User talk:64.142.90.32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My reply to nameless date stamp.[edit]

I am interested in helping start an article on antisemitism an the occult. I am however a novice when it comes to creating articles and I have very little knowledge when it comes to using http. As for the problems at the Bailey article I should say that I will watch it and perhaps contribute to the discussion. I refuse to get into a revert war but I have found that sometimes changing the wording is all thats needed. I am sure that you and Kwork may have tried this but I will see if I can help,

I will read the material that you have supplied me with and act upon or reply to it as time allows. It could be the case that wiki has no real way to deal with meatpuppets. Sockpuppets are hard to catch and the penalty seem to be rather marginal. I can therefor not see the upside to accusing them on talk pages. The same thing goes for meat puppets. One should either report them to admin or overlook them entirely. An articles talk page is not the place such comments. I found that out the hard way.

I intend to speak to Sethie about some of his own bad editing habits. I have learned how to get along with non Jews over the years. Perhaps I can help defuse the situation. I will try. Albion moonlight 07:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


antisemitism in the occult page[edit]

Marked for deletion.[1] I would appreciate some show of civility instead of constant put-downs, digs, and slams. I spent a good 1.5 hours trying to do this for you only to receive more you-stupid-idiot and if-Renee-doesn't-file-another-ANI type slams from you, which I've been trying to ignore. --Renee 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, It is unlikely -- given that you went to the trouble of filing an AN/I report that got me blocked from editing the Alice Bailey page for 7 days -- that we will ever be mutually supportive or friendly. As you noted yourself, actions have consequences.
I did not call you a stupid idiot. That is not the style or content of my comments to you. I was civil to you. I said that looking a gift horse in the mouth was not my intention, but that there was a problem with what you had created. I asked you to rectify the problem, but you chose to delete the stub instead. I am genuinely sorry that you wasted your time. That was not my intention either; it seemed to me that renaming the article would be of help, and that was the content of my request.
As a non-logged-in user, it is not my privilege to create a stub page, but although a properly-named stub would have been very useful, it is still my plan to work on the page with a collaborative team that includes some of the people who have been long-time editors of the "X and Antisemitism" pages.
Nameless Date Stamp 18:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see you prefer to hold a grudge despite olive branches. Very well. I tried. --Renee 14:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nameless, I just noticed that you are accepting messages here.

To expand a little on what I said on Albion's page, the reason that my goal is to end my involvement with wikipedia is that I do not like the company I find myself keeping here. It is true that I have encountered some nice people, and I appreciate help that you and others have given; but, as I am sure you have noticed wikipedia is infested with cultist parasites, and editors that have no qualification to edit the subjects they are editing. (One of the main reasons I ended all direct contact with Alice Bailey groups is that with the older generation is now mostly gone, and there is a newer generation that misunderstands the entire purpose of the teaching, so I no longer like the company.) Nevertheless, I will continue for as long as it takes to settle the various issues on the Alice Bailey article. By the way, there was a lunar eclipse, with a solar eclipse coming up. Solar eclipses can, depending on various factors, be very stressful, so do not let things, like the message from Renee above, get to you. Savlanoot. Kwork 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Kwork. I understand where you are coming from. I am 60 years old, have a full-time job, and am not up for all the game-playing and lobbying that goes on at Wikipedia. I take long Wiki-breaks and often only return for short copy-editing sessions on random topics. I had no idea that this Bailey situation would erupt into such a terrible row, nor that my nameless editing would embroil me in so much controversy. I do hope that you remain at Wikipedia long enough to contribute to the upcoming "Occultism and Antisemitism" page. Your personal expertise and historical knowledge on Bailey and Assagioli would be greatly appreciated in covering that aspect of the matter. You are a good writer and reseracher, and so far have been the only Bailey contributor bright enough to assign Nameless Date Stamp with a properly gendered identity :-) Nameless Date Stamp 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is good for some people; and, at least, a little better than Second Life [2] which is where some of the editors here would be otherwise. Some of the articles in Wikipedia, like the Antisemitism article, are useful, but with the Alice Bailey article......I wonder if it has not been a wast of time. The material Jamesd1 is adding now so silly that its laughable. They think I am harming the article, and they are doing things worse than I would dream of doing to any article. Savlanoot. Kwork 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting a user account[edit]

Hi there Nameless Date Stamp. As you're an active participant in discussions, life would be much easier all around if you were to get yourself a Wikipedia:user account, and it should be fairly easy. Kwork, on my talk page, suggested that the reasons you don't are

  1. because you are concerned about accusations of Wikipedia:sock puppetry due to having a prior account, and
  2. that your prior account was linked to your name, and you would prefer to be anonymous.

If those are the reasons, then I can try to allay your fears.

  1. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is mostly a concern if you edit the same article with two accounts, and pretending to be two different people. If you don't do that, nothing wrong with creating another account. If you do do that, it doesn't matter whether one account has a name or merely an IP. If your old account wasn't banned due to vandalism or attacks or such, there is nothing wrong with stopping using it, waiting a decent interval so there isn't a concern about looking like two different people at the same time, and editing with another. If you already haven't edited for months with the first account, so that should be fine already. Just don't switch between them on the same articles.
  2. Surprisingly enough I can understand why someone might want to be anonymous (or even AnonEMouse :-) ), and there is nothing wrong with that, in fact having an account doesn't let everyone know where you are editing from. In constrast, your IP tells everyone your city. Follow the WHOIS link on the bottom of this talk page, for example.

Finally, if you are concerned about anonymity, I'd recommend removing Computerjoe's hypotheses from the top of this talk page, since they have a name in them. You are allowed to do that, it's your talk page. By the way, if they are correct, as other statements seem to show ... wow, we're honored! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I read in the last edits of that account that it had issues with a spouse also editing, and being accused of sock puppetry that way. The best way around those accusations is to preempt them, put a notice on each user page, something like

I'm User:JillSpratt, spouse of User:JackSpratt, we often edit from the same computer.

He types the vowels, I type the consonants. :-)

Note you don't have to give names, merely user accounts. People who "count votes" may then decide to "count" opinions in a "vote" from both of you merely as one, but, frankly, we rarely "count votes", we usually try to read opinions and come to at least grudging Wikipedia:consensus. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding on my talk page, I continued there, hopefully answering your issues. It's really a good idea. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Occultism and Antisemitism[edit]

Is the name right? If so there is a tag on it that you need to remove. Kwork 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Someone has deleted it. I will see if I can do something about that tomorrow. Kwork 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It was probably deleted because all it said was

This is a new article, and material will be added in the next few days. Please do not delete. Kwork 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles in the main space are usually "under construction", but they should at all stages actually have something about their purported subject. If you just want a scratch workspace to put down random thoughts, feel free to make a page in your user space, for example User:Kwork/Occultism and Antisemitism but don't put it in the main space until it's at least a few sentences actually about Occultism and Antisemitism, hopefully with at least one link to a source. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Paracelsus[edit]

Thanks for your attention to the WP:COI insertions at Paracelsus and list of vegans. I have left notes with the four IPs for now, to inform them of our guidelines. If that does not solve the problem, it may be necessary to apply semi-protection to the pages until the message sinks in; but I am declining to do that for now, as the problem is slow-going. If the problem continues, you can contact me at user talk:coelacan; I'll try other remedies. You can also register an account and email me at special:emailuser/coelacan if you prefer. Thanks. ··coelacan 10:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)