User talk:Astynax

Note: contents of this page are periodically archived by a bot. If there have been no recent posts here, that can result in no messages being displayed below. Older messages are still readable in the archives (above). New messages may be added here. If you post a message here, I will usually reply on this page, unless the conversation started on your talk page or elsewhere.

Thanks very much for your note about the photo of the prayer platform at Robinson's Arch! It's great to get a note of thanks once in awhile, and not a note of criticism! :) NearTheZoo (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC

I have posted a Request for Comment at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F DaveApter (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Slightly altered your comment

Hello! I added a bullet to your comment at the Landmark talk page with the intention of improving readability. If you object to the addition, please feel free to change it back or let me know and I will do so immediately. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

As a side note (and given that I've once again been up all night reading these sources), I'll bet that between the two of us we could quote chapter and verse of Chryssides and gang. :) Thanks, and Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck to you on the Landmark article & etc.

You may well need it, and I've had my fill there. On a happier note, you seem to know how to format references much better than I do, so if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Mick Harte Was Here, a little article I just finished, to reformat the 3 or 4 references, I'd appreciate the help. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are bowing out, but with the same people coming out of the woodwork each time to resist anything that varies from the viewpoint the corporation seeks to present, I'm afraid I'm not surprised. There is a long list of people who have given up on introducing a more complete picture. My meager contributions to this article, which is in need of a major overhaul–not merely the little adjustments that were attempted over the last couple of weeks–only came about when the Landmark fans removed Landmark Forum from the List of New Religious Movements. That seemed so bizarre to me, simply because it, and its previous iterations, are widely covered in NRM literature. There also, the same people developed a "consensus" that ignored the published scholarship, misrepresented what sources actually say and instituted the Landmark position that it is not related to religion in any way. Same tactics. Articles that do not get much attention from editors are vulnerable to this sort of PoV-pushing behavior, but still it is odd that the viewpoints of editors are allowed to trump what reliable sources clearly state. Unfortunately, frustrating other editors to the point that they leave just perpetuates the slanted reporting and rewards the behavior. It is the rare editor who has the time, interest or energy to resist intransigent PoV-pushers. An Arbcom case may be the only solution in this instance, but those still take a lot of wrangling even over transparently obvious misbehaviors. I will try and take a look at the other article in a few hours. • Astynax ^talk 04:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)