''Alone in the hissing laboratory of his wishes, Mr Pugh minces among bad vats and Jeroboams, tiptoes through spinneys of murdering herbs, agony dancing in his crucibles, and mixes especially for Mrs Pugh a venomous porridge unknown to toxologists which will scald and viper through her until her ears fall off like figs, her toes grow big and black as balloons, and steam comes screaming out of her navel: ,,,,,, From Under Milkwood
.jpg)
|
Good luck with what you are attempting to do. Albion moonlight 08:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The " Saul Alinsky " is now on my list. Leave me a message if you have your eyes on it Moses Weintraub 11:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words, but until the article is unblocked I've decided really that there isn't much I can do. Wikipedia has a vendetta in general against Churchill and trying to fight that bureaucracy can be tiring and at the end of the day make one feel as if they waisted there time in trying. Jaygy is the resident defender of the status quo and though he'll never directly admit it he's basically on verklempts side.
- My complaint was over the issue of whether Churchill was lying about his service in vietnam. I argued that these claims were suspect because they came primarily from a right wing talk show host. Even though verklempt was unable to provide the actual documents that supposedly proved his case he still refused to compromise. I wanted the it restated as an accusation and not as a fact which is how is now in the article, but verklempt wouldn't have it.
- As I said before wikipedia has pretty much decided to trash churchill and as long as the article is blocked I fear al of the complaints you'd make will fall on deaf ears. If you know anyone else who is sympathetic to our cause then please let me know, but I fear there is little I can do by myself. annoynmous 07:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring is a bad Idea. Take note that Verklempt is now arguing that this page http://www.wardchurchill.net/ doesn't belong on either the Ward Churchill article or the " Ward Churchill alleged misconduct " page It is obvious to me that his goal is frustrate other editors into giving up hope. I am visiting other articles he has been involved with. I may find support on some of them.
And oh yeah please read the talk ward churchill misconduct page. I am going to ask an administrator to add that website to the Ward Churchill article. Wikipedian Policy says it belongs there. I may take a lot of time before I do this. I intend to let Verklempt hang himself Albion moonlight 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Any links you can give that show the similarity? Getaway has used socks in the past so it wouldn't be that surprising. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 09:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- == hi guy ==
It seems you have already been warned about using sock and or meat puppetry in the recent past. Are you and Verklempt sock puppets and or meat puppets. ?? Say it ain't so. I am assuming good faith. Seek consensus. Albion moonlight 08:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- My response??? You are both delusional. Get a life. I'm not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. You both need medication. Please provide support for your allegations and rumours. I'm looking forward to it. I merely expressed agreement with Verklempt and I dared to disagree with Albion moonlight!!! What a load. Seriously, you both need to get a life. Do your due diligence. Where is the evidence to back up your allegations and rumours. Neither or you have any. Please provide.-- Getaway 18:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you really think I wouldn't check out your talk page. ?? Albion moonlight 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. That's ALL you got??? Please provide some evidence, anything, I'm waiting. I noticed that Woohookitty did not follow up on your claim. You lost another potential supporter. Good luck. I'm waiting.-- Getaway 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I repeat again. Getaway is an editor in good standing. If you continue to harass him, you are the one violating Wikipedia policy. That does not mean he automatically gets his way. He is just another editor, but in full standing, not some sort of second class editor. Fred Bauder 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you chose not to talk to him, you would be expected to not attempt to edit articles he edits. Communicating with other editors is a condition of editing Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think user Getaway has yet another sock or meat puppet. Verklempt is the name and disruption is the game he seem's to love to play. The similarities between the 2 is remarkable. This is not an official request for administrative intervention. It is a vocalized sigh of relief upon discovering that my suspicions are probably correct. I am working on gaining consensus amongst the editors of the Ward Churchill pages. If and when I call for a vote of some kind, (I am a newbie of sorts) I will use the normal channels to report suspected sock puppetry . But for now I am just testing the waters ,,,, Albion moonlight 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This is all about exposing Getaways past Albion moonlight 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- My original response to Albion moonlight's false and defamatory allegation that Getaway and Verklempt are one and the same: Albion moonlight is very good at making accusations but is lousy at providing evidence. So far, not one admin that you have approached has wasted time on your accusation, making you look bad in the process. Either provide evidence or give it up. We are all still waiting for the evidence. You don't have any--just a constant stream of allegations. Please provide some evidence.-- Getaway 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your past behavior follows you around doesn't it buddy, Albion moonlight 04:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It sure does and I don't apologize for any of it. Also, I noticed that your baseless allegations have not gone anywhere. Your full scale attack on me just did not go anywhere did it??? The answer is no, it didn't.-- Getaway 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that that was a full scale attack ? It wasn't even an attack. It was and is a group of observations observation's that I will be passing along as it becomes necessary, And as I see fit. Albion moonlight 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- You made a baseless allegation that myself Getaway and Verklempt are and were one and the same persons. It was a lie and you have not provided one piece of evidence to back up your claim, obviously because it was a lie.-- Getaway 20:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
ArbCom was not directly involved with this article. The biographies of living persons policy at issue in this latest discussion has been very controversial, so ArbCom laid down some general principles regarding the procedure to be used when it was invoked. Those principles are at the ArbCom case called "Badlydrawnjeff." Since Ward Churchill is alive, and this article exists primarily to record his misconduct, several editors wished to invoke BLP, leading to the latest round of discussions. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- It may well be that some, perhaps even most, of the editors who have worked on this article have an agenda that is hostile to Churchill. Similarly, it is often the case that most of those who edit on various controversial articles have a strong PoV. That doesn't make the articles PoV, nor does it make the Churchill article an attack article. Whether an article is PoV is to be judged by its content, regardless of the motives of the editors involved, IMO. Similarly, if an article is in fact well-cited, documenting notable events in an accurate fashion, and if it is as well-balanced as possible given the topic, then it is IMO not an attack article.
- You may be right about the ArbCom's take on this -- the current arbcom has made some IMO badly wrong decisions. I hope that you are wrong. If the ArbCom does order this censored, I will have to re-think my participation here.
DES
(talk) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- You wrote to me: "Read this: http://wardchurchill.net/blog/ Also take note that the " American Civil Liberties Union" is backing Churchill" Albion moonlight 11:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure I see the point you are making. Churchill's responses to the accusations against him should certainly be included in the article (assuming that it is kept). His blog is a fine source for the fact that he has made this response, although not for its accuracy. If independent reliable sources support his contentions, that should also be included and such sources should be cited. As for the ACLU, I presume that they are arguing the academic freedom issue, and that it is improper to dire Churchill in these circs. Their position should probably be included. But their support does not change the fact that the accusations were made, nor the sources that support the accuracy of the accusations. if they cite sources that dispute the factual basis of the accusations, then those sources should be cited in our article, if they meet proper standards of reliability, etc. All this seems pretty obvious to me. Of course, nothing can be put into the article or taken out until the AfD is over, because, unlike the usual AfD, this article has been protected until the AfD is over.
DES
(talk) 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- You said "If every source that backs Churchills side of things is disallowed under one pretext or the other..." but the only source you pointed me at is Churchill's blog. That is a fine source for "Churchill said X" and "Churchill claimed Y" and "Chhurchil responded Z", but it is of very little value in establishing other sorts of facts.
DES
(talk) 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree, if Churchill syas soemthing on the issue we should stste as a fact that "Churchill said thus and so" and a citesd quote from his blog is a fine way to establish the fact of Churchill making a given statement. We are not adherign to NPOV if we fail to include Churchill's statements (obviously if he says essentially the same thing in multiple fora or onm multiple occasions, ther is no need to include essentially identiacal statemetn si slightly different wording, although the fact that churchill said soewmthing on multiple occasiosn should possibly be reported. DES (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- You said "If every source that backs Churchills side of things is disallowed under one pretext or the other..." but the only source you pointed me at is Churchill's blog. That is a fine source for "Churchill said X" and "Churchill claimed Y" and "Chhurchil responded Z", but it is of very little value in establishing other sorts of facts.
DES
(talk) 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Whenever an editor claims that Jimbo Wales will personally do something about their editorial concern, they make themselves look extremely foolish. I appreciate your efforts around the Churchill article, but a wince when I see your claim that Wales is possibly going to step in and fix things. Ain't gonna happen! Even if he wanted to, it's not his to say: He's not even on the Wikimedia Foundation board anymore (nor does any board member have special editorial authority though).
Personally, if it were me, I'd go delete the whole topic on the talk page where you mention it, just to make yourself look better. LotLE× talk 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry Lulu but if you are trying to say that there is no small group or single person amongst the wikipedian capable of making the decision to delete an article without the consensus of regular wikipedians then I have to say that you are probably wrong. I am new to wikipedia but I chose my words carefully. I have seen Mr Wales in action on the Che Guevara articles talk page and I agree that the terms benign or benevolent do not apply. I think he still claims to be CEO. I sincerely doubt that the board of directors would leave decisions about the financial future of Wikipedia up to the general population. But anyway thanks for your concern about how I look but I think you misread what I had to say. Perhaps you are also unaware of the fact that 2 of the Ward Churchill articles editors may be guilty of Wikipedia:Gaming the system and or Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point I AM NEW TO WIKI but I am not new. I do know that I seem to have ruffled some feathers in my innocent attempt to bring those 2 editors back into the fold but I am not naive enough to believe they are likely to listen to reason. Somewhere down the road those articles will either be deleted or fixed via consensus or they won't I am having fun and in the end that is all that really matters. If I can snag a cheater or 2 along the way or cause and or help prevent wikipedia from being sued for libel then that is of course for the better. Oh yeah and reread the wiki stuff on sockpuppets and some of their tricks. It is a very fascinating. Albion moonlight 09:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is exactly what I wrote. A fantasy of Wales being some sort of intervening school principle is so painfully simplistic and inaccurate as to make my eyes hurt when I read it. It's the same naivete that far too much of the mainstream press have also fallen into: attributing Wikipedia as Wales "pet project", either for hero-worship or blame.
- The thing is, you will realize I'm correct on this matter if you edit for long (not nearly as long as I have is required; but I'm not new to WP by a long, longshot). And you'll be embarrassed about your past posts on in this line. I'd like to save you unnecessary embarrassment... take it or leave it. It just happens that I am someone who knows better on this. LotLE× talk 13:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you read that part about sockpuppets Lulu and the the tendency to play good cop bad cop for the sole purpose of disruption ? You are reading way too much into what I had to say about Jimbo. Your reading of it is a fabrication on your part. I am not saying you are doing this on purpose but really guy you should reread what I said and put it in a more literal context. Albion moonlight 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Really, trust me! I was dealing with sockpuppets for many years, and ten thousand edits, before you ever arrived at WP. I've dealt with almost countless otherwise well-meaning editors fall into "appeals to Jimbo" (hmm, argumentum ad waleseum; or "the board", same problem). Unlike everyone else in this discussion, I've actually had Jimbo call me on the telephone about a biography issue (well before the current WP:BLP standards were in place, but over an issue that helped put them there). Heck, I've been dealing specifically with the shenanigans of Verklempt and Getaway for something like two years now. LotLE× talk 23:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well Lulu this conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Judging from your picture you are still very young mam. I on the other hand have 3 grandchildren. I already tried to explain to you that you are misrepresenting what I had to say and you chose to ignore me so I am going to change the subject for now and say I will continue to watch those pages and put my 2 cents in where I see fit. My guess is that the edit warring will continue until a clear consensus is established. That is not likely to happen anytime soon but thanks for the chat and the avuncular advice have a nice day and keep up the good fight blah blah and etcetera .... Albion moonlight 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Albion moonlight, you wrote: I read the wiki article on forum shopping and realized that you must have confused the legal term with the wiki policy. There was no consensus being discussed and there was no asking of the other parent or anything close to it, It was simply a warning that the article may still be in danger of being deleted. You seemed to be so happy that you had won the day that you forgot why the article had been deleted in the first place. You do realize that other administrators may decide to speedily delete it in the future do you not ? The same thing goes for it being renominated for deletion. Let us hope that doesn't happen . Albion moonlight 12:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC) My response: Yes, you are attempting to violate the rules of Wikipedia. You have basically asked others, who are sympathetic to your particular point of view, and visit the Misconduct Article and vote or edit according to your particular point of view. That is against Wikipedia policy. As for the facts of the current status of the article. There was a particular admin who wanted to eliminate the Misconduct Article. That admin was successful for the short-term, but has ultimately failed. The Misconduct Article remains. Now, all of your talk about it being removed in the future is merely that TALK, nothing more. Also, you talk about Jimbo Wales as if you are his best friend and that he agrees with your point of view. You don't know Jimbo Wales and you don't know if Jimbo Wales agrees with your point of view, whatever it may be. None of us know what Jimbo Wales point of view is and we probably will never know. So that rambling bit that you wrote about Jimbo Wales was inappropriate and attempt to intimidate others editor into following your point of view. Also, during the debate on whether the Misconduct Article should stay or go, many, many editors stated that they would, if the article was re-instated, work to make the article better, but the article has been re-instated for quite a while now and there has not been a mad rush to edit it. That was also just TALK. Now, you have been asked by me and by another admin, Mr. Fred Bauder, to stop making accusations about me, but you have continued to do it. Please stop or I will have to move the conflict to another level. Why don't you just focus your efforts into making constructive edits to the various articles in Wikipedia, instead of playing Wikipeida politics??? Your short time at Wikipedia is getting tarnished with a reputation of being a Wikipedia politics player and not a real serious Wikipedian.-- Getaway 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I am truly sorry you feel intimidated by the fact that the board might decide to delete all the Ward Churchill articles but you really need to Assume good faith on my part amd stop thinking that you can read my mind and know my intentions . It makes you look unreasonable. Albion moonlight 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Horse hockey. You talk about "the board" like you know what you talking about. You talk about "libel" like you know what you talking about. What a load of horse hockey. No one is going to delete the Ward Churchill article and engage in such blatant censorship. I'm not intimidated by a damn thing. All I'm hearing is silly arguments.-- Getaway 02:12, 7 August 2007 (U
I am sorry that you removed your post from Gtadoc's page. I believe my behavior, as well as the behavior of others, has been exemplary as you originally stated. I do not know why he is accusing me of behavior I did not engage in, nor why he does not respond to my postings. Perhaps you could help me out here and explain what is going on and why you removed your post. (I agree I am loosing it here, but Polaris999 and I have discussed on the CC talk page that we are both confused about what is going on and need clarification.) Sincerely, Mattisse 13:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I put it back and left you a message on your talk page. It was ineptitude on my part. You all are doing a great job of dealing with a bad situation. Albion moonlight 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you have any concept of how aggressively rude you are being. This sort of behaviour is why I have stayed away from the Ward Churchill pages altogether (it comes from both sides). You have arrived at a new article (which is *not* one of the multitude of spin-off WC articles) and started calling for mediation within a day - this is unreasonable behaviour, and I very much doubt that an admin would yet take it on. However, if you honestly feel that the inclusion or otherwise of one scholar on a list is worth taking to mediation after two days of arguing, be my guest. I will happily put the other side, as I see it. And could you please bear in mind that I am not involved in your wider and more personal war with other editors, and maintain an air of civility on debate in future? Vizjim 06:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I took a few days away, and have now made one change which I think answers the excellent arguments on both sides. Acceptable to you? Vizjim 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion moonlight, I hope your new wording works. What is strange about Flora's objection to 'atheist' is his/her insistence that Lennon had "private, spiritual beliefs", and his only objection was to something called "organized religion". As you say, that is speculative and has yet to be substantiated. I think it's obvious that he aggressively dismissed the existence of God. Mick gold 13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks ... I think. I just came across the page in checking edits made by new users and was a bit concerned about the overall tone the page seemed to have. I caught on to the defensive tone with the first answer. I will devote some time to it as I can. Some of the sections truly do need some work. Wildhartlivie 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Albion, thanks for your conciliatory comments. As a journalist I'm pre-trained in some things that apply to Wikipedia, but I still need schooled in certain policies; Wildhartlivie certainly helped with that. I do hope we can get along, and I'll try to do my part not to escalate things when there are disagreements. Preston McConkie 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding your comments pointing out Jimmy Wales's position on speculation, I agree, and I regularly delete material that is clearly speculative. However, the material in question on the Churchill page was not speculative; it was couched as fact. The issue was whether it was properly supported. I accept that I was improperly impatient with Wildhartlivie for not looking for documentation before tagging the section, but I don't think Wales's remarks on speculation apply to the issue.
- Nevertheless, I welcome any educational feedback. It's always more helpful to get a lesson in policy than to have someone assume I know it and am purposefully ignoring it. Cheers, Preston McConkie 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion moonlight, thanks for the nice comment, keep on wiki editing/chooglin' Mick gold 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the welcome! I suppose it's just my luck that it was a controversial article that first attracted my attention to Wikipedia. No need to worry about me getting discouraged though. I'm pretty resilient when it comes to internet behavior and I know that the majority of Wikipedians are more civil and consensus-oriented than Getaway. He's simply an exercise to enhance our abilities to 'assume good faith'. Keep up the good work! Ossified 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I will check with you first before I edit any pages beyond the ones we have already discussed. Louie Daloup 10:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And since we are both on line at once maybe they are set up to handle such siuations but do not woory Louie Daloup 11:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what "racist tripe" you are talking about. My post to Talk: Antisemitism involved asking editors to be "gentle". I suspect that you have mis-read the edit history and blame me for someone else's material. Eaglizard 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message to me. Like the above editor, I'm not quite sure what you mean. As I read the exchange, first someone asked editors on the Antisemitism page to visit the Alice Bailey page in order to check out whether that page was balanced - a sensible thing to do. Then the responses tended to slide into a discussion about the content of the Alice Bailey page. This is quite common but not actually a proper use of a talk page. If there are statements on that talk page that you regard as antisemitic, please let me and others know, since they may have to be removed.
Itsmejudith 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I hadn't heard of Alice Bailey either, and I don't see much to show that she was a particularly important figure. I'm going to assume good faith on the part of both you and Eaglizard and assume
Albion, I don't know what Sethie told you. We have been in a non-stop argument for months because his efforts to remove, or block information about Alice Bailey's antisemitism from being in the article. His latest effort to shut me up is this: [1]. Kwork 13:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion, I just noticed that you had this on Sethie's talk page, and I am starting to figure out the situation.
It did turn out to be Kwork. I just spoke to him via wiki message. Perhaps it is still best for now to not delete his Bailey quotes I am going to try and find some more reliable sources. I do not go against a clear consensus and you 3 seem to have one. That does not mean that I will refrain from trying to change the tide of consensus. I hate edit warring. It is generally a bad idea...Albion moonlight 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I had not understood that things had been removed from the antisemitism talk page. If anything about Alice Bailey's antisemitism was deleted from the antisemitism talk page, there is a good chance that Sethie was the one who did it. He has remove a lot of similar information from the Alice Bailey talk page. A lot of stuff is gone. Kwork 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Albion Moonlight.
It's nice to see someone remembering Kenneth Patchen. He and Miriam were friends of my mother and father, and later of my step-father as well. I still have a first edition of "Memoirs of a Shy Pornographer" which came from my father's collection.
But, anyway ...
I came here to try to enlist you in the creation of an Occultism and Antisemitism page (see Talk:Antisemitism for details). However, something more urgent has come up.
I see now that Kwork and Eaglizard have been by your talk page already. Kwork is correct. There is a punitive edit war going on at the Alice Bailey page. Eaglizard's story is that things have settled down. This is not true, to say the least. The edit war is not over and in fact it is getting worse by the day.
I (Namelss Date Stamp), and not Kwork, was the person who first mentioned the Alice Bailey page at Talk:Antisemitism.
First, some background: In addition to antisemitism, Bailey's cosmological and Neo-Theosophical teachings also oppose "interracial" marriages and deal extensivly with what she called "The Negro Problem". A writer with many published works to her credit, she has active followers to this day. Her writings have had a strong influence on worldwide Neopagan and New Age movements. See Monica Sjoo, Rabbi Jonasson Gershom, and Dr. Victor Shnirelman for more on this -- some of Shnirelman's text is logged at the Bailey Talk page but has not been "allowed" onto the Bailey page itself yet.
This edit war broke out when a mention of Bailey's antisemitsm -- very blandly worded, in retrospect -- came to the attention of some of her followers on a Yahoo group dedicated to the discussion of her teachings. As Kwork has pointed out, one of that forum's participants, an author named Philip Lindsay, said that the Wikipedia article on Bailey was "off" because it mentioned her antisemitism: [2] -- retrieved August 21st, 2007
- [message#] 71 The present Jews are residue of previous solar system
- I know there are some people on this list who believe the current Jews, who are all 3rd Ray Monads, are not the last of the group that came in from the... Zach
- zachrymill
- Feb 21, 2007 2:05 am
- [message#] 72 Re: The present Jews are residue of previous solar system
- Zach and friends, I notice that the section on AAB in WIkipedia is slightly off. There is a 'crticism' section (anti semiticism) where the author not... phillip@...
- Feb 21, 2007 12:16 pm
Lindsey encouraged his fellow list-members to go to the Wikipedia page and change it. This they have done -- many times -- while Kwork, joined by me, have tried to stop them. Thus we have a charge of meatpuppetry to deal with here.
I cannot speak for Kwork, but my desire is simply to see an accurate mention of the subject of Bailey's racism and antisemitism on the Bailey page, similar to mentions on the pages of other occultists -- that is, a sub-head on "racism" or "controversy" or some such, supported by quotations from the biography subject, a fitting of the quotations into an overview by a reputably published scholarly or biographically based source, and a brief rebeuttal from the subject or from another scholarly source, if available.
I am Jewish by ethnicity, as is Kwork. We have stated this on the Talk:Alice Bailey page and have subsequently been accused of "obsessing" on antisemtism by the non-Jewish followers of Bailey. This is very ugly inded, but it is nothing compared to the gloves-off, full-tilt edit war being waged at administrative levels. An AN/I report was filed on me, blocking me from editing the Bailey page for 7 days. An RfC was filed on Kwork, with the "desired outcome" listed originally as banning him from editing any Bailey-connected page -- as you can see here: [3].
We are not trying to turn the Bailey page into a slam-fest against the subject of the biography, but we are being treated as if that were our intent. Punitive administative moves have been made against us, even as we have both called for mediation (which has not arrived). The current group of editors of the page have not achieved consensus but edits are now being enforced by majority rule, with punitive side-attempts continually ongoing to remove dissenting editors from participation on the page.
As an atheist and a non-occultist, and therefore a relatively objective and non-interested observer of the occult scene, your opinion is valuable to us. Please participate in helping us to get this situation resolved.
Our intention is to see that the matter of Bailey's racism and antisemitism are dealt with in an honest, accurate, and historically contextual way at Wikipedia and, if necessary, to protect that material from future obliteration by Bailey's followers.
For comparison, please see this list of Wikipdia articles that deal with deceased 20th century occult and esoteric writers who have expressed antisemitic and racist viewpoints.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papus#1901:_Antisemitic_writings
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade#Controversy:_anti-Semitism_and_links_with_the_Iron_Guard
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola#Racism
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley#Racism
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Wheatley#Politics
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey#Criticism
I'm sorry if this is more information than you wanted to know. If it is not of interest to you personally, or if you do not have time to participate, please pass it along to any other editor you know who is currently working on the Judaism, Jewish History, or Antisemitism sections of Wikipedia.
Sincerely, Nameless Date Stamp 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am interested in helping start an article on antisemitism an the occult. I am however a novice when it comes to creating articles and I have very little knowledge when it comes to using http. As for the problems at the Bailey article I should say that I will watch it and perhaps contribute to the discussion. I refuse to get into a revert war but I have found that sometimes changing the wording is all thats needed. I am sure that you and Kwork may have tried this but I will see if I can help,
I will read the material that you have supplied me with and act upon or reply to it as time allows. It could be the case that wiki has no real way to deal with meatpuppets. Sockpuppets are hard to catch and the penalty seem to be rather marginal. I can therefor not see the upside to accusing them on talk pages. The same thing goes for meat puppets. One should either report them to admin or overlook them entirely. An articles talk page is not the place such comments. I found that out the hard way.
I intend to speak to Sethie about some of his own bad editing habits. I have learned how to get along with non Jews over the years. Perhaps I can help defuse the situation. I will try. Albion moonlight 07:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Albion, for both of your offers. I will deal with them in sequence:
- 1) The Occultism and Antisemitism article: I am very grateful for your interest. I propose that we start by your reading the various pages that were cited above by me (Wikipedia pages on the biographies of occultists) to familiarize yourself with some of the personalities. We can use these pages to glean sources, references, and external links as well. The Wikipedia articles on the Völkisch movement, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, British Israelism, the pogroms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and on Theosophy and the Seven Rays also form a necessary background and povide good sources of references and research ideas.
- Don't worry about the html -- Wiki code is simple! -- and that is something you can leave to me if necessary.
- I propose that we copy the templates (form, style, infoboxes, coding) of the other "Antisemiissm and ..." articles. I think it would be a good idea to involve at least one other of the writers of those articles. Their names can be found by searching the histories of the pages. May that task of seeking and enrolling be left to you (please)?
- I propose that we start with a brief explanation of the fact that antisemitism is a stand-alone in some occult philosophies and that it is a portion of a much more elaborate schema of racism, often with cosmological overtones, in other occult philosophies. This would set the scene for specific usage of the terms antisemitism and racism throughout the article.
- After that, we could break the article down into subheads --
- For historical contextualizing, a mention of the Russian pogroms, the Protocols, the blood libel, and other late 19th and early 20th century scene-setting information would be essential, as would mention of historical antisemitic thought-movements, e.g. Völkisch movement (which, while not occult per se had a tremendous influence on occultism), fascist movement, British Israelism, etc. These could all recive "main article" tags, as they do link to long articles.
- These historical scene setters would be important because the article would later be dealing with Crowley (who, as a fan of Sir Richard Burton, sincerely believed the blood libel and wrote about it at least twice in his occult texts) and Evola (a fascist who wrote a foreward to an Italian translation of the Protocols).
- We could then follow with roughly chronological subheads, and within these, we could have sub-sub heads for each for the major antisemitic authors; e.g. Crowley, Blavatsky, Bailey, Evola; and for the various movements they founded.
- Included in this chronological survey could also be passing and contrasting mention of the NON-antisemitic contemporaries to these groups and authors (e.g. Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, which was semitiphilic; New Thought movement, which was non-racist).
- At the conclusion, we could include contemporary movements, such as Neopgaganism (a mixed bag, ranging from ethnically all-inclusive to virulently antisemitic as well as racist) and satanism (likewise a mixed bag but containing more organizations that are outright antisemitic than the Neopagan movement).
- To anchor the article and give it some meat -- especially since each sub-head would link to all those "main article" pages -- we could provide brief quotes from the aforementioned organizations and authors cited, alongside scholarly quotes about the movements (e.g. from Shnirelman) and statements from various biographers of the authors (e.g. Sutin on Crowley's racism).
- The final task would be to get the article linked in to other wiki pages. It would need to be added to the general antisemitism template as well.
- That's my proposal, in a nutshell. Please comment here and not on my talk page. Thanks!
- 2) Thanks for pledging to watch the Alice Bailey page and to partake as you feel moved to do so.
- At present there is still a lot of stonewalling going on by the Baileyites. I believe that they are using weasel words to downplay direct accusations of Bailey's antisemitism and are also choosing selected "mild" quotations from Bailey to make her seem less racist than she was in print.
- The way they have it worded now, they are using these "soft" Bailey quotes and then claiming falsely that Bailey's critics are "interpreting certain passages" incorrectly, when, in fact, the critics are calling the woman herself a racist and an antisemite, and are citing entirely different passages of her texts as well (which the Baileyites will not allow to be seen on the page).
- I think that they should drop this ploy and, first, let the critics speak for themselves -- not in footnotes. Three sentences would cover that -- one each from Shnirelman, Gershom, and Sjoo.
- I think they should then allow some of Bailey's most racist statements to be published, in brief -- two sentences should suffice. They could then note in rebuttal that Bailey herself appeared to be ambiguous and often said praising or ameliorating things about Jews as well, which could also be quoted, briefly -- another two sentences.
- Thus, in a total of seven sentences, the entire matter could be wrapped up and dealt with honestly, fairly, and from a NPOV.
- (I am posting this suggestion to the Talk:Alice Bailey page as well.)
- Thanks for your interest in the antisemitism / occult article. If you find my outline accptable, please read the bckground and then start writing and give me a link to where you are doing so (either in a sandbox or by creating the article yourself) and my contributions will be forthcoming almost at once. I will not start this alone, as it is a hot button topic in the field of occultism and thus requires some "outside" input.
- Cordially,
- Nameless Date Stamp 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
By all means invite anyone you want to join us. But please expect slowness on my part. I am a fairly busy man and a poor typist as well. I will try to read it all within the next 2 or 3 day unless there is more to read than I bargained for. If that is too slow feel free to let someone else start it I will do what I can to help and am looking forward to helping out with this endeavor. I just thought that I should warn you that my time is limited and my hours are erratic, Albion moonlight 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Just want to say thanks for your kind words, and mention a few things. (Btw, and despite some opinions, I'm being mighty sincere when I say I welcome input.:^) First, I know you're not particularly interested in the topic, so I won't go into detail defending Alice Bailey, but please bear with me while I quote two short sentences from one of her books, Problems of Humanity, published 1947:
- God has made all men equal; the Jew is a man and a brother, and every right that the Gentile owns is his also, inalienably and intrinsically his. This the Gentile has forgotten and great is his responsibility for wrong doing and cruel action.
And, shortly after that,
- The fate of the Jews in the world war is a terrible tale of cruelty, torture and wholesale murder and the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history. For it there is no excuse or condonation, and right thinking people everywhere are aware of this and are eagerly demanding that these persecutions end. (italics from original)
I think her attitude towards the Jews is ambiguous, at worst. Statements such as these seem unlikely to spring from any deep-seated or outright hatred. I ask your outside opinion: would such quotes be supportable as rebuttal in the article, do you think? I have hesitated to suggest it to them. Given that she continually identifies herself with "right thinking people", I read the above as a clear rejection of antisemitism; would you?
On a completely unrelated note, I just wonder if you're aware (as you very well may be) that adding "cat" tag like the cat:OR at the bottom of this page causes a page to be automatically listed on a category summary page, meant for interested editors to check out (usually for fixing). Some people consider this sort of use inappropriate; I don't give a crap myself (it made me lol), but only want to make sure you've made an informed choice, as it were. :) Eaglizard 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion,
I hope that you do not mind my adding a reply to Eaglizard, just to clarify. I directed this to him on the Alice Bailey talk page a few days ago, but he did not reply:
Eaglizard, there seems to be a misunderstanding. People, not even the best people, are fully integrated. Every person is constituted of many diverse elements. The process of synthesis is the subject of Psychosynthesis, and I hope eventually to expand that article. It is certainly possible for a very good person, such as AAB, to hold a problematic view, such as antisemitism. SqeakBox said (elsewhere) that I have compared Alice Bailey to Hitler. That is absolutely not correct. I think she held some deplorable views on Jews that came through in the books on occasion, but there is much more to her than just that. Is it really too much to admit that a good person had a flaw? Every human has flaws. From the point of view of Judaism, what counts is what people do, not what they think or say. Since she never harmed any Jews her antisemitism is not to be compared to the antisemitism of those who have done harm. All I have been trying to get in the article all this time is a short recognition that many people think Bailey had the defect of antisemitism. Those who think otherwise can also say that in the article. Then, finally, everyone could put this messy argument behind them and go on to other things. Let me know what you think. I really would like this to end. Kwork 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It was never my intention to turn the article int an Alice Bailey roasting. I just would like a sentence or two recognizing the problem. I have expanded a little more on the subject at the bottom of this page: [4]. But the situation is not going well. I noticed today that one editor of the article has asked at least one other user Arion to start contributing to the article, I suppose in an effort to move the balance further in their favor. This has been my common experience with these editors. They talk nice about only wanting an honest article, as Eaglizard does here (above); but, at the same time, they never stop using whatever methods they can to gain control of the situation. Kwork 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Albion, thanks for the good advice. I try not to be too abrasive, but this has dragged on a long time and being nice seems not to have worked well for me....and, ,besides, standards for what is abrasive are different in Brooklyn, where I live, than the rest of the USA. Sethie has accused me of being too religious. That's pretty funny. Usually I describe myself as a Socialist Zionist. I do have an interest in in traditional (kosher) Kabbalah, but there is no way I can get along with the Chassidic rabbis who teach it, and I spend a lot more time studying Stoic philosophy. I wish this argument was over so I could spend a little more time things that really interest me.
I put a question about the meatpuppet problem on the administrators notice board, but got no reply, and it just disappeared after a few days. (I am sixty-three, never had access or experience using a computer until recently, and and find if very difficult to think in terms of how the system works at Wikipedia.) I have no idea why I did not get a reply to my question. Thanks again for the advice. Kwork 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kwork, your capacity for error never ceases to amaze me. I have never ONCE commented on your religiosity! Sethie 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sethie, this is one of your headings on the RfC directed against me: "Religion seems to be driving edits". If you do not mean it, take it off the RfC. Kwork 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sethie, you obviously "accused [him] of being too religious" when you opinined that "Religion seems to be driving [his] edits" in that RfC you initiated against him -- the same punitive RfC in which you originally tried to get him banned completely from editing the Alice Baily page. Nameless Date Stamp 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the interruption, ya'll. Now, back to our regularly-scheduled conversation.
Albion, I think what I'm asking your outside editor's opinion about is, would you consider adding two quotes such as those to be valid response in a 'Criticism' section? Or would you read it as just "whitewashing", or "denialism"? Or perhaps as OR? (heh) (I also notice I have asked for (and would like) your outside opinion as a Jew on the actual persuasiveness of those quotes, but if you don't care to comment on that, I understand, ofc. Has nothing to do with the article.) Eaglizard 07:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't responded to your last question, btw, because I have posted a proposal at
User:Eaglizard\Alice Bailey Controversies (proposed). If you care to have a look, this will display pretty much exactly what I'm talking about, I reckon. (Unfortunately, I have yet to get any comments from Kwork or "nameless date", so I've no idea if it will be contentious; other editors seem to support it, however.)
Eaglizard 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that you had previously requested that I be tho one to invite the others in I will try but I also noticed that Renee created a stub for it and that you think she got the name wrong. I am definitely going to wait and see how that situation turns out before I invite anyone. Albion moonlight 12:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Albion moonlight, please, let us go ahead with our plans without worrying about Renee's mistakenly named stub page.
- I am hoping and trusting that Renee will rectify the error she made -- because renaming the page and making a rediect is the work of a few minutes for anyone with a user account.
- Please, if you can find the time, do invite a few folks, and let them see the outline (and make comments on it if you will).
- I do understand that you are time-limited -- and such is my condition as well. Beginning Sept. 9, there will be another project on my agenda that will severely limit my play-time at Wikipedia for three weeks. I would like to get a stub or even a roughed-out article in place and on the antisemitism template before that date.
- I am also asking Kwork to join in this project, and posting same at his user talk page.
- Thanks!
- Nameess Date Satmp 17:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nameess Date Stamp, I am sure that you know it would be easier to talk to you if you had a user name page. But, replying here, I could offer some suggestions for sources, and thoughts on the history of the subject, but my wish is to end my involvement with Wikipedia, not increase it. Kwork 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If it can be as simple as leaving an invitation on some of the other Judaism pages I can Probably start doing so tomorrow. Please advise me on this matter. Albion moonlight 08:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure how to procede just yet. It looks like kwork has created the stub you requested but there is also a casual warning there that may require the touch of someone who knows what they are doing. kwork may be that person I am not sure. Feel free to give me explicit constructions if you you need me to redirect it or anything like that. Albion moonlight 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a brief note commending you for your good sense on the tag removal issue for "The Jew of Linz". Good sense in dealing with the article by Wikipedia editors has often been in very short supply. Kimberley Cornish 22:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sad to relate, it is now in even shorter supply; the tag is back. Kimberley Cornish 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- And gone. Thank you. Kimberley Cornish 05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your message. I shall continue to watch the page but probably not involve myself much any more as there seem now to be sufficient editors who understand WP NPOV policies.
Best wishes
Itsmejudith 08:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion moonlight. I appreciate your sticking around and helping under the circumstances. I know from experience (arguments with Alice Bailey followers in other circumstances), that their approach can turn very ugly if they start to worry things are not going to their liking.
Kwork 11:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm not worried. As for canvising, Jamesd1 has been inviting in people that he thinks will help him all along. Kwork 12:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Editing other people's comments almost always causes more damage than it is attempting to prevent. It can turn people from somewhat annoyed to utterly angry, for example. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I put it back to its original quote. I just didn't want to see him get in trouble. Albion moonlight 19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Albion moonlight, thanks for trying to keep me out of trouble. However, it is nothing to worry about. If I should get blocked from editing the article, or from Wikipedia, I would consider it cause for a celebration. (I actually picked up that particular phrase from my youngest daughter, which she picked up at Swarthmore; and I never considered it anything beyond an expression of annoyance with unmanageable situations.) Kwork 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
template mehopes Albion moonlight 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Catherineyronwode
Heya Albion, your recent comment to the effect of "don't start an edit war, buddy, or I'll kick your butt" was not only inappropriate and likely to be bad for the article, it also seemed really out of character for you. To me anyways, as far as what I perceive as "your character" here. I also notice that you repeated yourself, and signed your comments multiple times. Maybe I'm out of line here, but are you aware that drinking and Wiki-editing are not a good mix? If you weren't drinking, I'd suggest you consider whether adrenaline may have been affecting your typing -- and your judgement. And I hope you see this as a friendly comment, because it's meant to be. See ya in the trenches, comrade! :D Eaglizard 10:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Eaglizard, you are really out of line here. Kwork 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Albion moonlight, I know that my my discussion, and editing, frequently seems over overly rough. Believe me when I say that I would love to be editing in pleasant circumstances, but the methods used by Jamesd1, Sethie and Renee do not allow for that because their approach is not compromise but winner-take-all. Kwork 12:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- After a little more discussion with Eaglizard today, I am convenced that his occasional hints of niceness are just window dressing, and there is nothing to distinguish his intentions, and methods from those of Jamesd1. But I suppose you knew that before me. Some chutzpa really, to say that you should not start an edit war when that is what they have engaged in all along. Kwork 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Kwork, I don't mind so much that you seem to follow me all around to other's talk pages, injecting yourself at will. For instance, the comments I made to Vassyana could certainly be expected to draw a response from you. But this -- this is entirely between Albion and myself, and has nothing to do with you. And I suspect, from the biting graciousness of Albion's reply to me, that he's quite capable of defending himself. Would you butt out, please? Thank you. Eaglizard 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Albion (sry to use a bullet, but somehow the thread of "my" section has been hijacked) -- I just want to say thanks so much for your understanding reading of my comments. I considered removing the alcohol ref, but I decided eventually that it's an honest version of my reaction to your comments, so you should see that. I din't mean to accuse you, just to relay my own impressions, and I'm glad you seem to have taken it that way. Also, glad to hear you're free of those particular vices, wish I could say the same. Grandchildren must be a much nicer way to spend the time! Gratz and Good luck with those. :) Eaglizard 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that my first reading of your comments had me thinking that you were being facetious but when I read it closer I understood it as it was meant to be understood. The biting graciousness you may be referring to may have come partly from my first reading. Its hard to say. But it needed to be said.
Allow me to suggest that you contact me via email if you want to speak to me in private. I like every one to feel welcome on my talk page. I don't always check it so perhaps just leave me a message here and ask me to check my email and I will get back to you asap. Meanwhile I will thank Kwork for trying to stick up for me and ask him to assume good faith when it comes to your comments on my talk page. It is part of our culture to stick up for each other or at least it seems to be. Do as you like of course but it seems like a way of avoiding potential conflict between the 2 of you. And thanks for your comments and have a happy.... Albion moonlight 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- lol, Albion, likely you didn't intend to be biting; the graciousness what bit me was the image of myself crankily barking, "Hell, are you drunk man?" to a kindly gent with grandkids bubbling on his knee! I doubt you did mean it that way; but it quickly made me realize I wasn't being very generous of spirit. :) Eaglizard 07:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Albion moonlight, so that you can see that it is not just Jews who have problems with the Bailey teaching, and with Phillip Lindsay, you might be interested in this [5]. It is written by a Russian member of the Agni Yoga forum. Mr. Lindsay had said some very nasty things about Agni Yoga on the Agni Yoga form, and about its founder Helena Roerich (but then Roerich, many years previously, had called Bailey's Tibetan a member of the Black Lodge and not a Master). Interestingly, Agni Yoga is a group which was always welcoming to Jews, with a teaching that considered Judaism good, not evil. I have had a number of very acrimonious discussions with Lindsay on various e-forums. I have not met him in person, but tried to arrange a meeting when he was in NYC this past spring. He refused to meet me. I still have the e-mail I exchanged with him. Kwork 14:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just want to add another link to that same argument with Bailey followers on the Agni Yoga form
[6]. You may see some similarities to what has occurred here.
Kwork 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think I understand what you're saying as "We've had to endure mild antisemitism", and "this antisemitism is probably unintentional because some non-Jewish editors don't realize they're doing it". How does that rationalize someone deliberately doing the same thing in reverse? I really believe that "Non-Jewish" is very much a real class in some people's mind, and those people don't seem to like those of us who are in it -- or at the least, they suspect our motives because of it. That's called bigotry, or prejudice, as I'll bet you already know. The way I see it, because you've suffered discrimination, you should be less likely to inflict it, knowing how it feels. Besides, where else have you heard "They've done the same to us, so this is only fair"? Not in any good context, I'll bet.
I would re-phrase your comment in a way that applies not only to me, and other non-Jewish editors, but applies equally well to yourself and other Jewish editors: "Mild prejudice is very seldom understood to be prejudice by the people who make the prejudiced remarks." (See also: Carlos Mencia). Pot, kettle, etc. Eaglizard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, thanks a lot, Albion, that made my day! The Der Sturmer joke really made me laugh, but that "I must have diabetes!" bit is one of the funniest jokes I've heard in a long time! Thanks again! Btw, it does count, it counts for quite a lot, thank you for your kind remarks. :D Eaglizard 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- And dangit, I forgot the other day to say "Hi Matthew!" ... hope he'll forgive me. :) Eaglizard 21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Albion moonlight, I admire your optimism in giving Eaglizard a link to an article about Jewish humor. My experience is that pretty much no one but the Jews themselves have any interest in Jewish humor, in the Jewish laws a speech (I gave him links for that thinking it could clarify the communications difficulties of the editors), or anything else that represents the Jewish tradition. That goes double for Alice Bailey, a 'spiritual' teacher who told her students that everything from the Jewish tradition is worthless and outdated, at best; or is evil, which is what she called Zionism.
Everything that transpired in these discussions only served to convince me that the Bailey teaching is even more problematic than I thought at the start of these discussions. I never once saw the slightest indication that any of our opposing editors made even a slight effort to see things from the Jewish perspective....despite the fact that Bailey actually give her students a meditation intended to develop empathy and sympathy for others. I met this problem in earlier discussions with Phillip Lindsay, and other such Bailey followers. The problem remains that Bailey had a lot to say about Jews, but everything she said is incorrect and based on false assumptions. If they actually would start to work at developing a real understanding of the Jewish tradition, discarding prior assumptions, they might begin to understand what we have been saying. But how could they do that when they have prejudged the Jewish tradition to be completely worthless, and even evil? I really do not see how anything can be said that could solve the problem. Kwork 12:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that some of the editors other editors did make concerted efforts at empathy towards us I just think that because they are editing on an emotional battlefield rather than an intellectual one neutrality becomes all the more difficult to achieve. This is not to say that they are not intellectuals, it is only to say that they have an emotional interest in protecting Ms Baileys reputation. I just try to understand that and proceed with caution, : Albion moonlight 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is quite humorous in itself, to me, given that I spent two hours copy-editing Jewish humour, I liked it so much! heh. I see all my edits there still stand, too. :) Oh, and don't even get me started on Lenny Bruce or Woody Allen, the two funniest guys who ever lived (who weren't named Richard Pryor, anyways). Nah, I just don't like other racial groups' humor, I guess! lol Eaglizard 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Yes, I think you are trying to be neutral and appreciate it. I was referring to this dif, which I actually only noticed after I first posted on the talk page. I do think Parsifal's trying to help too and appreciate his efforts. Renee 11:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dano :: Jeffy Taylor 10:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I know people on the "bombing of Dresden" page have been dealing with Igor patiently and in good faith (his line there is "Wikpedia is not a democracy" but that we must have consensus - which in this case means giving one person an absolute vetoe and dictatorial rights over a page... absurd!). I, alas, have lost almost all patience for racists and anti-Semites at Wikipedia. And there is little I can write that won't simply be rude. I hope enough admins notice and comment on this to merit decisive action. I left the message on Jpgordon's page because he usually handles things like this in a much more even-tempered way than me. If you know other people of sound judgement perhaps you can alert them to the issue. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You're completely mistaken about my view. The fact is that Jewish Bolshevism is an Antisemitic expression, and historicall speaking, it was used so exclusively; it has no Marxist, Communist, or Bolshevik meaning whatsoever. Do you not know that? -- Ludvikus 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Danny. I don't mind if the suggestion gets lost at this point. I was really just cross at all the personal sniping. Having looked back at Parsifal's new version, I think it is a good improvement. It's certainly a comprehensive summary of what she wrote about Jews and Judaism with a minimum of interpretation. WP philosophy: let the facts speak for themselves. Best wishes. Itsmejudith 12:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You are responsible for your words. You now need to study and explain the sentence above which you left on my Talk page. Ludvikus 15:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your definition of Jewish Bolshevism. I think the term is hopelessly tied into communism and I know that I am allowed to disagree with you. Albion moonlight 16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I really do appreciate the "pat on the back", Danny. Your compliments are very confidence inspiring, as well. I hope Matthew is doing well. :D Eaglizard 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, I forgot the other thing I meant to say. As far as the social aspects, if I were (still) a "follower of Bailey", I would consider Wikipedia to be, perhaps, the single largest group meditation ever undertaken on Earth. :D It would clearly be a dramatic experiment in new methods of group working, to say the least. Eaglizard 07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- My comment above is about what Kwork wrote, but it's directed at you. I try hard not to engage others in discussion on someone's talk page (although I fail sometimes). Anyways, I'm from a very dysfunctional family, myself, so maybe that's why I feel so at home here! lol Eaglizard 08:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and speaking of Jewish humor, it keeps running through my head lately how truly strange that word "Jewish" really is, when you think about it. I mean, we say things like "Is he a snob?" -- "Well, he's snobbish." or maybe "Was she very tall?" -- "Well, she's tall-ish." -- But to say "Is he a Jew?" -- "Well, he's ... Jew-ish" somehow just doesn't seem right. As if "Jew" were something nobody could quite become, but people can only be "Jew"-ish. Strange, I think. I wonder how an actual Jew sees that? Eaglizard 09:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments about Jews and Jewishness are really very interesting to me. But the point I was trying to make here is, I guess, a very subtle semantic, one. Actually, it's not about the "concept" at all, but just the specific words Jew and Jewish. Let me explain: when we say someone is "tall-ish", we mean that they are not exactly tall, but somewhat so. Sort of like other related "-ish" expressions, such as "Be there around 10-ish." It doesn't mean "10 o'clock sharp". So, wouldn't "Jewish" mean "not exactly a Jew, but Jew-ish"? It's really just a sort of dumb play on words, of the kind I happen to like a lot.
Regarding your comments, however, it's very interesting to me because the definition of Jew is so incredibly difficult to pin down. I've seen many editors state that "Jewish is not a race", and some have even argued directly that "Jewish is a religion". This is at odds with most Jews I've known, who have seemed to speak more as if it were a race, and who have been decidedly non-religious. However, I believe you are the first person I've known who identifies as both a Jew and an Atheist, so this casts a lot of doubt on the "religion" theory, doesn't it? Out of curiosity, do you have a working definition of what it is to be makes a person a Jew, other than "if your mother was a Jew"? Or, do you support the maternal inheritance definition?
In any case, while its very nice to have a rational discussion about this with someone, I'm thinking I'm now guilty of abusing the WP Talk namespace. I wonder if there's a talk page discussion somewhere where others have expressed views on this subject. I'm just betting there is. :) Eaglizard 10:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh shoot, I forgot to mention that I too see similarities between Jews and Christians, fundamentalist evangelicals in particular, who focus on original sin, and man's inherent guilt: I was raised a Southern Baptist, and my mother weighed me down with guilt like you would not believe. I loved Woody Allen's introspective, angst-ridden jokes even as a very young man, simply because I identified with him, and his (apparently) very Jewish mother. His actual "Jewishness" itself was next to meaningless to me at the tender age of 16 years. (ah Annie Hall... oh so long ago! In fact, most of my early impression of "Jewishness" was based entirely on Allen's exaggerated on-screen persona, which I had to unlearn some of later, when I met real Jews.) And I certainly do not identify as a Christian today, btw. Although not an Atheist either. Nontheist, I suppose, or Agnostic, if you must. Eaglizard 11:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I am not particularly concerned; but, if I am suddenly gone, thanks for your kind help.
About the subject of Jewish atheism, there is a lot of leeway for that in Judaism which emphasizes ethical actions over declarations of belief. I have a friend who is a very observant Orthodox Jew (he even founded a Jewish school north of the City) who makes no secret of being an atheist. Kwork 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Albion moonlight. You asked when it was that Renee got me blocked from editing the Alice Bailey page for 7 days. That was back in August, i think. She and Sethie (who now seems to be gone from the fray) tag-teamed me and had me up for incivility. I was editing as an anon IP at the time, due to a former fray, a year earlier, in which my husband and i were falsely accused of sockpuppeting one another bcause we are married and share similar editing interests. I had decamped from wikipedia in disgust, then returned as an anon, so as to avoid the accusations. What Renee did was get a semi-protction on the page, which barred anon editors (of whom i was the only one) for 7 days. I abided by the block, edited other pages, and also during that time had a nice heart-to-heart talk with the admin AnonEMouse, who encouraged me to ignore the old sockpuppetry charges, because they are often made against married couples who edit, and are not taken seriously by admins, and to resume using my login, which i did, but only after the ban was lifted. Right now i am less concerned about Renee than about the editing of Jossi, whose work exhibits a high level of intellectual opacity, in my opinion. cat Catherineyronwode 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Jossi is an admin, which is a powerful role, but as an editor, there is a real lack of understanding about the matrial iteself, and what you call lack of "concentration" -- there is no attempt to structure the material logically, but a lot of moving things around.
When i saw that the "On Judaism" subsection had been folded under "The Jewish People" subsection of the "On Races, Nations, and Religions" section today, i saw that i was up against the same kind of ignorance that obtains at, for instance, Barnes and Noble bookstores. (For all nations other than Israel, the books on military history are shelved in their respective categories -- for Israel alone, the books on military history are shelvd under "Judaica" -- as if the non-Jew cannot grasp the fact that there are, as we all know, Jews who are not even remotely interested in the Jewish religion, yet who still identify as Jews.)
(Side note: It was only after i married a non-Jewish man (my third marriage, the others having been to Jewish men), did i realize that non-Jews often do not understand the inclusiveness of the concept of Jewishness and its separability from the religion of Judaism. The issues of "race" versus "ethnicity" versus "religion" with repect to being a Jew were troubling to my mother's generation, but as a baby-boom generation Jew, i feel perfectly comfortable referring to myself as "genetically and culturally Jewish".)
So the fact that Jossi moved the religious "On Judaism" section into the "Jewish Race" section only gave me that mildly pukesome feeling i have learned to ignore all my life, and i set about to right the problem, by breaking the links that had joined the Nation-Race-Religion section (which i had created in the first place) into three parts, thus allowing me to move Judaism back next to Christianity under Religion, to place Israel next to the United States and France under Nations, and to place the Jewish Race and the Negro Race side by side under Races.
It took some time, but it should settle the issue, and i doubt it will anger Jossi -- who i do not think has an agenda (ike James did), but is simply ignorant of the issues.
cat Catherineyronwode 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, I am Jewish, speak fluent Hebrew and lived 13 years in Israel. I am very familiar with these distinctions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also FYI, I am somewhat familiar with Theosophy and Rosicrucianism, as well as being well read on religious and philosophical subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I just reverted the Che article because someone removed sourced information (BBC News, I think) for unsourced information. I have never done that before, certainly not on Che. I must admit I will back off if anything violent starts to occur. -- Mattisse 00:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.
Some suggestions:
- Discuss the article, not the subject;
- Discuss the edit, not the editor;
- Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
- If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh, that seems like a serious overreaction to your statement "I am going to assume that Jossi has concentration problems. Please be careful Cat. You may be dealing with a loose cannon.". I don't think expressing concern about whether an editor is (to use my own words) "paying attention", or whether an admin is a "loose cannon" could be called personal attacks at all. But that's just me, maybe. Eaglizard 18:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Jossi. Could you explain what you mean by "not useful"? Also, I said on you user talk page and am saying again here, your trying to silence criticism on user talk pages will only cause users to take conversation to email, resulting in situation where virtually everything is hidden instead of in public. Kwork 19:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to note something, but first, isn't it fascinating what you learn on user talk pages sometimes! Its just pathetic that B&N would put Israeli military history under "Judiaca". Sad. And I must say, I'm quite surprised to find that jossi self-identifies Jewish. Not that I doubt him, I just wouldn't have guessed, I don't think. (Oops, I guess I'm really just saying "Funny, he doesn't look Jewish!" lol)
Anyways, I notice that you still seem to see User:Reneeholle as being involved in an "alliance" of some sort. While I'm not interested in defending Renee on this, I just want to be clear with you that I am not part of any "alliance" with her, or with anyone, outside our common alliance to Wikipedia policy. If you are particularly concerned about this, you could note that while I have encouraged her, like I encourage everybody, to file 3RR reports whenever necessary, I have also suggested that there's no need to fly off the handle, either. I think Renee, and all editors, would agree that editing on the article has taken a definite turn for the better this month. Eaglizard 18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I don't know any more than you about that change to the talk page, but I'm under the impression it would be very hard indeed to fool the edit history. I believe its considered indisputable in arbitration hearings and such. On the other hand, it really doesn't bother me much at all. I am kind of curious what whoever did it was trying to accomplish, but I generally don't care. I did ask jossi what he thought about it. I've never seen this done before. :/ Eaglizard 11:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
...about Sparkle's long message on Jossi's page. I had already seen her message, but if I hadn't, I would have wanted to know about it.
The quotes she listed included combinations of quotes from several people. I don't think she did that intentionally, maybe sometimes she gets confused with the wiki-editing interface and keeping track of who wrote what.
I don't know how much she's involved with James or his conflict of interest, but I do know she has never edited any other articles. I've tried to explain to her how WP works, and I've suggested she edit some other articles to try and have some fun with it instead of only thinking about the Bailey article. But she hasn't shown any interest in doing that, so with her whole focus on Alice Bailey, she's going to feel frustrated.
About her complaint that people have complained about James, the way I see it, he created his own problems. He came here with an agenda and was very aggressive about it, then when he couldn't control Wikipedia, he left. Then he popped in to show his new article, and popped out. I'm sure he's still around...
Best wishes! -- Parsifal Hello 05:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I vaguely recall that Sparkle mentioned in one of her posts a month or so ago that James (and Phillip?) had been guest(s) in her house. I didn't pay much attention to it at the time, and rather than wonder about her social life, i have wondered if she was born in 1947, like me, that being the year that Sparkle Plenty was introduced into the Dick Tracy comic strip. (I know this because my mother actually toyed with the idea of calling me Sparkle Plenty!) cat Catherineyronwode 09:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm curious what answer you found! -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Danny. I have been wondering if the Bailey article should have the antisemitism template added to it. What do you think? Kwork 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to edit this comment but I don't know how to respond to your message you sent me about the antisemitism page.***
Ok, so i know the page said it includes more than just Jews, but what you need to understand is that the term should never have been used in the first place. However, the Jews (actually Zionists) want everyone to think they are always persecuted in order to leverage their agendas i.e. israel. Another example is the Jewish student who reported a hate crime for someone drawing a swastika on her door. Later on the police found out that she was the one doing it. I am in no way shape or for antisemitic because I love all those who are encompassed by that word (Jews, Muslims, Christians, Arabic speakers, etc...). Furthermore, I am in no way shape or form anti-Judaic (anti-Jewish). If you or society want to use a word describing persecution of Jews, than use one that ACTUALLY MEANS IT!.
- This is not an edit to the comment, rather a comment in its own right. I don't know where to write my own, sorry again.*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.94.188 ( talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse the mess, it's my first message.
I finally remembered to check you up while i was online. I haven't seen you after work for a while but i still have two weeks till France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly d man ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Chris you can Email me here
Albion moonlight 09:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Italic text
Heya Danny, thanks very much for the reply! I don't mind a bit that the question wasn't addressed to you, in fact I rather wish I had asked you!
Honestly, I find the issue really confusing on one hand, although completely understandable from the simple perspective of being a human being. :) I can hardly imagine what it would be like to grow up with the spectre of the Holocaust the way you describe it. I can completely understand why Jews would be sensitive to antisemitism, the same way blacks are sensitive to bigotry. I mean, the kind of treatment both groups have received, and grow up being "spoon-fed", is just astonishing in the depth of its cruelty — both groups have received the very worst of European behavior.
On the other hand, do you suppose that this thing could cause reasonable and intelligent people, such as yourself, to make mistakes in your thinking? As an atheist, don't you find it somewhat necessary to agree that "the Orthodox Jewish faith" is, at least, outmoded? It seems to me that Bailey is making the same exact sort of accusations about Jewish religion and all religion as did Bertrand Russell, who was, as you may know, a rather famous and persuasive atheist himself. Your reference to the equally illustrious Chomsky would seem to indicate that, yes, you do think even very intelligent men can be swayed by such deep emotions.
But the problem I see isn't emotional tendencies, which we all have, so much as the tendency for some editors to conflate things in a very bad way. For instance, any reasonable adult familiar with the facts must realize that Zionist is not completely identical to Jewish; if Bailey calls Zionists "criminals", does that really convince you she thinks all Jews are criminals? Do you really find it so unreasonable to question (or, in this case, indict) the actions of the Zionists? I don't believe they were any more "free from sin" than I am; if Bailey says Zionists were evil, is that really so incredibly inflammatory that a reasonable Jew could not possibly say "Well, she's entitled to her opinion of a political movement" rather than "Wow! She really hates Jews"?
PS: Notice I'm not saying the Zionists were (or were not) evil or criminals. I'm just saying, it's not really that unreasonable to suggest it; not unreasonable in the sense of common moronic racism such as "You must be stupid, because your skin is black", or "You can't be Jewish, you don't have a big nose." Those are unreasonable statements. Eaglizard 09:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I was gonna go put one of those "Welcome to Wikipedia" templates on your friend's new Talk page, but I thought you might like to do that. :) Eaglizard 09:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
PPS: Danny, it occurs to me that maybe this isnt the sort of discussion Jimbo bought his servers for us to have. :) I got your last email, if you want to respond, maybe that would be more appropriate. Eaglizard 09:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
PPPS: Re: email, no just r'cvd the one, btw. Eaglizard 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Here [7] is where i wrote the following in May of 2006:
- I responded [to a cite-tag edit war on the Aleister Crowley page] -- with an attempt to get an admin (User:jpgordon) to help me -- but it soon became clear that i had run up against a clique -- INCLUDING THE ADMIN, who was sending private Thelemic cult "93 and spoon" messages to Frater5's talk page and claiming "we have a very similar take on the real meaning of Thelema; and I imagine if you've spent any time with organized Thelema in the Bay Area, we've got some people in common"
- SynergeticMaggot|Zos and the cozy admin jpgordon made repeated and heated false complaints against me for three days straight, claiming that i had made additions to the page by quoting books that did not have proper citations, although i was NOT the person who made those additions (two others did), and even though i repeatedly told them i was not the person who had done that work. They did this despite the fact that KV and Bo-Bo were responsible for the additions and (more tellingly to me) despite the fact that the material, which was from old books, could be easily found online in digitized form and any minor page number errors corrected. All through this, admin jpgordon backed the Thelemites up.
Jpgordon knew that i found the private "brotherhood" messages he was sending to certain disputants, and that's when he began harrassing me by claiming i made edits that i did not make. He knows that i reported this, but that my report was ignored. He knows that i will never forgive his lying about his administrative neutraility while privately cozying up to his Thelemic buddies during a dispute he was supposed to mediate. He knows that i left Wikipedia due to his harrassment and due to the unfairness of a system that allows him and people like him to be adminstrators. He knows that he has abused the administrative privileges he enjoys and that i know this too. He is now on the ArbCom committee -- which speaks very poorly for that body's reliability.
And, i'd like to add, his behviour in the Alice Bailey situation is equally reprehensible. His banning of Kwork came out of nowhere, with no discussion after another admin had merely put a temporary block on Kwork -- and this came right after he refused to support the requests of three or four users (Kowrk, you, parsifal, and me) when we asked him to consider temporarily blocking jamesd1 and sparkleplenty from editing the article (not a wiki-wide ban, just a temp blok from that article). He misuses power, pure nd simple. Our group request for relief from tendentious and COI-involved editors went unanswered, but his ability to ban someone forever by single-handed cowboying exited him to action. That really says it all. cat Catherineyronwode 07:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Danny, I'd just like to point out that Admins, and especially ArbComs, have to be vetted by a large cross-section of the community (you and me, that is). cat's complete disagreement with that community's assessment of jpgordon may be entirely correct. Or, it may, rather, speak poorly for cat's ability to see things straight. I don't know which is true; but I do know that WP process is working pretty good so far. (On the other hand, there are, of course, increasing reports of admin abuse and cabalism, so maybe she's right. I don't know.) Eaglizard 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Danny since you've expressed an interest in learning more about Bailey's thought (albeit from a somewhat dubious source), I'd just like to make sure you understand what I consider the most relevant part of it to all this, her teleology. Remember, Bailey is first and foremost a "reincarnationist". In the end, according to Bailey, everyone "gets to heaven". No one is "cast out" or "burns in hell". Ascendancy to higher and higher levels of consciousness is assured for all conscious individuals (with very very few exceptions). So all of her claims about race, religion, whatever, are based entirely on a temporal view. In the end, it doesn't matter, Jews and blacks and everyone else attain Mastery through lifetimes of struggle.
All forms of behavior, sensuous or religious or moral or scientific, all forms of life, bodies or feelings or thoughts, all are temporary stages along that Path, temporary expressions of the "indwelling life", and all must be given up when they have out-lived their usefulness. She sees this struggle to "let go" of the old, worn out, and dead forms as the fundamental challenge of humanity. But there is no possibility of "doing violence" to anyone, because the "indwelling life" (or "soul") is immortal, and impervious to harm. All pain results from this "attachment" to "forms", the refusal to give up the old and the dead, and all pain is a temporary illusion from the point of view of the "soul". Every single thing Bailey has to say must be understood in this context, or you will entirely misunderstand her.
None of this is necessarily my opinion, you know, I'm just explaining hers as I understand it. Bailey seems to take it so far as to treat the Holocaust as a "temporary inconvenience", which I suppose from her point of view maybe it was, but I myself would never suggest that to any of the victims. But, you see, Bailey would say that's just because I'm "attached" to the idea of physical comfort and physical life (which I truly am, ofc). And I suppose, if my soul were to meet the soul of a holocaust victim, a million years and thousands of lifetimes from now, perhaps they might see it that way by then, too. I still wouldn't be the first one to bring it up. lol Eaglizard 13:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything Is Illuminated is a very interesting film, just in case you have not seen it-- Woogie10w 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I rented it on Netflix-- Woogie10w 11:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This is, according to the image page, a fair use image. As such, it cannot be anywhere but article space. You have this on your userpage. Would you please remove it? Thank you. I (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions. I have been watching the Holocaust page for around 6 months now. I like what I see. The problem with redirecting is an emotional one for me and I think this may be the case for all of us. Please do not take my decision to oppose the redirect personally . It just didn't feel right. Your point of view is very valid and you have done more good work on that article than I will ever do. But it just didn't feel right. So be well my brother and thank you for your participation thus far. I do appreciate it.: Danny Weintraub Albion moonlight 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Danny, yes this is an emotional issue for me. And trust me, I really don't want to redirect, I was trying to get people to support my original belief that The Holocaust should be specifically about Nazi Genocide against European Jews. The article has become a jumble of data about ALL Nazi atrocities, which deserves an article, just not in an article about THE Holocaust. I was trying to find a compromise. So, personally I am opposed to the redirect too. But I need the support of individuals like you to help make the article what it should be. Thanks for your kind comments! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for the alice bailey revert etc etc, : Albion moonlight ( talk) 09:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. Thank you for your message. I am replying on your page because I didn't like what happened after I edited that article, so I don't think I can be involved there any more.
- The person with no user id who added the wrong information added it back in again after I removed it, and then put a mean lie on my user page that I had to erase. I looked at that article talk page after that and it seems like there is some kind of cult or religious dispute going on. That's too much bad vibes for me, so I am going to edit other articles instead. But I wanted to say hi and also to let you know that that person had put that wrong sentence back in the article in case you did not notice because I already added some other stuff after that. Good luck with your editing! -- Linda 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Albion moonlight. Thank you for the reply. I hope will take care next time. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 10:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, yes, you voted 3 times for NYB. I know he is a good candidate, but... ;) Also if you look at milestone you will see that your 150th edit in namespace (0) was on 27 Nov. As per some rules somewhere, yu must have 150 mainspace edits before 1Nov to vote in these elections. Hope this clears it up. Regards Woody ( talk) 10:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing very well, thanks, hope you and Matthew and all the rest are having a great holiday season. :)
As for Linda's edits, I almost left her a note on her talk page, but I got distracted. Do you think I should? I thought the New Thought reference could be acceptable, but not without a cite to somebody else saying it. Frankly, the connection isn't particularly clear to me. What is clear, however, is that the message of The Secret (2006 film), ie, prosperity, is precisely the opposite of that of AAB. DK tells would-be students and disciples constantly that they are letting themselves in for a life of poverty, painful karmic discharges, and constant toiling in total anonymity. So, no, I think that part's out... :) Eaglizard ( talk) 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you please rejoin ther discussion on the Peter Yarrow Discussion page. Your renewed input would be helpful. David in DC ( talk) 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not the Secret, but the Law of Attraction belongs there because Alice Bailey wrote about it in a whole chapter. I think the people that made the Secret movie maybe used the real spiritual ideas and changed it into the prosperity ideas to make money, but I don't think they thought up the idea, I think they got it from the Theosophy people includeing Alice Bailey too.
Separating the merged articles was was confusing to figure it out, I hope that doesn't happen again. I thought they should be separate because they're not the same thing. The person who did it should have talked about it first.
Did you see the page where someone is saying that the Djwal Khul article should be deleted and a bunch of other articles too? It's here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion - I'm going to write something on that page to say the article should not be erased but I haven't figured out what to write yet. -- Linda ( talk) 11:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you are making this stuff up, so you must be getting it from somewhere. Would you list your sources for this information? It would be good if you did. If you don't know how to do this, I could point out some examples. Thanks Steve Pastor ( talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just added a couple of words and a reference, too. In a few days (if I remember) I'll change the format to the more sophisticated one. You don't want to have a reference for each sentence, but what will happen is that eventually someone will tag the article or section unless it has int text references. Anyhow, I'll make that change in a few days. Happy editing. Steve Pastor ( talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that in defending user John Celona you might not have paid close enough attention to: 1) the inflammatory and hateful tone of his edits 2) his flaunting of requests of other editors 3) his blatant anti-semitism and holocaust denial which creates POV concerns for subjects of jewish faith, including Mr. Yarrow. Please take a closer look at his edits and talk page -- Jkp212 ( talk) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Is your 13:47 comment meant for me? I thought it was clear that my comment, although chronologically following a comment by you, was, like yours, a reply to Liftarn. Moreover, you bring up the question of "ownership" and I never mentioned ownership at all. If you go over the discussion now I hope you will see why I find your last comment confusing, maybe you can clarify to whom it is addressed. My general view is, if one editor responds to another editor, and later wants to elaborate on the response, s/he should add to his or her original response. Otherwise, the editor risks the eppearance of responding to someone else. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks wanted to be sure Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Operation Respect, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.operationrespect.org/about/history.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 12:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Danny
- I used my knowledge of html to get me as far as your talk page. Thank for the heads up about Wikipedia. I will try not get in your way if we are both on line at the same time. These computers all seem to have the same IP address I am not sure what will happen if we are both logged onto wikipedia at the same time. : Utah Smythe ( talk) 08:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Can be found here [8]. I don't like bios like this as they are written by very low level flunkies who write what they are given. I imagine in this case this bio is based wholly on the one Dana wrote on his website, hence I'd like independent verification of any information -- 88.172.132.94 ( talk) 11:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There now seems to be a place in the article where you can put the "false analogies" criticisms you suggested recently. The "homeopathy is like CDs" statement could have an extra sentence with your ref. I'd help with the picture, but I don't know how to do it either. Thnx -- DrEightyEight ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Yarrow mediation
Hello - I have filed a request for mediation over the dispute on the Peter Yarrow article, and I have named you as an involved party. I would very much appreciate it if you would visit the request page and consent to mediation in the appropriate section. Thank you, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 08:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- My pleasure - I just hope some good comes out of it. At this point, I'm more or less equally frustrated with Jkp and Celona, but hopefully some involvement from a mediator will persuade them each to be more willing to seek common ground. Thanks for your involvement in this as well. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Albion, Per a suggestion by Jack-A-Roe I redid the RFC completely to focus on content and then archived the old RFC discussion as a permanent record. I hope this is okay with you. Some of your previous comments were on users so they are in the archive. I'm hoping if we can stick to content that we'll all build good will (and believe me, I understand the frustration of going over the same things again and again).
Sooo, Is there anything you'd like to see content-wise on the archive? Do you think the references are vetted properly already? Do you think any section needs to be worked on? needs feedback on? These would be good things to add if you were so inclined. I hope you'll add a comment. Renee ( talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Albion, it appears from Renee's comments here [
[9]], that despite some nice talk, her goal is still to remove the same content that she has contested from the beginning, and that her methods are still divisive. I hope that she does not think I am too tired or busy to stay involved.
Malcolm Schosha (
talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- sigh...Malcolm, this is not true. You are mind-reading my motives. I'm simply trying to be responsive to your points that there was nothing specific so I went back and grabbed Claude's points and gave specific comments and then set up a venue for you to give specific comments. Come on, haven't I demonstrated good will by completely re-doing the RFC, withdrawing a claim of ownership when you asked, and then trying to give you exactly what you want (specific questions). Please recognize good intentions and that I'm trying to be responsive to you instead of attributing mal-intent to my good will. It gets tiresome and makes me wonder why I even try. Renee ( talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
|
A
Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been
accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Hey Albion - in case you're not watching the page carefully, a mediator's finally been assigned to our case at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. Now we all have to agree to the selection of mediator, so the sooner you could head over there and have a look the better. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to announce that the Peter Yarrow mediation is open at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Peter_Yarrow#Opening_the_Mediation. Please visit that page to read the issues and make your opening statement. Thanks MBisanz talk 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that the first part of the mediation, on category assignment in the Peter Yarrow article is open at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Use of categories. MBisanz talk 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have posted the following ANI: [10]. Please chime in as appropriate. David in DC ( talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Doh!, I probably overwrote a blank section by accident, just copy the code from another person's and add your own content. And feel better in RL. MBisanz talk 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[11] - declining to edit war. [12] - declining to accuse of sock-puppetry [13] - seeking an ally to accuse me. With respect, I think these cites suggest your comments on another talk page reflect a misimpression. David in DC ( talk) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Protection is almost always applied to the wrong version. See M:The Wrong Version. Since folks are in mediation it'd be better if folks aren't editing actively anyway. If one editor is holding up consensus then it may come time to call-out that editor for disruption. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It would appear from a quick review of your edits that you meet the requirements of 600 edits before March 1 and 50 edits this year. Quick way to check is to visit Special:Boardvote. If it lets you vote, your qualified, if it doesn't, than check back with me. MBisanz talk 08:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- toolserver link Albion moonlight ( talk) 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I checked with the election's commissioners, are you eligible and able to vote at Special:Boardvote so it might be issue. They said if you can't vote, could you give me the
"[a] what wiki he is voting from, [b] exactly what error he gets (quoting the error message), and [c] the URL where he gets the error?" so they can hunt down the problem, if there is one. MBisanz talk 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the election's official I spoke with on IRC does not speak english as a first language, so his message might be a bit off. However, he did assure me you are on the list of people able to vote. Since there is a handoff between the WMF servers at Special:Boardvote and the exterior server, the linux box your logging in through might be messing it up. Let me know if it doesnt work on a windows machine. MBisanz talk 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've set up a duplicate of the article here - go nuts. I need to run right away, but I'd be quite happy to work on its expansion along with you, especially if you can give me a list of hitherto unexploited sources. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 14:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say by all means let them know right away, though we should probably stress that this is intended as a space to expand the non-controversial content of the article, and not just a place to renew our old fights while the real article is protected.
Sarcasticidealist (
talk) 07:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments to Animate certainly sound like an accusation, and one that I am happy to have verified. Stop with your nonsense. You are NOT the mediator. Express an opinion on the topic at hand if you like, but please stop trying to play politics. It's not your role. -- Jkp212 ( talk) 00:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate to tell you this, but David didn't contact me. I contacted him. The first (and to my knowledge only) interaction we had was on the BLP noticeboard. Ani Mate 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please see this David in DC ( talk) 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop trying to be the mediator. That is not your role -- focus on expressing your opinion on issues being discussed, not running around talk-pages trying to sway the politics of it. You end up being much more disruptive than helpful. FYI, the reason numerous editors (not just david and i) have worked to have celona removed is because he has disrupted the project repeatedly. Get it straight: no one has a problem with his "radical views".. It's when he goes about inserting problematic material n BLP's (which are the most sacred articles), and virtually ignores every other editor to do so, then we have a problem. We are simply trying to deal with the problem. -- Jkp212 ( talk) 01:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed unfortunate that he didn't participate in his RFC and I think in light of the situtation, blocking him was the best thing to do. Useight ( talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this; its' very much appreciated. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 15:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Heads up. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
More on The Jew of Linz
Would you let me know the procedure for reporting to ANI on the recent editing incident? Thank you, Kimberley Cornish ( talk) 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. I have posted an ANI complaint. Best wishes, Kimberley Cornish ( talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The ANI investigator, sadly, appears to have sided with the perpetrator of the incident. I don't really mind, so long as my citations aren't edited away. That Flew thought I was correct is an important matter to philosophers familiar with the names of eminent philosophers, but not, I think, to Jaysweet. I suppose this is a fact of life with a publicly editable encyclopedia. Anyway, the Flew reference is now gone on Jaysweet's decision. Would you mind sending me a contact email to kimberley.cornish @ arts.monash.edu.au? (Just omit the spaces around the "@"? Kimberley Cornish ( talk) 05:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer to help, Danny. For me the subject of the article is of secondary importance, and perhaps not worth a fight -- particularly not right now. The reason I got involved is that the bulling methods of some editors (one an administrator) seem very unfair. But if you look at how enormous the files are, and how crummy the state of the article, it really is discouraging.
I hope you are having a good summer. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Danny, if you get a chance could you take a look at this [14], and tell me what you think? If it seems like I am being unreasonable, I will back off. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And while the link in question is not positive about Yarrow, it does not advocated an unreasonable viewpoint about Yarrow and provides a useful resource on the incident and aftermath. John Nevard ( talk) 11:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been a while, but i just wanted to drop by and say hello. I went away from Wiki, then came back. You know how it is. I found that Malcom had reappeared too, and he even dropped in on a page about some Catholic anti-creationists that i am trying to save from deletion, not because i like it, but because it contains useful information about their links to other groups and people. It seems that i often run afoul of the directive that "Wikipedia is not just a collection of random information." Trouble is, i don't see any information as useless or random -- to those who have the intellectual capacity to integrate it. Well, anyway, when i saw Malcolm's name i thought of you too, and just wanted to say hello. Good wishes, Catherineyronwode a.k.a. "64" a.k.a. "Nameless Date Stamp" 64.142.90.33 ( talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Unspecified source/license for Image:Albion.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Image:Albion.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Edits to Ian Tyson
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to
Ian Tyson. For
legal reasons, we cannot accept
copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. Material cannot be copied into Wikipedia as is from The Canadian Encyclopedia or any other non-free source.
Dl2000 (
talk) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
''Alone in the hissing laboratory of his wishes, Mr Pugh minces among bad vats and Jeroboams, tiptoes through spinneys of murdering herbs, agony dancing in his crucibles, and mixes especially for Mrs Pugh a venomous porridge unknown to toxologists which will scald and viper through her until her ears fall off like figs, her toes grow big and black as balloons, and steam comes screaming out of her navel: ,,,,,, From Under Milkwood
|
Good luck with what you are attempting to do. Albion moonlight 08:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The " Saul Alinsky " is now on my list. Leave me a message if you have your eyes on it Moses Weintraub 11:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words, but until the article is unblocked I've decided really that there isn't much I can do. Wikipedia has a vendetta in general against Churchill and trying to fight that bureaucracy can be tiring and at the end of the day make one feel as if they waisted there time in trying. Jaygy is the resident defender of the status quo and though he'll never directly admit it he's basically on verklempts side.
- My complaint was over the issue of whether Churchill was lying about his service in vietnam. I argued that these claims were suspect because they came primarily from a right wing talk show host. Even though verklempt was unable to provide the actual documents that supposedly proved his case he still refused to compromise. I wanted the it restated as an accusation and not as a fact which is how is now in the article, but verklempt wouldn't have it.
- As I said before wikipedia has pretty much decided to trash churchill and as long as the article is blocked I fear al of the complaints you'd make will fall on deaf ears. If you know anyone else who is sympathetic to our cause then please let me know, but I fear there is little I can do by myself. annoynmous 07:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring is a bad Idea. Take note that Verklempt is now arguing that this page http://www.wardchurchill.net/ doesn't belong on either the Ward Churchill article or the " Ward Churchill alleged misconduct " page It is obvious to me that his goal is frustrate other editors into giving up hope. I am visiting other articles he has been involved with. I may find support on some of them.
And oh yeah please read the talk ward churchill misconduct page. I am going to ask an administrator to add that website to the Ward Churchill article. Wikipedian Policy says it belongs there. I may take a lot of time before I do this. I intend to let Verklempt hang himself Albion moonlight 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Any links you can give that show the similarity? Getaway has used socks in the past so it wouldn't be that surprising. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 09:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- == hi guy ==
It seems you have already been warned about using sock and or meat puppetry in the recent past. Are you and Verklempt sock puppets and or meat puppets. ?? Say it ain't so. I am assuming good faith. Seek consensus. Albion moonlight 08:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- My response??? You are both delusional. Get a life. I'm not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. You both need medication. Please provide support for your allegations and rumours. I'm looking forward to it. I merely expressed agreement with Verklempt and I dared to disagree with Albion moonlight!!! What a load. Seriously, you both need to get a life. Do your due diligence. Where is the evidence to back up your allegations and rumours. Neither or you have any. Please provide.-- Getaway 18:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you really think I wouldn't check out your talk page. ?? Albion moonlight 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. That's ALL you got??? Please provide some evidence, anything, I'm waiting. I noticed that Woohookitty did not follow up on your claim. You lost another potential supporter. Good luck. I'm waiting.-- Getaway 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I repeat again. Getaway is an editor in good standing. If you continue to harass him, you are the one violating Wikipedia policy. That does not mean he automatically gets his way. He is just another editor, but in full standing, not some sort of second class editor. Fred Bauder 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you chose not to talk to him, you would be expected to not attempt to edit articles he edits. Communicating with other editors is a condition of editing Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think user Getaway has yet another sock or meat puppet. Verklempt is the name and disruption is the game he seem's to love to play. The similarities between the 2 is remarkable. This is not an official request for administrative intervention. It is a vocalized sigh of relief upon discovering that my suspicions are probably correct. I am working on gaining consensus amongst the editors of the Ward Churchill pages. If and when I call for a vote of some kind, (I am a newbie of sorts) I will use the normal channels to report suspected sock puppetry . But for now I am just testing the waters ,,,, Albion moonlight 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This is all about exposing Getaways past Albion moonlight 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- My original response to Albion moonlight's false and defamatory allegation that Getaway and Verklempt are one and the same: Albion moonlight is very good at making accusations but is lousy at providing evidence. So far, not one admin that you have approached has wasted time on your accusation, making you look bad in the process. Either provide evidence or give it up. We are all still waiting for the evidence. You don't have any--just a constant stream of allegations. Please provide some evidence.-- Getaway 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your past behavior follows you around doesn't it buddy, Albion moonlight 04:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It sure does and I don't apologize for any of it. Also, I noticed that your baseless allegations have not gone anywhere. Your full scale attack on me just did not go anywhere did it??? The answer is no, it didn't.-- Getaway 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that that was a full scale attack ? It wasn't even an attack. It was and is a group of observations observation's that I will be passing along as it becomes necessary, And as I see fit. Albion moonlight 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- You made a baseless allegation that myself Getaway and Verklempt are and were one and the same persons. It was a lie and you have not provided one piece of evidence to back up your claim, obviously because it was a lie.-- Getaway 20:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
ArbCom was not directly involved with this article. The biographies of living persons policy at issue in this latest discussion has been very controversial, so ArbCom laid down some general principles regarding the procedure to be used when it was invoked. Those principles are at the ArbCom case called "Badlydrawnjeff." Since Ward Churchill is alive, and this article exists primarily to record his misconduct, several editors wished to invoke BLP, leading to the latest round of discussions. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- It may well be that some, perhaps even most, of the editors who have worked on this article have an agenda that is hostile to Churchill. Similarly, it is often the case that most of those who edit on various controversial articles have a strong PoV. That doesn't make the articles PoV, nor does it make the Churchill article an attack article. Whether an article is PoV is to be judged by its content, regardless of the motives of the editors involved, IMO. Similarly, if an article is in fact well-cited, documenting notable events in an accurate fashion, and if it is as well-balanced as possible given the topic, then it is IMO not an attack article.
- You may be right about the ArbCom's take on this -- the current arbcom has made some IMO badly wrong decisions. I hope that you are wrong. If the ArbCom does order this censored, I will have to re-think my participation here.
DES
(talk) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- You wrote to me: "Read this: http://wardchurchill.net/blog/ Also take note that the " American Civil Liberties Union" is backing Churchill" Albion moonlight 11:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure I see the point you are making. Churchill's responses to the accusations against him should certainly be included in the article (assuming that it is kept). His blog is a fine source for the fact that he has made this response, although not for its accuracy. If independent reliable sources support his contentions, that should also be included and such sources should be cited. As for the ACLU, I presume that they are arguing the academic freedom issue, and that it is improper to dire Churchill in these circs. Their position should probably be included. But their support does not change the fact that the accusations were made, nor the sources that support the accuracy of the accusations. if they cite sources that dispute the factual basis of the accusations, then those sources should be cited in our article, if they meet proper standards of reliability, etc. All this seems pretty obvious to me. Of course, nothing can be put into the article or taken out until the AfD is over, because, unlike the usual AfD, this article has been protected until the AfD is over.
DES
(talk) 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- You said "If every source that backs Churchills side of things is disallowed under one pretext or the other..." but the only source you pointed me at is Churchill's blog. That is a fine source for "Churchill said X" and "Churchill claimed Y" and "Chhurchil responded Z", but it is of very little value in establishing other sorts of facts.
DES
(talk) 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree, if Churchill syas soemthing on the issue we should stste as a fact that "Churchill said thus and so" and a citesd quote from his blog is a fine way to establish the fact of Churchill making a given statement. We are not adherign to NPOV if we fail to include Churchill's statements (obviously if he says essentially the same thing in multiple fora or onm multiple occasions, ther is no need to include essentially identiacal statemetn si slightly different wording, although the fact that churchill said soewmthing on multiple occasiosn should possibly be reported. DES (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- You said "If every source that backs Churchills side of things is disallowed under one pretext or the other..." but the only source you pointed me at is Churchill's blog. That is a fine source for "Churchill said X" and "Churchill claimed Y" and "Chhurchil responded Z", but it is of very little value in establishing other sorts of facts.
DES
(talk) 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Whenever an editor claims that Jimbo Wales will personally do something about their editorial concern, they make themselves look extremely foolish. I appreciate your efforts around the Churchill article, but a wince when I see your claim that Wales is possibly going to step in and fix things. Ain't gonna happen! Even if he wanted to, it's not his to say: He's not even on the Wikimedia Foundation board anymore (nor does any board member have special editorial authority though).
Personally, if it were me, I'd go delete the whole topic on the talk page where you mention it, just to make yourself look better. LotLE× talk 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry Lulu but if you are trying to say that there is no small group or single person amongst the wikipedian capable of making the decision to delete an article without the consensus of regular wikipedians then I have to say that you are probably wrong. I am new to wikipedia but I chose my words carefully. I have seen Mr Wales in action on the Che Guevara articles talk page and I agree that the terms benign or benevolent do not apply. I think he still claims to be CEO. I sincerely doubt that the board of directors would leave decisions about the financial future of Wikipedia up to the general population. But anyway thanks for your concern about how I look but I think you misread what I had to say. Perhaps you are also unaware of the fact that 2 of the Ward Churchill articles editors may be guilty of Wikipedia:Gaming the system and or Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point I AM NEW TO WIKI but I am not new. I do know that I seem to have ruffled some feathers in my innocent attempt to bring those 2 editors back into the fold but I am not naive enough to believe they are likely to listen to reason. Somewhere down the road those articles will either be deleted or fixed via consensus or they won't I am having fun and in the end that is all that really matters. If I can snag a cheater or 2 along the way or cause and or help prevent wikipedia from being sued for libel then that is of course for the better. Oh yeah and reread the wiki stuff on sockpuppets and some of their tricks. It is a very fascinating. Albion moonlight 09:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is exactly what I wrote. A fantasy of Wales being some sort of intervening school principle is so painfully simplistic and inaccurate as to make my eyes hurt when I read it. It's the same naivete that far too much of the mainstream press have also fallen into: attributing Wikipedia as Wales "pet project", either for hero-worship or blame.
- The thing is, you will realize I'm correct on this matter if you edit for long (not nearly as long as I have is required; but I'm not new to WP by a long, longshot). And you'll be embarrassed about your past posts on in this line. I'd like to save you unnecessary embarrassment... take it or leave it. It just happens that I am someone who knows better on this. LotLE× talk 13:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you read that part about sockpuppets Lulu and the the tendency to play good cop bad cop for the sole purpose of disruption ? You are reading way too much into what I had to say about Jimbo. Your reading of it is a fabrication on your part. I am not saying you are doing this on purpose but really guy you should reread what I said and put it in a more literal context. Albion moonlight 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Really, trust me! I was dealing with sockpuppets for many years, and ten thousand edits, before you ever arrived at WP. I've dealt with almost countless otherwise well-meaning editors fall into "appeals to Jimbo" (hmm, argumentum ad waleseum; or "the board", same problem). Unlike everyone else in this discussion, I've actually had Jimbo call me on the telephone about a biography issue (well before the current WP:BLP standards were in place, but over an issue that helped put them there). Heck, I've been dealing specifically with the shenanigans of Verklempt and Getaway for something like two years now. LotLE× talk 23:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well Lulu this conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Judging from your picture you are still very young mam. I on the other hand have 3 grandchildren. I already tried to explain to you that you are misrepresenting what I had to say and you chose to ignore me so I am going to change the subject for now and say I will continue to watch those pages and put my 2 cents in where I see fit. My guess is that the edit warring will continue until a clear consensus is established. That is not likely to happen anytime soon but thanks for the chat and the avuncular advice have a nice day and keep up the good fight blah blah and etcetera .... Albion moonlight 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Albion moonlight, you wrote: I read the wiki article on forum shopping and realized that you must have confused the legal term with the wiki policy. There was no consensus being discussed and there was no asking of the other parent or anything close to it, It was simply a warning that the article may still be in danger of being deleted. You seemed to be so happy that you had won the day that you forgot why the article had been deleted in the first place. You do realize that other administrators may decide to speedily delete it in the future do you not ? The same thing goes for it being renominated for deletion. Let us hope that doesn't happen . Albion moonlight 12:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC) My response: Yes, you are attempting to violate the rules of Wikipedia. You have basically asked others, who are sympathetic to your particular point of view, and visit the Misconduct Article and vote or edit according to your particular point of view. That is against Wikipedia policy. As for the facts of the current status of the article. There was a particular admin who wanted to eliminate the Misconduct Article. That admin was successful for the short-term, but has ultimately failed. The Misconduct Article remains. Now, all of your talk about it being removed in the future is merely that TALK, nothing more. Also, you talk about Jimbo Wales as if you are his best friend and that he agrees with your point of view. You don't know Jimbo Wales and you don't know if Jimbo Wales agrees with your point of view, whatever it may be. None of us know what Jimbo Wales point of view is and we probably will never know. So that rambling bit that you wrote about Jimbo Wales was inappropriate and attempt to intimidate others editor into following your point of view. Also, during the debate on whether the Misconduct Article should stay or go, many, many editors stated that they would, if the article was re-instated, work to make the article better, but the article has been re-instated for quite a while now and there has not been a mad rush to edit it. That was also just TALK. Now, you have been asked by me and by another admin, Mr. Fred Bauder, to stop making accusations about me, but you have continued to do it. Please stop or I will have to move the conflict to another level. Why don't you just focus your efforts into making constructive edits to the various articles in Wikipedia, instead of playing Wikipeida politics??? Your short time at Wikipedia is getting tarnished with a reputation of being a Wikipedia politics player and not a real serious Wikipedian.-- Getaway 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I am truly sorry you feel intimidated by the fact that the board might decide to delete all the Ward Churchill articles but you really need to Assume good faith on my part amd stop thinking that you can read my mind and know my intentions . It makes you look unreasonable. Albion moonlight 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Horse hockey. You talk about "the board" like you know what you talking about. You talk about "libel" like you know what you talking about. What a load of horse hockey. No one is going to delete the Ward Churchill article and engage in such blatant censorship. I'm not intimidated by a damn thing. All I'm hearing is silly arguments.-- Getaway 02:12, 7 August 2007 (U
I am sorry that you removed your post from Gtadoc's page. I believe my behavior, as well as the behavior of others, has been exemplary as you originally stated. I do not know why he is accusing me of behavior I did not engage in, nor why he does not respond to my postings. Perhaps you could help me out here and explain what is going on and why you removed your post. (I agree I am loosing it here, but Polaris999 and I have discussed on the CC talk page that we are both confused about what is going on and need clarification.) Sincerely, Mattisse 13:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I put it back and left you a message on your talk page. It was ineptitude on my part. You all are doing a great job of dealing with a bad situation. Albion moonlight 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you have any concept of how aggressively rude you are being. This sort of behaviour is why I have stayed away from the Ward Churchill pages altogether (it comes from both sides). You have arrived at a new article (which is *not* one of the multitude of spin-off WC articles) and started calling for mediation within a day - this is unreasonable behaviour, and I very much doubt that an admin would yet take it on. However, if you honestly feel that the inclusion or otherwise of one scholar on a list is worth taking to mediation after two days of arguing, be my guest. I will happily put the other side, as I see it. And could you please bear in mind that I am not involved in your wider and more personal war with other editors, and maintain an air of civility on debate in future? Vizjim 06:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I took a few days away, and have now made one change which I think answers the excellent arguments on both sides. Acceptable to you? Vizjim 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion moonlight, I hope your new wording works. What is strange about Flora's objection to 'atheist' is his/her insistence that Lennon had "private, spiritual beliefs", and his only objection was to something called "organized religion". As you say, that is speculative and has yet to be substantiated. I think it's obvious that he aggressively dismissed the existence of God. Mick gold 13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks ... I think. I just came across the page in checking edits made by new users and was a bit concerned about the overall tone the page seemed to have. I caught on to the defensive tone with the first answer. I will devote some time to it as I can. Some of the sections truly do need some work. Wildhartlivie 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Albion, thanks for your conciliatory comments. As a journalist I'm pre-trained in some things that apply to Wikipedia, but I still need schooled in certain policies; Wildhartlivie certainly helped with that. I do hope we can get along, and I'll try to do my part not to escalate things when there are disagreements. Preston McConkie 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding your comments pointing out Jimmy Wales's position on speculation, I agree, and I regularly delete material that is clearly speculative. However, the material in question on the Churchill page was not speculative; it was couched as fact. The issue was whether it was properly supported. I accept that I was improperly impatient with Wildhartlivie for not looking for documentation before tagging the section, but I don't think Wales's remarks on speculation apply to the issue.
- Nevertheless, I welcome any educational feedback. It's always more helpful to get a lesson in policy than to have someone assume I know it and am purposefully ignoring it. Cheers, Preston McConkie 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion moonlight, thanks for the nice comment, keep on wiki editing/chooglin' Mick gold 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the welcome! I suppose it's just my luck that it was a controversial article that first attracted my attention to Wikipedia. No need to worry about me getting discouraged though. I'm pretty resilient when it comes to internet behavior and I know that the majority of Wikipedians are more civil and consensus-oriented than Getaway. He's simply an exercise to enhance our abilities to 'assume good faith'. Keep up the good work! Ossified 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I will check with you first before I edit any pages beyond the ones we have already discussed. Louie Daloup 10:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And since we are both on line at once maybe they are set up to handle such siuations but do not woory Louie Daloup 11:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what "racist tripe" you are talking about. My post to Talk: Antisemitism involved asking editors to be "gentle". I suspect that you have mis-read the edit history and blame me for someone else's material. Eaglizard 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message to me. Like the above editor, I'm not quite sure what you mean. As I read the exchange, first someone asked editors on the Antisemitism page to visit the Alice Bailey page in order to check out whether that page was balanced - a sensible thing to do. Then the responses tended to slide into a discussion about the content of the Alice Bailey page. This is quite common but not actually a proper use of a talk page. If there are statements on that talk page that you regard as antisemitic, please let me and others know, since they may have to be removed.
Itsmejudith 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I hadn't heard of Alice Bailey either, and I don't see much to show that she was a particularly important figure. I'm going to assume good faith on the part of both you and Eaglizard and assume
Albion, I don't know what Sethie told you. We have been in a non-stop argument for months because his efforts to remove, or block information about Alice Bailey's antisemitism from being in the article. His latest effort to shut me up is this: [1]. Kwork 13:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion, I just noticed that you had this on Sethie's talk page, and I am starting to figure out the situation.
It did turn out to be Kwork. I just spoke to him via wiki message. Perhaps it is still best for now to not delete his Bailey quotes I am going to try and find some more reliable sources. I do not go against a clear consensus and you 3 seem to have one. That does not mean that I will refrain from trying to change the tide of consensus. I hate edit warring. It is generally a bad idea...Albion moonlight 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I had not understood that things had been removed from the antisemitism talk page. If anything about Alice Bailey's antisemitism was deleted from the antisemitism talk page, there is a good chance that Sethie was the one who did it. He has remove a lot of similar information from the Alice Bailey talk page. A lot of stuff is gone. Kwork 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Albion Moonlight.
It's nice to see someone remembering Kenneth Patchen. He and Miriam were friends of my mother and father, and later of my step-father as well. I still have a first edition of "Memoirs of a Shy Pornographer" which came from my father's collection.
But, anyway ...
I came here to try to enlist you in the creation of an Occultism and Antisemitism page (see Talk:Antisemitism for details). However, something more urgent has come up.
I see now that Kwork and Eaglizard have been by your talk page already. Kwork is correct. There is a punitive edit war going on at the Alice Bailey page. Eaglizard's story is that things have settled down. This is not true, to say the least. The edit war is not over and in fact it is getting worse by the day.
I (Namelss Date Stamp), and not Kwork, was the person who first mentioned the Alice Bailey page at Talk:Antisemitism.
First, some background: In addition to antisemitism, Bailey's cosmological and Neo-Theosophical teachings also oppose "interracial" marriages and deal extensivly with what she called "The Negro Problem". A writer with many published works to her credit, she has active followers to this day. Her writings have had a strong influence on worldwide Neopagan and New Age movements. See Monica Sjoo, Rabbi Jonasson Gershom, and Dr. Victor Shnirelman for more on this -- some of Shnirelman's text is logged at the Bailey Talk page but has not been "allowed" onto the Bailey page itself yet.
This edit war broke out when a mention of Bailey's antisemitsm -- very blandly worded, in retrospect -- came to the attention of some of her followers on a Yahoo group dedicated to the discussion of her teachings. As Kwork has pointed out, one of that forum's participants, an author named Philip Lindsay, said that the Wikipedia article on Bailey was "off" because it mentioned her antisemitism: [2] -- retrieved August 21st, 2007
- [message#] 71 The present Jews are residue of previous solar system
- I know there are some people on this list who believe the current Jews, who are all 3rd Ray Monads, are not the last of the group that came in from the... Zach
- zachrymill
- Feb 21, 2007 2:05 am
- [message#] 72 Re: The present Jews are residue of previous solar system
- Zach and friends, I notice that the section on AAB in WIkipedia is slightly off. There is a 'crticism' section (anti semiticism) where the author not... phillip@...
- Feb 21, 2007 12:16 pm
Lindsey encouraged his fellow list-members to go to the Wikipedia page and change it. This they have done -- many times -- while Kwork, joined by me, have tried to stop them. Thus we have a charge of meatpuppetry to deal with here.
I cannot speak for Kwork, but my desire is simply to see an accurate mention of the subject of Bailey's racism and antisemitism on the Bailey page, similar to mentions on the pages of other occultists -- that is, a sub-head on "racism" or "controversy" or some such, supported by quotations from the biography subject, a fitting of the quotations into an overview by a reputably published scholarly or biographically based source, and a brief rebeuttal from the subject or from another scholarly source, if available.
I am Jewish by ethnicity, as is Kwork. We have stated this on the Talk:Alice Bailey page and have subsequently been accused of "obsessing" on antisemtism by the non-Jewish followers of Bailey. This is very ugly inded, but it is nothing compared to the gloves-off, full-tilt edit war being waged at administrative levels. An AN/I report was filed on me, blocking me from editing the Bailey page for 7 days. An RfC was filed on Kwork, with the "desired outcome" listed originally as banning him from editing any Bailey-connected page -- as you can see here: [3].
We are not trying to turn the Bailey page into a slam-fest against the subject of the biography, but we are being treated as if that were our intent. Punitive administative moves have been made against us, even as we have both called for mediation (which has not arrived). The current group of editors of the page have not achieved consensus but edits are now being enforced by majority rule, with punitive side-attempts continually ongoing to remove dissenting editors from participation on the page.
As an atheist and a non-occultist, and therefore a relatively objective and non-interested observer of the occult scene, your opinion is valuable to us. Please participate in helping us to get this situation resolved.
Our intention is to see that the matter of Bailey's racism and antisemitism are dealt with in an honest, accurate, and historically contextual way at Wikipedia and, if necessary, to protect that material from future obliteration by Bailey's followers.
For comparison, please see this list of Wikipdia articles that deal with deceased 20th century occult and esoteric writers who have expressed antisemitic and racist viewpoints.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papus#1901:_Antisemitic_writings
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade#Controversy:_anti-Semitism_and_links_with_the_Iron_Guard
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola#Racism
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley#Racism
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Wheatley#Politics
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey#Criticism
I'm sorry if this is more information than you wanted to know. If it is not of interest to you personally, or if you do not have time to participate, please pass it along to any other editor you know who is currently working on the Judaism, Jewish History, or Antisemitism sections of Wikipedia.
Sincerely, Nameless Date Stamp 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am interested in helping start an article on antisemitism an the occult. I am however a novice when it comes to creating articles and I have very little knowledge when it comes to using http. As for the problems at the Bailey article I should say that I will watch it and perhaps contribute to the discussion. I refuse to get into a revert war but I have found that sometimes changing the wording is all thats needed. I am sure that you and Kwork may have tried this but I will see if I can help,
I will read the material that you have supplied me with and act upon or reply to it as time allows. It could be the case that wiki has no real way to deal with meatpuppets. Sockpuppets are hard to catch and the penalty seem to be rather marginal. I can therefor not see the upside to accusing them on talk pages. The same thing goes for meat puppets. One should either report them to admin or overlook them entirely. An articles talk page is not the place such comments. I found that out the hard way.
I intend to speak to Sethie about some of his own bad editing habits. I have learned how to get along with non Jews over the years. Perhaps I can help defuse the situation. I will try. Albion moonlight 07:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Albion, for both of your offers. I will deal with them in sequence:
- 1) The Occultism and Antisemitism article: I am very grateful for your interest. I propose that we start by your reading the various pages that were cited above by me (Wikipedia pages on the biographies of occultists) to familiarize yourself with some of the personalities. We can use these pages to glean sources, references, and external links as well. The Wikipedia articles on the Völkisch movement, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, British Israelism, the pogroms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and on Theosophy and the Seven Rays also form a necessary background and povide good sources of references and research ideas.
- Don't worry about the html -- Wiki code is simple! -- and that is something you can leave to me if necessary.
- I propose that we copy the templates (form, style, infoboxes, coding) of the other "Antisemiissm and ..." articles. I think it would be a good idea to involve at least one other of the writers of those articles. Their names can be found by searching the histories of the pages. May that task of seeking and enrolling be left to you (please)?
- I propose that we start with a brief explanation of the fact that antisemitism is a stand-alone in some occult philosophies and that it is a portion of a much more elaborate schema of racism, often with cosmological overtones, in other occult philosophies. This would set the scene for specific usage of the terms antisemitism and racism throughout the article.
- After that, we could break the article down into subheads --
- For historical contextualizing, a mention of the Russian pogroms, the Protocols, the blood libel, and other late 19th and early 20th century scene-setting information would be essential, as would mention of historical antisemitic thought-movements, e.g. Völkisch movement (which, while not occult per se had a tremendous influence on occultism), fascist movement, British Israelism, etc. These could all recive "main article" tags, as they do link to long articles.
- These historical scene setters would be important because the article would later be dealing with Crowley (who, as a fan of Sir Richard Burton, sincerely believed the blood libel and wrote about it at least twice in his occult texts) and Evola (a fascist who wrote a foreward to an Italian translation of the Protocols).
- We could then follow with roughly chronological subheads, and within these, we could have sub-sub heads for each for the major antisemitic authors; e.g. Crowley, Blavatsky, Bailey, Evola; and for the various movements they founded.
- Included in this chronological survey could also be passing and contrasting mention of the NON-antisemitic contemporaries to these groups and authors (e.g. Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, which was semitiphilic; New Thought movement, which was non-racist).
- At the conclusion, we could include contemporary movements, such as Neopgaganism (a mixed bag, ranging from ethnically all-inclusive to virulently antisemitic as well as racist) and satanism (likewise a mixed bag but containing more organizations that are outright antisemitic than the Neopagan movement).
- To anchor the article and give it some meat -- especially since each sub-head would link to all those "main article" pages -- we could provide brief quotes from the aforementioned organizations and authors cited, alongside scholarly quotes about the movements (e.g. from Shnirelman) and statements from various biographers of the authors (e.g. Sutin on Crowley's racism).
- The final task would be to get the article linked in to other wiki pages. It would need to be added to the general antisemitism template as well.
- That's my proposal, in a nutshell. Please comment here and not on my talk page. Thanks!
- 2) Thanks for pledging to watch the Alice Bailey page and to partake as you feel moved to do so.
- At present there is still a lot of stonewalling going on by the Baileyites. I believe that they are using weasel words to downplay direct accusations of Bailey's antisemitism and are also choosing selected "mild" quotations from Bailey to make her seem less racist than she was in print.
- The way they have it worded now, they are using these "soft" Bailey quotes and then claiming falsely that Bailey's critics are "interpreting certain passages" incorrectly, when, in fact, the critics are calling the woman herself a racist and an antisemite, and are citing entirely different passages of her texts as well (which the Baileyites will not allow to be seen on the page).
- I think that they should drop this ploy and, first, let the critics speak for themselves -- not in footnotes. Three sentences would cover that -- one each from Shnirelman, Gershom, and Sjoo.
- I think they should then allow some of Bailey's most racist statements to be published, in brief -- two sentences should suffice. They could then note in rebuttal that Bailey herself appeared to be ambiguous and often said praising or ameliorating things about Jews as well, which could also be quoted, briefly -- another two sentences.
- Thus, in a total of seven sentences, the entire matter could be wrapped up and dealt with honestly, fairly, and from a NPOV.
- (I am posting this suggestion to the Talk:Alice Bailey page as well.)
- Thanks for your interest in the antisemitism / occult article. If you find my outline accptable, please read the bckground and then start writing and give me a link to where you are doing so (either in a sandbox or by creating the article yourself) and my contributions will be forthcoming almost at once. I will not start this alone, as it is a hot button topic in the field of occultism and thus requires some "outside" input.
- Cordially,
- Nameless Date Stamp 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
By all means invite anyone you want to join us. But please expect slowness on my part. I am a fairly busy man and a poor typist as well. I will try to read it all within the next 2 or 3 day unless there is more to read than I bargained for. If that is too slow feel free to let someone else start it I will do what I can to help and am looking forward to helping out with this endeavor. I just thought that I should warn you that my time is limited and my hours are erratic, Albion moonlight 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Just want to say thanks for your kind words, and mention a few things. (Btw, and despite some opinions, I'm being mighty sincere when I say I welcome input.:^) First, I know you're not particularly interested in the topic, so I won't go into detail defending Alice Bailey, but please bear with me while I quote two short sentences from one of her books, Problems of Humanity, published 1947:
- God has made all men equal; the Jew is a man and a brother, and every right that the Gentile owns is his also, inalienably and intrinsically his. This the Gentile has forgotten and great is his responsibility for wrong doing and cruel action.
And, shortly after that,
- The fate of the Jews in the world war is a terrible tale of cruelty, torture and wholesale murder and the treatment of the Jews down the ages is one of the blackest chapters in human history. For it there is no excuse or condonation, and right thinking people everywhere are aware of this and are eagerly demanding that these persecutions end. (italics from original)
I think her attitude towards the Jews is ambiguous, at worst. Statements such as these seem unlikely to spring from any deep-seated or outright hatred. I ask your outside opinion: would such quotes be supportable as rebuttal in the article, do you think? I have hesitated to suggest it to them. Given that she continually identifies herself with "right thinking people", I read the above as a clear rejection of antisemitism; would you?
On a completely unrelated note, I just wonder if you're aware (as you very well may be) that adding "cat" tag like the cat:OR at the bottom of this page causes a page to be automatically listed on a category summary page, meant for interested editors to check out (usually for fixing). Some people consider this sort of use inappropriate; I don't give a crap myself (it made me lol), but only want to make sure you've made an informed choice, as it were. :) Eaglizard 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion,
I hope that you do not mind my adding a reply to Eaglizard, just to clarify. I directed this to him on the Alice Bailey talk page a few days ago, but he did not reply:
Eaglizard, there seems to be a misunderstanding. People, not even the best people, are fully integrated. Every person is constituted of many diverse elements. The process of synthesis is the subject of Psychosynthesis, and I hope eventually to expand that article. It is certainly possible for a very good person, such as AAB, to hold a problematic view, such as antisemitism. SqeakBox said (elsewhere) that I have compared Alice Bailey to Hitler. That is absolutely not correct. I think she held some deplorable views on Jews that came through in the books on occasion, but there is much more to her than just that. Is it really too much to admit that a good person had a flaw? Every human has flaws. From the point of view of Judaism, what counts is what people do, not what they think or say. Since she never harmed any Jews her antisemitism is not to be compared to the antisemitism of those who have done harm. All I have been trying to get in the article all this time is a short recognition that many people think Bailey had the defect of antisemitism. Those who think otherwise can also say that in the article. Then, finally, everyone could put this messy argument behind them and go on to other things. Let me know what you think. I really would like this to end. Kwork 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It was never my intention to turn the article int an Alice Bailey roasting. I just would like a sentence or two recognizing the problem. I have expanded a little more on the subject at the bottom of this page: [4]. But the situation is not going well. I noticed today that one editor of the article has asked at least one other user Arion to start contributing to the article, I suppose in an effort to move the balance further in their favor. This has been my common experience with these editors. They talk nice about only wanting an honest article, as Eaglizard does here (above); but, at the same time, they never stop using whatever methods they can to gain control of the situation. Kwork 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Albion, thanks for the good advice. I try not to be too abrasive, but this has dragged on a long time and being nice seems not to have worked well for me....and, ,besides, standards for what is abrasive are different in Brooklyn, where I live, than the rest of the USA. Sethie has accused me of being too religious. That's pretty funny. Usually I describe myself as a Socialist Zionist. I do have an interest in in traditional (kosher) Kabbalah, but there is no way I can get along with the Chassidic rabbis who teach it, and I spend a lot more time studying Stoic philosophy. I wish this argument was over so I could spend a little more time things that really interest me.
I put a question about the meatpuppet problem on the administrators notice board, but got no reply, and it just disappeared after a few days. (I am sixty-three, never had access or experience using a computer until recently, and and find if very difficult to think in terms of how the system works at Wikipedia.) I have no idea why I did not get a reply to my question. Thanks again for the advice. Kwork 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kwork, your capacity for error never ceases to amaze me. I have never ONCE commented on your religiosity! Sethie 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sethie, this is one of your headings on the RfC directed against me: "Religion seems to be driving edits". If you do not mean it, take it off the RfC. Kwork 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sethie, you obviously "accused [him] of being too religious" when you opinined that "Religion seems to be driving [his] edits" in that RfC you initiated against him -- the same punitive RfC in which you originally tried to get him banned completely from editing the Alice Baily page. Nameless Date Stamp 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the interruption, ya'll. Now, back to our regularly-scheduled conversation.
Albion, I think what I'm asking your outside editor's opinion about is, would you consider adding two quotes such as those to be valid response in a 'Criticism' section? Or would you read it as just "whitewashing", or "denialism"? Or perhaps as OR? (heh) (I also notice I have asked for (and would like) your outside opinion as a Jew on the actual persuasiveness of those quotes, but if you don't care to comment on that, I understand, ofc. Has nothing to do with the article.) Eaglizard 07:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't responded to your last question, btw, because I have posted a proposal at
User:Eaglizard\Alice Bailey Controversies (proposed). If you care to have a look, this will display pretty much exactly what I'm talking about, I reckon. (Unfortunately, I have yet to get any comments from Kwork or "nameless date", so I've no idea if it will be contentious; other editors seem to support it, however.)
Eaglizard 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that you had previously requested that I be tho one to invite the others in I will try but I also noticed that Renee created a stub for it and that you think she got the name wrong. I am definitely going to wait and see how that situation turns out before I invite anyone. Albion moonlight 12:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Albion moonlight, please, let us go ahead with our plans without worrying about Renee's mistakenly named stub page.
- I am hoping and trusting that Renee will rectify the error she made -- because renaming the page and making a rediect is the work of a few minutes for anyone with a user account.
- Please, if you can find the time, do invite a few folks, and let them see the outline (and make comments on it if you will).
- I do understand that you are time-limited -- and such is my condition as well. Beginning Sept. 9, there will be another project on my agenda that will severely limit my play-time at Wikipedia for three weeks. I would like to get a stub or even a roughed-out article in place and on the antisemitism template before that date.
- I am also asking Kwork to join in this project, and posting same at his user talk page.
- Thanks!
- Nameess Date Satmp 17:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nameess Date Stamp, I am sure that you know it would be easier to talk to you if you had a user name page. But, replying here, I could offer some suggestions for sources, and thoughts on the history of the subject, but my wish is to end my involvement with Wikipedia, not increase it. Kwork 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If it can be as simple as leaving an invitation on some of the other Judaism pages I can Probably start doing so tomorrow. Please advise me on this matter. Albion moonlight 08:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure how to procede just yet. It looks like kwork has created the stub you requested but there is also a casual warning there that may require the touch of someone who knows what they are doing. kwork may be that person I am not sure. Feel free to give me explicit constructions if you you need me to redirect it or anything like that. Albion moonlight 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a brief note commending you for your good sense on the tag removal issue for "The Jew of Linz". Good sense in dealing with the article by Wikipedia editors has often been in very short supply. Kimberley Cornish 22:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sad to relate, it is now in even shorter supply; the tag is back. Kimberley Cornish 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- And gone. Thank you. Kimberley Cornish 05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your message. I shall continue to watch the page but probably not involve myself much any more as there seem now to be sufficient editors who understand WP NPOV policies.
Best wishes
Itsmejudith 08:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Albion moonlight. I appreciate your sticking around and helping under the circumstances. I know from experience (arguments with Alice Bailey followers in other circumstances), that their approach can turn very ugly if they start to worry things are not going to their liking.
Kwork 11:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm not worried. As for canvising, Jamesd1 has been inviting in people that he thinks will help him all along. Kwork 12:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Editing other people's comments almost always causes more damage than it is attempting to prevent. It can turn people from somewhat annoyed to utterly angry, for example. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I put it back to its original quote. I just didn't want to see him get in trouble. Albion moonlight 19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Albion moonlight, thanks for trying to keep me out of trouble. However, it is nothing to worry about. If I should get blocked from editing the article, or from Wikipedia, I would consider it cause for a celebration. (I actually picked up that particular phrase from my youngest daughter, which she picked up at Swarthmore; and I never considered it anything beyond an expression of annoyance with unmanageable situations.) Kwork 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
template mehopes Albion moonlight 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Catherineyronwode
Heya Albion, your recent comment to the effect of "don't start an edit war, buddy, or I'll kick your butt" was not only inappropriate and likely to be bad for the article, it also seemed really out of character for you. To me anyways, as far as what I perceive as "your character" here. I also notice that you repeated yourself, and signed your comments multiple times. Maybe I'm out of line here, but are you aware that drinking and Wiki-editing are not a good mix? If you weren't drinking, I'd suggest you consider whether adrenaline may have been affecting your typing -- and your judgement. And I hope you see this as a friendly comment, because it's meant to be. See ya in the trenches, comrade! :D Eaglizard 10:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Eaglizard, you are really out of line here. Kwork 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Albion moonlight, I know that my my discussion, and editing, frequently seems over overly rough. Believe me when I say that I would love to be editing in pleasant circumstances, but the methods used by Jamesd1, Sethie and Renee do not allow for that because their approach is not compromise but winner-take-all. Kwork 12:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- After a little more discussion with Eaglizard today, I am convenced that his occasional hints of niceness are just window dressing, and there is nothing to distinguish his intentions, and methods from those of Jamesd1. But I suppose you knew that before me. Some chutzpa really, to say that you should not start an edit war when that is what they have engaged in all along. Kwork 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Kwork, I don't mind so much that you seem to follow me all around to other's talk pages, injecting yourself at will. For instance, the comments I made to Vassyana could certainly be expected to draw a response from you. But this -- this is entirely between Albion and myself, and has nothing to do with you. And I suspect, from the biting graciousness of Albion's reply to me, that he's quite capable of defending himself. Would you butt out, please? Thank you. Eaglizard 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Albion (sry to use a bullet, but somehow the thread of "my" section has been hijacked) -- I just want to say thanks so much for your understanding reading of my comments. I considered removing the alcohol ref, but I decided eventually that it's an honest version of my reaction to your comments, so you should see that. I din't mean to accuse you, just to relay my own impressions, and I'm glad you seem to have taken it that way. Also, glad to hear you're free of those particular vices, wish I could say the same. Grandchildren must be a much nicer way to spend the time! Gratz and Good luck with those. :) Eaglizard 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that my first reading of your comments had me thinking that you were being facetious but when I read it closer I understood it as it was meant to be understood. The biting graciousness you may be referring to may have come partly from my first reading. Its hard to say. But it needed to be said.
Allow me to suggest that you contact me via email if you want to speak to me in private. I like every one to feel welcome on my talk page. I don't always check it so perhaps just leave me a message here and ask me to check my email and I will get back to you asap. Meanwhile I will thank Kwork for trying to stick up for me and ask him to assume good faith when it comes to your comments on my talk page. It is part of our culture to stick up for each other or at least it seems to be. Do as you like of course but it seems like a way of avoiding potential conflict between the 2 of you. And thanks for your comments and have a happy.... Albion moonlight 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- lol, Albion, likely you didn't intend to be biting; the graciousness what bit me was the image of myself crankily barking, "Hell, are you drunk man?" to a kindly gent with grandkids bubbling on his knee! I doubt you did mean it that way; but it quickly made me realize I wasn't being very generous of spirit. :) Eaglizard 07:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Albion moonlight, so that you can see that it is not just Jews who have problems with the Bailey teaching, and with Phillip Lindsay, you might be interested in this [5]. It is written by a Russian member of the Agni Yoga forum. Mr. Lindsay had said some very nasty things about Agni Yoga on the Agni Yoga form, and about its founder Helena Roerich (but then Roerich, many years previously, had called Bailey's Tibetan a member of the Black Lodge and not a Master). Interestingly, Agni Yoga is a group which was always welcoming to Jews, with a teaching that considered Judaism good, not evil. I have had a number of very acrimonious discussions with Lindsay on various e-forums. I have not met him in person, but tried to arrange a meeting when he was in NYC this past spring. He refused to meet me. I still have the e-mail I exchanged with him. Kwork 14:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just want to add another link to that same argument with Bailey followers on the Agni Yoga form
[6]. You may see some similarities to what has occurred here.
Kwork 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think I understand what you're saying as "We've had to endure mild antisemitism", and "this antisemitism is probably unintentional because some non-Jewish editors don't realize they're doing it". How does that rationalize someone deliberately doing the same thing in reverse? I really believe that "Non-Jewish" is very much a real class in some people's mind, and those people don't seem to like those of us who are in it -- or at the least, they suspect our motives because of it. That's called bigotry, or prejudice, as I'll bet you already know. The way I see it, because you've suffered discrimination, you should be less likely to inflict it, knowing how it feels. Besides, where else have you heard "They've done the same to us, so this is only fair"? Not in any good context, I'll bet.
I would re-phrase your comment in a way that applies not only to me, and other non-Jewish editors, but applies equally well to yourself and other Jewish editors: "Mild prejudice is very seldom understood to be prejudice by the people who make the prejudiced remarks." (See also: Carlos Mencia). Pot, kettle, etc. Eaglizard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, thanks a lot, Albion, that made my day! The Der Sturmer joke really made me laugh, but that "I must have diabetes!" bit is one of the funniest jokes I've heard in a long time! Thanks again! Btw, it does count, it counts for quite a lot, thank you for your kind remarks. :D Eaglizard 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- And dangit, I forgot the other day to say "Hi Matthew!" ... hope he'll forgive me. :) Eaglizard 21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Albion moonlight, I admire your optimism in giving Eaglizard a link to an article about Jewish humor. My experience is that pretty much no one but the Jews themselves have any interest in Jewish humor, in the Jewish laws a speech (I gave him links for that thinking it could clarify the communications difficulties of the editors), or anything else that represents the Jewish tradition. That goes double for Alice Bailey, a 'spiritual' teacher who told her students that everything from the Jewish tradition is worthless and outdated, at best; or is evil, which is what she called Zionism.
Everything that transpired in these discussions only served to convince me that the Bailey teaching is even more problematic than I thought at the start of these discussions. I never once saw the slightest indication that any of our opposing editors made even a slight effort to see things from the Jewish perspective....despite the fact that Bailey actually give her students a meditation intended to develop empathy and sympathy for others. I met this problem in earlier discussions with Phillip Lindsay, and other such Bailey followers. The problem remains that Bailey had a lot to say about Jews, but everything she said is incorrect and based on false assumptions. If they actually would start to work at developing a real understanding of the Jewish tradition, discarding prior assumptions, they might begin to understand what we have been saying. But how could they do that when they have prejudged the Jewish tradition to be completely worthless, and even evil? I really do not see how anything can be said that could solve the problem. Kwork 12:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that some of the editors other editors did make concerted efforts at empathy towards us I just think that because they are editing on an emotional battlefield rather than an intellectual one neutrality becomes all the more difficult to achieve. This is not to say that they are not intellectuals, it is only to say that they have an emotional interest in protecting Ms Baileys reputation. I just try to understand that and proceed with caution, : Albion moonlight 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is quite humorous in itself, to me, given that I spent two hours copy-editing Jewish humour, I liked it so much! heh. I see all my edits there still stand, too. :) Oh, and don't even get me started on Lenny Bruce or Woody Allen, the two funniest guys who ever lived (who weren't named Richard Pryor, anyways). Nah, I just don't like other racial groups' humor, I guess! lol Eaglizard 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Yes, I think you are trying to be neutral and appreciate it. I was referring to this dif, which I actually only noticed after I first posted on the talk page. I do think Parsifal's trying to help too and appreciate his efforts. Renee 11:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dano :: Jeffy Taylor 10:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I know people on the "bombing of Dresden" page have been dealing with Igor patiently and in good faith (his line there is "Wikpedia is not a democracy" but that we must have consensus - which in this case means giving one person an absolute vetoe and dictatorial rights over a page... absurd!). I, alas, have lost almost all patience for racists and anti-Semites at Wikipedia. And there is little I can write that won't simply be rude. I hope enough admins notice and comment on this to merit decisive action. I left the message on Jpgordon's page because he usually handles things like this in a much more even-tempered way than me. If you know other people of sound judgement perhaps you can alert them to the issue. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You're completely mistaken about my view. The fact is that Jewish Bolshevism is an Antisemitic expression, and historicall speaking, it was used so exclusively; it has no Marxist, Communist, or Bolshevik meaning whatsoever. Do you not know that? -- Ludvikus 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Danny. I don't mind if the suggestion gets lost at this point. I was really just cross at all the personal sniping. Having looked back at Parsifal's new version, I think it is a good improvement. It's certainly a comprehensive summary of what she wrote about Jews and Judaism with a minimum of interpretation. WP philosophy: let the facts speak for themselves. Best wishes. Itsmejudith 12:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You are responsible for your words. You now need to study and explain the sentence above which you left on my Talk page. Ludvikus 15:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your definition of Jewish Bolshevism. I think the term is hopelessly tied into communism and I know that I am allowed to disagree with you. Albion moonlight 16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I really do appreciate the "pat on the back", Danny. Your compliments are very confidence inspiring, as well. I hope Matthew is doing well. :D Eaglizard 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, I forgot the other thing I meant to say. As far as the social aspects, if I were (still) a "follower of Bailey", I would consider Wikipedia to be, perhaps, the single largest group meditation ever undertaken on Earth. :D It would clearly be a dramatic experiment in new methods of group working, to say the least. Eaglizard 07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- My comment above is about what Kwork wrote, but it's directed at you. I try hard not to engage others in discussion on someone's talk page (although I fail sometimes). Anyways, I'm from a very dysfunctional family, myself, so maybe that's why I feel so at home here! lol Eaglizard 08:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and speaking of Jewish humor, it keeps running through my head lately how truly strange that word "Jewish" really is, when you think about it. I mean, we say things like "Is he a snob?" -- "Well, he's snobbish." or maybe "Was she very tall?" -- "Well, she's tall-ish." -- But to say "Is he a Jew?" -- "Well, he's ... Jew-ish" somehow just doesn't seem right. As if "Jew" were something nobody could quite become, but people can only be "Jew"-ish. Strange, I think. I wonder how an actual Jew sees that? Eaglizard 09:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments about Jews and Jewishness are really very interesting to me. But the point I was trying to make here is, I guess, a very subtle semantic, one. Actually, it's not about the "concept" at all, but just the specific words Jew and Jewish. Let me explain: when we say someone is "tall-ish", we mean that they are not exactly tall, but somewhat so. Sort of like other related "-ish" expressions, such as "Be there around 10-ish." It doesn't mean "10 o'clock sharp". So, wouldn't "Jewish" mean "not exactly a Jew, but Jew-ish"? It's really just a sort of dumb play on words, of the kind I happen to like a lot.
Regarding your comments, however, it's very interesting to me because the definition of Jew is so incredibly difficult to pin down. I've seen many editors state that "Jewish is not a race", and some have even argued directly that "Jewish is a religion". This is at odds with most Jews I've known, who have seemed to speak more as if it were a race, and who have been decidedly non-religious. However, I believe you are the first person I've known who identifies as both a Jew and an Atheist, so this casts a lot of doubt on the "religion" theory, doesn't it? Out of curiosity, do you have a working definition of what it is to be makes a person a Jew, other than "if your mother was a Jew"? Or, do you support the maternal inheritance definition?
In any case, while its very nice to have a rational discussion about this with someone, I'm thinking I'm now guilty of abusing the WP Talk namespace. I wonder if there's a talk page discussion somewhere where others have expressed views on this subject. I'm just betting there is. :) Eaglizard 10:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh shoot, I forgot to mention that I too see similarities between Jews and Christians, fundamentalist evangelicals in particular, who focus on original sin, and man's inherent guilt: I was raised a Southern Baptist, and my mother weighed me down with guilt like you would not believe. I loved Woody Allen's introspective, angst-ridden jokes even as a very young man, simply because I identified with him, and his (apparently) very Jewish mother. His actual "Jewishness" itself was next to meaningless to me at the tender age of 16 years. (ah Annie Hall... oh so long ago! In fact, most of my early impression of "Jewishness" was based entirely on Allen's exaggerated on-screen persona, which I had to unlearn some of later, when I met real Jews.) And I certainly do not identify as a Christian today, btw. Although not an Atheist either. Nontheist, I suppose, or Agnostic, if you must. Eaglizard 11:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I am not particularly concerned; but, if I am suddenly gone, thanks for your kind help.
About the subject of Jewish atheism, there is a lot of leeway for that in Judaism which emphasizes ethical actions over declarations of belief. I have a friend who is a very observant Orthodox Jew (he even founded a Jewish school north of the City) who makes no secret of being an atheist. Kwork 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Albion moonlight. You asked when it was that Renee got me blocked from editing the Alice Bailey page for 7 days. That was back in August, i think. She and Sethie (who now seems to be gone from the fray) tag-teamed me and had me up for incivility. I was editing as an anon IP at the time, due to a former fray, a year earlier, in which my husband and i were falsely accused of sockpuppeting one another bcause we are married and share similar editing interests. I had decamped from wikipedia in disgust, then returned as an anon, so as to avoid the accusations. What Renee did was get a semi-protction on the page, which barred anon editors (of whom i was the only one) for 7 days. I abided by the block, edited other pages, and also during that time had a nice heart-to-heart talk with the admin AnonEMouse, who encouraged me to ignore the old sockpuppetry charges, because they are often made against married couples who edit, and are not taken seriously by admins, and to resume using my login, which i did, but only after the ban was lifted. Right now i am less concerned about Renee than about the editing of Jossi, whose work exhibits a high level of intellectual opacity, in my opinion. cat Catherineyronwode 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Jossi is an admin, which is a powerful role, but as an editor, there is a real lack of understanding about the matrial iteself, and what you call lack of "concentration" -- there is no attempt to structure the material logically, but a lot of moving things around.
When i saw that the "On Judaism" subsection had been folded under "The Jewish People" subsection of the "On Races, Nations, and Religions" section today, i saw that i was up against the same kind of ignorance that obtains at, for instance, Barnes and Noble bookstores. (For all nations other than Israel, the books on military history are shelved in their respective categories -- for Israel alone, the books on military history are shelvd under "Judaica" -- as if the non-Jew cannot grasp the fact that there are, as we all know, Jews who are not even remotely interested in the Jewish religion, yet who still identify as Jews.)
(Side note: It was only after i married a non-Jewish man (my third marriage, the others having been to Jewish men), did i realize that non-Jews often do not understand the inclusiveness of the concept of Jewishness and its separability from the religion of Judaism. The issues of "race" versus "ethnicity" versus "religion" with repect to being a Jew were troubling to my mother's generation, but as a baby-boom generation Jew, i feel perfectly comfortable referring to myself as "genetically and culturally Jewish".)
So the fact that Jossi moved the religious "On Judaism" section into the "Jewish Race" section only gave me that mildly pukesome feeling i have learned to ignore all my life, and i set about to right the problem, by breaking the links that had joined the Nation-Race-Religion section (which i had created in the first place) into three parts, thus allowing me to move Judaism back next to Christianity under Religion, to place Israel next to the United States and France under Nations, and to place the Jewish Race and the Negro Race side by side under Races.
It took some time, but it should settle the issue, and i doubt it will anger Jossi -- who i do not think has an agenda (ike James did), but is simply ignorant of the issues.
cat Catherineyronwode 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, I am Jewish, speak fluent Hebrew and lived 13 years in Israel. I am very familiar with these distinctions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also FYI, I am somewhat familiar with Theosophy and Rosicrucianism, as well as being well read on religious and philosophical subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I just reverted the Che article because someone removed sourced information (BBC News, I think) for unsourced information. I have never done that before, certainly not on Che. I must admit I will back off if anything violent starts to occur. -- Mattisse 00:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.
Some suggestions:
- Discuss the article, not the subject;
- Discuss the edit, not the editor;
- Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
- If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh, that seems like a serious overreaction to your statement "I am going to assume that Jossi has concentration problems. Please be careful Cat. You may be dealing with a loose cannon.". I don't think expressing concern about whether an editor is (to use my own words) "paying attention", or whether an admin is a "loose cannon" could be called personal attacks at all. But that's just me, maybe. Eaglizard 18:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Jossi. Could you explain what you mean by "not useful"? Also, I said on you user talk page and am saying again here, your trying to silence criticism on user talk pages will only cause users to take conversation to email, resulting in situation where virtually everything is hidden instead of in public. Kwork 19:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to note something, but first, isn't it fascinating what you learn on user talk pages sometimes! Its just pathetic that B&N would put Israeli military history under "Judiaca". Sad. And I must say, I'm quite surprised to find that jossi self-identifies Jewish. Not that I doubt him, I just wouldn't have guessed, I don't think. (Oops, I guess I'm really just saying "Funny, he doesn't look Jewish!" lol)
Anyways, I notice that you still seem to see User:Reneeholle as being involved in an "alliance" of some sort. While I'm not interested in defending Renee on this, I just want to be clear with you that I am not part of any "alliance" with her, or with anyone, outside our common alliance to Wikipedia policy. If you are particularly concerned about this, you could note that while I have encouraged her, like I encourage everybody, to file 3RR reports whenever necessary, I have also suggested that there's no need to fly off the handle, either. I think Renee, and all editors, would agree that editing on the article has taken a definite turn for the better this month. Eaglizard 18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I don't know any more than you about that change to the talk page, but I'm under the impression it would be very hard indeed to fool the edit history. I believe its considered indisputable in arbitration hearings and such. On the other hand, it really doesn't bother me much at all. I am kind of curious what whoever did it was trying to accomplish, but I generally don't care. I did ask jossi what he thought about it. I've never seen this done before. :/ Eaglizard 11:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
...about Sparkle's long message on Jossi's page. I had already seen her message, but if I hadn't, I would have wanted to know about it.
The quotes she listed included combinations of quotes from several people. I don't think she did that intentionally, maybe sometimes she gets confused with the wiki-editing interface and keeping track of who wrote what.
I don't know how much she's involved with James or his conflict of interest, but I do know she has never edited any other articles. I've tried to explain to her how WP works, and I've suggested she edit some other articles to try and have some fun with it instead of only thinking about the Bailey article. But she hasn't shown any interest in doing that, so with her whole focus on Alice Bailey, she's going to feel frustrated.
About her complaint that people have complained about James, the way I see it, he created his own problems. He came here with an agenda and was very aggressive about it, then when he couldn't control Wikipedia, he left. Then he popped in to show his new article, and popped out. I'm sure he's still around...
Best wishes! -- Parsifal Hello 05:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I vaguely recall that Sparkle mentioned in one of her posts a month or so ago that James (and Phillip?) had been guest(s) in her house. I didn't pay much attention to it at the time, and rather than wonder about her social life, i have wondered if she was born in 1947, like me, that being the year that Sparkle Plenty was introduced into the Dick Tracy comic strip. (I know this because my mother actually toyed with the idea of calling me Sparkle Plenty!) cat Catherineyronwode 09:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm curious what answer you found! -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Danny. I have been wondering if the Bailey article should have the antisemitism template added to it. What do you think? Kwork 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to edit this comment but I don't know how to respond to your message you sent me about the antisemitism page.***
Ok, so i know the page said it includes more than just Jews, but what you need to understand is that the term should never have been used in the first place. However, the Jews (actually Zionists) want everyone to think they are always persecuted in order to leverage their agendas i.e. israel. Another example is the Jewish student who reported a hate crime for someone drawing a swastika on her door. Later on the police found out that she was the one doing it. I am in no way shape or for antisemitic because I love all those who are encompassed by that word (Jews, Muslims, Christians, Arabic speakers, etc...). Furthermore, I am in no way shape or form anti-Judaic (anti-Jewish). If you or society want to use a word describing persecution of Jews, than use one that ACTUALLY MEANS IT!.
- This is not an edit to the comment, rather a comment in its own right. I don't know where to write my own, sorry again.*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.94.188 ( talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse the mess, it's my first message.
I finally remembered to check you up while i was online. I haven't seen you after work for a while but i still have two weeks till France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly d man ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Chris you can Email me here
Albion moonlight 09:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Italic text
Heya Danny, thanks very much for the reply! I don't mind a bit that the question wasn't addressed to you, in fact I rather wish I had asked you!
Honestly, I find the issue really confusing on one hand, although completely understandable from the simple perspective of being a human being. :) I can hardly imagine what it would be like to grow up with the spectre of the Holocaust the way you describe it. I can completely understand why Jews would be sensitive to antisemitism, the same way blacks are sensitive to bigotry. I mean, the kind of treatment both groups have received, and grow up being "spoon-fed", is just astonishing in the depth of its cruelty — both groups have received the very worst of European behavior.
On the other hand, do you suppose that this thing could cause reasonable and intelligent people, such as yourself, to make mistakes in your thinking? As an atheist, don't you find it somewhat necessary to agree that "the Orthodox Jewish faith" is, at least, outmoded? It seems to me that Bailey is making the same exact sort of accusations about Jewish religion and all religion as did Bertrand Russell, who was, as you may know, a rather famous and persuasive atheist himself. Your reference to the equally illustrious Chomsky would seem to indicate that, yes, you do think even very intelligent men can be swayed by such deep emotions.
But the problem I see isn't emotional tendencies, which we all have, so much as the tendency for some editors to conflate things in a very bad way. For instance, any reasonable adult familiar with the facts must realize that Zionist is not completely identical to Jewish; if Bailey calls Zionists "criminals", does that really convince you she thinks all Jews are criminals? Do you really find it so unreasonable to question (or, in this case, indict) the actions of the Zionists? I don't believe they were any more "free from sin" than I am; if Bailey says Zionists were evil, is that really so incredibly inflammatory that a reasonable Jew could not possibly say "Well, she's entitled to her opinion of a political movement" rather than "Wow! She really hates Jews"?
PS: Notice I'm not saying the Zionists were (or were not) evil or criminals. I'm just saying, it's not really that unreasonable to suggest it; not unreasonable in the sense of common moronic racism such as "You must be stupid, because your skin is black", or "You can't be Jewish, you don't have a big nose." Those are unreasonable statements. Eaglizard 09:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I was gonna go put one of those "Welcome to Wikipedia" templates on your friend's new Talk page, but I thought you might like to do that. :) Eaglizard 09:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
PPS: Danny, it occurs to me that maybe this isnt the sort of discussion Jimbo bought his servers for us to have. :) I got your last email, if you want to respond, maybe that would be more appropriate. Eaglizard 09:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
PPPS: Re: email, no just r'cvd the one, btw. Eaglizard 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Here [7] is where i wrote the following in May of 2006:
- I responded [to a cite-tag edit war on the Aleister Crowley page] -- with an attempt to get an admin (User:jpgordon) to help me -- but it soon became clear that i had run up against a clique -- INCLUDING THE ADMIN, who was sending private Thelemic cult "93 and spoon" messages to Frater5's talk page and claiming "we have a very similar take on the real meaning of Thelema; and I imagine if you've spent any time with organized Thelema in the Bay Area, we've got some people in common"
- SynergeticMaggot|Zos and the cozy admin jpgordon made repeated and heated false complaints against me for three days straight, claiming that i had made additions to the page by quoting books that did not have proper citations, although i was NOT the person who made those additions (two others did), and even though i repeatedly told them i was not the person who had done that work. They did this despite the fact that KV and Bo-Bo were responsible for the additions and (more tellingly to me) despite the fact that the material, which was from old books, could be easily found online in digitized form and any minor page number errors corrected. All through this, admin jpgordon backed the Thelemites up.
Jpgordon knew that i found the private "brotherhood" messages he was sending to certain disputants, and that's when he began harrassing me by claiming i made edits that i did not make. He knows that i reported this, but that my report was ignored. He knows that i will never forgive his lying about his administrative neutraility while privately cozying up to his Thelemic buddies during a dispute he was supposed to mediate. He knows that i left Wikipedia due to his harrassment and due to the unfairness of a system that allows him and people like him to be adminstrators. He knows that he has abused the administrative privileges he enjoys and that i know this too. He is now on the ArbCom committee -- which speaks very poorly for that body's reliability.
And, i'd like to add, his behviour in the Alice Bailey situation is equally reprehensible. His banning of Kwork came out of nowhere, with no discussion after another admin had merely put a temporary block on Kwork -- and this came right after he refused to support the requests of three or four users (Kowrk, you, parsifal, and me) when we asked him to consider temporarily blocking jamesd1 and sparkleplenty from editing the article (not a wiki-wide ban, just a temp blok from that article). He misuses power, pure nd simple. Our group request for relief from tendentious and COI-involved editors went unanswered, but his ability to ban someone forever by single-handed cowboying exited him to action. That really says it all. cat Catherineyronwode 07:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Danny, I'd just like to point out that Admins, and especially ArbComs, have to be vetted by a large cross-section of the community (you and me, that is). cat's complete disagreement with that community's assessment of jpgordon may be entirely correct. Or, it may, rather, speak poorly for cat's ability to see things straight. I don't know which is true; but I do know that WP process is working pretty good so far. (On the other hand, there are, of course, increasing reports of admin abuse and cabalism, so maybe she's right. I don't know.) Eaglizard 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Danny since you've expressed an interest in learning more about Bailey's thought (albeit from a somewhat dubious source), I'd just like to make sure you understand what I consider the most relevant part of it to all this, her teleology. Remember, Bailey is first and foremost a "reincarnationist". In the end, according to Bailey, everyone "gets to heaven". No one is "cast out" or "burns in hell". Ascendancy to higher and higher levels of consciousness is assured for all conscious individuals (with very very few exceptions). So all of her claims about race, religion, whatever, are based entirely on a temporal view. In the end, it doesn't matter, Jews and blacks and everyone else attain Mastery through lifetimes of struggle.
All forms of behavior, sensuous or religious or moral or scientific, all forms of life, bodies or feelings or thoughts, all are temporary stages along that Path, temporary expressions of the "indwelling life", and all must be given up when they have out-lived their usefulness. She sees this struggle to "let go" of the old, worn out, and dead forms as the fundamental challenge of humanity. But there is no possibility of "doing violence" to anyone, because the "indwelling life" (or "soul") is immortal, and impervious to harm. All pain results from this "attachment" to "forms", the refusal to give up the old and the dead, and all pain is a temporary illusion from the point of view of the "soul". Every single thing Bailey has to say must be understood in this context, or you will entirely misunderstand her.
None of this is necessarily my opinion, you know, I'm just explaining hers as I understand it. Bailey seems to take it so far as to treat the Holocaust as a "temporary inconvenience", which I suppose from her point of view maybe it was, but I myself would never suggest that to any of the victims. But, you see, Bailey would say that's just because I'm "attached" to the idea of physical comfort and physical life (which I truly am, ofc). And I suppose, if my soul were to meet the soul of a holocaust victim, a million years and thousands of lifetimes from now, perhaps they might see it that way by then, too. I still wouldn't be the first one to bring it up. lol Eaglizard 13:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything Is Illuminated is a very interesting film, just in case you have not seen it-- Woogie10w 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I rented it on Netflix-- Woogie10w 11:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This is, according to the image page, a fair use image. As such, it cannot be anywhere but article space. You have this on your userpage. Would you please remove it? Thank you. I (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions. I have been watching the Holocaust page for around 6 months now. I like what I see. The problem with redirecting is an emotional one for me and I think this may be the case for all of us. Please do not take my decision to oppose the redirect personally . It just didn't feel right. Your point of view is very valid and you have done more good work on that article than I will ever do. But it just didn't feel right. So be well my brother and thank you for your participation thus far. I do appreciate it.: Danny Weintraub Albion moonlight 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Danny, yes this is an emotional issue for me. And trust me, I really don't want to redirect, I was trying to get people to support my original belief that The Holocaust should be specifically about Nazi Genocide against European Jews. The article has become a jumble of data about ALL Nazi atrocities, which deserves an article, just not in an article about THE Holocaust. I was trying to find a compromise. So, personally I am opposed to the redirect too. But I need the support of individuals like you to help make the article what it should be. Thanks for your kind comments! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for the alice bailey revert etc etc, : Albion moonlight ( talk) 09:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. Thank you for your message. I am replying on your page because I didn't like what happened after I edited that article, so I don't think I can be involved there any more.
- The person with no user id who added the wrong information added it back in again after I removed it, and then put a mean lie on my user page that I had to erase. I looked at that article talk page after that and it seems like there is some kind of cult or religious dispute going on. That's too much bad vibes for me, so I am going to edit other articles instead. But I wanted to say hi and also to let you know that that person had put that wrong sentence back in the article in case you did not notice because I already added some other stuff after that. Good luck with your editing! -- Linda 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Albion moonlight. Thank you for the reply. I hope will take care next time. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 10:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, yes, you voted 3 times for NYB. I know he is a good candidate, but... ;) Also if you look at milestone you will see that your 150th edit in namespace (0) was on 27 Nov. As per some rules somewhere, yu must have 150 mainspace edits before 1Nov to vote in these elections. Hope this clears it up. Regards Woody ( talk) 10:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing very well, thanks, hope you and Matthew and all the rest are having a great holiday season. :)
As for Linda's edits, I almost left her a note on her talk page, but I got distracted. Do you think I should? I thought the New Thought reference could be acceptable, but not without a cite to somebody else saying it. Frankly, the connection isn't particularly clear to me. What is clear, however, is that the message of The Secret (2006 film), ie, prosperity, is precisely the opposite of that of AAB. DK tells would-be students and disciples constantly that they are letting themselves in for a life of poverty, painful karmic discharges, and constant toiling in total anonymity. So, no, I think that part's out... :) Eaglizard ( talk) 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you please rejoin ther discussion on the Peter Yarrow Discussion page. Your renewed input would be helpful. David in DC ( talk) 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not the Secret, but the Law of Attraction belongs there because Alice Bailey wrote about it in a whole chapter. I think the people that made the Secret movie maybe used the real spiritual ideas and changed it into the prosperity ideas to make money, but I don't think they thought up the idea, I think they got it from the Theosophy people includeing Alice Bailey too.
Separating the merged articles was was confusing to figure it out, I hope that doesn't happen again. I thought they should be separate because they're not the same thing. The person who did it should have talked about it first.
Did you see the page where someone is saying that the Djwal Khul article should be deleted and a bunch of other articles too? It's here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion - I'm going to write something on that page to say the article should not be erased but I haven't figured out what to write yet. -- Linda ( talk) 11:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you are making this stuff up, so you must be getting it from somewhere. Would you list your sources for this information? It would be good if you did. If you don't know how to do this, I could point out some examples. Thanks Steve Pastor ( talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just added a couple of words and a reference, too. In a few days (if I remember) I'll change the format to the more sophisticated one. You don't want to have a reference for each sentence, but what will happen is that eventually someone will tag the article or section unless it has int text references. Anyhow, I'll make that change in a few days. Happy editing. Steve Pastor ( talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that in defending user John Celona you might not have paid close enough attention to: 1) the inflammatory and hateful tone of his edits 2) his flaunting of requests of other editors 3) his blatant anti-semitism and holocaust denial which creates POV concerns for subjects of jewish faith, including Mr. Yarrow. Please take a closer look at his edits and talk page -- Jkp212 ( talk) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Is your 13:47 comment meant for me? I thought it was clear that my comment, although chronologically following a comment by you, was, like yours, a reply to Liftarn. Moreover, you bring up the question of "ownership" and I never mentioned ownership at all. If you go over the discussion now I hope you will see why I find your last comment confusing, maybe you can clarify to whom it is addressed. My general view is, if one editor responds to another editor, and later wants to elaborate on the response, s/he should add to his or her original response. Otherwise, the editor risks the eppearance of responding to someone else. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks wanted to be sure Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Operation Respect, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.operationrespect.org/about/history.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 12:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Danny
- I used my knowledge of html to get me as far as your talk page. Thank for the heads up about Wikipedia. I will try not get in your way if we are both on line at the same time. These computers all seem to have the same IP address I am not sure what will happen if we are both logged onto wikipedia at the same time. : Utah Smythe ( talk) 08:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Can be found here [8]. I don't like bios like this as they are written by very low level flunkies who write what they are given. I imagine in this case this bio is based wholly on the one Dana wrote on his website, hence I'd like independent verification of any information -- 88.172.132.94 ( talk) 11:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There now seems to be a place in the article where you can put the "false analogies" criticisms you suggested recently. The "homeopathy is like CDs" statement could have an extra sentence with your ref. I'd help with the picture, but I don't know how to do it either. Thnx -- DrEightyEight ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Yarrow mediation
Hello - I have filed a request for mediation over the dispute on the Peter Yarrow article, and I have named you as an involved party. I would very much appreciate it if you would visit the request page and consent to mediation in the appropriate section. Thank you, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 08:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- My pleasure - I just hope some good comes out of it. At this point, I'm more or less equally frustrated with Jkp and Celona, but hopefully some involvement from a mediator will persuade them each to be more willing to seek common ground. Thanks for your involvement in this as well. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Albion, Per a suggestion by Jack-A-Roe I redid the RFC completely to focus on content and then archived the old RFC discussion as a permanent record. I hope this is okay with you. Some of your previous comments were on users so they are in the archive. I'm hoping if we can stick to content that we'll all build good will (and believe me, I understand the frustration of going over the same things again and again).
Sooo, Is there anything you'd like to see content-wise on the archive? Do you think the references are vetted properly already? Do you think any section needs to be worked on? needs feedback on? These would be good things to add if you were so inclined. I hope you'll add a comment. Renee ( talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Albion, it appears from Renee's comments here [
[9]], that despite some nice talk, her goal is still to remove the same content that she has contested from the beginning, and that her methods are still divisive. I hope that she does not think I am too tired or busy to stay involved.
Malcolm Schosha (
talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- sigh...Malcolm, this is not true. You are mind-reading my motives. I'm simply trying to be responsive to your points that there was nothing specific so I went back and grabbed Claude's points and gave specific comments and then set up a venue for you to give specific comments. Come on, haven't I demonstrated good will by completely re-doing the RFC, withdrawing a claim of ownership when you asked, and then trying to give you exactly what you want (specific questions). Please recognize good intentions and that I'm trying to be responsive to you instead of attributing mal-intent to my good will. It gets tiresome and makes me wonder why I even try. Renee ( talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
A
Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been
accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Hey Albion - in case you're not watching the page carefully, a mediator's finally been assigned to our case at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. Now we all have to agree to the selection of mediator, so the sooner you could head over there and have a look the better. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to announce that the Peter Yarrow mediation is open at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Peter_Yarrow#Opening_the_Mediation. Please visit that page to read the issues and make your opening statement. Thanks MBisanz talk 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that the first part of the mediation, on category assignment in the Peter Yarrow article is open at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Use of categories. MBisanz talk 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have posted the following ANI: [10]. Please chime in as appropriate. David in DC ( talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Doh!, I probably overwrote a blank section by accident, just copy the code from another person's and add your own content. And feel better in RL. MBisanz talk 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[11] - declining to edit war. [12] - declining to accuse of sock-puppetry [13] - seeking an ally to accuse me. With respect, I think these cites suggest your comments on another talk page reflect a misimpression. David in DC ( talk) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Protection is almost always applied to the wrong version. See M:The Wrong Version. Since folks are in mediation it'd be better if folks aren't editing actively anyway. If one editor is holding up consensus then it may come time to call-out that editor for disruption. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It would appear from a quick review of your edits that you meet the requirements of 600 edits before March 1 and 50 edits this year. Quick way to check is to visit Special:Boardvote. If it lets you vote, your qualified, if it doesn't, than check back with me. MBisanz talk 08:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- toolserver link Albion moonlight ( talk) 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I checked with the election's commissioners, are you eligible and able to vote at Special:Boardvote so it might be issue. They said if you can't vote, could you give me the
"[a] what wiki he is voting from, [b] exactly what error he gets (quoting the error message), and [c] the URL where he gets the error?" so they can hunt down the problem, if there is one. MBisanz talk 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the election's official I spoke with on IRC does not speak english as a first language, so his message might be a bit off. However, he did assure me you are on the list of people able to vote. Since there is a handoff between the WMF servers at Special:Boardvote and the exterior server, the linux box your logging in through might be messing it up. Let me know if it doesnt work on a windows machine. MBisanz talk 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've set up a duplicate of the article here - go nuts. I need to run right away, but I'd be quite happy to work on its expansion along with you, especially if you can give me a list of hitherto unexploited sources. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 14:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say by all means let them know right away, though we should probably stress that this is intended as a space to expand the non-controversial content of the article, and not just a place to renew our old fights while the real article is protected.
Sarcasticidealist (
talk) 07:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments to Animate certainly sound like an accusation, and one that I am happy to have verified. Stop with your nonsense. You are NOT the mediator. Express an opinion on the topic at hand if you like, but please stop trying to play politics. It's not your role. -- Jkp212 ( talk) 00:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate to tell you this, but David didn't contact me. I contacted him. The first (and to my knowledge only) interaction we had was on the BLP noticeboard. Ani Mate 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please see this David in DC ( talk) 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop trying to be the mediator. That is not your role -- focus on expressing your opinion on issues being discussed, not running around talk-pages trying to sway the politics of it. You end up being much more disruptive than helpful. FYI, the reason numerous editors (not just david and i) have worked to have celona removed is because he has disrupted the project repeatedly. Get it straight: no one has a problem with his "radical views".. It's when he goes about inserting problematic material n BLP's (which are the most sacred articles), and virtually ignores every other editor to do so, then we have a problem. We are simply trying to deal with the problem. -- Jkp212 ( talk) 01:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed unfortunate that he didn't participate in his RFC and I think in light of the situtation, blocking him was the best thing to do. Useight ( talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this; its' very much appreciated. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 15:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Heads up. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
More on The Jew of Linz
Would you let me know the procedure for reporting to ANI on the recent editing incident? Thank you, Kimberley Cornish ( talk) 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. I have posted an ANI complaint. Best wishes, Kimberley Cornish ( talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The ANI investigator, sadly, appears to have sided with the perpetrator of the incident. I don't really mind, so long as my citations aren't edited away. That Flew thought I was correct is an important matter to philosophers familiar with the names of eminent philosophers, but not, I think, to Jaysweet. I suppose this is a fact of life with a publicly editable encyclopedia. Anyway, the Flew reference is now gone on Jaysweet's decision. Would you mind sending me a contact email to kimberley.cornish @ arts.monash.edu.au? (Just omit the spaces around the "@"? Kimberley Cornish ( talk) 05:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer to help, Danny. For me the subject of the article is of secondary importance, and perhaps not worth a fight -- particularly not right now. The reason I got involved is that the bulling methods of some editors (one an administrator) seem very unfair. But if you look at how enormous the files are, and how crummy the state of the article, it really is discouraging.
I hope you are having a good summer. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Danny, if you get a chance could you take a look at this [14], and tell me what you think? If it seems like I am being unreasonable, I will back off. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And while the link in question is not positive about Yarrow, it does not advocated an unreasonable viewpoint about Yarrow and provides a useful resource on the incident and aftermath. John Nevard ( talk) 11:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been a while, but i just wanted to drop by and say hello. I went away from Wiki, then came back. You know how it is. I found that Malcom had reappeared too, and he even dropped in on a page about some Catholic anti-creationists that i am trying to save from deletion, not because i like it, but because it contains useful information about their links to other groups and people. It seems that i often run afoul of the directive that "Wikipedia is not just a collection of random information." Trouble is, i don't see any information as useless or random -- to those who have the intellectual capacity to integrate it. Well, anyway, when i saw Malcolm's name i thought of you too, and just wanted to say hello. Good wishes, Catherineyronwode a.k.a. "64" a.k.a. "Nameless Date Stamp" 64.142.90.33 ( talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Unspecified source/license for Image:Albion.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Image:Albion.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Edits to Ian Tyson
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to
Ian Tyson. For
legal reasons, we cannot accept
copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. Material cannot be copied into Wikipedia as is from The Canadian Encyclopedia or any other non-free source.
Dl2000 (
talk) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)