seems to have originated with an article by Sumner ("One of The Blights of Bigness," The Biblical Evangelist, October 1, 1988), in which he castigated Hyles, without actually naming him, for sundry sins/flaws/mistakes, et. al. 2.) Subsequent to that article, Sumner alleges to have received an untold number of inquiries and unsolicited (?) information, but names none of them except one deacon in FBCH, Vic Nischik. (Mr. Nischik alleged that Hyles had stolen Nischik's wife, Jennie, and that upon the orders of Hyles Nischik was relegated to being a mere tenant in the Nischik household, while Hyles dictated how the Nischik household was to be run. Nischik further alleged that Hyles lavished gifts of money, cars, etc., on Jennie, while Nischik himself slept on a cot in the basement.) 3.) Mr. Sumner thence followed the October 1988 editorial with another one, "The Saddest Story We Ever Published", The Biblical Evangelist, May 1, 1989, in which he reiterates the earlier article's tone along with what he called "facts." To show how slanted Mr. Sumner's view is, in one of the paragraphs in the May 1989 publication, Mr. Sumner says, in the section titled, "The Mess Permeates All Of First Baptist Church & Hyles-Anderson College", second paragraph: "Before we start, perhaps we should say again that we are not charging Jack Hyles with adultery at this time." and in same section, Item 2 "In 1971, when Jennie first demanded that Vic leave, Hyles came to him and asked if once a divorce had been granted, he had permission to marry her. Obviously, there were no witnesses to this conversation and its truthfulness or falseness should be evaluated in the light of everything else this article reveals." 4.) Mr. Sumner got his information from Vic Nischik and another deacon George Godfrey. Throughout all the articles he wrote, he variously refers to "one lady", "A man who taught", "One man", "a dear brother whom I have long respected", "Another deacon", "one First Baptist deacon", "A student who served as a security guard", "One minister", "a janitor", "two deacons", "a lady", "One of the men", etc., etc.,...yet he never names who any of these people are, which is a curious and, perhaps, convenient omission by Mr. Sumner. 5.) Mr. Sumner enlisted the services of an attorney, one Voyle Glover, to go over the "records" and "facts" Sumner had accumulated. (It should be noted that Mr. Sumner provides not one copy in any of the articles of any of the documents he claims to have had!) Mr. Glover conveniently also, substantiates Mr. Sumner's "position." It should be noted that Mr. Glover was employed by Mr. Sumner. I'm not trying to imply anything, but do find that fact curious. 6.) Messrs. Nischik, Sumner, Godfrey and Glover offer no direct testimony or evidence (besides Hyles or Jennie) from anyone else save Mr. Nischik's daughter, Judy. There are no interviews or depositions offered of the Hyles' daughters or Mrs. Hyles (the latter only "quoted" in snippets allegedly attributed to her without verification.) In short, I surmise that Mr. Sumner had an axe to grind with Hyles because of a ruckus some years before at the Sword of the Lord, when Dr John R. Rice's successor was chosen. It is well known that Mr. Sumner, once a prolific contributor to the Sword wanted that position, but Dr. Rice chose Curtis Hutson over Sumner. Hyles backed Dr. Rice and it wasn't too long after that this whole mess began. -- added by RedlumXoF (talk · contribs · count) on 11:41, 19 July 2006

I would suggest that self-published works by Glover and Sumner are not appropriate to be used as sources for Wikipedia articles on subjects other than themselves according to Wikipedia policy at WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources. However, until more editors are involved that support that position, I will refrain from removing that material from the articles. Vivaldi (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh Vivaldi, you've returned

Happy Ho Ho's and good editing ! Terryeo 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't keep a good man down! I did neglect Wikipedia for a while, but I'm back, at least for the time being! Take care! 09:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Template Logo

You are going against editor concensus when you re-insert that Scientology Cross logo on the template. at: [1], According to Jean-Baptiste Soufron, host of the Wikimania 2006 copyright forum, the logo on the template did not qualify as "free" and there is no way to create anything imitating the logo and consider it "free." --Davidstrauss 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC).  ??? baffles me why you would consider yourself more expert than the expert, Jean-Baptiste Soufron, host of the Wikimania 2006 copyright forum. Terryeo 08:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware such a consensus was ever reached. Apparently somebody is either misinterpreting Jean-Baptiste or Jean-Baptiste is unfamiliar with the fair use provisions of the copyright law which do allow people to use such images for non-commercial educational uses. The fair-use provision of the U.S. copyright and similar international copyright regulations allow for this type of use for commentary and criticism. I don't mean to put myself above the almighty Jean-Baptiste, but I wasn't made aware that Wiki policy made him the ultimate authority on copyright questions. I also wasn't aware that consensus had been regarding the use of the cross, which BTW is used in other articles about Scientology as well. And I never claimed that the image qualifies as "free". It should be noted that the image is a copyrighted image that belongs to the CoS and that it is being used here on Wikipedia as part of the fair-use provisions of U.S. and international copyright law. I'll look into the discussion for the template and see if consensus is indeed to remove the cross, if it is, then I won't revert its removal anymore until consensus changes. Vivaldi (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly unfamiliar with what constitutes "fair use." It's final context, and templates lack that. Hence, no non-free images are allowed in template space. The "almightly Jean-Baptiste" is actually a primary legal advisor to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Davidstrauss 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I'm very well aware of the state of intellectual property law, including the "fair-use" of copyrighted material and the use or display of trademarks in an educational or critical context. I'm also well versed on the subjects of trade secrets and patents. One can easily have the image show only on pages that are related to Scientology, and if there are pages that do not relate to Scientology in the template, then they should be removed from the template. The template can "see" the final context. Vivaldi (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also aware of who Jean-Baptiste is and I am aware of his qualifications to speak on the subject of intellectual property law. However, I believe he has erred in his opinion on this matter (assuming that he says what you say he did, which I have not confirmed). It is possible to make the trademarked image show only on those pages that are appropriate and not display in other contexts, such as the page for the template itself. Vivaldi (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And finally, as I previously stated, I do not intend to put the image back in the template. I was recently informed that there is a specific Wiki policy that prohibits trademarked logos in the templates. Such a rule is more than enough for me. I have much more respect for actual Wiki policy rather than individual editor's interpretations of what they supposedly heard some other supposed expert comment on. While I do not believe that you are misrepresenting the situation, I just think it makes sense to go with actual Wiki policy than the word of single editor. I see now that that the images shouldn't be in the templates. I will not attempt to disregard this policy. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia David. Vivaldi (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Schwarz article

Look - I think we got off to a bad start. I feel that articles about living people need to be scrupulously documented. Thus my bold start on the article. I am not challenging that what you have written is true or not - just that it needs to be documented to a specific source. For example, if the courts have ruled in every case against Schwarz then we should be able to find a legal commentator to refer to when we put that information in the article - we shouldn't have to tell people - read all the caes below to verify that claim - thx --Trödel 06:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Trodel- You are mistaken that every statement in Wikipedia needs to be cited to a single exact quote made by a single individual. I am specifically citing all 80+ cases as proof of the claim that is made in that particular sentence. Counting is not original research, despite your own misguided reading of WP:NOR. Your deletions of quotations that are verifiably and admittedly made by Ms. Schwarz herself and citing WP:NOR as a reason for your deletions shows that you do not have a good understanding of the policies of Wikipedia. I would suggest that before you engage in culling material from articles based on your interpretations of WP:POLICY that you gain a better understanding of what the policies actually say and how they are typically applied. Please talk to some other editors with some more experience with applying policy.

And I too am concerned about Wikipedia treats WP:BLP. You can read my views on this at Fred Phelps discussion page and the Bill Gothard discussion page, and also on the Sollog discussion page. Vivaldi (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page - detemining whether the decision is a final determination of the litigation is a legal conclusion not simply counting; thus I disagree - it is clearly original research. I find your attitude concerning a dispute over the application of policy disturbing. I am quite clear on the policy and how it is to be properly applied. That may be (and in many cases is) much different than the way it is typically applied. However, we must do much better - may I suggest you use featured articles, rather than articles whose featured status is being challenged or have not been featured ever, as the standard. For example: Bernard Williams, Joel Brand, or the soon to be promoted Hilary Putnam - compare with Bob Marley which recently failed for lack of references (among other reasons). Another source for application of verification and reliable sources policy is the talk page of Jimbo's article. --Trödel 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The final disposition of a case is very clear. It ends with a judges order that says "DISMISSED". It isn't original research to say that when over 80 judges dimiss every single of the plaintiff's claims that it is considered to be LOSING THE CASE. That is COMMON KNOWLEDGE it doesn't require a legal degree. Vivaldi (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I find your attitude concerning a dispute over the application of policy disturbing. I am quite clear on the policy and how it is to be properly applied. No you obviously don't. You stated that Ms. Schwarz's writings constitutued original research and you deleted that material based on your flawed understanding of that policy. Whether Ms. Schwarz engages in original research to make her claims is irrelevant. If she got her ideas from psychics or from her alphabet soup is irrelevant. The claim is that SHE MADE THESE STATEMENTS. That is not original research. She readily admits to making the statements and it has been reported on in newspapers that she admits to being the identity behind the usenet posts that post her life story. Your application of the policy against original research is improper and your understanding of that policy is lacking. Vivaldi (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then the newspaper article should be the source - then we don't have the problem --Trödel 10:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz's own writings about herself on Usenet are the source, and they are verified to be hers because she said so in the SLC Tribune. And we don't have a problem with it. It is common practice for articles about Usenet personalities and in the case of Schwarz we have confirmation that the posts Google are legitimately hers. Vivaldi (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

may I suggest you use featured articles We have to work with the sources that are available and make the most of them. If better sources come along that help us improve this article, then I would love to include them. So far almost all of the claims come from 3 seperate newspaper articles, some 80 court cases, and Barbara Schwarz's own admissions certified by a newspaper. Each of the sources is verifiable and reliable. Vivaldi (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and unfortunately, that means, for living people especially, sometimes the article can't include information we know to be "true." What we really need is to find a industrious law student to write an article about this under the "direction" of a prof - then the problem would be solved - I don't know of any who are interested in administrative law and foia - do you :) --Trödel 10:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I doesn't matter much if the information is "True" or not. "Truth" is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. The standard for inclusion is Verifiability. But I know you have a hard time with this concept (Verifiability), you admitted as much elsewhere. Vivaldi (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am honestly trying to help the article be better. I don't know if you noticed Fred Bauder's edit summary "Cleaning it up a bit is an alternative to blanking and protection." After seeing the request on Jimbo's talk page - I thought the complaint has some merit and started trying to edit it for just this reason. If the article does not get more neutral very quickly - it will most likely be blanked, a stub created and then protected - it has happened before. And while I find it very frustration, I also agree with the policy under which such drastic actions are taken. This policy protects Wikipedia, and more importantly protects my investment in wikipedia - I want to see wikipedia become the encyclopedia - and have people everywhere be able to use a comprehensive tool that could, quite frankly, change their lives for better.

Anyway - enough of me on the soapbox. I hope you will sincerely consider the edit changes that I made today. --Trödel 23:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw Bauder write, "Cleaning it up a bit is an alternative to blanking and protection." This is the kind of action that really makes Wikipedia look bad. An admin threatens to completely remove and protect a well-sourced article if he doesn't get his way. I'm not going to be threatened by Bauder. If he wants to ignore the written policies of Wikipedia and singlehandedly decide to remove a well-sourced article that has withstood three AfDs, then he should just go ahead and do it and quit threatening. Blanking shouldn't even be an option that a single admin should make on his own. I wonder why Bauder doesn't take this agressive stand at Bill Gothard, Sollog, or Fred Phelps -- articles that are about living persons that have claims that are actually from unverifiable and unreliable sources. Vivaldi (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think WP:OFFICE makes Wikipedia look bad? It doesn't! It is for legal reasons and makes Wikipedia look good and minimizes the credibility problems Wikipedia has faced. Where did Bauder threaten you? If he didn't, then why are you defending yourself against perceived attacks? --HResearcher 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This wasn't an WP:OFFICE action and Fred Bauder isn't authorized by Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation to initiate WP:OFFICE actions. In any case, I do respect the views of Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation and their need to TEMPORARILY and in RARE CIRCUMSTANCES to protect articles. Bauder didn't just threaten me specifically, his edit summary threatened all editors that dared to revert his edits. I found his threat to be a bad decision and I found his deletion to be a bad decision. There are many other editors and admins that also disagreed with Bauder's decision to blank and protect the article. Bauder has reinserted some of the material in the article, but he has still left out much information that was notable and verifiable. However, I am willing to be civil with Mr. Bauder and discuss my concerns on Talk pages without making comments about his motives. I would suggest that you read up on some of these policies yourself. Vivaldi (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Schaap's titles

Hello, Vivaldi. I looked at both the link you provided me and everything I could find on his academic background through google. Unfortunately I was unable to turn up any evidence that he has earned or was granted a doctorate anywhere. It's true that the biography you linked me to lists him as having a D.D., but nowhere in the text of it does it mention him ever going beyond a Master's degree. As I said on the talk page of the H-A article, I have no qualms at all about listing any official or honorary titles he has, I just can't find the record of where he has gained one. Thank you, and happy editing, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

His doctorate was from Hyles-Anderson College. It certainly isn't a real impressive degree considering that he was probably in a position to give it to himself due to his position at the school and the church. And as it is noted elsewhere, HAC is a non-accredited school. I'm not sure how Wiki should handle people that have degrees from non-accred schools, especially those that come from seminaries, many of which refuse to participate in the accred process on theological grounds. Many of these folks often use their title "Dr." all the time, like Dr. Falwell and Dr. Schapp. What do you do when someone is called Dr. Schapp, day-in and day-out by everyone that he associates with, but his doctorate comes from a non-accred school? I think Wikipedia should not just ignore his title entirely, which appears to be what many editors would do. I think we just need to make sure that it is clear that the degree comes from a non-accred seminary. Vivaldi (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Vivaldi. I was reading through the revision history and noted that you claimed that if "I was going to claim that his D.D. is honorary, I need to provide a source". Note that, as on the talk page, I am only accepting that he even has a D.D. in the name of good faith and civility. No sources that I have seen (and I have spent a good deal of time looking on Google, believe me) have said that he has ever received a doctorate, honorary or otherwise. The only thing that even might lead one to think that is the fact that he is credited as having one (without providing a source) on his Hyles-hosted biography. Now, as I said, I'm not going to raise a ruckus over his having an honorary doctorate from the school he's Chancellor at, but we really do need either a citation stating where and when he got it, or a citation needed template for that claim. Again, as I've said, the citeneeded template/Honorary disclaimer is a good-faith effort I've taken to give you some time to come up with the citation. Thank you, and happy editing. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim is that the Hyles-Anderson College website says that he received a D.D. degree from the school. That statement is an easily verifiable fact that is properly sourced. Vivaldi (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Do they award DDs? I can't find a citation of any program past or present at their page. C56C 06:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

They award the DD to almost every one of their faculty members. Perhaps it is a program that you must contact the school about if you are interested in it? I have no idea what the requirements of the HAC D.D. are, but if you happen to find a verifiable source that explains it, feel free to add that information to the article. Vivaldi (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

This is still ongoing: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi.

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. Added my $0.02 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vivaldi#Outside_view_of_GIen - let me know your thoughts - Glen 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

SSP

I assume you mean ESL344G (talk · contribs · logs)! The user has been blocked. I apologise for the delay, as I thought that the only sock that was in question was Nikitchenko. Thanks, Iolakana|^T 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess that was a typo. Thanks for your quick work, although when I look at the block log for ESL344G it doesn't seem to list the block. Oh well, he's not chatting anymore anyway. Take care. Vivaldi (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perniciously lubricious?

In AfD/Sollog: . . . violates the guidelines of WP:BLP, which indicate that such salicious details should be left out. . . "Salacious", perhaps? -- Hoary 03:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I was going for salacious, but that doesn't seem to be quite right. I changed it to tittilating, but that isn't the word I'm looking for either. Thanks for pointing out the misspelling. Vivaldi (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Violent

Why did you remove the word "violent" when it is supported by the references given? Your edit summary gave no explanation for the removal of violent. --HResearcher 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1. 1) I didn't see the word violent anywhere in the references provided. #2) I ran out of space in the edit summary. Vivaldi (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving controversial stuff

Vivaldi, I find edits like this[2] troublesome. You've had issues with the criticism on the article; why did you move a section out of controversy where he instructs people to pray instead of seek medical help? So I put it back in.[3] Please be more careful regarding what you change and explain it on the talk.C56C 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

C56C, I find your addition of unsourced claims such as "Bill Gothard distrusts modern medicine" and putting that information in a section called "Criticism" to be highly troublesome. The creation of the medical ministry that is headed by a medical doctor is part of Gothard's bio and rightly belongs there. If you have verifiable sources that criticize Gothard and his medical ministry, then put those claims in the article, and cite your sources. Vivaldi (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My accusations against you

I sincerely must apologize to you about my comments which caused friction between you and I. Since the history is unviewable, I was thinking you were one of the users doing what I accused you of. Now it is impossible to tell, unless an admin goes through all the edits of the deleted version, if that is even possible. But since it is gone, I'll drop it and never mention it again unless it becomes an issue in the future. --HResearcher 10:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology. Admins can still review the history. Vivaldi (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!

Vivaldi for your Support! I I feel truly humbled & honored by your support in my RfA, which closed at 90 / 5 / 0. Thank you! If you need me for anything, just say the word. For now however, just like Mr Potter here: My mop & I shall thwart all evil :) IThank you once again my friend. GIen

PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)

PS: Thanks especially to you for your kind comments in the RfA - they meant a lot. (Hope someone who will remain nameless isnt too scared now ;) You rock - GIen 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark V E-meter

A person who uses the name "Peter" asks Laurie Hamilton (an expert in my opinion, based on reading many of her answers) the question you asked me. She responds, here. Anything more that you wish to discuss about that? Terryeo 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! So David MisCavige is allowed to change the writings of L. Ron Hubbard! I always thought that anyone who altered source was a squirrel. I wonder if Laurie works for Miscavige? It appears she is defending a PTS or SP Have you done much research into how the works of L. Ron Hubbard have been altered by Miscavige since he died, many times without any attribution to the current writers? Vivaldi (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Before I respond to that, can I understand whether or not my response to your question about the Mark V E-meter has been answered by my posting the Hamilton link for you, please ? Terryeo 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That certainly is an answer to my question. I had a feeling that Ms. Hamilton would respond that way. What other choice does she have? Admit that Miscavige is a squirrel? Vivaldi (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to have your say

You are welcome to have your say, but cutting up paragraphs in a RfC is not acceptable. If you wish to respond to it, add a section titled "response." Arbusto 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When I advised people to follow the procedures for an RfC and put their comments in the proper sections, I was accused of "wikilawyering". However, when you say I don't follow these same rules, you think its appropriate to delete my comments entirely. Pure hypocrisy. Vivaldi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Further proof you either don't understand or are playing games. Arbusto 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Further proof that you are a hypocrite. You consistent violate policies that say we should assume good faith. You consistently make uncivil remarks. If you continue to engage in this behaviour I will escalate this matter. Vivaldi (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have remove you signature from my closure since you added your own explanation to it when you signed it. Please feel free to sign it if you endorse it. Arbusto 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I can add my comments to my signature, just as others have done, right? Or do people only get to add comments you like. Vivaldi (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You add a response to every sentence. That does not conform to the format. Had you created your response section as the formatting clearly states, and avoided cutting up my paragraphs-- then it would be fine. Arbusto 00:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Preying

The title "investigation" needs to stay -- the title you used sounds like the National Inquirer. Nonetheless, I think most of your material is fine and one paragraph by arbustoo was fine. Whether or not you two will agree on this is another story. •Jim62sch• 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the title, it is the content that matters. Arbustoo removes sourced material because it interferes with his desire to defame fundamentalists. Do you find it at all troublesome that Arbustoo does nothing to the articles about fundamentalists except add information that puts them in a bad light? Vivaldi (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you and Arbustoo tried mediation? Maybe try to get Slim Virgin involved -- she's pretty good at that kind of stuff. •Jim62sch• 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for signing it

Thank you for agreeing[4] to

• "The articles at which Vivaldi cannot remain civil should be avoided by Vivadli, with the exception of revert vandalism."

• "Thus, Vivaldi should avoid quoting wiki-rules for the purpose of pushing a POV that does not conform to an wikipedia consensus."

• "In matters that he does not get consensus, Vivaldi should kindly avoid making edits that the community fails to support."

Arbusto 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that you are still being an uncivil hypocrite. Vivaldi (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe of interest to you

Hello Vivaldi, this discussion [5] might be of interest to you. Orsini 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

You continued attacks are not acceptable. Bring an RfC if you truly are troubled. Arbusto 08:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not wikistalking. You don't own Wikipedia, Arbustoo. You don't get to tell me what articles I can edit. You need to read what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say about "Wikistalking", because you apparently haven't. You seem to think that it means I am prohibited in some fashion from investigating your additions to Wikipedia. However, you are wrong about this. When an editor, like yourself, demonstrates complete disregard for policies, and particularly the policies regarding verifiability and those regarding point-of-view presentation, then it is entirely appropriate to audit that editor's other works to make sure that they are not infesting Wikipedia with more rubbish. Wikipedia is supposed to present topics in a neutral fashion, and yet you, Arbustoo, are only interested in showing these topics in the most negative fashion you can possibly imagine (e.g. by insinuating that preachers actually support child molestation as doctrine and other such nonsense; and by infesting articles about living people with tabloid claims from the personal blogs and webpages of their most fervent critics.) Vivaldi (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I, and many others, will be watching your contributions to Wikipedia, Arbustoo, because I am particularly worried that you are letting your desire to defame people and certain organizations interfere with your ability to write articles that conform to Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Vivaldi (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA

This is a notice for an RfA involving you. Visit [6] for details. Arbusto 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to more independent and unbiased editors of Wikipedia looking into these matters. I'm confident that Wikipedia has a number of good editors that will notice that you, Arbustoo, are only interested in defamation and portraying your "enemies" in the worst way possible. Your edit history at Wikipedia belies your intentions. You have made hundreds, if not thousands, of edits to add only negative information from poorly sourced self-published web journals of critics. Your point-of-view about Christian ministers and their missions shows through clearly in each of your edits. This is not how an encyclopedia should be run, and these are not what encyclopedia articles should look like. Vivaldi (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will participate in Arbitration after I have some time to read over the rules and policies of the matter and I have some time to collect my thoughts and evidence of your most disturbing violations of policy. I am also involved with numerous activities outside of Wikipedia, so my participation might be slow, but I am willing to participate. Vivaldi (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Rv

I see the you and Arbusto have some history but I want to thank you for rv back to my comments. I get some slack for being an anon-by choice but that's the first time my comments were just blanked, which I found to be very uncivil by Arbusto. Or at the very least it demostrates a rash personality that is quick to jump to conclusion. 205.157.110.11 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Arbusto used the AfD as an example of your stalking. I made a comment as a univolved party pointing out the circumstance of your action on the Rfc and he reverted it. :p I'm not interested in a Rv war but he's certainly developing an pattern. 205.157.110.11 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vivaldi

I have read through a lot of material in the last hour or two. This talk page, the RfC, Arbustoo's talk page, the articles you have both edited, etc. My eyes are watering but allow me to share with you an observation, one that might get me in trouble. When I first came to Wikipedia and thought to get involved in editing I came across the Intelligent Design article. I made a couple of immature and snide comments in the talk section because I thought the article was poorly written and clearly not a neutral point of view. Regardless, I ducked out of the discussion quickly and never bothered to go back because I was new to Wikipedia and didn't feel like getting involved in such a discussion as a newbie. I did however read through the history of the talk page and was pretty amazed at the lack of scholarship. Instead what I saw was folks like FeloniousMonk and Guettarda doing everything in their power to make sure the article was written from a negative point of view. Since that time about a couple of months have gone by.

Now comes Arbustoo, who seems to want to throw in negative points of view on every article involving the slightest hint of Christianity. Not only that, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to articles critical of Christianity. It seems as though he cannot be neutral when it comes to discussions connected to Christianity.

Then comes the dispute between the two of you. If it could be classified as such (Although this is really a rather poor classification in regards to you Vivaldi) it seems that you have been placed on the pro-Christian side of the fence (Even though you probably don't place yourself there) and the anti-Christian forces have lined up against you. Suddenly, from out of no where, comes FeloniousMonk and Guettarda. Coincidence?

I guess my point in writing this to you is to tell you that some of us read your work and appreciate it. Do not let them gang up on you and wear you down. If you want to see what I mean about FeloniousMonk and Guettarda, I suggest you read through the Intelligent Design talk page. It's no accident that they showed up out of the blue to condemn you. Good luck and keep up the good work here at Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagginator (talk • contribs)