==Welcome== Hello A.J.A./Archive 1 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. If you want to learn more,
Wikipedia:Bootcamp teaches you the basics quickly,
Wikipedia:Tutorial is more in-depth, and
Wikipedia:Topical index is exhaustive.
The following links might also come in handy:
Glossary
FAQ
Help
Manual of Style
Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Float around for awhile until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the
random page button in the navigation bar to the left. There are also many great committees and groups that focus on particular jobs. My personal favorite stomping grounds are
Wikipedia:Translation into English and
Wikipedia:Cleanup for sloppy articles. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki
projects that you might enjoy.
There are a few crucial points to keep in mind when editing. Be
civil with users, strive to maintain a
neutral point of view,
verify your information, and show good
etiquette like signing your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~ If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my
talk page or ask the true experts at
Wikipedia:Help desk. Again, welcome! --
Draeco 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
There are few enough who can contribute sensibly, and also keep out of the cycle of provocation on the talk page. I'd prefer to see you in that minority. Charles Matthews 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Word of advice: don't piss off the ref. crazyeddie 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. She/he is also in possible violation of the "no personal attacks" policy. "He [Zarove] has the defense of being anonymous right now, but he will be found out and tracked for the statements he has made and has no business doing so." [1] Ironically enough, rpsugar/Rene-Skull was not logged in at the time, so has the defense of being anonyomous. crazyeddie 22:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that was in response to Zaroves threats to publish Acharya's credit info online if I didn't back off and let him have his way with the article. Procuring a credit report under false pretenses is a crime. In addition, a wanted kidnapper is known to have passed around Acharya's personal info to religious groups, suggesting that Zarove may have been in contact with this person. Where, for example, did he get the 'Melne' middle name from?? His story has been that he is a former reporter, with a "masters in journalism", and that he wrote an article about Acharya for a tennessee newspaper; he says he procured this info in his research efforts. Though he will give his full name, he will not give the name of the newspaper, the title of the article, the date it was published, nor will he back up his "masters in journalism" claim. In addition, he claims he was a physics major in 2001. Masters in Journalism, a year and half in physics, and a job as a reporter a few years ago... all by the time he was 26.
^^James^^ 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit to Acharya S. Since this is a disputed page, I guess a good thing to do is wait before making further edits and see how others will react. Let us hope that the article will not degenrate in an edit war again. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi A.J.A. Thank you very much for your invitation :) I am currently on Wikibreak, but will certainly be interested in being a part of the project when I return. Take care. Brisvegas 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Either Diligens or I have misunderstood a comment you made on Talk:Charles Chiniquy - Diligens has interpreted you as saying that www.chick.com is not Chick's official website (and removed mention of Chick again, for that and other reasons), I read your words differently. Would appreciate if you could clarify it there? -- Calair 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to understand how you could nominate Thomas Ice, Grant Jeffrey, and Mal Couch for deletion; not to mention the entire LBU list of people. I've responded on those pages, but those three guys are very notable. Ice and Jeffrey both have over 14 million Google hits. All of them have written countless books. As a self-proclaimed inerrantist, I'm shocked that you haven't heard of them. Jeffrey is one of the biggest names in Bible prophecy. -- Jason Gastrich 05:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get such a crazy notion? -- Jason Gastrich 05:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your addition to List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning because, like Bob Jones University, Oxford Graduate School is also accredited by TRACS (I looked it up at the USDOE website a little while ago). I'm leery about any group that would accredit Bob Jones U., personally, but consistency is consistency. -- Calton | Talk 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I support your opinion on AFDing a number of Jason Gastrich's articles. If you feel that you need to use the dispute resolution procedure ( WP:RFC) let me know and I will certify the basis of the dispute. Stifle 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Having seen further actions which appear to include suspected sockpuppeting I am in fact considering entering a User Conduct RFC in the matter. Do you think this is necessary? Stifle 00:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You said, "He's also making a quite serious accusation about me personally, only he doesn't have the guts to come out and say it. All this is specifically about my nominations, so this stuff about "unbelievers" means me. Only I'm a Christian, as he was aware of before writing. So he's accusing me of being a false brother, without having the courage or honesty to say it plainly, or even the basic fidelity to Scriptural teachings to discuss it with me privately first. A.J.A. 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"
In your nomination to delete frenzy, why did you skip these two? -- Jason Gastrich 07:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Which national accreditation body is Dallas Theological Seminary approved by? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could merge List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning and Nationally recognized accrediting agencies. Since one is the list and one is the description, it might be good to have them on one page. Thoughts? Arbustoo 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
You might be aware that there has been some contention around the use of userboxes. There has also been a new speedy deletion criterion added with regard to templates.
A box you are using, Template:User Antipope was recently tagged as such. I've removed the tag, but would ask that you {{subst:}} the template. You may also wish to contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes if you are not already.
brenneman {T} {L} 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first. I'm not denying that the article could stand some improvement but it needs to be done a bit at a time as there is a lot of relevant information that you have tried to cut out. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A.J.A., I'm at a loss as to why you removed the 'totally disputed' tag from the front page when so much about the article is still in dispute. While the article is clearly still being hammered out, some form of dispute notice needs to stay at the top. Given the level of dispute we've had, I'd like to see either all recent participants agree that the tag is ready to come off, or see no more reversions or edit warring for a good solid two weeks. Sound reasonable? Wesley 06:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments at Talk:Criticism of Mormonism. Your reversion was somewhat hasty and a little insulting; I'm happy to discuss issues you see with the article and work together towards neutrality, but a wholesale erasure didn't exactly show good faith. Let me know what you want to take on in the article, as I'm always glad to work with other editors concerned with LDS-related topics. Thanks. Tijuana Brass ¡Épa!- E@ 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
AJA, you haven't weighed in yet on Swatjester's suggestion to review this article on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis (and the corresponding revisions we've gone over for the intro). It wouldn't be complete without your participation, would you care to add anything to
what's been said so far?
Tijuana Brass
¡Épa!-
E@ 04:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from using edit summaries like "rm festering gob of stupid". I would tend to agree that the edit could have been better constructed, but there's no reason to attack other editors.
Bear in mind that Wikipedia has policies against personal attacks or breaches of civility. Those policies may be enforced through suspensions of editing privileges.
Edit mercilessly, but comment politely. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I chip in and say that I appreciate your efforts? The point about the edit summaries is not negotiable, though. Charles Matthews 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I want to bring these removals at Glendale University [4] National Distance Learning Accreditation Council [5], list of unaccredited schools [6], and accreditation mills [7], [8] to your attention. Arbusto 05:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I am leaving the same message for you and for ^^James^^.
Looking at the article's history, in recent weeks you two have engaged in the most reversions by far. If either of you revert the article Acharya S again, I will suspend your editing privileges for a short period of time.
I'm tired of watching the same slow motion edit war go back and forth. Poor editing practices by one person do not justify them by another. I will not be editing the article further myself. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No, but you have been edit-warring there. You have failed to engage on the talk page. You need to indicate failures in NPOV that you see, very clearly. It is inadequate to talk just in terms of notional 'balance' on a page. NPOV is not the same as everyone getting their preferred balance of this and that. It means the end result might be the result of a fair-minded person looking at the controversial aspects and coming up with a version. Therefore you need to come across not as a partisan, but as someone fixing up specific weaknesses there. Charles Matthews 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Procedures for resolving a dispute with another editor are detailed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The first step is to discuss your concerns with the editor(s) involved. If that doesn't work, you can file an informal complaint about me on the Administrators' Noticeboard incidents page. Alternatively, you may seek comment on my actions through a Request for Comment. If those avenues fail to resolve your concerns, you may also seek arbitration on the issues. For what it's worth, I posted notice of my warning on the Admin Noticeboard immediately after I notified you and ^^James^^; I'd much rather see more third-party attention on this situation than there has been so far.
I'm not threatening you. I'm telling you that your recent actions at Acharya S haven't been productive, and that you need to do more discussing and less reverting. If you choose to continue to engage in a revert war then I will suspend your editing privileges because that behaviour interferes with our goal of creating an encyclopedia. In the long run, wouldn't you prefer to have a neutral article that you don't have to keep reverting? Neither you nor ^^James^^ really want to have to come back to Acharya S every day to revert, now do you? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, A.J.A. Hopefully we can get an NPOV article if all sides are willing to discuss things. The accusation directed at Storm Rider (even if true) wasn't helpful. If both sides present their evidence, there's no reason why we can't resolve the impasse amicably. Can we agree to go ahead with the discussion (with me mediating)? I am theologically trained and have studied Mormonism, so don't worry that I'll allow anyone to get away with imposing a Mormon POV on the article! David L Rattigan 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello A.J.A, I'm notifying you of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Please don't assume that implying that your claimed POV/NPOV edits supercede such a rule. I've shown you the policies that request not to remove content you disagree with. Simply calling it "inaccurate" doesn't absolve you of working through the consensus process. You have recently been requested by admins to moderate your tone and your agressive reversions. Please comply with Wikipedia policy and moderator requests. Regards. DavidBailey 02:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
The duration of the block is 24 hours.
Re your comments on the 3RR page - only blatant vandalism is immune from 3RR.
William M. Connolley 07:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am kind of new to Wikipedia, so I apoligize if I incorrectly comment on your page. I just wondered why you completely demolished my page on Barton College. I didn't think there was anything wrong with it, but you removed everything I wrote, leaving only a few sentences. If you have constructive criticism please leave it, but I really don't understand why you completely demolished my page. Please respond. Thanks! ( BartonBelle 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, Barber-Scotia College is an unaccredited college in Concord,NC. I added this college to the list of unaccredited institutes of higher learning, and you removed it. Just wondering why, since on the college page it offers the date in which it lost its accredidation. If this is supposed to be a complete listing of unaccredited institutes of higher learning, then it should list all colleges that aren't accredited including Barber-Scotia. ( BartonBelle 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
==Welcome== Hello A.J.A./Archive 1 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. If you want to learn more,
Wikipedia:Bootcamp teaches you the basics quickly,
Wikipedia:Tutorial is more in-depth, and
Wikipedia:Topical index is exhaustive.
The following links might also come in handy:
Glossary
FAQ
Help
Manual of Style
Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Float around for awhile until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the
random page button in the navigation bar to the left. There are also many great committees and groups that focus on particular jobs. My personal favorite stomping grounds are
Wikipedia:Translation into English and
Wikipedia:Cleanup for sloppy articles. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki
projects that you might enjoy.
There are a few crucial points to keep in mind when editing. Be
civil with users, strive to maintain a
neutral point of view,
verify your information, and show good
etiquette like signing your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~ If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my
talk page or ask the true experts at
Wikipedia:Help desk. Again, welcome! --
Draeco 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
There are few enough who can contribute sensibly, and also keep out of the cycle of provocation on the talk page. I'd prefer to see you in that minority. Charles Matthews 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Word of advice: don't piss off the ref. crazyeddie 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. She/he is also in possible violation of the "no personal attacks" policy. "He [Zarove] has the defense of being anonymous right now, but he will be found out and tracked for the statements he has made and has no business doing so." [1] Ironically enough, rpsugar/Rene-Skull was not logged in at the time, so has the defense of being anonyomous. crazyeddie 22:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that was in response to Zaroves threats to publish Acharya's credit info online if I didn't back off and let him have his way with the article. Procuring a credit report under false pretenses is a crime. In addition, a wanted kidnapper is known to have passed around Acharya's personal info to religious groups, suggesting that Zarove may have been in contact with this person. Where, for example, did he get the 'Melne' middle name from?? His story has been that he is a former reporter, with a "masters in journalism", and that he wrote an article about Acharya for a tennessee newspaper; he says he procured this info in his research efforts. Though he will give his full name, he will not give the name of the newspaper, the title of the article, the date it was published, nor will he back up his "masters in journalism" claim. In addition, he claims he was a physics major in 2001. Masters in Journalism, a year and half in physics, and a job as a reporter a few years ago... all by the time he was 26.
^^James^^ 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit to Acharya S. Since this is a disputed page, I guess a good thing to do is wait before making further edits and see how others will react. Let us hope that the article will not degenrate in an edit war again. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi A.J.A. Thank you very much for your invitation :) I am currently on Wikibreak, but will certainly be interested in being a part of the project when I return. Take care. Brisvegas 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Either Diligens or I have misunderstood a comment you made on Talk:Charles Chiniquy - Diligens has interpreted you as saying that www.chick.com is not Chick's official website (and removed mention of Chick again, for that and other reasons), I read your words differently. Would appreciate if you could clarify it there? -- Calair 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to understand how you could nominate Thomas Ice, Grant Jeffrey, and Mal Couch for deletion; not to mention the entire LBU list of people. I've responded on those pages, but those three guys are very notable. Ice and Jeffrey both have over 14 million Google hits. All of them have written countless books. As a self-proclaimed inerrantist, I'm shocked that you haven't heard of them. Jeffrey is one of the biggest names in Bible prophecy. -- Jason Gastrich 05:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get such a crazy notion? -- Jason Gastrich 05:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your addition to List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning because, like Bob Jones University, Oxford Graduate School is also accredited by TRACS (I looked it up at the USDOE website a little while ago). I'm leery about any group that would accredit Bob Jones U., personally, but consistency is consistency. -- Calton | Talk 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I support your opinion on AFDing a number of Jason Gastrich's articles. If you feel that you need to use the dispute resolution procedure ( WP:RFC) let me know and I will certify the basis of the dispute. Stifle 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Having seen further actions which appear to include suspected sockpuppeting I am in fact considering entering a User Conduct RFC in the matter. Do you think this is necessary? Stifle 00:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You said, "He's also making a quite serious accusation about me personally, only he doesn't have the guts to come out and say it. All this is specifically about my nominations, so this stuff about "unbelievers" means me. Only I'm a Christian, as he was aware of before writing. So he's accusing me of being a false brother, without having the courage or honesty to say it plainly, or even the basic fidelity to Scriptural teachings to discuss it with me privately first. A.J.A. 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"
In your nomination to delete frenzy, why did you skip these two? -- Jason Gastrich 07:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Which national accreditation body is Dallas Theological Seminary approved by? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could merge List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning and Nationally recognized accrediting agencies. Since one is the list and one is the description, it might be good to have them on one page. Thoughts? Arbustoo 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
You might be aware that there has been some contention around the use of userboxes. There has also been a new speedy deletion criterion added with regard to templates.
A box you are using, Template:User Antipope was recently tagged as such. I've removed the tag, but would ask that you {{subst:}} the template. You may also wish to contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes if you are not already.
brenneman {T} {L} 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first. I'm not denying that the article could stand some improvement but it needs to be done a bit at a time as there is a lot of relevant information that you have tried to cut out. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A.J.A., I'm at a loss as to why you removed the 'totally disputed' tag from the front page when so much about the article is still in dispute. While the article is clearly still being hammered out, some form of dispute notice needs to stay at the top. Given the level of dispute we've had, I'd like to see either all recent participants agree that the tag is ready to come off, or see no more reversions or edit warring for a good solid two weeks. Sound reasonable? Wesley 06:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments at Talk:Criticism of Mormonism. Your reversion was somewhat hasty and a little insulting; I'm happy to discuss issues you see with the article and work together towards neutrality, but a wholesale erasure didn't exactly show good faith. Let me know what you want to take on in the article, as I'm always glad to work with other editors concerned with LDS-related topics. Thanks. Tijuana Brass ¡Épa!- E@ 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
AJA, you haven't weighed in yet on Swatjester's suggestion to review this article on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis (and the corresponding revisions we've gone over for the intro). It wouldn't be complete without your participation, would you care to add anything to
what's been said so far?
Tijuana Brass
¡Épa!-
E@ 04:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from using edit summaries like "rm festering gob of stupid". I would tend to agree that the edit could have been better constructed, but there's no reason to attack other editors.
Bear in mind that Wikipedia has policies against personal attacks or breaches of civility. Those policies may be enforced through suspensions of editing privileges.
Edit mercilessly, but comment politely. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I chip in and say that I appreciate your efforts? The point about the edit summaries is not negotiable, though. Charles Matthews 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I want to bring these removals at Glendale University [4] National Distance Learning Accreditation Council [5], list of unaccredited schools [6], and accreditation mills [7], [8] to your attention. Arbusto 05:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I am leaving the same message for you and for ^^James^^.
Looking at the article's history, in recent weeks you two have engaged in the most reversions by far. If either of you revert the article Acharya S again, I will suspend your editing privileges for a short period of time.
I'm tired of watching the same slow motion edit war go back and forth. Poor editing practices by one person do not justify them by another. I will not be editing the article further myself. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No, but you have been edit-warring there. You have failed to engage on the talk page. You need to indicate failures in NPOV that you see, very clearly. It is inadequate to talk just in terms of notional 'balance' on a page. NPOV is not the same as everyone getting their preferred balance of this and that. It means the end result might be the result of a fair-minded person looking at the controversial aspects and coming up with a version. Therefore you need to come across not as a partisan, but as someone fixing up specific weaknesses there. Charles Matthews 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Procedures for resolving a dispute with another editor are detailed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The first step is to discuss your concerns with the editor(s) involved. If that doesn't work, you can file an informal complaint about me on the Administrators' Noticeboard incidents page. Alternatively, you may seek comment on my actions through a Request for Comment. If those avenues fail to resolve your concerns, you may also seek arbitration on the issues. For what it's worth, I posted notice of my warning on the Admin Noticeboard immediately after I notified you and ^^James^^; I'd much rather see more third-party attention on this situation than there has been so far.
I'm not threatening you. I'm telling you that your recent actions at Acharya S haven't been productive, and that you need to do more discussing and less reverting. If you choose to continue to engage in a revert war then I will suspend your editing privileges because that behaviour interferes with our goal of creating an encyclopedia. In the long run, wouldn't you prefer to have a neutral article that you don't have to keep reverting? Neither you nor ^^James^^ really want to have to come back to Acharya S every day to revert, now do you? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, A.J.A. Hopefully we can get an NPOV article if all sides are willing to discuss things. The accusation directed at Storm Rider (even if true) wasn't helpful. If both sides present their evidence, there's no reason why we can't resolve the impasse amicably. Can we agree to go ahead with the discussion (with me mediating)? I am theologically trained and have studied Mormonism, so don't worry that I'll allow anyone to get away with imposing a Mormon POV on the article! David L Rattigan 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello A.J.A, I'm notifying you of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Please don't assume that implying that your claimed POV/NPOV edits supercede such a rule. I've shown you the policies that request not to remove content you disagree with. Simply calling it "inaccurate" doesn't absolve you of working through the consensus process. You have recently been requested by admins to moderate your tone and your agressive reversions. Please comply with Wikipedia policy and moderator requests. Regards. DavidBailey 02:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
The duration of the block is 24 hours.
Re your comments on the 3RR page - only blatant vandalism is immune from 3RR.
William M. Connolley 07:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am kind of new to Wikipedia, so I apoligize if I incorrectly comment on your page. I just wondered why you completely demolished my page on Barton College. I didn't think there was anything wrong with it, but you removed everything I wrote, leaving only a few sentences. If you have constructive criticism please leave it, but I really don't understand why you completely demolished my page. Please respond. Thanks! ( BartonBelle 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, Barber-Scotia College is an unaccredited college in Concord,NC. I added this college to the list of unaccredited institutes of higher learning, and you removed it. Just wondering why, since on the college page it offers the date in which it lost its accredidation. If this is supposed to be a complete listing of unaccredited institutes of higher learning, then it should list all colleges that aren't accredited including Barber-Scotia. ( BartonBelle 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)