User talk:Afterwriting

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

Why did you delete my edits?[edit]

I noticed you deleted some of my edits referencing a video library with some content specific to Jungian Cognitive Functions and Enneagram. Why did you do that? Have you looked at the content? There is very good information there. I noticed some sites referenced seem to be related to commercial interest and sale of products. Why are those ok and what I linked to are not? Thanks in advance for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typeenthusiast (talkcontribs) 03:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for asking. As I already mentioned in my edit summaries, external links to online forums should not be included in articles (unless there are exceptional reasons why they should be ~ but this is not so in these instances). If there is some other way that the videos can be linked to then this can be considered for inclusion. I will need to look at the other linked sites to see whether they are acceptable or not. Links to sites selling products are not acceptable unless they are official sites related to the article subject. An article on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, for instance, can include official MBTI links even if those websites sell products and services. Please see WP:ELNO for further information. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I do see why you wouldn't want links to a lot of online forums for quality reasons. The unique thing about that link I provided and what makes it a worthwhile reference is that it provides an organized assembly of the some of the best video content on the subject matter from a variety of different places. There is good material and it is in depth. There is no place I have seen that has that kind of organization of quality video content from all these different sources. It's like a video wiki. Yes, it is attached to a forum. However, it seems like there might ben an "exceptional reason" for including it due to the quality. The overall Wilipedia entry is excellent. I have found myself referencing it many times over the years. The number of reference links with more information is sparse however.

As far as the other links I mentioned with commercial content, they are most certainly related to personality type but the sites are quite evidently there to sell products, personality tests and consulting services. Last time I checked, the Enneagram Wikipedia listing has similar types of sites linked and was actually much worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typeenthusiast (talkcontribs) 03:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Geoff Bullock[edit]

Sorry I haven't got around to thanking you for your great edits at this article. I'm still not 100% comfortable on full stops inside quotes: it could be an Aus English thing but I concede your position has MOS:LQ support. In any case: thank you very much and sorry for taking so long to be convinced. Your tolerance is commendable.

However I have a query about the uncited and unclear final sentence in the Personal life section. Does it breach BLP? If so, shouldn't it be deleted and only returned if an editor has a reliable source and clarified it?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits as well. The full stops before quotation marks isn't only an Australian English punctuation thing as far as I'm aware. Some of your punctuation editing does suggest to me that you are probably not an Australian (at least not a "native" one) as Australian English generally uses punctuation much more minimally than, for instance, American English. Australians usually avoid having semi-colons as well as long grammatically convoluted sentences. We also don't normally have commas before "and" unless really required.
I am inclined to remove the final vague comments about his mental health issues. Apart from being vague they could be considered a breach of BLP policies. Maybe not necessarily but the comments are so vague that it isn't really clear what is being stated. What does the word "dismissed" refer to, for instance? If you think the comments should be removed then I am happy with this. When comments are blatant BLP violations then I remove them immediately. But if they are borderline violations then I tend to instead tag them in case someone is able to provide reliable references. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey[edit]

Why was this ever changed in the first place? It now reads wrong, and IMO is more convoluted than the original (pick a much older version to compare):

Current reading: "Her mother's former husband, Alfred Metcalfe, was listed as Bassey's father in the registry of her mother's marriage to Henry Bassey, giving rise to the theory that the marriage to Henry Bassey was bigamous in the absence of a prior divorce"

Comment: Shirley Bassey's mother, Eliza Jane Metcalfe (nee Start), listed Alfred Metcalfe (her husband) as her (Eliza's) father in the marriage registry when she was getting married to Henry Bassey. Alfred was apparently not her former husband, but still her legal husband, and Eliza had to have an explanation as to why her last name was Metcalfe, so she listed Alfred as her father (implying that her maiden name was Metcalfe). There apparently is no evidence of her divorcing Alfred, therefore the theory that the marriage to Henry Bassey was bigamous.

The current wording makes it sound like Eliza listed Alfred as Shirley's father, when Shirley wasn't even born yet. Am I making sense, or is just me that is confused?--Nyctc7 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is confusing to begin with and the information is difficult to render into simple and sensible English. I certainly think that my phrasing makes the facts clearer than in the previous version even if some convolution was required to do so. I'll look at it again and see if I can think of a better way of phrasing things. As I recall, the previous wording also read in such a way as to indicate that Metcalfe was Bassey's father. That's certainly how I read it. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I undid my recent edits and made some changes to the previous phrasing. I hope this makes things clearer. Afterwriting (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC) know, Shirley's parents were on the strange side...her mom had ten kids (including the one that died in infancy) despite having no visible means of support, and her dad disappeared when she was a toddler, apparently Henry was incarcerated for having sex with a minor, then disappeared when he was released from jail. The latter has long since been edited out of the article, guess someone thought it was TMI.--Nyctc7 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thank You for helping me edit on Wikipedia !!!

I am just starting to learn the "ropes" of how it all works. BT80 (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Don Burrows[edit]

Hello Afterwriting,

Thanks for reading the article on Don Burrows and for removing an unintended comma. May I ask you to check something else please? You added the word "the" before the word "saxophone". (I don't think that is something a musician would do.) However, if "saxophone" needs a definite article ("the"), why not "flute"? (By the way, I play a flute.)

Thank you and (genuine) best wishes.

Gderrin (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gderrin. Thanks for asking. It just seemed more natural grammar in that sentence, even if not strictly necessary, to have a "the" before "saxophone" as the sentence sounded a little odd to me without it. It is not necessary (but possible) to have another "the" before "flute" ~ "the saxophone and flute" and "the saxophone and the flute" are both grammatically okay but the first sounds more natural to me. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Afterwriting,

Thank you for your response to my question. It is interesting to note that you edit articles on the basis of "what sounds natural" (to you). To my mind and ear, "He plays the saxophone, the clarinet and flute" is quite unnatural whereas "He plays saxophone, clarinet and flute" sounds natural and is what a musician would say. (By the way, I play flute.) However, there are much more important things in life to worry about. Australia has produced some of the best flute players in the world and they're not mentioned on Wikipedia - John Lemmone and Leslie Barklamb for example. Correcting that is important.


Gderrin (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But the article has not said "He plays the saxophone, the clarinet and flute." I also doubt that all musicians would always speak as you've suggested but would often say either (with or without "a", "an" or "the"). As a general grammatical principle in written English, however, definite and indefinite articles are usually included even when they might not always be used in spoken English. Afterwriting (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Buddah Records[edit]

How can the link between Sony Music owned Flying Buddha Records and the old Buddah records WHICH SONY MUSIC OWNS be tenuous? Explain, please. When a record label's name is revived by a record company that owns the catalogue of the old label, it is a continuation of the old label's article. Dot Records is the latest example. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence of substance provided to support your argument that Flying Buddha Records is a direct revival of Buddah Records ~ unlike the revived Dot Records. Therefore the comparison appears to be irrelevant. Afterwriting (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Myles Coverdale[edit]

Hi, thanks for your recent help. Please go easy on it at present, as my total overhaul, responding to the quite correct "Needs Improvement" box at the top, is very much "work in progress" still. Would you be interested in doing a peer review for me, when I have finished (this may take me some time, but I will plod on!) Okan 11:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to do this as far as I'm able. I won't make any wholesale changes at present unless they are more obviously required. I did, for instance, just change the intro information on his name and dates. The dates should be inside brackets. The alternative name spelling possibly shouldn't be. I will try to find out. Afterwriting (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Nice to "meet" another constructive editor. I have had problems with people in other subject areas, notably art! Almost gave up Wiki contributing for a while. Regards, C. Okan 10:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I would like your help with style in Myles Coverdale please. We need your preference for short passages of exact quotes from sources. I notice that there are some that I have done in italics, others in quotes. I have no strong preference, but if you would like to rationalise them in accordance with MOS, when you have time, then I will try to follow your chosen style in future. Thanks - best wishes.--Okan 17:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about using names at first mention in paragraphs[edit]

Re this edit. Yes I do add the name. It was not something I thought about until I started editing Wikipeida. I noticed two problems the first was when an article was split into sections. Clearly the first "(S)He" on the first paragraph of a section needs a name. The second was modifying text copied from the EB1911 or the DNB. To save space (and possibly the style 100 years ago they tended to use large paragraphs, but they usually started the first mention in the paragraph with the name rather than a pronoun. When splitting those paragraphs up (as a more modern style encourages) I decided to follow that convention, and as a general rule now follow it even when I am writing my own text.

As to whether to mention it in the MOS I don't know. -- PBS (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:PBS. Your comments have been very helpful. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

satya sai baba[edit]

Dear Sir,

It is not published that he is believed to be an Avatar by his followers. He is a self proclaimed messaih. He is not Avatar. He is not some one with the stature of Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammad. In fact he is referred to as a Tantric & reincarnation of sai baba of shirdi, but not Avatar.Vosmania (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have taken this issue to the article's talk page. There appears to be reliable and verifiable evidence that Sai Baba did consider himself to be an avatar and taught this to his followers. I invite you to discuss the issue on the talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

sure, thank you for your contributions. Vosmania (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

dear sir,[edit]

reputed appears to be a peacock terminology used from a fan point of view. On the other hand, coming to sathya sai baba believed to be an Avatar by his followers, I leave it to your personal decision.

On the other hand Sathya Sai Baba's controversial life do not reflect his saint hood. Just because he is a philanthropist, it is very in appropriate to put him on such a pedestal (Avatar). I personally believe that it is not worth it to waste my time on this article of a mediocre guru and tantric, Sathya Sai Baba.

Ultimately, I leave this entire article to your discretion Vosmania (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Stuart Wagstaff[edit]

Since you didn't leave an explanation in your edit summary, I'll ask on your talk page to avoid an edit war: why does his death, which is never going to be expanded beyond a single sentence, require its own section and notation in the table of contents? Canadian Paul 21:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

And I asked in my original edit summary on this issue why there shouldn't be a section on his death and asked for some MoS-based reason. You didn't provide one. It is a common practice to include a section, however brief, in biography articles about a person's death as such information is notable. So why should this article be any exception? Are you going to start removing such sections from all articles? If there is an MoS reason against death sections then provide it as I requested. If you cannot provide a solid reason from the MoS for removing it then you have no grounds for doing so except for your personal preference. As the article was before the information about his death was buried (no pun intended) in the "Career" section which was ludicrous. You might also have noticed that I brought this matter up at the time on the article's talk page but you haven't responded there. Please do so ~ and not on my talk page ~ so that other editors can be involved if they choose. Afterwriting (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all, you left no indication that you were leaving a message on the article talk page, so I did not expect that there was one there, so that was my mistake. I also felt that, since only the two of us were involved, it would make more sense to leave a message on your talk page and that we could have a discussion to attempt to resolve the dispute without taking it to another level. In regards to your specific question, one could ask the same of you: what is the MOS-based reason that there should be a separate section for his death? Your claim that "it is a common practice to include a section, however brief, in biography articles about a person's death" is not what I have experienced or encountered in my 10+ years on this project, so I view it with suspicion and it is no more nebulous than my claim that it is not common practice. Having said that, according to MOS:BODY: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose" and should therefore be avoided, so it turns out that there actually is a MOS-based reason for there not being a section on his death. I will be sure to mention this on the talk page. Canadian Paul 23:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


Read your post at ANI re user Derek Bullamore totally by accident, because I recognized his name fyi I had a not so great experience with him too. Maybe you didnt read my post on his talk page about deleting data when using ReFill. He grumpily snapped "I dont see why I should insert n.d. for date of publication" and I left it at that. If someone who calls themselves an experienced editor doesnt understand that, I stop arguing.

Right after me, another editor had the same problem as I, and told Derek off in a less cautious/gentle way, like you, directive. Derek didnt respond, interestingly (pecking on the weaker, bowing to teh "stronger"?).

so, there's a series of "incidents" you could have cited. since the discussion was closed by someone ushering you to show respect for the user with 125,000 edits, I couldnt add this. Using edit count as an unequivocal marker for experience is not smart, but careless. That quality aint quantity is something every child learns in kindergarten. maybe it needs a WP:essay  :-)--Wuerzele (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My ANI was responded to very poorly by some editors who seem to think it's okay to criticise an editor for making a valid report of blatant incivility. Maybe I shouldn't have reacted so quickly to Derek's incivility but, frankly, I am fed up with editors being gratuitously offensive. It is not clever and shouldn't be tolerated ~ especially by an experienced editor such as Derek. I have certainly not been totally innocent of incivility myself but, usually, only when provoked by someone else's incivility. Derek may have made a lot of edits but I've observed before that many of them contain MoS problems. As you've suggested, the quantity of edits is not more important than the quality of them and many of the more inadequate editors on WP are in fact those who also make many edits. They are a nuisance but it's hard to do much about them. I've been having problems recently with an especially eccentric editor who is totally clueless about the MoS and just edits however she wants while leaving a trail of problematic edits for others to fix in the process. Sigh! All the best, Afterwriting (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sydney Opera House copyedits[edit]

Hi Afterwriting

..wrt some copyedits that you've just made to Sydney Opera House

On a really minor point, The Australian Ballet is always referred to as The Australian Ballet, not the Australian Ballet. Unusually, the The is regarded as part of the name. To the extent that, around the Performing Arts traps at least, it's usually abbreviated as TAB If you look at their website, you'll see a quoted newspaper sentence that shows that.

On a slightly larger issue - you unbolded the names of the individual venues in the Performance venues and facilities section. When I set that section up, some considerable time ago, I was following a suggested format for multi-venue performing Arts Centres, from Talk:Performing arts center, which seems like a good format, and has been used on quite a few, if not religiously . On re-reading the MOS, I see that WP doesn't really want bolding used in this kind of situation, but I think it helps readability to have the venue names picked out in some way - so what would you think of italicising the venue names instead? Machina.sapiens (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply more properly when I have time. As a general MoS principle even when an entity usually includes "The" in its formal name it is still not capitalised in the middle of sentences. There are exceptions to this on a case by case basis. I will need to find the MoS information about this to check. I really don't think that italicising names of anything is ever a good idea and I also think that the MoS strongly frowns on doing so. I suggest that the best solution is to change how the venue names appear in the text so that it is okay to bold them (as minor headings instead of in the middle of sentences for instance). Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Machina.sapiens. I've just edited the article again and have bolded the venue names in a way which I believe satisfies the MoS. Have a look and let me know what you think. I also had a brief look at The Australian Ballet's website and it seems that the use of its name there probably meets the exception requirements. Afterwriting (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Machina.sapiens : I've opened a discussion on the bolding and italics issues on the SOH article talk page because another editor claimed that they should be italicised. I have challenged this claim and my MoS research does not appear to support italicising the venue names but does appear to support them being bolded in a listing (which is what we have as far as I'm concerned). Afterwriting (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Machina.sapiens : I would appreciate your thoughts on these matters on the article's talk page. The MoS is, I believe, clearly against using italics to emphasise the names of buildings (and, by obvious inference I believe, specific parts of buildings). I do not believe that the MoS is against using bold when the names are used at the beginning of their mention in a list of the venues (as they are not actually "headings" as understood by the MoS but, as a sensible editor has noted, "run-on headings" which are not really the same thing as "headings" as such but just bolded words within the text which are being highlighted for style reasons in a listing but not actually "emphasised" as understood by the MoS it seems to me. Also, italicising venue names in the way they have been in the article is very eccentric from a stylistic perspective and just looks wrong (because it is). Afterwriting (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Afterwriting. You have new messages at Danbarnesdavies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dr in ibx[edit]

Hi. I wonder if you could help me. I don't completely understand why "Revd" &c and "PhD" &c may appear in an infobox but "Dr" may not? Similarly, why "DD" could presumably appear in an ibx but not in the lede of articles without an ibx? Dan BD 08:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Danbarnesdavies: Both issues are mentioned in the MoS at "Academic titles" (WP:CREDENTIAL) where it says:
"Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. ... Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line (although they may occasionally be used in articles where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify their qualifications)."
I interpret this as also clearly indicating that "Dr" etc should not be used as a prefix in info boxes. Personally I would also not include academic degrees as suffixes in info boxes but as the MoS does not seem to mention anything on this then I give it the benefit of the doubt. Hope this helps. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Regent University[edit]

I saw your COI post on my talk page. Thank you for your concern. I have left untouched any explicitly negative content on the Regent University page, including the somewhat damning sections on Regent's handling of freedom of expression and the pipeline to the Bush administration. Also intact is information on the university's most famous graduate, convicted felon Bob McDonnell. The only major section I have removed is on the Georgia Regents Lawsuit, which is in my view irrelevant to the reputation of the university (unlike what happened with Adam Key). I encourage you to examine other major Virginia university pages to see whether information on legal action is usually included as part of the university history. If so, I suggest creating a separate section dealing with university legal action. In general, this page was in major disrepair, including lots of facts from about 2005-2009. There are still some facts that are outdated and unsupported. I strongly encourage a more vigorous contribution by a wider range of contributors, but unfortunately that has not happened in many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitchtop (talkcontribs) 14:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not whether your edits are factual or not ~ or even whether they are improvements or not. The issue is whether you have a Conflict of Interest as defined by WP:COI. It seems apparent to me that you probably do. Afterwriting (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Reverend[edit]

You realize that you're edit warring as much as I am. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly am not! You are not following the accepted process as well you know. You expect others to follow it so please do so yourself. I suspect you are only making an issue about this because of our past conflict. You've done this a number of times before. Please stop doing so. It is unworthy. Afterwriting (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I came across some of your work while editing yesterday and just wanted to thank you for your wonderful contributions in the little-seen maintenance areas of Wikipedia. We need more tireless editors like you :) Keep up the good work! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You are very kind ~ thank you! Afterwriting (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Seraphim Rose[edit]

I have just inserted what I think is an excellent compromise into the Seraphim Rose article, one that I think is balanced, fair and has the potential to satisfy both sides in this dispute. I refuse to get into an edit war or a verbal sparring match with this gentleman/lady; having been through that some time back on a totally different article, I have no desire to repeat it again. I have had several friends tell me I ought to quit this encyclopedia for good, and I'm starting to wonder if they have a point. One thing I'm certain of: I fully understand why academics and other reasonably-educated people have a hard time taking WP seriously. Anyway just thought I'd let you know about the compromise; if you have a sec (assuming it hasn't bee reverted by the time you get there), stop by and tell me how it looks to you. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ecjmartin ~ I think this is a very good compromise wording which should satisfy any reasonable editor, but possibly not the kind we've been dealing with lately. Afterwriting (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the thing for me to do right now is disengage from the entire discussion. I've let my own emotions get the better of me, and when I tried to apologize for this and speak to this person in a civil manner about it, he/she simply brushed me off and continued with their same little "martyr" game in which we are all the guilty parties and he/she is entirely, utterly innocent. I'm about half convinced that the WP gods will just end up telling us all to go away and play nice--as they did the last time something like this happened with an article I was involved with. Sad thing is, I didn't really care all that much about that article, either--but I care deeply about censorship, and about people who toss around words like "apostate" and "gay agenda" and "hand-waving" and such-like, while accusing me of being prejudiced and uncivil. Nevertheless, I feel that my own emotions are getting too deeply involved, here, and leading me to be guilty of a few misplaced accusations of my own. So I think I'm going to do the better thing and withdraw from this whole discussion--I've had a wife in the hospital for six months, now, and I swore the last time this happened that I would never get into another edit war again. It gets me upset, and that carries over to her--and she doesn't need that. Nor do I. All of that said, I appreciate your help and input, and wish you all the best. - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC
I perfectly understand, Ecjmartin. Editing Wikipedia can be a considerably stressful activity at times. One of the principal reasons I edit Wikipedia is in response to its misuse by editors such as our IP friend who are actually driven by their own personal agendas. I will on keep reverting any attempted removal or censorship of the disputed allegations / information. I will also disengage from any further attempts at "discussion" with the IP as it is totally pointless with such people. I will, however, instead just report the IP for edit warring and incivility if this continues (which I expect it will). All the best to you and to your wife. Afterwriting (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This issue has precious little to do with censorship, which in this context would be the suppression of established or otherwise obviously reliable information for deliberate ends, usually of a partisan or ideological nature. The fact that you happen not to like the way of thinking you (rightly or wrongly) perceive my activity to reflect, does not by any stretch somehow transform the critical discussion I've pursued in TALK into a campaign in behalf of censorship. People will always differ widely in their own personal views, that is a natural consequence of the subjective nature of thought and the contingent nature of human experience. The way we accommodate a civil, open society in the presence of such a multiplicity of mutually contradicting ideas and views is to ground public discourse in a set of common, publicly accepted rules that all parties can accept, even if they in fact disagree on nearly everything else. In this way, order and rationality are preserved and public decisions are rendered in accordance with established principles based on universally accepted canons of thought, as expressed in the rules of logic and evidence. By conforming to and upholding such standards, private interpretations and interests are compelled to yield before the imperatives of this acknowledged body of accepted rules, and the line between prejudice and principle, private and public interpretation is upheld. Contrary to what you and other users have alleged (and I don't paint you call with the same broad brush, FWIW) in connection with the present dispute, I have engaged in no partisan activity and have offered a number of meticulously articulated arguments in furnishing a [sound] critical basis for the current revision of the WP article on Seraphim Rose. At the same time, users Afterwriting and Anglicanus have disengaged completely from the critical project entailed by the democratic nature of WP, and resorted to a calculated strategy of threats and frivolous user complaints in an effort to censor my views and to exclude them from due consideration through sabotage, blackballing, and other coercive means. This is all in violation to accepted WP protocol, besides furnishing a particularly appalling example of rank hypocrisyClassical library (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You were asked by various editors to discuss things in a civil way and you refused to do so. All you seem to want to do is go on rants. Afterwriting (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing remotely intelligible in the way of an argument of any reasonably probative nature in any of your remarks thus far, only bald assertions concerning my alleged "ranting", a term which you apparently take to denote the act of producing sound arguments that contradict your preferred prejudice and which you are unable or unwilling to answer or otherwise address in an intelligent, civil manner. As such, your comments constitute a clear instance of the abuse of WP Talk for the purpose of facilitating personal harassment. Please desist from all such activity immediatelyClassical library (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Are your false allegations of other editors' having a "gay agenda" an example of an argument of a "reasonably probative nature" etc? Once again your "comments" really describe yourself. Afterwriting (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That such a thing as a "gay agenda" exists as a recognized campaign seeking forms of legal redress and cultural transformation through a calculated program of zealous activism in behalf of the [self-defined] interests of the gay community is entirely uncontroversial and a fact. Where, however, am I found to argue specifically for the current revision on the basis of the mere fact of the presence of a strong "gay agenda" among a few participating editors (and this would naturally include the author of the original Father Seraphim article, whose user page lists his occupation as "writer for LGBT rights paper"--and whose sympathies with the extremist segments of the gay political lobby is a matter that simply speaks for itself--res ipsa loquitur.), or for removing any demonstrably reliable information on said basis? The answer is nowhere. That many do have such an agenda, is clear and difficult to dispute, though this fact was never adduced as a basis for including or excluding any particular material from the article, but rather reasonable conformity with the norms and standards of professional and academic discourse, as well concerns for relevancy and appropriateness, not to mention the problematic nature of the priority accorded Cathy Scott, a noted sensationalist writer, against the more credible and established ten year biographical labor of Damascene (John) Christensen, which has been acknowledged as the major authoritative source of information on the life and work of Fr. Seraphim Rose, an exhaustive 1100pp account which appears to contradict the assertions of the former. An argument against inclusion of disputed material was advanced in Talk based on a lack of sufficient evidentiary support and other related concerns of a similarly critical nature, and not the motivations of those who argued in its favor, be they inspired to do so by a "gay agenda" or any other agenda. So your argument simply misconstrues my own premises and can be judged as little more than a non-sequitur. It is true that some formulations of the disputed content as it appeared in a number of previous revisions was cast in a particularly tendentious phrasing, which indeed lends itself to a kind of propaganda effect that could reasonably be seen as an expression of a specific ideological "agenda", but that comes down to a criticism of form, not content, which has been challenged on logically independent grounds.Classical library (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical library (talkcontribs) 06:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

By your own admission here, you are an obscurantist and an ideologue, and your continued effort to impose your own views in the total absence of any substantiating argument or critical support is in clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The reason why you won't discuss is because you don't have an argument-- it's as simple as that. If so, you should desist from edit warring and yield to the logical implications of critical discussion published in TALKClassical library (talk)

As usual your ranting accusations actually describe your own editing behaviour as witnessed by myself and other editors. Afterwriting (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Seraphim Rose". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 May 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Seraphim Rose, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your help in improving my weak copy in posting about Paul Sinha's win in Fighting Talk Klynchk (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Little River Band erroneous information corrections[edit]

I have been directed to this talk page. Only part of the story is being told about The Little River Band. How do you go about either getting rid of erroneous information or at the very least, be able to edit it and cite more information as there are always two sides to every story and the whole story is not being told in their history. Paige Marie Turner (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page, not here, so that other editors can be involved. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your edit. However, according to {{Infobox Australian place}}, the |state= parameter only accepts state abbreviations like "qld", "nsw", "vic", "wa", etc., case-insensitive. Eyesnore (pc) 03:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clarifying this. Afterwriting (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)