User talk:A.J.A./Archive 1

==Welcome== Hello A.J.A./Archive 1 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. If you want to learn more,

Wikipedia:Bootcamp teaches you the basics quickly,
Wikipedia:Tutorial is more in-depth, and
Wikipedia:Topical index is exhaustive.

The following links might also come in handy:
Glossary
FAQ
Help
Manual of Style
Five Pillars of Wikipedia

Float around for awhile until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. There are also many great committees and groups that focus on particular jobs. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English and Wikipedia:Cleanup for sloppy articles. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy.

There are a few crucial points to keep in mind when editing. Be civil with users, strive to maintain a neutral point of view, verify your information, and show good etiquette like signing your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~ If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page or ask the true experts at Wikipedia:Help desk. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Acharya S

There are few enough who can contribute sensibly, and also keep out of the cycle of provocation on the talk page. I'd prefer to see you in that minority. Charles Matthews 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Charles Matthews

Word of advice: don't piss off the ref. crazyeddie 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rene-Skull, aka Rpsugar

See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. She/he is also in possible violation of the "no personal attacks" policy. "He [Zarove] has the defense of being anonymous right now, but he will be found out and tracked for the statements he has made and has no business doing so." [1] Ironically enough, rpsugar/Rene-Skull was not logged in at the time, so has the defense of being anonyomous. crazyeddie 22:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that was in response to Zaroves threats to publish Acharya's credit info online if I didn't back off and let him have his way with the article. Procuring a credit report under false pretenses is a crime. In addition, a wanted kidnapper is known to have passed around Acharya's personal info to religious groups, suggesting that Zarove may have been in contact with this person. Where, for example, did he get the 'Melne' middle name from?? His story has been that he is a former reporter, with a "masters in journalism", and that he wrote an article about Acharya for a tennessee newspaper; he says he procured this info in his research efforts. Though he will give his full name, he will not give the name of the newspaper, the title of the article, the date it was published, nor will he back up his "masters in journalism" claim. In addition, he claims he was a physics major in 2001. Masters in Journalism, a year and half in physics, and a job as a reporter a few years ago... all by the time he was 26. ^^James^^ 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya S edit

Thank you for your edit to Acharya S. Since this is a disputed page, I guess a good thing to do is wait before making further edits and see how others will react. Let us hope that the article will not degenrate in an edit war again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can make myself scarce around those parts for the next few days, if that's what you're hinting at. I don't think any substantive improvements will be made in any case until User:Crazyeddie does his thing, or at any rate I'm not going to try. A.J.A. 03:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, asking for a few days may be too much. Say till some other involved people see your changes and have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Christianity

Hi A.J.A. Thank you very much for your invitation :) I am currently on Wikibreak, but will certainly be interested in being a part of the project when I return. Take care. Brisvegas 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. Great idea. Guðsþegn – U T C E – 16:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Chick comment

Either Diligens or I have misunderstood a comment you made on Talk:Charles Chiniquy - Diligens has interpreted you as saying that www.chick.com is not Chick's official website (and removed mention of Chick again, for that and other reasons), I read your words differently. Would appreciate if you could clarify it there? --Calair 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your nominations for deletion

It's hard to understand how you could nominate Thomas Ice, Grant Jeffrey, and Mal Couch for deletion; not to mention the entire LBU list of people. I've responded on those pages, but those three guys are very notable. Ice and Jeffrey both have over 14 million Google hits. All of them have written countless books. As a self-proclaimed inerrantist, I'm shocked that you haven't heard of them. Jeffrey is one of the biggest names in Bible prophecy. --Jason Gastrich 05:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a low standard for "countless". Maybe you just can't count very high.

Is there any reason I would have heard of them? Not all of evangelicalism is your own little inbred pocket, you know. A.J.A. 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so bitter and why are you attacking me? Shouldn't we be like-minded as Christians? Christ wouldn't be coming after me and putting me down like you are. --Jason Gastrich 06:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if the New Testament is accurate at all, Christ reserved some of his strongest rebukes for people like Gastrich. The Scriptures have many examples of Jesus dealing rather harshly with the self-righteous, the religious hypocrites, and the frauds and phonies... - WarriorScribe 06:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "countless" is a bit of a, eh, shall we say, "inflation" of the numbers, keeping in mind that standards at some of the publication houses that publish this stuff is rather low. Oh, and the Google hit counts are wildly inflated--and false--as well. - WarriorScribe 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Like-minded" meaning what? All Christians must agree with Jason Gastrich and to disagree means one is not Christian? Mark K. Bilbo 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the (many) things I object to is the attitude that you can take anything shoddy (from knick-knacks to colleges), slap a Jesus-fish on it, and expect the loyalty of everyone who names the name of Christ.

There are plenty on the other side equally shoddy, and I'm at war with them, too. *cough* *Acharya* *cough* A.J.A. 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these were sci-fi writers with the same number of titles and google hits, I doubt this discussion would be taking place. A quick search found Couch in major media outlets for both his religious expertise and his media work during the JFK assasination. FWIW I don't have a horse in the religious subtext here, I'm just calling it the way I see it. Also, presonal attacks are unbecoming A.J.A. - Jaysus Chris 06:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get too excited about publication lists and Google hits. The latter were deceptive and the former is less than impressive due to the general lack of standards (compared to the larger, secular houses) that are common to Christian publishers. - WarriorScribe 06:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean houses like Bantam and Harper Collins? [2] - Jaysus Chris 07:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, among others, and even they don't always get it right...nobody's perfect, after all. Back in my "Christian days," I did a lot more writing than I do now. I submitted a couple of books to a couple of the larger publishing houses and waa turned down flat. But I was made publication offers by a couple of the religious publishers. I didn't take them up on that, though, because I was leaving the "faith" by the time they were making their offers and didn't think it would be right. Looking back at the material, I'm glad I made that decision. I'm a pretty heavy reader. Sometimes I put away a book a night (and did that in my early days in the service, too). I had a friend who owned a fairly nice Christian book store in the east county, San Diego, in the early 80s, and got a lot of reading material from him. Most of it was pretty bad. - WarriorScribe 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't follow the cite, but at least one of the AFD noms has had books published by both of the houses I mentioned. How such a person could be considered NN is beyond comprehension. - Jaysus Chris 08:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot one: North_Tennessee_Bible_Institute. (Promotional tone, preformatted text block, one incoming link from Mal Couch and one from the community's article) --kingboyk 23:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBU isn't a diploma mill

Where did you get such a crazy notion? --Jason Gastrich 05:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing AJ, that you know that it's not such a "crazy notion." Certainly, education expert Steve Levicoff didn't seem to think so. - WarriorScribe 06:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he got the notion from the fact that it is. -Harvestdancer 17:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys make me laugh. --Jason Gastrich 21:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone really believes Gastrich is laughing, especially given his antics of the last couple of days and the scrambling that he's doing to save some articles at Wikipedia -- spending hours and hours here instead of doing tangible and useful things for people, as one might expect of a Christian. This is one reason many of us are quite justified in stating that Gastrich is not a Christian.

LBU is a diploma mill, by any reasonable standard. It meets two of the ten criteria in the list to which he, himself, referred (even if he foolishly and ignorantly though that a mill must meet all of the criteria). It, in effect, sells degrees for what amounts to little work and, effectively, no education. LBU expects you to parrot the party line of fundamentalist Christianity. It does not encourage critical thinking and it does not educate. And if we use Gastrich as an example of the system used there (as he might have us do, since he created a page of notable graduates on his web site and included himself), it also doesn't teach proper research and expository skills. Given all of that, it qualifies. It may be something of an "advanced" diploma mill (in that it has artificial writing requirements that are irrelevant with respect to the quality of work produced by students) through its pretensions, but it is still, in the end, a "university" that sells you a diploma because you don't have to really learn anything to get it.

I'll grant that that's my criteria -- that makes LBU a diploma mill, in my view -- and no one (certainly not Gastrich) has ever shown me that the criteria aren't reasonable. - WarriorScribe 18:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Graduate School

I reverted your addition to List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning because, like Bob Jones University, Oxford Graduate School is also accredited by TRACS (I looked it up at the USDOE website a little while ago). I'm leery about any group that would accredit Bob Jones U., personally, but consistency is consistency. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I could find on the TRACS site was candidacy status. I'm not an expert in how that works, so maybe that's considered a kind of accreditation, in which case the OGS article itself should be altered to stop casting doubt on them. (But it wouldn't explain why they couldn't get a .edu domain.) A.J.A. 04:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that both OGS and BJU are candidates [3]. By the way they describe it on the site it sounds like schools with candidacy should be off the list. A.J.A. 05:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...is in basic compliance"? Well, I guess that counts. I wonder why some of the places listed DO have .edu domains and some don't. I also have to wonder how the unaccredited Patrick Henry College manages to send so many interns to Washington, and why Visible School is located on Huff N Puff Road. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

I just wanted to let you know that I support your opinion on AFDing a number of Jason Gastrich's articles. If you feel that you need to use the dispute resolution procedure (WP:RFC) let me know and I will certify the basis of the dispute. Stifle 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see it, the problem isn't of Gastrich's articles, some might deserve deletion, it's the nubmer AJA AFDed without regard to actual notability. This was done with complete indiscriminance to what the entries said, only who wrote it, or what school (LBU) they were affiliated with. As I've said elsewhere, I'm agnostic to the religious subtext but this is careless AFD nominating at best (assuming good faith), and some kind of personal vendetta at worst (not). - Jaysus Chris 08:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Jaysus Chris. Mass AFDing (even with cause) is simply a bad idea.the1physicist 22:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen further actions which appear to include suspected sockpuppeting I am in fact considering entering a User Conduct RFC in the matter. Do you think this is necessary? Stifle 00:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably going to happen sooner or later, whether you do it or someone else. A.J.A. 02:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

You said, "He's also making a quite serious accusation about me personally, only he doesn't have the guts to come out and say it. All this is specifically about my nominations, so this stuff about "unbelievers" means me. Only I'm a Christian, as he was aware of before writing. So he's accusing me of being a false brother, without having the courage or honesty to say it plainly, or even the basic fidelity to Scriptural teachings to discuss it with me privately first. A.J.A. 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

In fact, I have more guts than you know. I also see you as small potatoes, though. Certainly part of the problem, but small potatoes because anybody can nominate an article for deletion. I've assumed that you are a (misdirected) believer in Christ. Who else would nominate 12 Christian biography entries for deletion? Who else would attack a Christian institution, over 1000 students, and thousands of graduates by calling their school a diploma mill (even though they attend on campus classes, go to school for many years, and work hard to earn their degrees)?

I can tell you with certainty that over half a dozen unbelievers have voted to delete. The ones who dislike Christianity and me (and they generally troll me and roll in packs) have come out of the woodwork. I hope you're happy with the side you've taken and the people you've pleased. I haven't been able to find how God could possibly be glorified by your actions. Have you? --Jason Gastrich 07:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to be too amused by Gastrich's boasting and declaration of you as "small potatoes." The same phrase has been used to describe him (when compared to other ministries and his many claims about how successful his is supposed to be--see here and here, and any time another Christian takes issue with him (and this occurs frequently, as you have probably guessed, see this recent talk page for a Christian for an example), he tries to disparage that person's Christianity--as if his standards and his alone are the deciding factor.

Notice that Gastrich does not declare that the "Christian articles" that were identified for deletion are necessarily valid Wikipedia articles. They are, to him, Christian articles. Remember that Gastrich is here to make Wikipedia "more Christian," at least, according to his POV. And his claims about the "Christian institution" were answered and debunked over here. Even by standards more objective than mine, LBU is almost certainly some kind of diploma mill, but since Gastrich was too intellectually stunted to attend a real college--where they expect you to think critically, conduct research, and learn, well, we all know about that by now.

I'm not sure why it matters if any "unbelievers" vote for deletion. It simply means that a concensus is building. While some of those "unbelievers" do "dislike Christianity" (notice that Gastrich doesn't say which, though), it doesn't strike me as relevant. It's true that many find him distasteful. I do...I've made no bones about that. He's a fraud and a liar and he's even kinda creepy (a part of his "ministry" is directed specifically to pedophiles). And notice this talk of "taking sides." Seems to me that the side you've taken is that that improves Wikipedia as a resource. And personally, I think God is glorified (assuming that there's a God who desires glorification from us) any time someone pretending to be his messenger and minister is exposed, as Gastrich has been. Of course, the last time I looked, I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was here to glorify God--or Gastrich...or that any of the articles currently being considered for deletion glorify God. - WarriorScribe 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must have Gastrich on the run. He is resorting to 1-1 personal attacks. Blnguyen 04:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And additional sock puppets. - WarriorScribe 07:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Baugh and Chuck Missler

In your nomination to delete frenzy, why did you skip these two? --Jason Gastrich 07:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Theological Seminary

Which national accreditation body is Dallas Theological Seminary approved by? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, the talk page was cached, I see it now. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 10:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, in the UK universities are chartered by the Crown or an act of Parliament. In America we don't have that. The (legitimate) agencies that do the accrediting come in two types: regional agencies, and agencies that specialize in a particular kind of school. DTS has one of each, but it may be the case that national accreditation in the sense you're thinking of just doesn't exist in the US, in which case it doesn't make any sense to note that a college doesn't have it. A.J.A. 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this rather counterintuitive when I first read about it, but with the size of the U.S. and the number of small, sometimes obscure but still legitimate institutions that exist, it makes sense that accreditation is done on a regional basis. up+l+and 13:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning

I was wondering if we could merge List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning and Nationally recognized accrediting agencies. Since one is the list and one is the description, it might be good to have them on one page. Thoughts? Arbustoo 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anti pope

Hi.

You might be aware that there has been some contention around the use of userboxes. There has also been a new speedy deletion criterion added with regard to templates.

A box you are using, Template:User Antipope was recently tagged as such. I've removed the tag, but would ask that you {{subst:}} the template. You may also wish to contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes if you are not already.

brenneman ^{T}^{L} 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus-Myth

Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first. I'm not denying that the article could stand some improvement but it needs to be done a bit at a time as there is a lot of relevant information that you have tried to cut out. Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not already in breach of WP:3RR you will be if you revert me again. Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done with your latest revert. As well as the background section with the start of the references that are needed, you removed all the wiki link updates I made and reiserted an error by a previous editor. You have demonstrated admirably just how important referencing and accuracy of the article is to you as an editor. Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 21:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS revert shows your deep and abiding concern to keep unreferenced and inaccurate content off Wikipedia, right?

You apparently think making a few small corrections entitles you to simply revert to a biased version you happen to agree with. A.J.A. 21:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article had warning tags and was work in progress - I reverted as your changes were not justified by discussion on the talk page and are plain wrong in parts. I was not the only editor to undo these changes. I have no issue with improving the article but it is a well developed and complex subject that cannot be accurately reflected in a stub-type incomplete "history" section. References are needed but I am reluctant to put the work in only to see it wholescale reverted along with uncontroversial edits such as wiki links. Collaboration is the key to a NPOV accurate article and I'm afraid your current editing style is thwarting this process. Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 22:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did more than change wikilinks and you know it. A.J.A. 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't play games - I never claimed to have just made wiki links - the edit summary was something along the lines of "first run of adding references" so that other editors would know I was adding content. There is not room in the edit summary to give a blow by blow account of what you have done. If you don't flag it minor it can be assumed to be a substantial edit. I will not be drawn from the real issue of how a large article has been reverted by you to a virtual stub that is incomplete and inaccurate. This is unacceptable editorial behavior that is contrary to the nature of wikipedia. Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 22:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also know you did more than add a few references. You reverted it. A few tweaks doesn't mean that everyone just has to accept your revert as sacrosanct.

And no, it's not a stub. Having POV unsourced content is contrary to the policies of Wikipedia. They're now on Talk instead of just gone, so if you intend to make them conform to policy there's nothing to complain about. A.J.A. 22:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted a more accurate intro statement so I know I'm on a complete time waster here. POV vs knowledge - it'll be a good test of wikipedia to see what happens. Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you mean "an amalgamation of mythological figures" vs. "a reinterpretation of older myths". Which is trivial, has nothing to do with accuracy either way. And changing "amalgamation" to "reinterpretation" was reason to let everything else you did slide? A.J.A. 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But let's be completely fair and include the fact that you removed "based in part on the lack of extant contemporaneous documents or other historically reliable evidence about his life". The old version openly stated that the lack of documents is an argument in its favor, so you strike out here too. A.J.A. 22:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.J.A., I'm at a loss as to why you removed the 'totally disputed' tag from the front page when so much about the article is still in dispute. While the article is clearly still being hammered out, some form of dispute notice needs to stay at the top. Given the level of dispute we've had, I'd like to see either all recent participants agree that the tag is ready to come off, or see no more reversions or edit warring for a good solid two weeks. Sound reasonable? Wesley 06:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there's ongoing dispute about the article, but I don't think there's dispute about anything currently in the article except "amalgamation", which is a nit. (But maybe I've misinterpreted the tagging policy.) A.J.A. 06:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There more problems in the first sentence than "amalgamation" - better start reading something other than the "Apologetics guide to debunking the Jesus Myth" or whatever your current reference source is. Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 06:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh. Maybe I should read the Crackpot History Guidebook. A.J.A. 06:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm admittedly not sure what the official policy is on tagging (got a link?), but in my 5+ years experience on wikipedia the accepted practice seems to be to leave some form of dispute tag on the page until the dispute is actually over. if 'totaly disputed' is too strong, I could see changing it to something else, as long as it's a good faith effort to describe the conflict and not minimize our differences. Wesley 16:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried NPOV-check but that was reverted. A.J.A. 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Mormonism

Please see my comments at Talk:Criticism of Mormonism. Your reversion was somewhat hasty and a little insulting; I'm happy to discuss issues you see with the article and work together towards neutrality, but a wholesale erasure didn't exactly show good faith. Let me know what you want to take on in the article, as I'm always glad to work with other editors concerned with LDS-related topics. Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AJA, you haven't weighed in yet on Swatjester's suggestion to review this article on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis (and the corresponding revisions we've gone over for the intro). It wouldn't be complete without your participation, would you care to add anything to what's been said so far? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, on an unrelated note, yes, Free Bird is the greatest rock song ever. And should probably be made into a hymn. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya S edit summary

Please refrain from using edit summaries like "rm festering gob of stupid". I would tend to agree that the edit could have been better constructed, but there's no reason to attack other editors.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia has policies against personal attacks or breaches of civility. Those policies may be enforced through suspensions of editing privileges.

Edit mercilessly, but comment politely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably pushing the limits with regard to civility with an edit summary describing another contribution as "useless", too. Do take care.

You're also in violation of the three-revert rule on Acharya S, and you're engaged in an edit war with other editors on the page. You will be blocked if things continue as they are. I strongly urge you to take a deep breath and a bit of a break from the article. Try talking things out on the talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual content doesn't matter nearly as much, I guess. A.J.A. 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content matters a lot, actually. One of the ways we achieve good content is through peaceable, polite, discussion. Edit warring doesn't produce good articles; it drives off good editors—that's why we have policies to intervene in edit wars where necessary. Make convincing, reasonable arguments, and other editors will support your edits. Attack other editors and engage in revert wars and you'll be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to pretend that Lobo and James are or will ever be good editors or that discussion with them is anything but a waste of time. A.J.A. 16:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I chip in and say that I appreciate your efforts? The point about the edit summaries is not negotiable, though. Charles Matthews 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diploma mills getting hit

I want to bring these removals at Glendale University[4] National Distance Learning Accreditation Council[5], list of unaccredited schools[6], and accreditation mills[7], [8] to your attention. Arbusto 05:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert wars

I am leaving the same message for you and for ^^James^^.

Looking at the article's history, in recent weeks you two have engaged in the most reversions by far. If either of you revert the article Acharya S again, I will suspend your editing privileges for a short period of time.

I'm tired of watching the same slow motion edit war go back and forth. Poor editing practices by one person do not justify them by another. I will not be editing the article further myself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I go to file a complaint about you? A.J.A. 17:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So much for AGF. TenOfAllTrades is trying to solve a difficult situation and you should welcome his help. Sophia 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His motives are irrelevant. This threat is abusive and I don't have to meekly take it just because you say so. A.J.A. 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you have been edit-warring there. You have failed to engage on the talk page. You need to indicate failures in NPOV that you see, very clearly. It is inadequate to talk just in terms of notional 'balance' on a page. NPOV is not the same as everyone getting their preferred balance of this and that. It means the end result might be the result of a fair-minded person looking at the controversial aspects and coming up with a version. Therefore you need to come across not as a partisan, but as someone fixing up specific weaknesses there. Charles Matthews 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've ignored my comment on the Talk page doing just that, illustrating the worthlessness of that particular Talk page. A.J.A. 18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures for resolving a dispute with another editor are detailed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The first step is to discuss your concerns with the editor(s) involved. If that doesn't work, you can file an informal complaint about me on the Administrators' Noticeboard incidents page. Alternatively, you may seek comment on my actions through a Request for Comment. If those avenues fail to resolve your concerns, you may also seek arbitration on the issues. For what it's worth, I posted notice of my warning on the Admin Noticeboard immediately after I notified you and ^^James^^; I'd much rather see more third-party attention on this situation than there has been so far.

I'm not threatening you. I'm telling you that your recent actions at Acharya S haven't been productive, and that you need to do more discussing and less reverting. If you choose to continue to engage in a revert war then I will suspend your editing privileges because that behaviour interferes with our goal of creating an encyclopedia. In the long run, wouldn't you prefer to have a neutral article that you don't have to keep reverting? Neither you nor ^^James^^ really want to have to come back to Acharya S every day to revert, now do you? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So banning me if James does something will help so much. So much that Charles gives me this mocking psuedo-discussion because he knows I can't fix the inferior version he put up. It needs reverted. There is no valid reason it should read like it does. A.J.A. 21:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, there seems to be some confusion here. To be clear, I would only block the party that reverted the article. I have no intention of holding one party responsible for the other's behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's less bad. I'm still left with no recourse for the biased version that's there now. A.J.A. 22:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try talking on the talk page. Charles Matthews, for example, looks like he's open to discussion. Resist the urge to make personal attacks or be incivil. Try not to think in terms of "[your] version" versus the "bad version".

Remember that not everyone has been involved with this article for as long or as deeply as you have been. Things that may be obvious to you may be completely unfamiliar to other editors. If asked to explain your comments, please try to do so.

Finally, you're not barred from editing the article. It's just reversion that's off the table. (Please don't try to game that or find loopholes; I've no patience for anyone attempting such silliness.) If you're going to add, remove, or substantially edit a critic's comments, try talking it out on the talk page. Ideally, try talking about it before you make the change.

I don't like to be in the position of treating adults like children; issuing "stop bickering or I'll give you a time out" edicts is not my idea of a good time. Nevertheless, if that is what is necessary to get the parties involved here to talk – and to do so politely – then that is what I'll do. Don't take it personally; I will lean on anyone who fails to be civil on the talk page or in editing the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did try and Matthews made it clear he's not considering anything. He has what he wants, I can't edit the article, so why bother interacting? He didn't even just say nothing. He had to rub my nose in it with his insulting nonreply.

And don't tell me I can still edit just before you tell me I'll be blocked if I change anything. A.J.A. 00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to 'edit without reverting'. If you had written, 'The sky is blue' and someone changes it to 'The sky is blue except for clouds and the sun and planes and other things in the air and at night it is black except for the stars' do not just revert it to 'The sky is blue'. Try to understand what the other person's concern was and see if there could be some new version that both of you can agree on; 'Refraction of sunlight causes open air to appear blue during the daytime'. If you can't guess what the other person's objection / intent was then ask on the talk page. There is usually some way to address everyone's concerns if people work at finding a compromise rather than just reverting back and forth. --CBDunkerson 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on Criticism of Mormonism

Hi, A.J.A. Hopefully we can get an NPOV article if all sides are willing to discuss things. The accusation directed at Storm Rider (even if true) wasn't helpful. If both sides present their evidence, there's no reason why we can't resolve the impasse amicably. Can we agree to go ahead with the discussion (with me mediating)? I am theologically trained and have studied Mormonism, so don't worry that I'll allow anyone to get away with imposing a Mormon POV on the article! David L Rattigan 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting multiple times warning

Hello A.J.A, I'm notifying you of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Please don't assume that implying that your claimed POV/NPOV edits supercede such a rule. I've shown you the policies that request not to remove content you disagree with. Simply calling it "inaccurate" doesn't absolve you of working through the consensus process. You have recently been requested by admins to moderate your tone and your agressive reversions. Please comply with Wikipedia policy and moderator requests. Regards. DavidBailey 02:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong answer. I demonstrated the inaccuracy with sources. All you've got is your opinion. That's not good enough. A.J.A. 02:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've also shown you sources, including an actual Wikipedia article on the topic that shows there are more viewpoints than yours. Please stop being insulting. DavidBailey 04:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not sources for other Wikipedia articles. And you're still not permitted to state disputed opinions as fact. A.J.A. 04:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you doing it? DavidBailey 04:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to include your opinions stated as fact is not the same as stating as fact that your opinions are wrong. A.J.A. 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. Looks like you're wrong again. DavidBailey 04:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't refuse to include your own opinions stated as fact. That's the problem. A.J.A. 04:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my efforts to add references last night were reverted by you before I could do so, and I lost my temper. I apologize for losing my temper last night. I was very tired. Truce? DavidBailey 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[9] made on May 23 2006 (UTC) to Criticism of Mormonism

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.

Re your comments on the 3RR page - only blatant vandalism is immune from 3RR.

William M. Connolley 07:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to edit the policy pages to make it very clear that they are open to negotiation and are trumped by a preponderance of editors. A.J.A. 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Quick Question

I am kind of new to Wikipedia, so I apoligize if I incorrectly comment on your page. I just wondered why you completely demolished my page on Barton College. I didn't think there was anything wrong with it, but you removed everything I wrote, leaving only a few sentences. If you have constructive criticism please leave it, but I really don't understand why you completely demolished my page. Please respond. Thanks! (BartonBelle 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Barber-Scotia College is an unaccredited college in Concord,NC. I added this college to the list of unaccredited institutes of higher learning, and you removed it. Just wondering why, since on the college page it offers the date in which it lost its accredidation. If this is supposed to be a complete listing of unaccredited institutes of higher learning, then it should list all colleges that aren't accredited including Barber-Scotia. (BartonBelle 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A partial apology: reverting the list entry was really stupid. A lot of people vandalize the page so I'm pretty quick to revert a removal. Only I stupidly misread the diff and got the old and new versions mixed up, which is pretty embarassing.

I took out a lot of the content on the other article because it was just a list of stuff which is common to pretty much anywhere, and therefore not encyclopedic. A.J.A. 16:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]