User talk:Al-Kadafi

Welcome to Wikipedia, Al-Kadafi[edit]

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself. Before you start doing a lot of editing, you might want to take the Tutorial. It gives a lot of basic info you'll want to get you oriented on Wikipedia. You can sign your name on talk pages by using three tildes (" ~~~ ") for your username and four (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page. Happy editing, Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FSHOD[edit]

Regarding this edit: Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Muchness 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for . To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. Blocked for 24 hours for subverting afd debate

--File Éireann 23:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page and/or replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize shit, YOU vandalized MY talk page by not letting me edit it. Al-Kadafi 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandals[edit]

I'm afraid that when people vandalize Wikipedia, an inevitable consequence will be that people will revert their edits without examining them very carefully. If you want to be taken seriously as a genuine contributor, how about stopping the vandalism? And by the way, new messages on talk pages should go at the bottom of the page, not the top. AnnH ^(talk) 23:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no one reads them if I put them at the bottom. Al-Kadafi 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: The Church of the SubGenius "religion"[edit]

It's clear from multiple sources that SubGenius is considered a parody religion.

Yahoo Groups list of Parody Religions - Church of Subgenius
City Paper, Baltimore (8/05/98): "the Church of the Subgenius is a wicked parody "religion"
Boston Globe (7/04/98): "The church uses parody and humor to spread the messages of carpe diem and free thinking...'The church claims to be a parody..."
Philadelphia Weekly (4/08/00): "Some of you might recall the "Church of Bob," the religious parody parody (yes, a parody of a parody!) that managed to conform hard-core nonconformists back in the early '90s" (reprinted on The First Online Church of "Bob" Web site)
"Mail Art Encyclopedia" "Incongruous Meetings": "SubGenius is a fake cult and a parody of a church called the 'Church of the SubGenius..."

Unless you can provide some Verifiable and reliable sources for your claim that the Church of the SubGenius is a "religious organization" (outside of just really, really wanting it to be), your change is non-neutral Original Research.—Leflyman^Talk 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive respons at User talk:Leflyman

Speaking as the ordained SubGenius minister who manages the SubGenius Media Archive, which hosts all those articles above...and more importantly, as a Wikipedia admin, I should say that you're in danger of violating the 3-Revert Rule. Chill out for a while, man. --Modemac 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kadafi says, in response to the above, "Also, it seems that your sources aren't very neutral, save the Yahoo Groups one. But basically, you're telling me that if I can come up with enough links saying Christianity is made up, you'll let me say that Christianity is a fake religion on the Christianity page?"

I don't think you quite understand the principles of of Verifiability. Take some time to review that policy, as well as the others I cite above. Do note that the sources you just claim "aren't very neutral" include content (as Modemac points out above) hosted by the SubGenius Media Archive. Finally, please refrain from any further comments on my talk page. You have repeatedly violated the WP doctrine of civility, and I have no interest in discussing your views on religion. —Leflyman^Talk 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has absolutely nothing to do with my views on religion (in fact, I'm Catholic). You posted links that said the Church of the SubGenius is a parody religion, claiming that was enough to make it a parody religion as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. I could post links that say Christianity is a fake religion, but for some reason that would not be enough to make it a fake religion as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. You dig it? Al-Kadafi 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I checked on Modemac's sources, and most of them seem to be invalid, as if he made them up, and hosted them on his personal page, using the names of real newspapers as a front.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/?inc=err404 Upon searching the philadelphia weekly archives, nothing came up regarding the church of the subgenius. Modemac hosted a site sitethat claimed to use philadelphia weekly as a source. if it's that easy to make a source, how reliable is the criteria for verifiability? This should be addressed on the verifiability page.

The boston globe archives have *no* material regarding the church of the subgenius in their archives. They don't even have the word "subgenius" as searchable criteria.

http://www.sztuka-fabryka.be/ is a site to publish artists' work online. It mentions a brief history of the subgenius, but only in regards as to how it affected aspects in modern and popular art.

The truth is, inconsequentially, that modemac only provided 1 (one) source that even proves this group's existance, and it isn't very reliable, by wikipedia's standards. However, many of the admin on wikipedia are actually members of this group. This can be seen in their blog group alt.slack on google and usenet's forums. All of the posters in that group have the exact same handles and email addresses as many of the admin on wikipedia.

I'm sure this article will be deleted, as modemac (like many others) has gone through great lengths to create this enormous documentable LIE.