User talk:Nemonoman/Archive 2

Christian Conventions

Thanks for the compliment. Please let me know if you have comments or concerns about any of the edits I've made, including the re-removal of the 'note' from the history section (which I've moved to the Organization section under 'doctrines') after consideration of, and comment on, the Talk Page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I got involved with this article at the request of an editor at the NPOV noticeboard. I'd called for help there one time myself at one time, and some one came and helped sort things out, so this was a chance to settle a karmic account. This request looked like one I could help with, so I jumped in. If you check my edits, you'll see that I have none other in the Christian category. So I am unsure of how best to deal with sensitive issues. The note you deleted help to settle things down without a ton of rancor. I thought it was gilding the lily, but Building Consensus, etc. If an editor with your background and experience removes it after reading the discussion, I'm totally comfortable about it. Again thanks for your edits and help. --nemonoman (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about your reactions - the article and/or explanations do need to make sense to people who aren't familiar with the group. Otherwise, what's the reason for an encyclopedia? I half-expected some people from the earlier discussions to join in and object to some of the contradictory and controversial stuff I originally deleted. But instead, a new person was waiting to pop in and immediately throw up a dispute tag rather than editing or discussing (that wasn't the first thing I knew to do). The contribution which followed: 7 tags disputing accuracy or NPoV, 3 citation request tags, 3 minor word/phrase deletions, 6 deletions of reference to the founder, and 1 minor substition for two words in little more than a month. Plus a lot of talk about why this group somehow cannot be described, how the article is riddled with errors, and why the primary sources and references are somehow all wrong (cooked up by “critics” - which I'm guessing encompasses just about everyone). Do you detect a bit of frustration here, too? Astynax (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sloftstra has requested your input on whether the material he restored would be an improvement on the article. Some of the unsourced material in the restored portions could be cited, while other material has since been objected to and removed by editors over the last months. I'm not averse to changing, though restoring the material makes the article a mess as it now stands. I admit to having formed some intolerance towards this editor, based upon reading through the archives, so other input would be welcomed by me as well. • Astynax ^talk 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No prob -- but it could take a while before I can do this. --nemonoman (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. You've raised the same points as I would have done. I've also asked a couple of outside editors who argued WP policy on RS with this editor back when he tried to get the related Cooney article AfD'd and raised RS disputes. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but seems to be rearguing the same points towards the same ends. If we must, there are other sources to back up the existing citations - though frankly I think some of the other published sources would inflame people even more. Anyway, please excuse the venting - I'm going to try to not respond to him so often, as right now I'm seeing his statements as disingenuous or worse, and don't feel particularly objective (since digging up citations took much more time than reorganizing the text did, that portion of the dispute does “get my goat” - which I should have expected). Off to relax a bit. • Astynax ^talk 21:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The points being raised to include these restorations seem dubious to me all around. I'll give the editor some time to respond before I start cutting. I'll do it: means don't you do it. Wait for me to do it as I don't have a dog in the fight other than maintaining the standards of No Original Research, NPOV and Verifiability, all very lacking in the restored sections. You're getting awfully close and possessive, my dear fellow editor. Gear down. Take a smoke break or whatever you do. The article is on my watch list, and I don't like these changes and I will fix them in a careful and proper way. <<This all said with camaraderie and affection to a caring editor: signed -- an editor who has been in a similar situation. --nemonoman (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I do seem to be acting possessive. Probably didn't help that I've been reading through the chatroom which was mentioned - most of the pro/members and the anti/ex-members talk in the same circular fashion which seems to go nowhere. I do need to take a break from "la-la land" for a while, so I'll take your advice and spend more time rearranging the weeds in my garden. When I can think on my current frame of mind as being embarassingly silly, then I'll probably be in better attitude and form. • Astynax ^talk 17:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

On your last edit to the talk page, I think you had Donama confused with Slofstra. Slofstra's the CC member who had reintroduced the old material. Donama was the other editor (along with yourself) that Slofstra suggested take a look at what he had restored. Donama is from NZ or OZ and was active editing this article a long while back, and evidently has continued monitoring it.

I think you did a great job of merging the material. But there were some errors in the old stuff which came back in with the merge - not your fault, and hopefully Donama will edit those out (or I will go in and do so if he does not). The old "Unpublished doctrine" section has some issues, and may be what caught his eye. • Astynax ^talk 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I really regret that error and I am grateful that you pointed out. --nemonoman (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen Juno. I'll have to get a copy. I had been working on linking the shortened Footnotes to the corresponding References. So I just pasted back the copy I had before the latest disruptions. Perhaps I shouldn't have done that, but I didn't want to work on the version that's been mangled (particularly as some citations were no longer there in that version). I also added 10 references to the infobox where Irvine is explicitly called “founder” (although that is also stated in many/most of the sources already cited). Do you think they'll accept that? The puppets have evidently decided to blame me for the content. Yes, I did add some where I thought it needed fleshing out, but the majority I just consolidated from what was already there. I don't know whether to respond at all, but probably better to narrowly focus on whatever points have to do with the article. BTW, LOVED that hilarious “members” alert box you posted! • Astynax ^talk 21:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation request

On the Meher Baba article, do you want a reference for each name or just Mercedes de Acosta. I think this is assembled information from various sources, so each name might require a different citation. But I can likely find which you want. Redletternight (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think purdom and norina are pretty firmly established, but I don't know from Watson, Acosta, Dahm, etc. Also I don't think we need to add parenthetical tidbits about each, do you? Any way Norina was famous for acting, it was her "husband" who did the perfumes.--nemonoman (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually her husband was the chemist, but Norina designed the perfume bottle. It was a 50/50 venture they formed on Madison Avenue in 1928. They had a boutique together. When they sold it they simply split the profit from the sale of the company. That's why she was thereafter rich. But I agree the parenthetical info is unnecessary since anyone can link to the article. I will look for refs for Watson and Mercedes. Redletternight (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected and in awe.--nemonoman (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's some more useless information:

Prince Matchabelli Perfumes was created by Prince Georges V. Matchabelli who was not only a previous Georgian Prince and ambassador to Italy, but also was an amateur chemist who began creating perfumes for his friends and family as a hobby. Georges was a Russian exile who fled the Soviet Union and immigrated to the USA after the Russian Revolution. He and his wife, Princess Norina Matchabelli (an actress whose stage name was Maria Carmi), opened a small antiques shop Le Rouge et le Noir at 545 Madison Avenue. The name derived from Stendhal's novel, red for aristocracy (Matchabelli's origins) and black for clergy (The Miracle, a religious play). They later established the Prince Matchabelli Perfume Company in 1926. Perfumes were personally blended for clients. The first three perfumes were Princess Norina, Queen of Georgia and Ave Maria. The company became known for the many color-coded, crown-shaped bottles designed by Norina after the Matchabelli crown and introduced in 1928 with labels on the underside. In 1936 they sold the company to perfume manufacturer Saul Ganz for $250,000. Ganz then named his son Paul H. Ganz president of the company. Ganz remained as president until the company was sold in the late 1940s to the Vicks Chemical Company. In 1958, Prince Matchabelli became a division of Chesebrough–Pond's, a consumer products conglomerate. In 1987, Chesebrough–Ponds was acquired by Anglo-Dutch company Unilever. As of 1986 the division had annual domestic sales of about $140 million.

Redletternight (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

BUT NICE! Where did this come from? --nemonoman (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The first part I originally found on eBay, describing the history behind vintage bottles. I later verified it. The second part about the company was from a NYT obituary for Paul H. Ganz. Redletternight (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another tid-bit I can't see anywhere to include. In Hy Kraft's autobiography, "On My Way to the Theater" he states that Karl Vollmoeller was jokingly referred to in Broadway social circles as "Norina Matchaelli's husband." This was especially cruel because that was the name she took from her second husband she married after Vollmoeller. It's even more ironic if you have seen the film he wrote the screenplay for, "The Blue Angel", where a performing beauty dominates a weak acedemic to the point of humiliation and nervous collapse. A picture perfect case of life imitating art. Redletternight (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My Taj edits

Hi, when I saw someone had left a message about the edits on my talk page I thought it was going to be something like "leave our article alone". Your compliment came as a surprise and is appreciated. I hope the article reads better now. Richerman (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian Conventions article.

Hello.

I read though the discussion on the Christian Conventions article and noticed you are not familiar with the fellowship. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia, you are, so maybe you can help me. When I read the wiki "Five Pillars" it seems to me a lot of that article is what could be called "personal opinions" not based on actual experience the fellowship or on NPOV citable primary sources. Part of the "problem" lies in the fact we have no written doctine except for our Hymnbook. We strive to refer to the Bible alone, we believe God is not the author of confusion, and have faith in the unifying effect of the Holy Spirit's guidance. Evidence of the result is the fact when we are away from our home meeting we can walk into a house we've never been in before, meet with people we have never met before, and have meaningful, unified, and Spirit led fellowship. You'd really have to come and see for yourself. Anyway when there is no written Doctrine how can what we see as "personal opinions, experiences, or arguments ... Original ideas, interpretations, or research" in the Christian Conventions article be countered with what Wiki guidelines would define as acceptable? Here's some examples;

- Under "Doctrine and practices"; "The group's fundamental belief is “The church in the home, and the ministry without a home”. A travelling ministry leading meetings in members homes has been constant since the first messages in 1897." A reader might think every home meeting is led by a minister but in reality there are not even close to enough ministers to go around, most often the meetings are lead by an elder, usually the owner of the home. This is not written down doctrine so how can I or anyone else correct this line without reverting to personal experience?

- Under "Terminology"; "Profess - to make public declaration of faith in the fellowship." When I (and many others) professed it was NOT a declaration of our faith *in* the fellowship, it was a declaration of faith in God's promises.

- Under "Christology"; "Since the group's inception, it has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity." I got so frustrated with this common opinion I posted a poll on the TMB discussion board. The poll's a bit lighthearted but shows a basic agreement with Trinity Doctrine when the phrase "Jesus is God" isn't used. [1] Interesting that even professed Trinitarians don't think the Trinity doctrine can be accurately reduced to "Jesus is God"; [2][3]

Again, since there is no written down doctrine to counter what we see as personal opinions and interpretations how can I or anyone else correct the articles content without reverting to personal experience? We really can't correct anything without violating the "Five Pillars" can we?

Thanks, Jesse Lackman

Note; If you'd rather discuss this though e-mail I think I have that option activated on my talk user page.

Jesse Lackman (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel like getting into the mud with the various CCers currently bickering with reasonable editors and each other. Read the long discussion to see how members argued among themselves, and the resulting rat's nest.

I read that discussion and didn't see members of the fellowship bickering or arguing with each other. What I saw was non-members and members bickering and arguing. That's usually what happens when non-members think they know better what we think than we do. ;) I'm amazed you had any interest in helping at all.

take care, Jesse Lackman (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the principles of Wikipedia! From now on let's make sure that only members of a group can edit articles about the group. Whites about whites, Jews about Jews, Democrats about Democrats, Nebraskans about Nebraskans, etc. etc. Why should scholarship get in the way of opinion? --nemonoman (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent comments on 'members only' CC edits

Keep plugging nemoman. I'll take half of what you just said as just blowing off some steam. I hope my explanations satisfy you. You're worth staying on the level with. RSuser (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Take what you want. I don't blow off steam. I'm powered by steam. You've got me steamed. It's not easy but you have done it. Now we'll see that energy takes us. --nemonoman (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Spinning in circles, by the looks of it.RSuser (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

An excellent summary that I found on somebody's talk page.

I would say that in an academic context, a Wikipedia article could most closely be compared to a literature review. New research and ideas are not presented, only a thoroughly-referenced and (ideally) unbiased summary of extant knowledge. The fact that we're not writing an essay or a doctoral thesis which aims to advance a particular (possibly-novel) interpretation or argument shouldn't be taken to mean that our work requires and incorporates no original thought. Rather, the creative, novel, transformative, original contribution our writers make is in choosing what material ought to be included, how it ought to be weighted, in what manner and style a topic ought to be presented.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 8:14 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Thanks for your continued participation in CC article

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For you Nemonoman, for your tireless effort toward reason, editorial scrutiny and anti-bias! Cheers, Donama (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I said it in a talk page once, but never got around to properly thanking you. To have you as someone completely uninvolved take on this content is admirable and was desperately needed. Thanks again. Donama (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors Group

Come, find shelter....--Joopercoopers (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this an invitation, or is it an open house? What should I wear??--nemonoman (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Best bib and tucker of course - it's cocktail hour, invite only at the moment according to Peter, but I'd suggest that approach is rather up for grabs, as is the direction, membership, articles of association etc. etc. Come and contribute - no one's really sure what to do with it yet. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this was the glowing endorsement I gave your nomination......--Joopercoopers (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Graphic

Those are good user names! Maybe I should change mine to PoVpusher just to lower expectations. Again, thanks for trying to mediate. I only wish it had simply been tmtsoj's NPoV claims.

I thought I'd throw in the graphic, since I don't have any appropriate pics of my own, and the group doesn't have any art or symbols of which I am aware. My scan is sort of difficult to read, and only about a quarter of the article itself, but the copies from the British Library are too huge to reduce to Wiki size limits and still be readable. I thought it would illustrate that the history of the group began to be documented very early, especially in Great Britain and Ireland. Perhaps that should be said in the article somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

Is putting up a picture of an old newspaper article too weird or inappropriate (it's old enough that it is in the public domain)?

I thought your decision to get those discussions off the article's talk was good. Discussing the info in the article is fine, but some issues seem to be way beyond the article or even Wikipedia. • Astynax ^talk 04:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re - Usernames...A spiritual teacher of mine would hang signs around his students' necks: Fool #12...Fool #13, like that. When everybody got a sign, and the class all felt a little weird and uncomfortable and stupid, he'd hang a sign on his own neck: Fool #1. I think the faults we see in others are all too often faults we know about ourselves.

I've re-read the CC talk from 13 Jan to 15 Jan when RSuser got very worked up and personal. I'm always 1 step away from worked up and personal myself. The discussion between him you and me, and later discussions between him and me have a very hot quality not at all different from many in the discussion archives between earlier editors. In most earlier discussions, however, it was 'anti- non-members' taking serious heat and not knowing how to respond logically. Now, of course, I'm not at all surprised by RSusers blasts at me. He seems to be accusing me of his own faults mostly. I suppose I've done the same to him without realizing, so this is probably fair. His last blast is so vehement, and in his draft versions (which see, by the way) SO intensely personally angry, I don't get a sense of proportionality. I get the feeling that he has left the group after being part of it, but it is still defending it. Like a guy who separates from his wife but vehemently defends her honor. I've seen some of the messages on TMB, now that I finally found it. Ex-members seem to feel very intensely emotional about the group. It must have a ton of emotional resonance when you are part of it, and must be very tough to leave it. So much emotion that I guess I should not have been surprised by the fierceness of the protective reactions to any perceived threat. I should not have been suprised...but I was.

ANYWAY: I have had some luck making ugly old newspaper graphics legible at smaller sizes. I know this task. I've got some graphics tools and I'm occasionally lucky. If there's a way to transfer the ugly page to me, I'll be happy to see what I can do. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all offended by your comments,nemonoman. But I must correct - I am a member of the group and have been for not quite 30 years. No plans to leave. I do get steamed because of the vitriol on the 'net against the group, but as far as my dealing within the group - it has been a blessing. If you ever attend one of our meetings or conventions you'll see what it's all about. Nothing like these battle with the ex's.RSuser (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I often make interim edits that are clearly out of anger, and then quickly revise them. Means nothing. It doesn't matter how we feel about each other, it is the expression that counts. RSuser (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There have been some very bad things said about the CC group (even from notables in places like Oxford), which I've been tempted to insert out of anger and frustration. But I also know that would advance the article exactly nowhere, and so I've tried to sift that out. Not my place (or an encyclopedia article's, IMO) to judge, but rather, just to describe the group and to give some information on their views.

It may take me a day or two. Since the sheet is bigger than can fit on my scanner, I'll have to piece it together before letting you see what you are able to do with it. The remainder of the article is chiefly about doctrines. I'll let you know when I have something ready for you to pick up and plug into your software.

I used the Jaenen book to reference the Restorationism section, as I'm supposing it would be one of the scenarios being discussed by some over on TMB (especially in light of the source you found which called him the group's historian). Not a unified thing, however, as tmb illustrates, and difficult for me to detect and keep straight who is a member and who is a former member in those discussions. But as the Jaenen book would reflect an insider's view, it should be referenced somewhere. And that seemed to be the spot. • Astynax ^talk 06:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't deprecate views just because they come from insiders. RSuser (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You can get the image | here. I tried to remove some highlighting (didn't think it would be used for anything other than my own curiosity). I hope you can get it to a size Wikipedia allows! I played with the resizing it, and got mostly unreadable blobs. • Astynax ^talk 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The url leads to a page saying "this image has been moved or deleted". --Nemonoman (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the link - it didn't like that vertical bar character. It is ugly now, but it works. • Astynax ^talk 19:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, got it. Ps on single bracket web links (http:// links, not wiki links) You don't need a "|" pipe symbol -- it works like this

[http://thetempledancer.com Add a space after the url: any text after the space is clickable text]. No | pipe needed.

Add a space after the url: any text after the space is clickable text. No | pipe needed.

As to the image -- what exactly do you want to happen with it? What's the problem to solve?--Nemonoman (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on leaving out the pipe symbol (now the trick is going to be to remember that!). The problem I was having is that, for the full article, I couldn't make out much more than the title when Wikipedia displayed the thumb. So I just clipped out a section. I had looked on the Style guidelines and was also wondering what size would be best for people with various displays who are looking at the article. If you come up with something better than the current image than my clip-and-resize, take mine out. But if it looks like more trouble than it is worth or not very promising, then that is also fine. • Astynax ^talk 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the headline graphic now in the article is adequate and powerful. What about uploading the (slightly cleaned up, slightly compressed) fullsize with a link to the fullsize in the caption of the headline graphic?--Nemonoman (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! I didn't even know we could do that, but then, this is only my second picture. • Astynax ^talk 22:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I see how it's done. Thanks, it looks great. • Astynax ^talk 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The full article might not be good without the context of the years of back and forth in the same publication. So, if you don't feel comfortable with it, it is OK with me if you pull it. • Astynax ^talk 02:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Just a few points. Like I said, just about every book I've ever seen from Gale is included in the reference section. Basically, all that publisher produces are, basically, reference books for libraries. The fact that they are still in business, and have in fact expanded to include several subscription online databases for libraries, indicates that they are a source libraries find reliable to produce their own reference materials, which is good enough. There are a lot of publishers dealing with very fringey religious related content in particular, unfortunately, and they are among the ones that are hardest to use. But, basically, if a source is one which has been relied on by others, or if it is from a publisher with a good reputation, like the mainstream publishers Doubleday, Morrow, etc., or are university publishers, we know that the books have been reviewed for accuracy and such before publication. Even some "religious" publishers, like Thomas A. Nelson, which has a good reputation for academically acceptable books in the field and are known to produce in general material which isn't too "out there", are usable. A lot of the others, not so much. Regarding websites where it isn't clear who the owner of the site is and/or what they produce in general, even when such an unknown website is quoting a source which is reliable, those websites are not considered acceptable sources, even if the material they are quoting is from one, because we can't be sure the quote is accurate. Some religious groups have a real reputation for "misquoting" sources, and we have to ensure that we don't fall for one of them.
I can and to an extent do understand your frustration with the Christian conventions article, but, without better evidence that the people behind the website are not biased advocates of a position, we can't use them as a source.
I don't know where you live, but, if you live near a major university library, I would maybe ask you to visit it. If the school has much of a religion program, I am certain virtually every book Melton has put out is there, as both of the major libraries in the city in which I reside do. They will also, maybe, be able to access the University of Oregon paper. Also, they might have a few other sources, or you might be able to find a few articles on JSTOR there. But this does seem to be a subject about which very little is written. I was kind of surprised myself how few sources there apparently are. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi John:

When I looked up Melton on Amazon, I apparently found the one instance Melton's publisher was listed as gaCL, not galE. To compound this error, when I googled galC, a number of academic books and encyclopedias listed as published by galC.

See google for Gacl publisher here. The fourth item on the page is this which lists a number of academic texts. So I believed that gaCL was a legitimate publisher's name.

galC, as you might imagine does NOT have a home page, etc., etc. So I NOW see that galE, not gaCL is the publisher, and this removes any rationale for my comments.

My comments in the RS dialogue throughout were trying to see why a publisher with a single-minded list, however, would be considered a Non-RS, based on that criteria alone. To be told that a book from RIS, for example, should not be considered reliable BECAUSE CONTACT INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE seemed to me to be a VERY doubtful reason indeed to make such a declaration. I've seen Melton around in various libraries, and it's clearly a big honking piece of scholarship. A consideration of its reliability should NOT be based, in my view, in whether or not the publisher has a website consistent with the expectations of certain editors. The CONTENT must be a primary factor, if indeed not the ONLY factor. My comments saying that the publisher had no website, and therefore Melton must considered as suspect as RIS were based on my Google errors. But the BACKGROUND of those comments -- that a publisher's website should not trump content: I believe that in that regard my logic stands.

Please note that Amazon lists 2 other publishers for the cited Melton encyclopedia, in addition to Gale and Gacl -- McGrath Publishing (google shows a newspaper group in Kansas) and Triumph Books (google shows a Chicago sports publisher). Also, amazon lists Melton as the author of Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology and The Vampire Book: Encyclopedia of the Undead. So raising the issue of Publisher Credibility for an RS, or other views that an author might hold as a criteria for RS, seems to me a questionable enterprise.

Please note that the CC article DID NOT CITE ANY WEBSITES or webpages (except where quoting documented source material like texts of newspapers, sermons, etc.) Webpages, biased or not, were NOT referenced, and it was disingenous and devious of RSuser to confuse the issue. I'll note, however, that if I was attempting to make his case, I would have attempted to do the same thing. It's a nice bit of rhetoric. It's just not relevant.

An editor took it in this direction. I did not lead him there. How many times do I have to repeat that. I mentioned the books several times and provided links to the Books page on RIS. Why can't you just take things at the level of phenomena without making all these inferences about my character. The discussion didn't focus on the books and that was a problem. Just leave it there. RSuser (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In the case of RIS in particular, the center of this little teapot tempest, the article only cited BOOKS. That RIS as a publisher also has a highly POV website with lots of dubious materials is, in that regard, of no consequnce, in my view. This sort of thing is not unusual in what Blueboar called "Fringe" groups. In the world of Parapsychology, for example, one may find a group publishing legitimate research with a reasonable amount of scientific rigor -- yet it only takes a few clicks of the mouse to find the most dubious assertions written by complete idiots. I've seen similar setups where political groups publish well-reasoned and well-cited books to establish an aura of fairness and legitimacy, and within a few mouse clicks, one discovers the most kooky and disturbing political views.

In my view the content of the books is what must be judged. Content is king, and needs to be validated on its own merits. This is not an easy response to execute, however.

We don't have the books, and they are not easily obtained. The title alone implies heavy POV against the group.RSuser (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand RSusers pov, and especially his desire that he could with one stroke de-legitimize much of the Astynax's research. He did not and apparently could not point to an ERROR in the facts as presented by Astynax with RIS sources. So I think my point of view was reasonably argued: Content is King. RSusers attempt to extend the scope of his non-rs argument: that not only was RIS not reliable, but that any document that included an RIS publication as a source must then ALSO be considered non-rs...well that's a stretch. Further to state that Jaenen's Restoration book, which has all the earmarks of an academic vanity publication, must be considered legit -- even though it did NOT pass the very same bar he was attempting to set for RIS was another dubious assertion worth arguing.

I have NEVER made an argument that anything should be deleted because RIS is not reliable. I may contend certain points in the future and reserve right to do so. I will argue those points not outright delete them because of the source. It was and is important that we establish the quality of those sources.RSuser (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also it has been RSuser's approach to attempt to enter or remove article content based on his (dubious) summaries of consensus reached on some CC website call TMB. Content should be based on something other than consensus on a website -- but that's beside the point. The point is that RSuser is entirely ready to assert certain highly POV websites as OK sources and remove others as SPS and NON-RS depending on the content he's currently promoting. Even for RSuser, it's the CONTENT, not the source that is driving him. He has very clear ideas about what content is acceptable.

I have NEVER used TMB as a source for an edit. Show me where.RSuser (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I hang around with a number of articles where RS and POV websites are problematic questions. I do not believe that there are simple answers to the legitimate questions being raised. I don't have answers. I can see the flaws in poor logic, however, and I simply unable to refrain from making big sarcastic points about them. It is a a big flaw in my character, and it means I need to apologize about my tone all the time.

Here's my thought:

A rose growing in a cabbage patch is still a rose.

OR

A rose growing in a cabbage patch is still a cabbage.

Which is true? When reviewing sources, does the CONTENT or the CONTAINER count most?

One final note. I have been involved with publishing for much of my life, as a technical editor, freelance general editor, and most recently as an author. Scientific journals, University press, College textbooks. I learned from the Very Best and had High Standards. Allow me to say that in my recent experience, even among Well-Respected pubishers, editing standards are low to non-existent. It is up to AUTHORS, not publishers these days, to keep their standards high. The reliablity of what is found in a book from a "respected" publisher is about as dubious as the safety of the food found from a "respectable" supplier. Nothing is certain any more. Which makes our RS problems even harder, since "respectable" publishers still have a reputation for accuracy which in my view is often no longer deserved. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you've been in publishing more than me, than I take your word on it. And I know even reputable publishers once in a while have "amusing" content. I've seen Scarecrow's dictionaries on various countries of the underdeveloped world, and am kind of amued that opera singers I've never heard of and occasional monks get more space in some of them than cities of 100,000 or more do. The matter of the website is a bit of a tricky one. Yes, if we don't know who owns and manages the website, there is a question as to whether it's reliable. I'm fairly sure you can understand that. If the material is copyrighted by a publisher, and the website doesn't indicate anything about who owns that publisher, the problem basically remains, because I could incorporate myself under a publishing name and put out some really weird stuff too. If information on the publisher were available elsewhere than the website, that would certainly be acceptable as well, but so far as I've seen such stuff on smaller publishers is generally presented on the website. I'm not sure if that's the case here. The one thing I see which would seem to lend some credence to the book is the intro from the UH professor. Unfortunately, back in the Precambrian when I was a kid in my home town of 50,000 people or so, I remember one of the professors at our local school of mines writing an intro to a book on Christian fundamentalism. He, of course, knew nothing about the subject in an academic sense, but was a firm believer in that school of thought, and his Ph.D. lent a bit of credibility to the book even though the book was, basically, drivel. I'm not saying the same thing is the case here, but at the same time I can't say it isn't.

In a case like this, I could see where a major publisher would decline a volume on this subject, because of at best weak potential sales figures, and a good book on the subject might have to go to a smaller publisher, maybe even a comparatively unknown one. However, without any real knowledge about the author, and I assume that there isn't a lot of hard data out there on him, we more or less have to base reliability on the publisher's reputation. If the publisher has no discernible reputation, that hurts. Particularly on a comparatively little known subject such as this one, because it's harder to reasonably judge whether the content is accurate based on existing known information, of which there might not be much. So, in cases like that, we tend to have to go on the publisher's rep unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. With such evidence, of course, like favorable reviews or similar, it would be acceptable.

I understand how this article in particular will be likely to be a problematic one, because basically very few people not directly involved in it will know or care anything about it. I can try to find what sourcing I can myself regarding the subject in the next few days, like JSTOR and newspapers and magazines, but honestly don't know how much if anything I will find. Hang in there in any event, and thanks for your contributions, even if they occasionally get contentious. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

John, I very much appreciate it when anyone continues to discuss with me through hope instead of throwing up his hands in disgust. So thanks for your hope!

I am not always a sarcastic pain in the ass: Sometimes I'm just a plain pain in the ass. Please see these comments that I made on the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard talk page. I very much hope you'll give them a look and comment on them. I think I'm addressing the same questions and concerns you are putting in the comments above.

Without RSuser in effect dragging the CC discussion to that page, I would never have found it. I had hopes for that board's clarity, as I believe RSuser did. What we received was a mess: ill-formed, casual and conflicting opinions. I have suggested there an alternative way of looking at the universe, and I guess I'll hang around there for my daily dose of Wiki arguments for a while. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The result was very clear in my mind. I will take your suggestion of summarizing those results.RSuser (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"respectable" publishers still have a reputation for accuracy which in my view is often no longer deserved. That blows this innovation out of the water then. Would you include University Press in that? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joopers: see my comments to John Carter above, and then look at this. Remember that scene in a gizzillion westerns where the craggy sheriff reluctantly takes his six-gun off the hook and straps it on. Or samurai movies/ronin/katana. Etc. I pattern my whole philosophy around those movies! Let's go make some good things happen. Enough with articles -- let's go change POLICY!!! Like Bill Murray says in Groundhog Day (movie): We'll rent first. In this case, I'm going after a WP Guideline. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

PS if RSuser is looking at these comments, I invite you to see the challenges Joopers and I faced in dealing with POV and poorly sourced info in Taj Mahal. Joopers is another stubborn careful editor who made good things happen there.

Perhaps but in this case nonemoman is defending POV edits not cleaning them up.RSuser (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for saying this on my talk page, where the comment belongs. Here's my response: Sez you. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to admit that I am attacking some of the content presently on the page, and you are defending it. Fair comment?RSuser (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a neat rhetorical trick you do. You change the subject to one you prefer, which typically is broad and nebulous "nemonoman is defending POV edits not cleaning them up".

In this you say that I

• am defending
• POV edits
• and not cleaning up POV edits

That's a broad and messy brush. First off, I haven't seen specifics of POV edits. I don't know what you're talking about specifically. For my part, I remove any POV edits I see wherever I see them. So I imagine you are identifying something as POV which either I haven't seen, or haven't identified as POV. You say I'm DEFENDING those edits. Which I can't, since I don't know of any, or I'd be fixing them. Then you say I spending my time defending POV instead of fixing. Again: SEZ YOU.

As to defending/attacking material on the page. I assume you mean Christian Conventions. Again, sir, WTF? What I'm trying to do is to follow Wiki policies and guidelines as best I can and as best I understand them to raise the editorial quality of that article to GA status. I have doubts that status can be reached, but at least the GA guidelines provide a sort of roadmap of quality. What I have been arguing with you about is not Not Not not NOT not the content of that page, actually. What I HAVE been arguing with about, seemingly forever, is your reasons for adding or deleting content. Which reasons, for the most part, I find depart from Wiki Policies and guidelines as I interpret them. And as you point out, I interpret them all wrong.

I've just challenged some content, and I'm thinking about challenging another of those sources myself, for reasons I believe to be consistent with Wiki-spirit, policy and guidelines. I think I can show policy and guideline backup for my challenges. So I guess I'm attacking content. Attacking: That's another paintbrush word. I'm not attacking: I'm editing. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And here is something you do, my friend, and I wish you would stop. Ask for clarification before you go on the attack. What I meant by my comment "not cleaning up POV edits" is that you are not cleaning up 'my' POV edits. Your entire critique of me above infers that I have been adding material to the article and I have not. You must be referencing someone else.RSuser (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason we are arguing forever is because YOU are a slow study. I have been consistently saying the very same thing from the start, over and over and over, because YOU don't understand. And you still don't understand as per your comments on SPS on the WP:RS/N talk page.RSuser (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't think I attacked you above. You've seen me attack. It's not pretty. What I wrote above is far from an attack on you.
2. I shouldn't need to ask you for clarification. I assume that I understand what you mean for me to understand. Perhaps you should consider my 'slow study' nature. It is not wrong to write comments to me as though I have the wits of a 3-year old.
3. You have indeed been saying the same thing, over and over and over, not just to me but most persons with whom you disagree. Saying the same thing louder and slower is ineffective in many situations. As they say here in NC, sometimes: Don't try to teach a pig to whistle; it won't work and it annoys the pig. Consider finding different ways to express your concerns. Consider looking for opportunities to agree, opportunities to align, opportunities to work toward a common goal.

Last but not least: Your entire critique of me above infers that I have been adding material to the article and I have not. You must be referencing someone else.

I'm sorry but this is not true. Did you see this sentence above? What I have been arguing with you about is not Not Not not NOT not the content of that page, actually. What I HAVE been arguing with about, seemingly forever, is your reasons for adding or deleting content.

Your only major changes since I've been around have been to reinsert a ton of material that had been previously deleted. That was done pretty much all at once, and you have not done much, if any, editing since. You have however, threatened to delete, promised to delete, hinted you'd delete, and talked at some link about how it would better to delete many, many items. For these deletion discussions, you have given reasons that I find wrong. You may have noticed how wrong I find them. Deletions can be just as POV as new material.

In 2003, Nemonoman stated that he is not and never has been a dick.

You may find me slow on the uptake. I fancy, however, that I keep my eye on the donut, not the hole.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

CC Controversy

If you wish, I will move the entire dialogue here. Just say and I will make it so.RSuser (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good Wiki practice to leave discussions where they occur, so if it's up to me, don't move it. Eventually it will be archived (UNLESS SOMEBODY MAKES A BUNCH OF INTERSPERSED COMMENTS!!!)

My hope is that in future you'll consider and reconsider what is the best venue for a discussion. I know now that you rethink some of your decisions. I do too. I have a rule for myself: don't do anything fast, because usually my quick decisions are not just wrong, they break things. I also have come to believe that your reconsidered actions are pretty defensible. So my request as a colleague editor is think twice about the venue in future, then do whatever you happen to decide. I'm sure you'll make good decisions. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add above: Thank you for making this courteous offer. I appreciate very much the goodwill you are showing here. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to RSuser comments

:I often make interim edits that are clearly out of anger, and then quickly revise them. Means nothing. It doesn't matter how we feel about each other, it is the expression that counts. RSuser

I appreciate very much that you gave your higher and better self the final say in your comments. I agree that it doesn't matter, and only raised the item because I noticed how very angry and upset I had made you. For this I degree of turbulence I apologize very sincerely, and I hope you will forgive me.

::We shouldn't deprecate views just because they come from insiders. RSuser

I agree 100%. And fortunately if I were to unconsciously break this rule, I'm sure someone will call me on it...--Nemonoman (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please put your comments at the bottom of a page -- or at least a discussion -- unless COMPELLED TO DO THIS BY FORCES GREATER THAN YOURSELF. PSS: you are NOT compelled to do this by forces greater than yourself.

I appreciate very much that you gave your higher and better self the final say in your comments. I agree that it doesn't matter, and only raised the item because I noticed how very angry and upset I had made you. For this I degree of turbulence I apologize very sincerely, and I hope you will forgive me.

You can only infer my feelings, and believe me I'm quite happy and well adjusted. I find editting on this topic is a bit like when I have to drive in New Jersey. Lots of froth but I have no problem blowing it off.RSuser (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I learned to drive as a teenager in New Jersey. Where I developed some of my most colorful vocabulary. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File:William Irvine Book Cover.JPG

Yes, I did notice that! The site owner was one of the people on TMB (CheriKropp, who RSuser has mentioned), and I recall seeing something about her working the material she's collected on Irvine into a book. I have read part of it - has it arranged in "chapters" on the site, though it looks like enough for 4 books to me. Wish it were in print, as it makes me wonder if it is in its final form and is a lot for me to go through on screen. Some great information in the part I did read, however. And I agree that she certainly doesn't seem to express any doubt as to Irvine having founded the group that I've come across thus far. If it were just a matter of Irvine being the founder, I probably have another dozen sources that state that, if needed. Problem with many sources is that they don't go into much detail for other things, or are so old that I wonder if some of the details they do provide are still accurate (terms, etc.). I cannot be absolutely certain, but 0oToddo0/tmtsoj seems to be the Todd from the TMB site also - surely there aren't two people who would come up with the same reasoning in the same words. I've read about all I care to over there. The former and current members seem to be perpetually at odds, so not a great source of information. • Astynax ^talk 23:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your username speculation. I'll be away for several days and out of internet availability thank god. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, have a wonderful, relaxing time - no Internet access is good! • Astynax ^talk 07:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, FYI, the book cover has to be used in an article and have a complete fair use rationale or someone is going to delete it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with terminology sensitivity -- A little essay

I have been involved with two subjects (at least) where editors are particularly sensitive to terminology Aurangzeb and Meher Baba.

For example, Aurangzeb changed his name when he became emperor, and many Muslims prefer to use his chosen ruling name of Alamgir. So some editors will blanket change every instance of Aurangzeb to Alamgir in the article (which is still titled Aurangzeb). Or request a move to Alamgir, etc.

My understanding is that some of these changes are because the editors feel that the use of the name Aurangzeb reflects the usage of Non-muslim historians, particularly Hindu or British historians. Using that name suggests alliance with that non-muslim world view. Many muslims regard Aurangzeb's policies much more favorably than non-muslims, particularly today as many governments try to organize around tenets of Sharia law, etc.

Also in the Aurangzeb article, many Sikh editors like to edit the name of the Sikh gurus involved with Aurangzeb. Guru Gobind Singh, for example, the tenth Sikh guru: these editors prefer that each and every reference refer to Guru Gobind Singh. "Guru Gobind Singh got on Guru Gobind Singh's horse, and led Guru Gobind Singh's men into battle." etc.

My understanding is that Guru Gobind Singh and other Sikh gurus are held in such reverence by these editors that they consider any other reference to be a diminishment of the respect the guru is due.

Meher Baba followers, like the followers of many spiritual masters, do not like to use words like "dead" or "died", etc. It is a big deal for them to say "Baba dropped his body on Feb 25 1969". To say "Baba died on Feb 25 1969" is practically a slap in the face. Some -- some -- might allow "Baba achieved mahasamadhi on Feb 25". Also they don't like to refer to the place Baba was buried as a tomb. "Samadhi" is prefered. For those NOT in the know, Samadhi suggests that the body in question belongs to one who has merged with the infinite. "Tomb-shrine" might make the cut.

Now I am a follower of Meher Baba, and I SHARE these sensitivities. In my personal speech, I say "Baba dropped his body", not "Baba died". I say "I visited the Samadhi", not "I visited the tomb".

As an editor of the Meher Baba article in particular, however, I found it necessary to drop my personal inclinations in favor of simpler speech that is more generally understood. So the article says "Baba died".

For ME, "Baba died" is POV. The word DIED inherently DENIES WHAT I BELIEVE: that Baba's departure was fundamentally different in character than typical human death.

On the other hand: He stopped breathing, stopped moving, etc., and got buried under a tombstone saying 1894-1969. All this is pretty typical of what most people call "DEATH". Unless you want to get involved in my world view, you'd probably look at this and say "Baba died". Not a lot of people would argue with you.

So I have developed this rule of thumb while editing. If someone has to explain, in lots of detail, why some typically used term is not specifically appropriate for this specific article -- even though it would be acceptable in practically any other article -- then something is amiss, and the USUAL TERM with its USUAL DEFINITION should be used.

This does NOT mean that ugly speech rules: if Gay is the preferred term these days, or Afro-American, or whatever, I have no problem using it...provided that the argument is that the term should be applied equally everywhere in every article. I'm only concerned here with demands for special terminology in certain articles to support the specific views of those concerned with the subject. While I sympathise and empathise, I say: Just live with it. I'm living with it, and it's not that bad. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And soon: bending facts to fit an agenda

Did you ever see the Simpsons episode where the Springfield Republicans bemoan how they have run out of things to rename for Ronald Regan? In Wikipedia, a similar problem exists...people are running out things to label as "persian", translate into persian, ascribe to Persians, etc., etc.

CC workers "income".

"(Undid revision 299528380 by JesseLackman (talk) "income" does NOT suggest a regular paycheck. Signed: someone who pays "income" tax on highly irregular cash flows.) "

The workers do not pay income tax as the support they recieve is given as a non-tax deductable gifts. This arrangement has been reported to the IRS multiple times by some who have left the friends and workers fellowship but the IRS seems to have no problem with it as it follows their rules on gifts. It might be the IRS would actually lose money if the fellowship was a non-profit and the gifts then tax-deductable as chariatable contributions. As it is the friends and workers are a fellowship, not a formal registered non-profit organization thus the support given is not tax deductable.

Jesse Lackman (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As an Iowan, I like this definition: "Income" means any money received from any source, including but not limited to remuneration for labor, products or services; money received from governmental assistance programs; tax refunds; prize winnings; pensions; investments; and money received from any other source.[4]--Nemonoman (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. If workers are not reporting this income, I wouldn't be broadcasting the fact. That would be a good way to make enemies of your friends, and friends with the IRS. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

IRS on gifts; [5]

Jesse Lackman (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesse: that publication is about how you define, declare and pay tax when you give someone a gift. For most of us, when we make a gift, we can deduct the gift from our income.

The person who gets the gift needs to report the gift as income. If the person MAKING the gift tells the IRS: "I made this gift to this person", then the IRS will use that declaration to seek income tax from the person RECEIVING the gift. Gifts don't just go off the IRS'S grid. Au Contraire. If they did, Everyone would use 'gifting' for transactions, hoping to beat the tax rap. Under any interpretation of tax law I have ever seen, the recipient of the gift is responsible for declaring and paying income tax on the gift.--Nemonoman (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"

Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts:

Gifts, excluding gifts of future interests, that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year,

Example 1. In 2008, you give your niece a cash gift of $8,000. It is your only gift to her this year. The gift is not a taxable gift because it is not more than the $12,000 annual exclusion.

Filing a Gift Tax Return Generally, you must file a gift tax return on Form 709 if any of the following apply.

You gave gifts to at least one person (other than your spouse) that are more than the annual exclusion for the year.

Also

Single and Younger Than 65

Is your gross income less than $8,950?

Yes [6]| No

Yes = "Based on the information provided, you do not need to file a Federal Income Tax return for this year unless you need to receive a refund of payments already made."

Jesse Lackman (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, Jesse, not be a PitA about this, but you are seeing information about who does and does not need to file a Form 709 -- when you GIVE somebody a gift. I doubt many of the CC members are giving so much to the workers that they need to file this form.

However, the WORKERS who RECEIVE the gifts are receiving INCOME, and are subject to the income tax rules. If their gross income is less than 8950, right, they don't need to file a return. If they receive 8951, however, as gifts from CCers or from other sources like washing dishes or whatever, that's income tax filing time. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. Even FINDING money on the ground you're supposed to declare. Honest. Believe me, the Workers are not exempt from income tax simply because all or part of their income comes from gifts from members. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I don't have dog in this fight, and would prefer if there could be some big exemptions or exceptions for dedicated spiritual workers, who (like teachers, soldiers, etc.) have an important role in life and stability of the country and deserve some special recognition of their sacrifice, in my humble opinion. I'm just the guy who's telling you how it is. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me be the first

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		One of the highest compliments I could find on the awards page - and it is completely unacceptable that Neonoman doesn't already have one. • Astynax talk 23:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found myself cracking up many times over certain well-placed observations you've made. And I only have to visit your user page to lighten my mood. I know this has sometimes veered into mind-bending territory for you, too. But I figure at least it keeps some of the brain cells firing (even when not exactly in the right order). Thanks! • Astynax ^talk 23:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!--Nemonoman (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

When to ask for reassessment?

Given the controversial nature, GA status for the CC article may be elusive as you observed. But the current Start Class assessment hasn't changed since just after it was added to Christianity and Ireland projects over a year ago. It didn't have any refs back then, and contained conflicting statements, hadn't been cleaned up for PoV, etc. I still have a few references to get through, which might allow for citing a few other statements. There is also a bit of minor cleanup for sections pasted from older versions (repeat things covered in other sections, awkward statements, etc.) that I've been intending to do. That said, when would be a good time to ask for reassessment?

The “Low” priority may be appropriate for Ireland (although there are a few references relating to the Irish struggle for independence which might bump that up), but as a larger denomination (even as a “non-denominational” denomination) should be at least Mid-Importance for the Christianity project assessment. I've never been involved in article assessments, so I was wondering what your experience tells you? • Astynax ^talk 16:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I think GA is a good goal, and a useful tool to improve quality. I think CC is approaching GA quality and may have met or exceeded it insofar as is possible for its elusive subject matter. This is due almost entirely to your efforts: let me tip my hat to you.

The GA review is nasty and thankless for the most part. Many GA reviewers are drivebys with ego-agendas, in my experience. I learned how to bang back and I learned it the hard way, by getting banged pretty hard to start with. If you want to do this, prepare to be frustrated. And HOW. You think previous comments have been frustrating? Just you wait.

I'd say the biggest GA obstacle at the moment is stability. This is a big deal to the GA crowd. Current version has been essentially intact only about 10-12 days. Give it another couple of weeks without major blowups and the stability hurdle will be cleared.

While the GA process has been hugely frustrating and upsetting, there are a few GA-evaluator/editors who have shown insight and effort in improving articles I have worked on. To get to those few, you must put up with the others. But if we would be lucky enough to get one or two of the better Wiki Editors, I think the article could with very small efforts reach GA class, and I think that would be a fitting tribute to your efforts.

So in a couple of weeks, if you're up to it, nominate it, or I will if you want. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes good sense. I've come across several sensational items while looking to flesh-out the doctrine section and add a bit of post-1918 history, but I think they'd likely distract from the focus. So, for my part, I only see a few corroborating references to add (this week, if I get the chance). Of course, someone may come along with great new information, or the pro's and con's might revisit and start hacking from both sides. When you feel it is stable enough, I'd be grateful if you would go ahead and submit it. You are better qualified than I to make the call. • Astynax ^talk 18:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know that even if it meets my standards for a GA there are lots of GA-assessors who seem to take pleasure in merely cutting down and failing GA candidates. So it's not a lock and it may be painful as well as frustrating. I swore I'd never go through another GA review after the Taj Mahal reassesment. But I swear a lot of things. So if you want to do this, we'll go in together. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've come across many people with the traits you just described. Plus, there are the factions who want to damn anything associated with the subject, factions who won't be satisfied unless the article functions as a glowing advertisement, and even those who would rather see nothing written at all. The first group really hasn't shown up much lately, so I agree that stability is something that may yet be a problem. But if GA turns out to not be possible or too much trouble, I won't be crushed.

The article has moved to a point where it brings together information which is scattered among several sources in the existing published material. It really has morphed into something that gives a wider overview than anything I've read while looking up citations. The various challenges for sources required more digging, the PoV assertions got you in there correcting even things that editors (including me) hadn't identified, and I think the article is better for that process - GA or not. • Astynax ^talk 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can regard the process as valuable, regardless of the outcome -- which I have sort of managed to do -- it's a useful process. I've asked for peer review. That's a nice way to get this started. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A related question: I just came across this while going through the links you provided (and ending up in the endless MOS links). Seems they are saying that the TOC should go immediately after the lead-in paragraphs. I had floated it to the left in the middle of the lead (which was wrong). I don't know whether having it elsewhere will be a problem, as there does seem to be some MOS flexibility (or should I just say contradictions)? I've been touching up little things that I've noticed which don't conform, but I'm not sure about this one. • Astynax ^talk 22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat the small stuff. TOC is OK where it is IMO, and I doubt it will be an issue let alone a deal-killer. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Message

Hi, why did you message me? What all you wrote is there on wikipedia info page, sorry, I didn't get your intention of messaging me.

Regards, Chkwiki (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the Wikipedia tradition of welcoming new editors. I saw that no one had welcomed you, and thought that I would do that. I chose to include a template of links similar to one that I found very helpful during my early time editing. If you don't like it, just delete it. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

CC PoV

RSuser has again complained of PoV, this time in the "Unpublished doctrine" section. Since that consists largely of unsourced statements which s/he(RSuser under the Slofstra ID) pasted from an older version on 4 June,[7] I'm not sure exactly what s/he now sees as PoV? I think you created that particular section heading, after trying to put the article back into some kind of order incorporating the pasted material in various places where it belonged. I did shift a few things around in that section on the 4th, which entailed removing a couple of statements (noted in Talk), and adding a couple of statements I came across in sources. Perhaps you could go over that section with your NPoV glasses to double-check. • Astynax ^talk 03:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed 'unpublished' from the title. It seems potentially provocative. Text says doctrine is unpublished. I don't understand the POV complaints of RSuser about this section. I don't find myself in anyway coming away with the feeling that group is being demeaned for its actions and beliefs. I acknowledge however that I can be more than a little dense. It seems generally OK to me, but if somebody like RSuser wants to describe specific POV concerns, not general, we should review and fix if possible. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

CC review

My God, there is so much discussion over the founder. It is necessary to accommodate the sect's POV of no founder, state that in the infobox too. "Founder: William Irvine (ref), many church believe that the church has no earthly founder." Stability can be an issue in a GAC. (didn't check that before). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters/archive1

I agree with the grammar issues, but the lead seems to be fine according to its MOSTintor2 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded on the Peer Review page. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Multiple references

You wrote:

Except for a few items (like the British and Ozzie names of the Church), Kropp seems to have specifics backed by source documents of most if not all of the Daniel refs. Which makes me wonder: if they're the same, is Daniel really necessary? Alternatively, if they're the same, is Daniel really unreliable?

They certainly seem to be relying on many of the same sources. I used Daniel (as well as Fortt and Parker-Parker) because those deal entirely with the group and carry a lot of info in each. The few others which do were obviously self-published, though they would have allowed sourcing information which would have rounded out the article. And Daniel/Fortt at least have INDEXES which makes it very easy to look up citations. Oh, how I've recently grown to love the word 'INDEX'—and 'footnotes' (some of the best information published about anything seems to be hidden in footnotes).

Carter and others have already shot down websites, except for major news and academic outlets. So, while XXXXX (I guess I'm not allowed to mention ID's now???) does seem to have a double-standard the Kropp site vs. Daniel/Fortt, I'm not sure that Kropp's website would fly when the next member (or XXXXX) decides to shoot that down as non-RS or SPS.

While going through sources, I did come across citations for Daniel/Fortt. Had I known it would be important, I would have started a list as I came across those. Both are cited in Dair Rioga's All in Good Faith and a couple of Italian encyclopedias which I have on a list somewhere to run through a translator. There was another that I already mentioned somewhere in one of those RS discussions I think, and don't recall the other titles at the moment. Worldcat's quickie library search returns for Daniel...

• Multnomah University
• John Brown University
• SBTS Library
• Reformed Presbyterian Theol Seminary
• Library of Congress
• Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
• Alibris

and for Fortt...

• Alibris
• Reformed Presbyterian Theol Seminary
• Library of Congress
• Harvard University, Divinity School Library

The library where I found it isn't on the list, and I'm sooo disappointed. I don't mind at all better references being used, but no one but me seems to be willing to do any legwork to track down anything, and I'm frankly tired of running to the library (who only allow limited access to looking up stuff on their subscription accounts) and rumaging through the photocopies I've made and had sent from libraries (not to mention re-reading these books). Perhaps Carter will find something if he has time (and I don't know how anyone manages to be so active). It isn't easy, since most of what is out there are mere snippets of info scattered among literally hundreds of old books—a factoid here, a factoid there, and I've gone through only a fraction of those type refs. And, again, I've edited more than written, so citing statements that XXXXX pasted back (or which were already there from) now being a problem is bewildering.

But, for anyone who actually wants to do some work, here are the list of Daniel/Fortt refs now in the article, along with what they are citing. Some of these have backups because it was claimed that they were extraordinary statements (don't seem so to me). Most aren't really in dispute. And there likely are other sources for at least some...

• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, pp. 9–11. (that invitations to gospel meetings are distributed)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, p. 23. (group's name in Canada)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, p. 76. (group's name in Britain)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, pp. 276–279 preserves the text of the 1905 "List of Workers," which lists the years when each of the early workers began their ministry. (list of the first ministers)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, pgs. 173-175. (Irvine's influence resented)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, pp. 174–175. (splits were not announced)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, p. 174. (Irvine Weir excommunicated)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, p. 176. (Secret Sect spurred interest)
• Worker Leo Stancliff quoted in Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, pp. 128–129. (sermon quoted)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, pp. 160–161. (claim of church descent from Christ)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, pp. 11–16. (hierarchy)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, pp. 13–15. (types of meetings)
• Daniel. 1993. Reinventing the Truth, pp. 15–16. (finances)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, p. 290. (church name in Australia, etc.)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 49, 179. (rules on televisions vary)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 31, 114-5, 192. (ministers words more respected)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 144–145. (preachers' words held to be God-guided)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 179, 236. (church buildings denounced)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 241–243. (non-trinitarian view of Jesus)*
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 20–22. (baptism by immersion)
• See Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, ch. 4. (use of the words "the Truth" and "the Way")
• Terminology Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 15–202. (terms used differently than standard definitions)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, p. 135. (partaking bread and cup after baptism)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 114–115. (importance of hearing preaching directly)*
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 96, 117-118, 193. (rank of women ministers)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 59, 236-237. (ministerial apprenticeship)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 31–32. (use of leavened bread and wine or juice)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 97, 301. (church claim of no organization)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, pp. 13, 101, 205-206. (discourage record keeping)
• Fortt. 1994. A Search for the Truth, p. 197. (many hymns written or adapted by church members)

No, I'm not trying to recruit you to research. But if you come across anyone who wants to delve in, go ahead and give them a head-start. Sorry for being long-winded, but I'm exhaling. Coming here this morning - well it is a hot day, and it isn't helping me stay cool. • Astynax ^talk 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you've referenced some of the tellingthetruth.info site links. I've used that site myself in tracking down sources, and I guess we'll see if someone objects. But that brought something else to mind: As John Carter brought up the religioustolerance.org site as an example site that may or may not be a reliable source, I looked up that discussion which also is going on here. XXXXX in the latter seems to be finding little fault with religoustolerance.org, or at least he finds it more NPoV than the Wiki CC article as it now stands. Still seems a double standard to me, since I had read their article, and found it a good overview which lists the same points that he, tmtsoj and others have disputed. So would that be an acceptable online reference? Not sure whether Carter in the CC discussion was saying it was OK or not, and using too many websites for citations might be seen as an invitation for future editors to insert statements based only on web sites (and there seem to be plenty of sites sporting otherwise unverified information). Off to scrape dust off the furniture before guests arrive. • Astynax ^talk 16:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See my userpage Clarifications. Neutral sources are not necessary. What I like about Kropps book on TTT is she'll offer a summary of 1905 workers and bing there's a link to original document with the list. It's pretty strong stuff. She has a POV, but when she states something as a fact (rather than as a conclusion), 9 times out of 10 there's a link to the source document. That's strong.

What came out of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard brouhaha -- conveniently ignored by one of the participants -- is that a SPS is not ipso facto unreliable. Also that single-topic publishers are not ipso facto SPS OR unreliable. The clear conclusion is that one must be cautious in citing such materials. In fact I think one must be cautious in citing ANY materials, even those with claims of authenticity. Learned this the hard way while studying Mughal history: the winners wrote whatever they liked, and published it widely.

I think I can look at TTT, for example, and explain clearly why this is a reliable, verifiable source, although it clearly is also self-published. As later comments on the RSN talk page have said: Self-published is NO LONGER an indication of reliablity or lack thereof. A lot of niche research (like CC research) is going to be self-published by necessity. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I didn't see edits by XXXXX or any CC editors here. Can you help me?

I hope TTT stands up as a resource—I like the way it is done, too (lots of sources and starting points for anyone who wants to go into more detail about the subject). I've just sent the site's admin a big list of refs I've come across that don't appear on its list. I noticed the site being slammed as SPS in the archives when I first started citing, and so thought it had to be avoided. For the religioustolerance discussion, I was referring to the 2nd post from the bottom of the section as of today (user ID starts with "RS"). BTW, Jesse Lackman (that's the ID, not "outing" anyone) left a message, I think for you, on my talk. Gotta go: postprandial exertions await (yep, "pretentious" is my middle name, thus I will only finish dusting furniture visitors are likely to see). • Astynax ^talk 18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I left a message for you on Astynax's page. BTW have you noticed anything about who is doing the self-publishing Nemonoman?? And that some of them publish their thoughts and comments various places on the interent? Like this? -->> [8] I think you have because you have looked at some of those sites, and have commented on the flavor. But if verifibility really trumps truth here at wiki I wonder why am I even bothering to reply.

Take Care, Jesse Lackman (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the things which I did note is that if sources are found to be reliable by other sources, then they probably qualify as reliable sources. If some of the books qualify as reliable on that basis, as seems to be indicated above, great. And if the website can qualify as RS, personally, I don't myself mind, although I would have questions about how it seems to be in large part advocating a position which seemingly can't be verified in any sources I've seen. This, by the way, is one of the reasons I was hoping to avoid a real "decision" from the RSN people, who tend to have much more final word. Regarding the matter of truth vs. verifiability, it's really hard to accept the word of any individual editor or SPS on the "truth" of their own statements, particularly as many such are more than a bit biased. And no encyclopedia publishes original research that I know of, and, as per WP:OR, neither do you. Unverifiable "truth" is one form of original research. My own personal opinions would be to allow in any information from the website which isn't "controversial", whatever that means. I do however question whether any article including much such data from maybe dubiously reliable sources has much of a chance as a GA or FA candidate, but I'm not that familiar with either of those processes. I didn't really want to say that a lot of these sources probably couldn't be used, because most people involved in the conversation from both sides seemed to find them basically truthful, and that indicates that the info might be accurate, whether the source is reliable or not. Ultimately, it isn't my call anyway, so I'm not going to remove any material that is so sourced that isn't specifically contested, and maybe not even then. Anyway, I will try to find some other sources in the next few days. If one or more list the website as a source they used, then I wouldn't have any real doubts that it probably can be counted as reliable for most things, although maybe not for the dispute regarding the founder of the group. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesse: All the editors are expected to play by the rules. As for verifiability vs truth see WP:V. Thems the rules. You will note that I am involved with the CC article because of NPOV concerns, and I have made several efforts to keep the article NPOV. NPOV is also not concerned with truth, by the way. I have seen some of the "anti-" websites, and frankly I'm surprised nobody has tried to create a "Controversies"-type section and load it up. Those are a real NPOV challenge, and it would take a lot of work on my part and probably other editors to keep it clean. So I've got fingers crossed that no one adds one.

People say a lot of BS about a lot of topics. I'm pleased that the facts being put in the article are (to my mind) benign. I know that's not necessarily the feeling of some of the editors, but an argument over calling Irvine "founder" or "originator" is not really an argument about facts. Aside from some of the flavoring concerns -- of which I am sensitive and well aware -- I have not seen any effort to promote some of the more incedniary "facts" from some sources. I just discovered a "see also" link to the CC in the Mind Control article. Based on the current CC article, that link has NO BUSINESS being there. You see what I mean? The facts as currently presented are much more neutral than not, and no effort has been made to paint the group as black and evil. You can disagree that there is some painting being done...but Notice no accusations of mind-control, fund misuse, etc. Even the scandal that drove Irvine out is hardly discussed.

My hope is to keep that level of factuality and relative neutrality intact. I'm sensitive that it can be improved. I'm asking for you to be aware that despite your concerns, I am trying to keep to a course of clarity. And by the way: Just because a source is anti doesn't mean everything in it is false.

This user believes a rose found in a cabbage patch is still a rose.

Nemonoman, thank you. Again, I think there are a few places in the article where personal opinions, interpretations, and conclusions are being presented as facts. Those personal opinions, interpretations, and conclusions may be factual, or they may be more like Don Quixote imagining windmills to be giants. If I had to say what bothers me most about the self published sources used in the CC article it would be the pre-emptive attributing of specific beliefs to 100,000 - 600,000 people who are really pretty free to think on their own. That's one thing that makes the friends and workers fellowship so remarkable, in spite of the fact we have no formal written doctrine we enjoy meaningful fellowship, and the little home meetings all over the world do not go off on tangents of their own. We believe those meetings to be a place for words of edification, exhortation, and comfort, not division and debate. We allow for differences of opinion, not so for some of the self published sources who wish to present their opinions, interpretations, and conclusions as facts like "reject the doctrine of Trinity" to "destructive cult" (Fortt [9]). My question is how can those sources pretend they know better what 100,000 - 600,000 people think than those people themselves?? And how can anyone pretend self-published sources of that flavor are reliably objective enough to paint an accurate picture of a group of 100,000 - 600,000 people? JesseLackman (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesse: The group formed over beliefs that differed from the traditional churches of the day, and from what I can tell continues to distinguish itself by showing how different it is. That a formative believe was that the CC "reject the doctrine of the Trinity" seems to be pretty well established by the reproduced source documents on tellingthetruth, and the references provided for the CC article are from (apparently) non-controversial sources. If don't doubt that if pressed more sources could be be found. There are enough indications for me personally to accept that the belief is held generally. Again: verifiablity not truth. If you're saying some or all the group IS trinitarian, then find some source ot back it up. BUT: I don't see anything wrong with the way the CC understands and interprets the God/Jesus relationship. I like what Martin Luther said: Every man must do his own believing; just as every man must do his own dying.

As to destructive cult -- WTF?? Whose words are those? They don't appear in the article, and should not (unless someone quoted them, and wrapped the quote in a highly structured and well-referenced context: and right now that doesn't look likely). And in fact, that sort of stuff incedniary stuff is exactly what I'm trying to avoid by getting a good solid consensus-based NEUTRAL version of this article.

Here: I had a thought. Suppose my brother's kid told him that he'd been invited to a 2x2 meeting, but one of his buddies had said it was some kind of cult. Suppose my brother and my nephew sat down to look at the internet for info. 9 times out of 10, the first article on a google search will be a wikipedia article. Don't you want that article to be fair and balanced? I do. I want that my nephew gets a reasonable clue about the group and its history and its beliefs. I want it to be a good starting point for his young independent mind. Maybe he reads the article and thinks: OK, I'll check out that meeting! I think that's a reasonable outcome at present. Or he might think: Maybe I'll check out some of those other websites... That's alos a reasonable outcome at present. I've heard lawyers say that a compromise is good if all sides hate it equally. I think the article is close to being satisfactory in that regard. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Destructive Cult" are Fortt's words in a letter at the link above. Fortt is a major source for the article, he's also a former member according the newspaper article in reference 95.

The CC article states that we "reject the Trinity"; the "reasoning" why we do that in the minds of some is because we are "under mind control" which also means we are a "destructive cult". Look around, that's clearly what some think, even some who are used as sources here. This is easily "verifiable" and is probably true too even though that doesn't matter. ;)

I see that the same person ([10] who linked to the CC article from the Mind Control article also linked to it from the Cult article.

I liked your thought, that's a nice objective goal for the article.

JesseLackman (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I do wish you'd stop speculating like this: "reasoning" why we do that in the minds of some is because we are "under mind control" which also means we are a "destructive cult". This sort of random speculating doesn't do anybody any good. You might just easily that persons reading the article will consider the CC view of Jesus and find it compatible and want to get closer to the CC as a result. If the article is neutral, both outcomes should be reasonable and possible: and to my mind, both outcomes ARE.

I just looked at Cult and find no CC references. If I had, I would have removed them. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone undid it and yeah I shouldn't speculate... but is it really random speculating? For example CC reference 97 [11] states;

"We compiled a list of 47 different cult characteristics," says lawyer Arends. "The Two-by-twos meet all the points. They are extremely secretive, have no written doctrine or records, you can't get a straight answer from them and yet they claim to be the only path to salvation. Their 'friends' must give unconditional obedience to the workers or they're guilty of backsliding. And if they backslide, they're damned." Mr. Arends says his case is bolstered by California academic Ronald Enroth's work CHURCHES THAT ABUSE, Port Coquitlam author Lloyd Fortt's IN SEARCH OF 'THE TRUTH', and the testimony of a dozen former members in Alberta.

JesseLackman (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? That's not the fact being cited. There's no direct reference to cultism or mind-control in the article, and from what I've seen on the web, there certainly could be. There's not a group out there that somebody hasn't called a cult. I've seen one anti-cult group label a different anti-cult group as a cult.. People call the Roman Catholic Church a cult, for Pete's sake. I don't see the validity of your concerns. I think you need to cowboy up. The granularity of your concern is not something I personally find compelling. I can't be responsible for vetting every thing eveything ever said or presented in sources one or more steps removed from the article. ALso remember: Sources do NOT NEED TO BE NEUTRAL. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The "fact" being cited? That brings us back to what I've been saying from the beginning, not all that's cited are facts, instead there are a lot of personal opinions, conclusions, and interpretations being presented as fact. But like I said before I can live and let live.

take care, JesseLackman (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

the FACT being cited by footnote 96 (which you linked to) is this:

Since the group's inception, it has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.[95][96]

I have seen so many references to this now I can no longer count them. This is pretty inherent to the CC belief structure.

Though you LINK to note 96, you say note 97, which is this fact:

Though members believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they have a unitarian view of Christ.[97]

This is also referenced all over the place. Melton, the cited reference, is UserX's One Acceptable Reliable Source for this fact.

Either you don't know what your group espouses, or you DENY what it espouses, or you DO KNOW what the group espouses but what it espouses has changed since these references were written and the group now denies what it espoused for a hundred years. On the other hand, maybe the group doesn't want anyone to know what it espouses today, one way or the other. In any cases, those facts above are verifiable, whether or not you think they happen to be true, and WP is about verifiability not truth WP:V. And those facts do not make any suggestions of cultism, mind control, or any other negatives. So what is your problem?

I linked to 97, look at the url.

A fact by definition, has to be true, doesn't it? Personal opinions, conclusions, and interpertations are not automatically interchangable with fact or truth. And they are not referenced "all over the place", instead there are a few dozen sources cross referencing each other and attempting to paint their personal opinions, conclusions, and interpretations on 100,000-600,000 people who are free to think on their own, and who's voice isn't being heard. I'm not the only one to notice this, there have been many comments on the fact there are so few sources, that is a fact that's verifible and true. You can follow the charge "deny the trinity" all the way back to the the "Cooneyites" article in Heresies Exposed and Impartial Reporter articles! That is a fact that is verifible and true. This repeated cross referencing can be verified. That's why I was asking what source the sources were using. The quote I posted from reference 97 shows the all to common reality that the referenced "facts" are in publications which do make lots of suggestions of cultism, mind control, and many other negatives.

Why do people ever pretend to know better what other people think than those other people do? A few dozen sources cross referencing each other know better what 100,000-600,000 people think than those people do themselves? It's bizarre. It's all part of our world's willingness to sacrifice truth on the altar of opinion, to sacrifice honesty and integrity on the altar of situational ethics. Sad, but true.

Thanks for the conversation. JesseLackman (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Everything you say is the pure truth. We're all out to get you. I'm out to get you. I'm biased. I'm an idiot. We're all a bunch of fucking idiots. Except you and anyone in your group. OK? But this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has rules, and the rules rule regardless if the players are good persons like you or vile persons like my self who are willing to sacrifice truth on the altar of opinion and integrity on the altar of situational ethics. You are Good, and me and my kind are The Shit of the Earth. OK? I get it? OK. IN THE FUTURE Do me the kindness of enjoying your speculations -- about my thinking, my honesty, may integrity and my willingness to sascrifice them-- within the privacy of your own thoughts. I am self-aware enough to know how incredibly screwed up I am without your persistent half-hearted speculations. Ask someone who really knows me: I assure you I am much worse than you can begin to imagine. Since you will simply fail to grasp the depth of my depravity, my readiness to sacrifice my soul in order that I may suck from Satan's tit, you can scarcely expect me to be pleased by your namby-pamby suggestions that I am merely misguided. I swear to you: I and my kind are the Antichrist personified. As my efforts to be fair with that article in the face of your high-handed speculuations reveal. Which speculations and criticisms are only pale reflections of what others have said about me. THANK GOD FOR YOU and your highminded brethern. Otherwise I might have lived in a fool's paradise without understanding what a complete fuckup I am. I am quite sorry to have made your acquaintance. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John, you mentioned that Fortt and Daniel could be RS if referenced or cited in other RS. I think Astynax took that to mean that if a notable library held the book, it would RS, since he listed some libraries above. I don't think that is what you meant. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone quote a guy (Lloyd Fortt) who had this to say in a letter (unpublished) to Christianity Today: "The reason that I am so concerned is because those of us who God has delivered from a very destructive cult, keep screaming out for the Christian Church to hear us." This guy Fortt is quoted throughout the CC article.67.43.136.72 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also Nemonoman's position that "verified but false" information from such sources is okay to use in wiki to be a little odd. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So you take that policy as a blanket endorsement of using "verified but false" information, am I correct? Please verify so that I can add this to the list of policy interpretations according to Nemonoman.67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That letter was published, but not by 'Christianity Today' to whom it was addressed. If it was never published how would I be able to quote it? 67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments are in response to points made above on this talk page.64.7.157.40 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman, I'm sorry, you can imagine that's what I think but you are wrong. I haven't thought any of those things about myself, or you. None of what I say is directed at you personally, the comments I've made are submitted for calm, coherent, and objective conversation about the quality of the source material, please don't read more into them then what's there. You have been fair, a LOT more fair than a lot of the source authors, and I have thanked you for it. JesseLackman (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesse: I accept your apology. Objective comments about the article belong on the article's talk page. Comments directed specifically at me belong on my talk page. "Objectively" saying "sacrifice truth on the altar of opinion" about my comments, on my talk page, makes me think you direct the comment at me. Like the guy says in Taxi Driver: "You talking to me? I don't see anybody else here, so you must be talking to me."

I will point out however that someone who claims to be one of your brethren almost immediately began to post yet more comments about me on this page, and the CC talk page. SLOFSTRA makes no bones about calling me both an idiot and a liar, as if goading me will improve the article, or at least get him his way.

As far as the article goes, it's time to choose sides: either work with me and the other editors who are trying to do the right thing, or make a big fuss over small problems. Cause once the good editors depart in disgust -- and some of us are on the edge -- the floodgates will reopen. The members will have their way for a little while, and the anti-s will appear, and there will be nothing to protect the article from open warfare, as was in the past.

I mean it. I'm tired of bickering and constant sniping. I'm this close to shaking the dust of my sandals on the article. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Again I'm sorry. Yes I was talking to you but not at (about) you. I guess I didn't realise that comments on a user's talk page can be viewed as being directed at them instead of just part of a conversation. JesseLackman (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New UBX

This user must be blessed. "Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all manner of evil against you falsely."

Holy Cows

Thank you. It wasn't anywhere near as much work as it appears, with keyword searches and all. But, if and when I finish the Christianity category tree, I'm going to try to find some of the others which didn't come up. The early 1980's articles in the LA Times and elsewhere have been referenced as being the public "coming out" of the group, and I think they might provide some of the better information which might be able to be found. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Format question

I was wondering if the "Explanatory notes" and "Relevant Biblical passages" sections might read better moved up ahead of the footnotes? I think they get lost down there below all of that reference info. BTW, in the ref for the membership numbers I used parenthetical style, rather than the inline shortened citations used everywhere else in the article. I couldn't figure out how to nest references, so hopefully it is OK that those refs don't appear with the rest in the "Footnotes" section. Putting up a note for the member numbers was the last on my checklist from the reviewers. • Astynax ^talk 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey go crazy! It probably violates a dozen MOS rules, but like they say: Break Every Rule. OTOH I don't know that any MOS cops have noticed "relevant biblical passages" for rulegiving. Glad to see some estimates of this surprisingly large group.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick opinion. I've bumped those up, and if someone finds it violates some style thing, then they can go back down. • Astynax ^talk 22:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: comments

No problem, it isn't my sky and I can't fault other tribes for noticing my smoke signals. Actually, I wish we had one or two of the former members actively participating, as their input hasn't appeared in the talk since way back in the archives where they seem to have just given up in frustration (I notice that even Ms. Kropp tried to post at one time, but was blanked). I'd have liked to have said the same thing to them. I expect there are many watchers here who don't dare contribute, though. Not that I expect my too-preachy little note to smooth any rifts. But at least pro and con need to step back and realize that this is on the record for posterity, and neither improves their own or their group's image by posting what seem to be weasely, insulting, or self-servingly deceptive remarks. In a lot of cases, they're just providing confirmation and fodder for the other side. That sort of gaming might serve some use on places like TMB, but IMO it is a complete distraction here. Argh, I see another ugly bit of my sermonizing slipping out. • Astynax ^talk 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Taj

An IP added reference to this yesterday. Re. our recent discussions, what's your opinion on it's reliability? (I have a few thoughts, but I'd like you take an impartial view first). --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

From the look of it, the article qualifies as WP:RS. The RS noticeboard creams its cyberjeans over any peer reviewed journal. This looks like a pretty cool idea, reasonably well presented. If I was critiquing the research, I'd wonder if the % variance actual vs predicted measurements wasn't pretty high. Variances this high pass muster in astrophysics, but so much of the Taj planning is so clearly meticulous that this amount of variance doesn't seem right. Anyway, it's more than a novelty, and might get people thinking. I'm reminded of the guy who looked at all the fringe theory about the Great Pyramid and its to pi, where the height vs the base side is pi, etc., and surmised that a single unit of measure, a cubit or something, had been used throughout, and thnat some of the lines had been marked off using a wheel with a diameter of a cubit, which had a marking circumference of pi x d, or pi cubits. Pretty clever.

I think the IP's original comment is small enough to constitute fair use, not copyvio. It is, however, utter gibberish and you have made wonderful sense of it. My hat's off. I'd be glad if you put your version and the ref in the main Taj article. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my hand.....tada.....actually more a 'balance of probabilities'.

Observations: Published in a peer review journal by a professor. He refers to a lot of his own previous research in the footnotes. He's had quite a bit of research published relating to the angulam and it's use in Indian until the British arrived. He's actually a professor of Materials and Metallurgical Engineering, but has got into history, presumably through some work on the Dhar Iron Pillar. It's unclear how the Archaeological Survey of India have cooperated with him in this, but he credits them.

Comment: I think the research is interesting, and certainly solves some of the admittedly unconvincing aspects of Koch and Barraud, although his rebuttal of their research is hardly robust. You're right the errors are high, and worse, they're not higher with the larger dimensions as we'd expect if we were to attribute them to workmanship and (mughal) surveying accuracy. Koch and Barraud postulated that the greatest care was taken at the riverfront and the least at the caravanserai, but this isn't really born out by the data of either study. Also, by choosing such a small measurement, with seemingly so many permutations, I wonder if any well organised layout might conform to his system. Independent analysis of say, Versaille as a control, might be persuasive. When all's said and done though, there seems merit in the suggestion. The political angle worries me though, and it seems there's plenty of blogs around of the 'Taj was built with no foreign influence' variety, but perhaps I shouldn't lay that at this chaps door. The implications however are profound. Why would Jahan's chroniclers convert the angulam into Persian gaz for the sake of the record? Architecturally, the setting out and proportioning of a complex such as this is of paramount importance - we know that hindu craftsmen were involved in the construction, but it's always previously been thought that the big shots were called by Persianophile Mughals......it's a big shift to suggest they'd adopted the angulam for the planning, but still referred to the gaz in terms of the chronicles (unless the chronicles were for Persian benefit), really the implication is that Persian Mughals working with the gaz weren't responsible for the planning. I'd like to see more evidence for that than deductive reasoning, but the description I've given should suffice for WP for now. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When I read this it seemed very logical that there might be indeed be two measurements. Assuming Hindu temple builder contractors (a safe assumption) would be comfortable with their units of measure and could explain them easily to the other local contractors, for example. Just saw some documentary on TV about the parthenon, and how the builders established a set of exact metrics: THE cubit, etc., and carved them in stone. Theory: that to make a good building with a pickup construction crew, you start by establishing units of measure. So assume Hindus using the angulam or similar measure layout the Taj in nice round proportions. After construction, or during construction, along come the bean counters: Mughal beancounters. Are they going to use the angulam to count their beans? Are they HELL! You can imagine an analogous situation: French layout Paris in Metric, and the US comes along and measures in English. The proportions would be the same, but the actual numbers would look very weird. And in my experience, every builder given the chance would lay out his own house in nothing but multiples of 10.

Is Professor whatshisname is using different starting points as baselines for his proportional measures? That in itself seems to lead to more rational proportions, whatever the measure. That is also some interesting creative thinking, though it doesn't prove or disprove the angulam hypothesis. I do indeed find the fudge factors troubling, and it might suggest that it isn't the angulam that was the unit, but some other, probably grosser unit. But it's a fresh approach that might lead to a more definitive conclusion than what we see here. Actually, I'd guess it might be some Persian unit?

It certainly is an interesting sidelight. As to the "Anyone but the Mughals" attitude: well, the point that I got from the Taj was that it skimmed the cream of the best of the best, and nobody "won". It's like those lists: every great historical person was secretly gay, or epileptic, or a Mason, or a woman, etc. Which might appear in the Journal of Gay Epileptic Female Masonry, all thoroughly peer-reviewed by... well you get the point. But these sorts of fringe theories do force people to think, yes? --Nemonoman (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is fascinating I agree. One of the big gaps I never solved in my research was 'to what extent was Hindu culture assimilated in the Taj'. There's lots of evidence it was - Hindu mason's marks, vegetative tracery, some of the numerical symbollism, the lotus dome. etc.etc. We know the Mughal's by this time considered themselves India, but they were also still proud of their Persian ancestory, and my perception was the weight of the elite's culture leaned that way. But I can't stress how fundamental the ordering principles of a measurement system are to a design. Decimal systems result in entirely different proportional schemes than imperial ones, (base 10 vs. base 12 etc.) particularly if you're designing with the symbolism of numbers in mind (see Hasht Bihisht etc.) I'd always thought that the intellectual genesis of the complex was Persian and Islamic in nature, so to say that something so fundamental to the whole project, and by this I mean that ineffably beauteous composition, was derived in a court dominated by Persian cultural concerns, by an local measurement system, is quite surprising to say the least. One would have thought the translation of dimensions would have worked the other way, with the Mughal designer's designing in gaz and then that being converted to angulams for the builders. But that, again doesn't account for the quirky numbers. Fascinating. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As a little adjunct to that, using two different systems is always problematic. But then we've still not learned that lesson, even today. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Nemonoman.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

This is a courtesy link, to allow you to have your say. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 17:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Parapsychology Featured Article Review

Hello. Please correct your false statements about me at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1: one where you say "the editors above" and one where you name me. Thanks in advance. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian Conventions

You're right. I was basically just copying the prior assessments, so that the new group knows what articles it deals with. I figured more formal assessments would come later. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but right now there are a lot of articles relevant to the NRM group needing to be tagged. I do expect to try to do more detailed assessments on the Start and higher articles later, but first we have to know what's out there. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology

The article Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOT#Systematic review - this is just a collection of studies, already reported at Parapsychology.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology

I have nominated Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Verbal chat 10:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Humayun.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Humayun.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 07:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:WTA

Hello Nemonoman, this is with reference to this edit. Just wanted to bring WP:WTA to your notice; Words like "suggest" are more on the POVish side; "Argue" sounds more neutral. Pls do the needful. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on it. I don't like 'argue' much, and I think the section will be subject to additional edits. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

LGBT themes in Hindu mythology

Please add #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ under LGBT themes in Hindu mythology on WP:GAN to avoid multiple reviews. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Messages for you on the article talk. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please add #: Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC) underEucharist in the Lutheran Church (all other articles you are reviewing ) on WP:GAN to avoid multiple reviews. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

After passing an article, do not write a comment under it, instead remove it from GAN list with edit summary "passed XYZ". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I followed the instructions. I am not sure what this specific comment refers to, and if you could point me to the error, I'll know better next time.

Never mind -- I see my error and will not repeat it. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Also, thanks for your efforts on improving that article. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to review the article. This is one of the comprehensive and neutral GARs I have seen so far! --Nvineeth (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your work did a lot to improve the article. Thanks. As for your compliment above: aw, shucks. Nice of you to say. I've met with a lot of care and kindness in Wikipedia, and appreciate the chance to give back. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"This article has been passed as a GA. Please review your article rating -- it is currently listed as "C-Class". This should probably be changed. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)" reply: A WikiProject can give only stub, start, B and A ratings when you pass an article as GA, change the wikiproject's rating to GA too. It need not be reassessed by the WikiProject. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Someday I'll be smart. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You are smart. If you weren't, you could have have assessed GAN with that precision. :)--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you are smart, "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." --Nvineeth (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Searching for a term

I had once found a word of Jewish origin used to describe such tribal/clan speech differences as described in section 14 above (like dropped his body vs. died). I am almost sure you had used this word somewhere, but I can't retrace my way to it. I have tried so much that I start doubting whether I really saw it or I dreamed it. Could you please help my memory? Hoverfish Talk 19:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Only word that seems to fit the bill above is Shibboleth.--Nemonoman (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the one. Quite a story behind it too! Thanks a lot. Hoverfish Talk 15:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Small Problem

In answering a point raised by Eddie Tor on the CC talk page, I went to the article's reference to the hymnal publisher's web site, only to discover that the references to the CC hymnal are no longer there. I also cannot get the link to WebCite's archived copy of the page to work (perhaps the publisher requested that it be removed?). The reference was to back up that there were both full and abbreviated editions of the hymnal. I could change this to show only the publisher's main page, where a reader can still see that there are hymnals, but no longer other details. I'm wondering if you think this is important enough or a good time to change that reference? • Astynax ^talk 08:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that the point has been set in the open, we're sort of compelled to do our best to adapt. You can check the Internet Archive -- don't know the URL, but google "Wayback Machine" and you'll find it. They might have kept a copy of the old website. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No luck there. It seems the Internet Archive can take several months to put up archived pages, and none is yet listed for that page during 2009. With a clearer head, I think that, even though the hymnal page has been deleted, the menu on the site's main webpage does show that there are the full and abbreviated versions of the hymnal being referenced. So I made a little edit to direct the reference to the site's main page. It seemed strange that the WebCite page also disappeared. At first I thought their site might be down again, but it is only that one archived page. Thanks again. • Astynax ^talk 17:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Scanned article?

If you have scanned the article of Glow, please send me a copy by email. I have enabled my email here. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 16:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kanhopatra

Thanks for your copyedit of the Life section of Kanhopatra. I have introduced few changes in the para. See edit summaries. Please copyedit the other sections too and if you have any queries or other suggestions, please let me know. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am currently giving answers to your queries, can you wait a while on the net? Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Take all the time you want. I'm in no hurry. These all look to me like nits that can be managed gracefully. Glad you'll take the time to look into them, but there are work-arounds if needed. I'll be out of internet range over the weekend, so will look in Monday. That will give time for others to comment (though I doubt that we shall see too many comments, unless you or I specifically beat the bushes for comments. Do you want me to beat my bushes??). --Nemonoman (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I lost my internet connection for a while, so could not edit at that time. sorry to keep you waiting. Please check the article. About the comments, we can beat the bushes for comments in WP:PR after the GAN. I had already requested User:Abecedare and User:Nvineeth for a cleanup and comments when the article was nominated. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered your queries, please take a look. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course I couldn't leave well enough alone. But I think you have addressed all my questions and concerns, except "the god of the downtrodden". If reference 1, 7, or 8 uses this exact phrase, I will feel much more comfortable including it. Since I don't speak Marathi, if could you tell me that ref 1 or 7 contains this phrase in Marathi I would have no concerns.

Thanks for your efforts. It is good work that you have done. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA pass. If you have any comments for FA, please put them on the Kanhopatra talk. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Breaking of Silence promises and speculation

• [12] Near 33rd birthday
• [13] - no promise
• [14] 'he will not die until I break my silence'
• [15] 'if... then in the month of December I will break my silence'
• [16]&[17] 'I shall not come out of my seclusion until I break my silence'
• [18]&[19]&[20] on 'the urge to break my silence'
• [21]&[22] 'I will break my silence and leave my body within a year'
• [23] 'by the end of this year'
• [24] 'not now'
• [25] 'in nine months time'
• [26] 'if...after nine months'
• [27] '... nine months before I break my silence'
• [28]&[29] 'after nine months'
• [30]&[31]&[32]&[33] 'One year after the breaking of my silence, I will drop my body'
• [34] 'not until GS is published'
• [35] 'in this very life of yours'
• [36] 'next year'
• [37] 'soon'
• [38] Hollywood Bowl

Sorry for all the vertical space. I hope it is of help. Hoverfish Talk 18:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

However, I think that we are about to take part in creating a new myth. And myth is needed for promoting a new creed or religion. My statement that I believe Bhau, does not mean that I believe that Bhau is describing what really happened, but that I believe he is honest about descibing his experience. Bhau recalled, "the sound was audible and clear, and its intensity and impact very, very forceful. It conveyed so great an impression, that my mind itself neither registered nor questioned the fact that Baba was speaking." To me, this is not about the world that can be registered in film or recorded by a microphone. Note also that all this was 'awakened' during a vision... Hoverfish Talk 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WOW!! THANKS! As to the Bhau stuff -- I have my misgivings, but I'd rather get in front of it than be behind it again. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

MRM edit war report

Can you also add this as the fifth revert? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yes I have done so. PS: I really like your username. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kanhopatra/archive1

Please comment about Kanhopatra, in in consideration FA criteria. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As suggested, I am adding more detail to the article to Kanhopatra, I am searching more references and added more abhnagas. I would like to hear your additional comments, in view of the recent expansion. Thanks --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Avatar

I have removed one of your comments on the talk as it is an WP:UNDUE there and borders WP:PERSONALATTACK. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Have I turned into a Dick?

A couple of my recent comments in Talk:Avatar have been deleted at the request or impetus of a couple of editors that I consider friends and colleagues. I appreciate their care and concern and promise to be more attentive to my tone.--Nemonoman (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, especially not the elephant sized one invoked by this comment.[39] Our friends who suggested those deletions tend to have a much higher bar on civility than is typical on Wikipedia - much to my delight, by the way. I've found my own comments becoming a bit less bitey over time as a result. Priyanath ^talk 16:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Talk:Avatar

I refer to this edit: [40]

Please understand that I mention this in order to try and improve communication, rather than to make accusations and inflame.

Your comments there appear to impute particular motives to myself and possibly other editors who favour a move, incorrectly in my case. I appreciate that the issue of a page name is important to you, and I respect that, as indeed everyone should respect other editors' views, however different to their own. For this reason, it is important that everyone adheres to the Wikipedia community standards, including WP:assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, particularly "comment on content, not on the contributor". It is hard for me to interpret the above edit as following those guidelines. If you have an issue about how this debate has been administered (and I agree it has been done in a less than ideal way, although the debate ought still to be open in my opinion), can I suggest you raise it at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves where it should get attention from experienced administrators of such moves who will ensure "fair play".

I look forward to a continuation of reasoned debate on this naming issue. Many thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You are one of three or four editors involved and I comment on the acts not the individual actors. I assume good faith on your part, but I believe your actions are misguided. The combined actions of the editors involved has certainly been done in a "less than ideal way". Allow me to note those actions, which smell to high heaven, and I ask you to AGF back when I note those facts.

It is entirely reasonable for me to note the consistent collective approach of the combined editors who continue to demand action in the absence of consensus, and to try to understand their motives. Nothing in Wiki ettiquete says I can't do that. I even assume good faith when you write me here saying that I'm crossing the personal attack line, but please read over my comments: I have not made any personal attacks at all, nor have I failed to assume good faith. You may FEEL like like I'm attacking you, because my words are true and highlight the "less than ideal way" the discussion has been going, and you've been one pushing the agenda. I just don't like the agenda one bit. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do assume good faith on your part. However I maintain that your comments made in good faith clearly breach the guidelines, for example "the seven day limit is a quaint nicety that doesn't obtain in this Important Case" breaches WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility point 1.(c), and "comment on the content, not the contributor" (WP:no personal attacks) in my opinion. By all means try to understand our motives (although it appears you do not understand mine at all), however please remember "It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith..." (WP:AOBF). Pointing out that I think you have breached behaviour guidelines in what I hope was a polite manner on your talk page does not imply an assumption of bad faith on your part and in fact is encouraged as a means to avoid escalation. If you feel I was impolite in my approach, please accept my apologies for that. I strongly suggest you take up your issues on the processes followed at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, where I'm sure they will be appropriately addressed. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit [41] is clearly beyond the pale as an obvious personal attack. Please can you edit it to be more civil as soon as possible. --MegaSloth (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't regard it as such. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

one editor has been crying foul to the extent it is hijacking the debate. And you talk about personal attacks and assuming good faith?--Nemonoman (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that comment was unintentionally deeply ambiguous in its meaning, for which I apologise. I have corrected my error. Will you correct yours? --MegaSloth (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See my last comments to you on the Avatar talk page. I honest to god see nothing worth changing, but if you feel there's something ugly out there, remove it with my compliments, or propose the change to me and I will make it. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits are poorly named, I agree

Re this edit summary. It's not a question of keeping shirts on. WP "minor" means (or has the effect) "hide from watchers who aren't looking for copy edits and formatting fixes". Any addition or deletion of article content, tags, and talk page comments should not be marked as minor, so those watchers will still see them. WP:MINOR lists those in particular. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. It's not a rule, and it's not a guideline, and I like my own interpretation of major vs minor than whats found in this help. I don't break all the rules, but I intend to break this non-rule by using my own judgement when assessing the impact of one of my edits. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation. The software behaves differently based on this flag, so you're hiding your changes from some editors who should otherwise see them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I write software. I'm not inclined to change my behavior to suit the software. I believe that violates the whole principle of software. Anyway, It would be easy enough for the software to establish different categorization and display criteria: number of words, number of exclamation points, references or template additions, etc., and to show these on watchlists, etc. For the moment, however, since my criteria and my behavior is not likely to change, you have the option of watchlist following minor edits, which many of my edits happen to be. Minor as based solely on my criteria for what constitutes a minor edit. This is my preferred watchlist setting, so I'm biased. Anyway, I've only run into you (and this request) once, and I don't expect we'll have many more interactions since I'm sitting out the Avatar move request, and at present we edit in different areas, so the point is sort of moot. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reviewers

It kind of ironic to read your message on my talk page then scroll up and remember you were concerned about POV in source titles, what happened?

I think a review of this wiki policy is [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#A_simple_formulation] is in order.

Don't have much more than that to say. JesseLackman (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to make the article NPOV -- although there has been considerable argument about what POV means in this article's case, I have really worked to make it neutral. I think you have done good work in shaping the discussion on the article, but I think your clearly stated bias affects your ability to assert objectivity in a GAR. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the GA request was reviewed by User:JesseLackman, but am not in touch with the process enough to know whether that's generally accepted on WP. Donama (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It stands the process on its head. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for a disinterested reviewer. Looks like Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû attempted to review, but JesseLackman had already taken it on.

JesseLackman seems to have a problem with this citation. I only added it and the other backup references in response to his disputing both the statement and the reference which were already in place. But he particularly singled out that reference as "low quality." Had he looked further at the site, he would have found the person who runs it (Winfried Müller) is a German theologian (former professor Friedrich-Schiller-University, former Librarian for Theology, Education, Semetic Languages, Classical Studies and Classical Philology at the University of Thuringia State Library, etc.). Seemed fairly RS to me, but if it is a hinderance, the other sources probably adequately make the point. Frankly, I'm not sure why he attacked that particular factiod in the first place. Seems way weird (and a huge waste) to me to attack even the most obviously valid statements as being "wrong" because of a rationalization that somewhere and somehow there may or may not have been an exception. But several editors insistently employ this tactic, so maybe it works. Nevertheless, if you think that the source is a negative and not needed to back up the statement, I can self-remove it. • Astynax ^talk 05:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "attacking" anything as [wrong] but as personal opinions/interpretations presented as absolute objective facts. If that source is absolute fact why not include "few vote" about the friends and workers in the article? I know it probably wouldn't be done according to WP:ASF but so what? There's obviously other parts that aren't either.

JesseLackman (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Astynax. I don't believe that there is any benefit to be gained anymore by adding or removing citations based on the whining of biased member editors. When has this led to anything other than more whining?

That edit where Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû tried to pick up the GAR lead is interesting. I thought he made righteous comments and would have been a good lead for a GAR. I was particularly amused by this note:

*Echoing the main reviewer's concerns about biased references, other than the schisms/consolidation, there is no mention of dissension within the church, or negative press/persecution/&tc. The article, on the whole, is very positive in its depiction of the subject.

I would have liked to see the gnashing of teeth as THAT got addressed, when even reasonably neutral facts are continually described as "Anti-". And I do personally feel that there is enough free-range criticism of the group that SOMETHING had ought to be said. I'm just not up to that firestorm without some reasonable backup. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message at the talk page of WP:NRM and asked a GA reviewer who deals extensively with NRMs to maybe chime in. I don't know what his workload is like, but hope he says something soon. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Like they said in my old neighborhood -- from your lips to God's ear! --Nemonoman (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

When I posted on the GA page I didn't realise I would become the main reviewer, all I really wanted to do was comment on the GA review. Then when nemonoman suggested I was not a good person to be the main GA reviewer, and when I asked how to withdraw, nemonoman suggested that I fail the article. So I decided to do a full review with disclaimer as objectively as I could and fail it. As I said I'm happy the article is up for community GA re-assessment. No "gnashing of teeth" about any of this for me.

The problem with the quote anstyex mentions is that like many sources it is simply a cross quoted opinion/interpretation. I've offered more comments and thought on personal opinion/interpretation vs fact according to WP:ASF here ->[42].

Any questions please ask. If any wish to contact me privately you can through the wiki e-mail connection. thanks, JesseLackman (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems the dates on the GAR [43] are messed up for some reason. If you look at the GAR history [44] you will see that I posted before Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû posted what they labled a "Second Opinion".

JesseLackman (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesse, I have reviewed the GAN history and see that Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû opted to be lead reviewer. Apparently, when he saw that you had already begun the review, he removed himself from lead reviewer role. This was reasonable, as the first GAR reviewer is the lead and determines the article's disposition. So whether you meant to be or not, you became the lead reviewer. In my mind, as I have stated, your involvement with the article disqualified you from that role. The only enforcement would be your personal decision to not continue as lead reviewer.

I believe from the history that I've pieced together that you did not fully realize the role you had taken on for yourself. Since the GAN page listed you as lead, and since you began the GAR, I assumed that you knew what you were up to. I am ready to believe that you wished to contribute, but not to lead, the GAR, which is in my book ENTIRELY within bounds, and I hope you will participate in future reviews.

You asked how me how you might get out of the Lead role. I responded that you could remove your name as lead from the GAN page. That would have been the simplest and easiest thing.

The GAN system has a bot that does a lot of actions, so I didn't know if the bot would understand removing your name as lead. If that would fail, as an alternative, I suggested you "fail" the article. If you were to do this, I expected you would add a comment like "Since questions have been raised about my qualification as GAR lead, I am "failing" the article in order to allow it to be relisted." Instead of this you made a major deal out your many feelings about the article, despite knowing that your involvement and clear bias meant that you were not qualified to fail the article for the causes you stated. Instead you blasted the article, rather unfairly in my opinion, and closed the review without giving your many complaints any chance to be answered by others.

In the GA world, this is called a Quick Fail: when an article is so unworthy of review that the lead fails it on the spot. Again, whether you meant to do so or not, your Quick Fail assessment changed in one action the CC article from reasonable candidate -- which as an experienced GA editor and lead reviewer, I believe it clearly is -- and labeled it instead as completely unworthy of even being considered for that status. Since it's clear from your commments that that's how you feel, I suppose you are not sorry about this. However, I don't know that you would be happy if I or Astynax or other editors who you characterise as POV and "Anti" had jumped in as lead and then Quick Passed the article for a GA without any discussion. This isn't how the system is supposed to work.

Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû made pertinent comments typical of a lead GAR's first pass. There would be more to come, no doubt, as he found other matters of concern, particularly since you, IP 206... and likely others would lay out the case of non-reliablity, POV, etc. It would be a very good thing if a disinterested party had looked at that article with a clear eye, and I sincerely hope someone will step forward who can do so.--Nemonoman (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman I'm getting tired of you bending objective truth to suit your opinions. This is Mukkakukaku's first edit of the GAR page [45] - over nine hours after mine;

(cur) (prev) 15:07, 1 December 2009 Mukkakukaku (talk | contribs) (2,944 bytes) (→GA Review: second opinion) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 06:33, 1 December 2009 JesseLackman (talk | contribs) m (1,842 bytes) (→GA Review: minor edit) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 05:29, 1 December 2009 JesseLackman (talk | contribs) (1,895 bytes)(←Created page with '==GA Review==...

I don't know where in the world you get the idea Mukkakukaku was intending to "pick up the lead" in the review.

I read some GA reviews on articles that actually made GA, here's one where the reviewer failed it - he was the only one who had any comments in the review. -> [46]

Also you keep talking about all the edits I made, well the history tells the truth about that;

• 290 (135/155) Astynax
• 224 (104/120) Eddie Tor
• 147 (4/143) Nemonoman
• 124 (3/121) Trv6983
• 122 (115/7) Slofstra
• 111 (99/12) Donama
• 94 (94/0) 24.21.75.147 (anon)
• 69 (69/0) 67.168.203.89 (anon)
• 37 (17/20) Jeffro77
• 33 (33/0) Ashfallen
• 31 (23/8) Tmtsoj
• 29 (21/8) Sambo598
• 25 (1/24) SmackBot (bot)
• 23 (23/0) 64.231.117.121 (anon)
• 23 (22/1) 0oToddo0
• 20 (18/2) ReligiousHarmony
• 19 (1/18) Ilylo
• 15 (15/0) 210.50.36.30 (anon)
• 12 (12/0) 196.25.255.214 (anon)
• 11 (11/0) 68.103.72.226 (anon)
• 10 (10/0) TShilo12
• 9 (1/8) JesseLackman

I made .6% of the total edits on the CC page! Statistically that's called "noise" (you and astynax would probably agree). Anyway it's clear who "owns" the article... if any want to verify the above check here -> [47].

JesseLackman (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesse -- Editors as deeply involved as you have been...effectively you're a one topic editor...are not supposed to GAR lead. I don't care whether your comments were perfect or pitiful. You weren't the one to review the article, and you didn't do a good job of reviewing it. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

I did a Quick Fail myself. You can see the reasons for it. The article has not come up for reassessment. No one made any complaints about the Quick Fail.

You said: I don't know where in the world you get the idea Mukkakukaku was intending to "pick up the lead" in the review. See this link] where he took the lead using proper protocol, i.e., he actually read and followed the GAR directions. Apparently when he saw you had already begun the review, he assumed you knew what you were doing and that you were the lead, so he replaced his name with yours here. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

References in Lord Meher

Maitreya is in LM 4321. I only get 3 instances of the word in LM, the other two not very helpful (186, 4459). I think we should use a quote if we are to include the issue. I doubt "Maitreya" would be in it though. Hoverfish Talk 08:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying you're concerned about undue weight, me too.--Nemonoman (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CC article again

0oToddo0 is again throwing up dispute tags. Could you look at the latest tag which was thrown up and see if you think it warrants reverting? Can't do so myself right now because of the RR. If you are not around, I'll do so later today when I can. • Astynax ^talk 18:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Donoma beat me to it. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd thought of asking JCarter to look again, but I think he must be taking a break. Thanks for taking a look. • Astynax ^talk 03:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to the "factual disputes" put up by IPuser, and removed the dispute tag. I'm not sure that they are actually factual disputes at all, since no source(s) offering alternative or conflicting information was included in the list. An editor raising a dispute based on their personal experience/OR would seem to be just as against policy as adding information based on OR.

Seems to be about more than factual dispute however. Very strange to me to see denials of simple, observable things that aren't at all negative and of which even a CC noob would have at least some familiarity. Not all CC's are like this. I thought this thread on TMB posted by the IPuser was interesting. Other than he and Mr. Lackman, several CC members actually seemed to agree that the article was fairly accurate (before the thread wandered into areas not dealt with in the article).

Let me know if I'm handling this wrong. • Astynax ^talk 04:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in accord with your approach. These editors are being disruptive in my view and I find them very wearying. Why don't they fix the problems they find? I think the answer is obvious: the truth they perceive -- which may in fact be the Real Thing -- is not documented. And they don't like what has been documented, even if it is non-controversial, not only because they have issues with the people doing the documenting, but also because any documentation as some sort of betrayal of their fundamental beliefs. I wanted only to help with the editing a bit; I didn't expect a full-time job. What a pain the ass. As always I am impressed with your level-headed, research based response. My hat's off to you. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at your TMB link, and then surfed around there a bit. The debate: "total crap" vs "sounds right to me" was entirely predictable and consistent with the CC talk page. When I surf around on that site - which I can only do for a short while - I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole.

On a personal note, I woke up this morning cynical and pessimistic and full of bile about the nature of man and the tendency of societies to crumble under the influence of loud-mouthed idiots. History is so full of examples, it is just depressing. Over the last few months this means Fox News and the Teabaggers. When I thought about what had inspired my foul mood on waking, I realized I'm part of a micro-society of CC article editors, and that I am about sick to death of the endless sniping.

If you haven't seen Idiocracy run right out and get a copy. Not the world's greatest comedy, but amusing, and its central premise certainly fits the situation. T

To pester and snipe with no regard for rules or standards, but only to say it must be right because I just said it." I am sick, sick, sick of this. I'd like to find a way to end it. If the snipers would ever actually WRITE something instead of simply sniping, that would help. I could try to find a way to live with it, no matter how weak. But they never do, do they? The ideal article according the man with a zillion names would be: The Christian Convention is a group that has an article in the Encyclopedia of Religion and that's all you need to know.

The snipers apparently have no jobs and no lives to speak of other than sniping. I suppose this can be attributed to a culture reluctant to allow for tv movies or sports, but comfortable with PCs. The snipers have no objectivity, no desire to enlighten, no motivation to consensus, no regard for scholarship. They feel entirely comfortable with personal insult, speculation, polemic, and invective.

Anyway I woke up this morning sick at heart, and it was because I realized I was going to go back to the article and the talk page and do some work, and this was not a whole lot different than what Sisyphus must have felt when he had was done his morning coffee and having a look at the boulder one more time. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now I have Gracie Slick's White Rabbit going around in my head, which is actually a pleasant distraction. I try to be patient, but you have me beat on that score and I thank you for it. I find destructive gaming repulsive, and the micro-parsing of words and phrasing to be every bit as intentionally deceptive as their "critics" charge. Why would they want to put that out on record for the world to see? Perhaps they are just trying to muddy up the water, but seems counterproductive to do so in a venue where the deus ex machina is so exposed (even IPuser's deleted old talk pages aren't really gone). Thus we have fully-invested members claiming not to be "members" (I suppose on the basis they don't often use that term), doctrines which aren't doctrines (because they repudiate the word?), closed events being portrayed as open (because of the possibility an outsider might decide to crash some meeting uninvited), an originator who is argued isn't a "founder", etc. A sociologist could have a field-day mining the related talk pages, and the very critics they bemoan could probably find some juicy quotes to validate their contentions, too. That doesn't help those of us dealing with it, though, and I'm long since sick of it also. Evelyn Waugh wrote, "I was old enough to know that an attempt had been made to suborn me and young enough to have found the experience agreeable." But evidently I'm way past being young enough to enjoy being gamed.

If 0otoddoO doesn't give some source for his dispute tagging the history section by this evening, I'll go back to removing it. Long's diary only deals briefly with the period, isn't anything new (it's been floating around for years and is even quoted in some of the books), and doesn't make any statement I can find as to when Irvine got his revelation or who started the movement. John Long's letter to the editor in the 1920s Heresies Exposed book, written around the same time as his journal was put together, states that "William Irvine is the name of the original leader" (p. 73 n.) which confirms, rather than raises any questions about, Irvine being regarded as founder. So this seems to me just another tactic similar to his previous blanking. I'll also make an effort to find citations for the "International" section which was inserted during the review. I think it is a good-faith effort, but since no one has responded to the {{fact}} tags, I'll remove any or all if I cannot find anything in the references at hand (which ).

OK, I've messed up your page enough with my venting. Even if some of your detailed and well-reasoned posts seem to have been ignored, I appreciate them for bringing discussions, which tend to spiral off into irrelevance, back to a rational focus. • Astynax ^talk 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"The snipers apparently have no jobs and no lives to speak of other than sniping. I suppose this can be attributed to a culture reluctant to allow for tv movies or sports, but comfortable with PCs. The snipers have no objectivity, no desire to enlighten, no motivation to consensus, no regard for scholarship. They feel entirely comfortable with personal insult, speculation, polemic, and invective. "

nemonoman, that's uncalled for, kind of unprofessional for two supposedly objective editors or (editor IDs) to even be having a conversation like this. JesseLackman (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"I thought this thread on TMB posted by the IPuser was interesting. Other than he and Mr. Lackman, several CC members actually seemed to agree that the article was fairly accurate (before the thread wandered into areas not dealt with in the article)."

astynax, can you tell me who are the CC members replying on that thread?

thanks, JesseLackman (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

On the CC talk page, I keep my opinions as moderate as possible. I don't need to be spineless in my converstations with other editors on my own talk page. I've about had it up to here with the disruptions of 00todd00 and the never ending carping of Name of the week. Where am I supposed to express my opinions and my frustration? Should I surf over toTMB as you and other editors have done and do my venting there like you and others? Nobody held back there, did they? By the way, maintaining that article may be a full time job, but sadly it's not my profession, so it's not unprofessional for me to communicate here. If you think otherwise file and incident report. Or I could just quit if that would make you happier. --Nemonoman (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Christian Conventions. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nemonoman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As stated in my request on the 3RR noticeboard, I believe that I was reverting vandalism. The user I reported has made the adding of a dispute tag -- with no supporting discussion -- a disruptive game, repeating exactly the same action more than 20 times in the last week, and 7 times in the last 24 hours, including 4 reverts after I added a 3RR warning to his talk page. Compare my efforts to discuss, reach consensus, find alternate solutions etc on the talk page, and compare with the casual defacement of the page done by 00todd00. I knew quite well that I was likely to be blocked unless a little investigation was done. This outcome is fine with me, as the defacement and vandalism to the article will be stopped, at least for a while. I do request a little more investigation. I believe that blocking me is not just, and I wonder if a 24-hour block on 00todd00 is sufficient to the nature of his actions. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This was a content dispute, not vandalism; thus, the block has to stand. Whatever the other person was doing, you, too, were edit warring; this sort of disruption is harmful to Wikipedia, whatever the justification. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note that 0oToddo0 got 48 hours -- his edit warring was more disruptive than yours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your unblock review and comments. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)