Talk:Zevs Cosmos

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criminal categories

These categories must be applied carefully to living persons. In this case, neither American Criminal nor Canadian Criminal is borne out by the article. Please see the definition of American Criminals and the policy regarding Biographies of living persons. David in DC (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I understand the above (I hope) ... but here is what I remember about a man who I knew in 1985

Zevs Cosmos ... "Esyedepeea Aesfyza" ... my own personal interaction with and knowledge of the man, how kind and polite he was in person, had ideas I did not agree with, but disagreement never shut down open discussion.

I never found him to represent an overt threat. At least in 1985.

In this country, "getting nude if you are in the mood" (the historical catchphrase used on the t-shirts and other literature distributed) would never have worked wherever you would have went in the Midwest for my knowledge, but I appreciated his right to try and express himself ... as far as I knew him, he never committed a crime by expressing his opinion ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.61.73 (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple bolds in lead section

Good Olfactory, could you please provide a reference from the Manual of Style, or a guideline for your statement in your recent revision. ("terms that redirect here should be bolded") Thanks.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting): use bold for proper names and common terms for the article topic, including synonyms. An alternate name (here, the birth name) for a person is the equivalent of a synonym. As for other redirects (the name of the church here), I suppose that's just a judgment call as to whether the article is sufficiently about the redirected term. In this case, it may not be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Editor2020 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome—I'm fine on removing them from the name of the church if you think it's appropriate, but I do think the bold should remain for at least his given name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, they should stay on the given name.--Editor2020 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC) As for the Church, leave them for now. I'd rather see a link to a separate article, but since it directs back here, and I'm not seeing a lot of material online, I don't suppose I could get that to fly.--Editor2020 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true. My original intent was to write an article about the church, but there's far more material about the founder, so it really turned into an article about him. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Plagiarism

Please rewrite and/or cite as quoted the extensive text taken from J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions 1996, 5th ed. (Detroit, Mich.: Gale) ISBN 0810377144 p. 958. Basicly the entire prose text of Melton's encyclopedia entry has been typed in verbatim, but without attributions to show it is quoted. This makes it look like the editor's wrote such text himself— the essence of plagiarism. --Carlaude ^talk 15:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This accusation is laughable. A side-by-side comparison of the sources with this article (and I have all of them in front of me right now) will demonstrate that no "plagiarism" has occurred—not from Melton and not from any other source. The text of the article is not "typed in verbatim" from Melton. Melton is a source for the page, so of course the article and Melton discuss the same incidents, but this doesn't make the article "plagiarism". You may want to brush up on the difference between what constitutes plagiarism and what constitutes use of a source in writing an article. According to the cited guideline on plagiarism, "An accusation of plagiarism is very serious." For such serious accusations to be justified, we need a little bit more evidence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]