This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
You are welcome to have your say, but cutting up paragraphs in a RfC is not acceptable. If you wish to respond to it, add a section titled "response." Arbusto 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The title "investigation" needs to stay -- the title you used sounds like the National Inquirer. Nonetheless, I think most of your material is fine and one paragraph by arbustoo was fine. Whether or not you two will agree on this is another story. •Jim62sch• 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing [1] to
Arbusto 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Vivaldi, this discussion [2] might be of interest to you. Orsini 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You continued attacks are not acceptable. Bring an RfC if you truly are troubled. Arbusto 08:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a notice for an RfAR involving you. Visit [3] for details. Arbusto 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I see the you and Arbusto have some history but I want to thank you for rv back to my comments. I get some slack for being an anon-by choice but that's the first time my comments were just blanked, which I found to be very uncivil by Arbusto. Or at the very least it demostrates a rash personality that is quick to jump to conclusion. 205.157.110.11 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note. Arbusto used the AfD as an example of your stalking. I made a comment as a univolved party pointing out the circumstance of your action on the Rfc and he reverted it. :p I'm not interested in a Rv war but he's certainly developing an pattern. 205.157.110.11 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read through a lot of material in the last hour or two. This talk page, the RfC, Arbustoo's talk page, the articles you have both edited, etc. My eyes are watering but allow me to share with you an observation, one that might get me in trouble. When I first came to Wikipedia and thought to get involved in editing I came across the Intelligent Design article. I made a couple of immature and snide comments in the talk section because I thought the article was poorly written and clearly not a neutral point of view. Regardless, I ducked out of the discussion quickly and never bothered to go back because I was new to Wikipedia and didn't feel like getting involved in such a discussion as a newbie. I did however read through the history of the talk page and was pretty amazed at the lack of scholarship. Instead what I saw was folks like FeloniousMonk and Guettarda doing everything in their power to make sure the article was written from a negative point of view. Since that time about a couple of months have gone by.
Now comes Arbustoo, who seems to want to throw in negative points of view on every article involving the slightest hint of Christianity. Not only that, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to articles critical of Christianity. It seems as though he cannot be neutral when it comes to discussions connected to Christianity.
Then comes the dispute between the two of you. If it could be classified as such (Although this is really a rather poor classification in regards to you Vivaldi) it seems that you have been placed on the pro-Christian side of the fence (Even though you probably don't place yourself there) and the anti-Christian forces have lined up against you. Suddenly, from out of no where, comes FeloniousMonk and Guettarda. Coincidence?
I guess my point in writing this to you is to tell you that some of us read your work and appreciate it. Do not let them gang up on you and wear you down. If you want to see what I mean about FeloniousMonk and Guettarda, I suggest you read through the Intelligent Design talk page. It's no accident that they showed up out of the blue to condemn you. Good luck and keep up the good work here at Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagginator ( talk • contribs)
Jzg writes, "There is a risk here that you are mistaking your own biases for neutrality". Here again I would like to point out that you are laboring under a mistaken notion. I have no bias in favor of Christian Fundamentalists. In fact, my own personal view is that most of them are probably hucksters, selling salvation for their own personal gain. I'm not a Christian. I'm not a follower of any organized religion. My only "bias" is that I support and encourage editors to follow the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Vivaldi ( talk) 10:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I read through the WP:RFAR and have some thoughts, Vivaldi. As i'm new to Wikipedia and really respect your opinion, ive decided to ask you if I should add my voice (Not sure how that is done yet and in what context) or stay away. What is your opinion? The administrator Guy makes some interesting comments. For example, Arbustoo's personal views are hostile to this particular strand of fundamentalist Christianity, and as far as I can see to Christianity in general. I've noticed the same thing. If I knew how to do the research, i'd look and see and provide evidence to all the Christian articles that Arbustoo has edited unfairly. Case in point was the first time I encountered Arbustoo over the David Jeremiah Article. He could have simply fixed the article and satisfied his own reasons for deletion, but instead tried to have the article deleted. Why? I think with plenty of examples like this (If I knew how to go about doing the research) the answer will become clear. Maybe he can be restricted by the powers that be to stay away from articles dealing with Christians? That seems like a good remedy to me since he is so obviously hostile to it. Another thing that Guy writes is, Arbustoo performs valuable work policing a large number of articles against aggressive POV pushing by certain Christian fundamentalists I would love to be able to verify this one way or the other. Any suggestions as to how this can be done? My limited in scope view is that here Guy is setting up a boogeyman to help his friend Arbustoo but without the research capability I cannot be sure. I am skeptical though when someone starts name calling and saying people they disagree with are fundamentalists. Any suggestion on how I can verify Guy's claims? So far the only example that Guy cites is one person but his statement makes it sound like these evil fundamentalists are swarming all over Wikipedia. Another thing Guy writes that i'd love to respond to is this line, This has not impeded a productive working relationship with other editors such as myself and others who are self-identified Christians. but how can he say this? He likes to tout his own Christianity (Apparantly he's no fundamentalist, maybe only those who disagree with him on his Christian views are? I'd like to know how he defines Fundamentalist) in support of Arbustoo but to me actions speak louder than words. And in my admitedly limited experience with Arbustoo, Guy's statement is untrue. He does impede working relationships with Christians, I cite the David Jeremiah article again as case in point. Guy writes; I believe Arbustoo has been distinctly isolated, fighting a war against determined POV pushing, has felt that others have ganged up on him, and has at least sometimes been entirely justified in that view, at least in my opinion. There is a lot of talk about feelings and opinions here as if that is sufficient but he very tellingly doesn't back up these statements he's making to defend his friend Arbustoo. My view was exactly the opposite of Guy's so i'm surprised to see it. Arbustoo gangs up on others and sends in his pals (Guy being one of them) to help support his position. Again though, i'm new here and could be wrong and would love to discover that I am, so i'd like to do the research. It's my line of work to investigate and i'm hoping you'll help me learn how. I'd love to put together a case against a group of Wikipedians colluding in this manner, or to set my mind at ease that this is not happening, but i'm not sure how to use the database here in order to do this. Finally, Guy writes; Vivaldi's Talk page currently includes some pretty blatant trolling and attacks on two other admins who may have useful perspective to offer, User:FeloniousMonk and User:Guettarda which is apparantly a way of saying two things at once, A: Don't listen to Bagginator he's just a troll and B: Let's bring in the rest of the Arbustoo gang to pile on Vivaldi. Hope i'm wrong about that charactization but I find it difficult to believe otherwise considering the evidence at hand. I came here to give you some encouragement and to tell you that others see what you are seeing. A concerted effort of Gastroturfing Vivaldi. Apparantly though its "trolling" to give you my opinion on your talk page. In order to avoid "trolling" in the future do I need to find some means of sending private email to you or some other private means of communication? Or is that another form of misuse of Wikipedia in which you get accused of doing something wrong? So, I ask you Vivaldi, am I too new here to be of any help to you? The etiquette and mannerisms displayed here at Wikipedia are foreign to me and I notice that well versed users take advantage of that. Would you be better served by my silence? Bagginator 08:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
many thanks for spotting this - I seem to have had a mental block on the title and the convention on naming. It's now fixed, thanks to you. -- Hari Singh 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- FloNight 02:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your third assertation on the evidence page [4] you wrote, "Eventually, even JzG, who seems to have supported Arbustoo in the past, has reinstated my edits at Preying from the Pulpit and we compromised by changing the section title."
Please supply a diff of that because from what I see that never happened. Jim62sch did a compromise edit, which included the majority of my changes including the title I had. Is that what you are referring to? If so you might want to change the user name on the evidence page. Jim62sch did it to end the edit war not because he agreed with your contributions. [5] Arbusto 16:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey there Vivaldi, was hoping you could answer a question for me. Recently ive noticed a pattern that some people will put an article up for deletion, no one will give their delete or keep opinion (Or very few will) and then two days later the same article is listed again as an AfD. To be clear, the first AfD is still ongoing, say one can be found on the AfD page for September 9th and then if you go through the AfD page for September 12th it is listed again in an identical fashion. Am I making sense? If I am, is this appropriate Wikipedia behavior to be double listing an AfD to basically keep it up front and center? Thanks for your time. Bagginator 06:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
At this edit: [6] you introduced the datum that there are no accredited secondary schools that use Study Tech. Please cite your source of that information. Terryeo 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which contains poorly sourced controversial material are placed on article probation. The material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo has been determined to be controversial material which does not have an adequate source. They are warned to avoid edit warring and encouraged to edit the articles in dispute appropriately.
For the Arbitration Committee -- Srik e it ( Talk | Email) 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Vivaldi, I am a new user to Wikipedia, I recently uploaded some information from a book on marriage by Jack Schaap to the First Baptist Church of Hammond and the Jack Schaap wiki. I read the guidelines; but could you (if you have the time), look them over and let me know if I did it right? Thanks so much-- NovumTestamentum 08:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Vivaldi... I'm interested in getting input from other editors about getting more info about Digital Lightwave assembled and represented on Wikipedia, since the subject is extremely Scientology-related, involving David Miscavige's sister Denise Licciardi, Doug Dohring, Norton S. Karno, Greta Van Susteren, and Scientology attorneys Michael Baum and George W. Murgatroyd. Since you were a recent editor to the Dohring article, I thought I'd fly this by you. The Digital Lightwave story is such a convoluted labyrinth I'm hoping there are other editors who understand it better than I. wikipediatrix 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding and fixing my typo on The Quare Fellow. I wish you good luck in your efforts at cleaning up the articles on unaccredited schools and the related areas of contention that have arisen. It seems like a real headache. -- House of Scandal 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
You are welcome to have your say, but cutting up paragraphs in a RfC is not acceptable. If you wish to respond to it, add a section titled "response." Arbusto 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The title "investigation" needs to stay -- the title you used sounds like the National Inquirer. Nonetheless, I think most of your material is fine and one paragraph by arbustoo was fine. Whether or not you two will agree on this is another story. •Jim62sch• 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing [1] to
Arbusto 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Vivaldi, this discussion [2] might be of interest to you. Orsini 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You continued attacks are not acceptable. Bring an RfC if you truly are troubled. Arbusto 08:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a notice for an RfAR involving you. Visit [3] for details. Arbusto 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I see the you and Arbusto have some history but I want to thank you for rv back to my comments. I get some slack for being an anon-by choice but that's the first time my comments were just blanked, which I found to be very uncivil by Arbusto. Or at the very least it demostrates a rash personality that is quick to jump to conclusion. 205.157.110.11 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note. Arbusto used the AfD as an example of your stalking. I made a comment as a univolved party pointing out the circumstance of your action on the Rfc and he reverted it. :p I'm not interested in a Rv war but he's certainly developing an pattern. 205.157.110.11 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read through a lot of material in the last hour or two. This talk page, the RfC, Arbustoo's talk page, the articles you have both edited, etc. My eyes are watering but allow me to share with you an observation, one that might get me in trouble. When I first came to Wikipedia and thought to get involved in editing I came across the Intelligent Design article. I made a couple of immature and snide comments in the talk section because I thought the article was poorly written and clearly not a neutral point of view. Regardless, I ducked out of the discussion quickly and never bothered to go back because I was new to Wikipedia and didn't feel like getting involved in such a discussion as a newbie. I did however read through the history of the talk page and was pretty amazed at the lack of scholarship. Instead what I saw was folks like FeloniousMonk and Guettarda doing everything in their power to make sure the article was written from a negative point of view. Since that time about a couple of months have gone by.
Now comes Arbustoo, who seems to want to throw in negative points of view on every article involving the slightest hint of Christianity. Not only that, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to articles critical of Christianity. It seems as though he cannot be neutral when it comes to discussions connected to Christianity.
Then comes the dispute between the two of you. If it could be classified as such (Although this is really a rather poor classification in regards to you Vivaldi) it seems that you have been placed on the pro-Christian side of the fence (Even though you probably don't place yourself there) and the anti-Christian forces have lined up against you. Suddenly, from out of no where, comes FeloniousMonk and Guettarda. Coincidence?
I guess my point in writing this to you is to tell you that some of us read your work and appreciate it. Do not let them gang up on you and wear you down. If you want to see what I mean about FeloniousMonk and Guettarda, I suggest you read through the Intelligent Design talk page. It's no accident that they showed up out of the blue to condemn you. Good luck and keep up the good work here at Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagginator ( talk • contribs)
Jzg writes, "There is a risk here that you are mistaking your own biases for neutrality". Here again I would like to point out that you are laboring under a mistaken notion. I have no bias in favor of Christian Fundamentalists. In fact, my own personal view is that most of them are probably hucksters, selling salvation for their own personal gain. I'm not a Christian. I'm not a follower of any organized religion. My only "bias" is that I support and encourage editors to follow the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Vivaldi ( talk) 10:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I read through the WP:RFAR and have some thoughts, Vivaldi. As i'm new to Wikipedia and really respect your opinion, ive decided to ask you if I should add my voice (Not sure how that is done yet and in what context) or stay away. What is your opinion? The administrator Guy makes some interesting comments. For example, Arbustoo's personal views are hostile to this particular strand of fundamentalist Christianity, and as far as I can see to Christianity in general. I've noticed the same thing. If I knew how to do the research, i'd look and see and provide evidence to all the Christian articles that Arbustoo has edited unfairly. Case in point was the first time I encountered Arbustoo over the David Jeremiah Article. He could have simply fixed the article and satisfied his own reasons for deletion, but instead tried to have the article deleted. Why? I think with plenty of examples like this (If I knew how to go about doing the research) the answer will become clear. Maybe he can be restricted by the powers that be to stay away from articles dealing with Christians? That seems like a good remedy to me since he is so obviously hostile to it. Another thing that Guy writes is, Arbustoo performs valuable work policing a large number of articles against aggressive POV pushing by certain Christian fundamentalists I would love to be able to verify this one way or the other. Any suggestions as to how this can be done? My limited in scope view is that here Guy is setting up a boogeyman to help his friend Arbustoo but without the research capability I cannot be sure. I am skeptical though when someone starts name calling and saying people they disagree with are fundamentalists. Any suggestion on how I can verify Guy's claims? So far the only example that Guy cites is one person but his statement makes it sound like these evil fundamentalists are swarming all over Wikipedia. Another thing Guy writes that i'd love to respond to is this line, This has not impeded a productive working relationship with other editors such as myself and others who are self-identified Christians. but how can he say this? He likes to tout his own Christianity (Apparantly he's no fundamentalist, maybe only those who disagree with him on his Christian views are? I'd like to know how he defines Fundamentalist) in support of Arbustoo but to me actions speak louder than words. And in my admitedly limited experience with Arbustoo, Guy's statement is untrue. He does impede working relationships with Christians, I cite the David Jeremiah article again as case in point. Guy writes; I believe Arbustoo has been distinctly isolated, fighting a war against determined POV pushing, has felt that others have ganged up on him, and has at least sometimes been entirely justified in that view, at least in my opinion. There is a lot of talk about feelings and opinions here as if that is sufficient but he very tellingly doesn't back up these statements he's making to defend his friend Arbustoo. My view was exactly the opposite of Guy's so i'm surprised to see it. Arbustoo gangs up on others and sends in his pals (Guy being one of them) to help support his position. Again though, i'm new here and could be wrong and would love to discover that I am, so i'd like to do the research. It's my line of work to investigate and i'm hoping you'll help me learn how. I'd love to put together a case against a group of Wikipedians colluding in this manner, or to set my mind at ease that this is not happening, but i'm not sure how to use the database here in order to do this. Finally, Guy writes; Vivaldi's Talk page currently includes some pretty blatant trolling and attacks on two other admins who may have useful perspective to offer, User:FeloniousMonk and User:Guettarda which is apparantly a way of saying two things at once, A: Don't listen to Bagginator he's just a troll and B: Let's bring in the rest of the Arbustoo gang to pile on Vivaldi. Hope i'm wrong about that charactization but I find it difficult to believe otherwise considering the evidence at hand. I came here to give you some encouragement and to tell you that others see what you are seeing. A concerted effort of Gastroturfing Vivaldi. Apparantly though its "trolling" to give you my opinion on your talk page. In order to avoid "trolling" in the future do I need to find some means of sending private email to you or some other private means of communication? Or is that another form of misuse of Wikipedia in which you get accused of doing something wrong? So, I ask you Vivaldi, am I too new here to be of any help to you? The etiquette and mannerisms displayed here at Wikipedia are foreign to me and I notice that well versed users take advantage of that. Would you be better served by my silence? Bagginator 08:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
many thanks for spotting this - I seem to have had a mental block on the title and the convention on naming. It's now fixed, thanks to you. -- Hari Singh 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- FloNight 02:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your third assertation on the evidence page [4] you wrote, "Eventually, even JzG, who seems to have supported Arbustoo in the past, has reinstated my edits at Preying from the Pulpit and we compromised by changing the section title."
Please supply a diff of that because from what I see that never happened. Jim62sch did a compromise edit, which included the majority of my changes including the title I had. Is that what you are referring to? If so you might want to change the user name on the evidence page. Jim62sch did it to end the edit war not because he agreed with your contributions. [5] Arbusto 16:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey there Vivaldi, was hoping you could answer a question for me. Recently ive noticed a pattern that some people will put an article up for deletion, no one will give their delete or keep opinion (Or very few will) and then two days later the same article is listed again as an AfD. To be clear, the first AfD is still ongoing, say one can be found on the AfD page for September 9th and then if you go through the AfD page for September 12th it is listed again in an identical fashion. Am I making sense? If I am, is this appropriate Wikipedia behavior to be double listing an AfD to basically keep it up front and center? Thanks for your time. Bagginator 06:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
At this edit: [6] you introduced the datum that there are no accredited secondary schools that use Study Tech. Please cite your source of that information. Terryeo 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which contains poorly sourced controversial material are placed on article probation. The material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo has been determined to be controversial material which does not have an adequate source. They are warned to avoid edit warring and encouraged to edit the articles in dispute appropriately.
For the Arbitration Committee -- Srik e it ( Talk | Email) 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Vivaldi, I am a new user to Wikipedia, I recently uploaded some information from a book on marriage by Jack Schaap to the First Baptist Church of Hammond and the Jack Schaap wiki. I read the guidelines; but could you (if you have the time), look them over and let me know if I did it right? Thanks so much-- NovumTestamentum 08:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Vivaldi... I'm interested in getting input from other editors about getting more info about Digital Lightwave assembled and represented on Wikipedia, since the subject is extremely Scientology-related, involving David Miscavige's sister Denise Licciardi, Doug Dohring, Norton S. Karno, Greta Van Susteren, and Scientology attorneys Michael Baum and George W. Murgatroyd. Since you were a recent editor to the Dohring article, I thought I'd fly this by you. The Digital Lightwave story is such a convoluted labyrinth I'm hoping there are other editors who understand it better than I. wikipediatrix 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding and fixing my typo on The Quare Fellow. I wish you good luck in your efforts at cleaning up the articles on unaccredited schools and the related areas of contention that have arisen. It seems like a real headache. -- House of Scandal 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)