User talk:Aaron Schulz/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Phroziac (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

George Bush poll

You asked me to explain my vote for locking the Bush article. It's pretty much what I said in the Talk page. Besides the vandalism, there is a lot of POV-war, which is people who have a point of view (or think their point of view is NPOV) and want to get it in the article. One persons deletes something and someone else puts it back in. Or rephrases it just enough to pass NPOV (e.g. "many people think that ...") and maybe, over the next several days, changes it to get their original wording back in again. And so it goes, back and forth. So we don't converge.

In a committee, when a large group has difficulty agreeing on the wording of something, it is frequently useful to give it to a small group and let them prepare a draft (the Declaration of Independence was done this way). I think this is a possible solution to the POV-wars. Lock it, give it to a task force to rewrite, and then open it up again. --Shoaler 11:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

May the force be with you!

File:Spirtis jedi.jpg

Thank you from your nice comments about the image of Yoda and Kenobi on my user page. I find that scene of Star Wars my favorite as well. It is when everything comes full circle and the efforts of Kenobi and Yoda to restore the Jedi and perserve the Jedi values are realized. As well I think it is a wish of many people to be able to, at the end of their lives, come back and see the sucess of something they spent their lives to foster and preserve. BCV 17:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Voiceofall.jpg

Hello; the image you've got posted on your user page is a copyright violation. Content on Wikipedia must be made available through a GFDL-compatible license; we clearly don't have permission to redistribute the image under those terms. It's not enough to give the author credit or even to have permission for copying, we would have to have permission to redistribute altered version of the image. I seriously doubt we'd get that.

You are probably free to link to the image on R. K. Post's site, but you cannot upload it to Wikipedia. Please take care not to upload such images in the future. Thanks. JRM · Talk 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Directly linking to the image is fine (it won't display inline, of course). JRM · Talk 00:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Replied to your comments on my talk page to prevent the discussion from breaking up. JRM · Talk 01:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I should like to apologize

for being, well, an idiot. I had thought pretending not to know what a puppet was was good for trying to hold cover on being not me, in an attempt to move beyond what i now condsider a bad phassae in mny wikipedia career, that being my old name. sorry if i offended.Gavin the Chosen 10:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks

for the vote of confidance.Gavin the Chosen 20:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Attacks on Kennedy articles

Some anons showed up in response to the RfC last month. I'm guessing that they were different people, but all recruited by 24.147.97.230, the one who started the attack on the page, and who thought that s/he could stack the vote with a bunch of anons. More recently we've seen several anons who edit exactly as 24.147.97.230 would; they're probably the same person, who also probably set up the Ernestocgonzalez account to have a registered name to use when that seemed convenient. Agiantman began editing Wikipedia a month ago, exhibiting the same tendency toward biased edits but concentrating initially on subjects related to Bill Clinton. I don't believe in seeing sockpuppets behind every tree. I'd guess that Agiantman is a separate person from 24.147.97.230, but shares the latter's ideological bent. As the anon intends, of course, the use of multiple IP's will make it harder for him or her to be blocked for the multiple violations of Wikipedia policies. JamesMLane 04:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JamesMLane that User:Agiantman is not a sockpuppet. He at least has the courage to insult people in edit summaries from a signed-in account. Robert McClenon 11:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that they are tag-teaming. I don't see any explicit rule against tag-teaming. I think that they are trying to game the system to avoid 3RR, but I don't want to write that up without proof. What User:Agiantman has done that is completely outside the rules is to engage in personal attacks, such as to accuse me and JamesMLane of vandalism, and to accuse JamesMLane of being a sockpuppet of Robert McClenon (or was it vice versa), and to accuse me of being on the Kennedy payroll. (The sockpuppet allegation is the really stupid one. He and I post in true names.) Robert McClenon 16:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I will make the petty criticism that I do not think that removing the stupid obsolete poll was a minor edit. It was not. It undid something that was close to vandalism, but it was a major edit. On the other hand, thank you. Robert McClenon 01:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no rule against tag-teaming in the sense of multiple different editors holding the same views. If one editor is using multiple user names or anon IP's to circumvent the 3RR, though, then that's a violation. I suspect that's what's going on here. JamesMLane 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No topic at all, certainly not something obscene

Hi. I'm just a bit puzzled by why you blanked my previous message. Blanking talk pages is generally considered poor form, and people may think you're hiding something. I fully understand if you don't want any sort of discussion on the topic I previously discussed, though. If you just blanked it because you got the message and don't need it cluttering up your talk page, okay (though that's frowned upon). If the blanking is a sign that you're ignoring me or furious about the whole situation, please, uh, let me know? LizardWizard 04:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one. I don't want that topic on my talk page. Also, there is a talk page down there that I wrote on twice, as opposed to my talk page. Hope that explains. That image actually shocked me AND it is redundant and unencyclopedic. Therefore removing was aneasy choice.Voice of All(MTG) 05:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

If you're bored, cast your vote in this losing battle....Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency--MONGO 10:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not revert again

Personal attacks and discussions about users do not belong in article talk pages. The removal of comments are proper under WP:RPA. I'm not trying to get into an edit war. I'm trying to tone down the rhetoric in the article. I would certainly appreciate some help in keeping this discussion clean. I know its hard due to the political nature of the article itself, but it can be done if we keep user discussions out of the page. Thanks in advance for your help. - Sleepnomore 05:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know what you mean by accusing you of anything. All I did was remove stuff. If I've somehow made you feel I was attacking you, I certainly wasn't trying to. In fact, my only purpose in being here is to provide some impartial cleaning up and trying to help get people focused on the article instead of each other. Thanks for understanding. - Sleepnomore 06:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Thanks for the note,but this really isn't my battle anymore. I've made my attempts to make "peace" on wikipedia, but there are too many folks on this site that have nothing better to do but "hate" and cause hate. Its just not for me. Its all misdirected in my opinion. There isn't a clean politician in the bunch -- republican, democrat, or otherwise. I don't know why people follow them blindly. They try to put us into neat little groups so they can heard us up better and count on our votes. Then they run the country into the ground. The only difference between the politicians is the manner in which they screw you over. I have a tendancy to feel that the encyclopedia should list all indiscressions of all politicians regardless of affiliation. This is the only way that we can hold their feet to the fire and hold them accountable. If they want a balanced article with good and bad listed, they need to make sure their life reflects that balance. Putting things into perspective on this site in the name of NPOV truly becomes rediculous at times and becomes counter-productive to true encyclopedic accounts of a man/woman's real life.

Anyway, I've wasted enough of your time. Good luck with the discussion over there. I know its a hard battle but you seem to have a hand on things. - Sleepnomore 15:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture - comments requested

My photo of the bust of Antinous, currently under comment for featured picture

[1] I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy Talk Page

I appreciate your intention in suggesting that Sleepnomore and Agiantman take a break from the Ted Kennedy talk page. However, I think that you are being naive if you think that either of them will listen. I agree with your comment on Sleepnomore, which appears to be that she has an attitude that she is superior to the other participants in the discussion in terms of being objective. As for Agiantman, I suggest that you read either your own user page or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman. Thank you for trying. Robert McClenon 22:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you point it out?

Where am I claiming that everyone is biased and I'm not? I am biased. I tend to think that all politicians should have their dirty laundry available for public research. But putting that aside, I fail to see where your rather large admonisment was called for. I've been involved in the give and take of this page. I was against the replacement of the term "sexual assault" with plain "assault" until given evidence of florida statues. Not only did I then agree with the assessment, I posted additional evidence to support the claim. I've done nothing but try to help. I've ignored the majority of personal attacks and when I do respond, its typically on user talk pages. I've managed to make one joke about Ted Kennedy and perhaps that's what you are referring to. Perhaps that was in bad taste, but once again, thats something that could have/should have been addressed to me in a user talk page rather than lumping me together with an obvious problem on the page. If you want to call for removal of two bad influences, I would say that Silverback and Agiantman are your men, but I dont see you calling for Silverback's removal despite is consistent disruption of the fruitful discussion. In the future, I would suggest and appreciate that you take up matters with me on my talk page first and leave the personal attacks off of the article talk page. They are nothing more than a distraction. - Sleepnomore 01:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I also kindly ask for your removal of this personal attack from the talk page. This is unacceptable behavior. - Sleepnomore 01:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It perhaps implies arrogance on your part, but it is merely a summary of your blanket statements and the implication(perhaps you didn't mean it, but it certainly was seen that way) that you stood above everyone else and their partisan edits.Voice of All(MTG) 03:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It perhaps implies arrogance on your part to simply make a statement on a user talk page that I am being partisan without bringing it up with me. Unless you had an intent to grandstand in front of everyone, I don't see where your call was useful at all to the discussion, but instead reverted the talk page back to a "he said she said state". Perhaps I am arrogant, but you've demonstrated that you are incourigible and can't learn from the past. Making statements like this on article talk pages without first making attempts on user talk pages will inevitably cause problems. You should correct your mistake by removing this section before it gets out of hand. - Sleepnomore 03:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Even if you were not arrogant, it doesn't change the fact that that only created more frustration, several times. You should have toned down the blanket accusions after the first time, as they just put every one else further on edge. Also, unless there is clear vandalism, if I lose a revert war due to 3RR I just quit right there.Voice of All(MTG) 03:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy Talk Tag

I fail to see where I have said anything that would cause such an accusation. I've done nothing to provoke anyone. In fact, I've made attempts to lighten the situation. If I am to leave based on what little input I've put into this article, then I would guess everyone should take their toys and go home. Can Voice of ALL(MTG)point to what pattern of behavior I've demonstrated that somehow warrants this response and for me to be lumped in with Agiantman? - Sleepnomore 00:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You are no where near as bad as againtman, but you did several things to warrant this:

1. "Have we really come so far and become so right-wing and left-wing jadded that we can't look at the fact that a United States SENATOR was involved in a RAPE TRIAL..."
2. "Its now quite clear that the hatred of the users between one another follows the same example that our so-called political leaders set."
3. "Whatever your feelings for him, he has been involved in an awefully suspect number of events that could be construed as negative (trying to put it nicely)."
4. "This is part of what is wrong with this country -- we fail to find the ability to speak with a civil tongue (notice I said we because I get caught up in the same childish behavior too). First, how about we not call everyone into question simply based on their opinion here. Secondly, how about we start respecting each others opinions -- no one is winning by bickering here."
5. an addition, the is the 3RR violation of reverting this talk page not long ago.

As you mentioned on my talk page, Silverback is not perfect, but his minor civility issues are not the same as someone else intervening on a talk page and deleting comments. Comments laballed as "personal attacks," many of which were not and on top of that, several people wanted them back anyway. On top of all of this, you seriously violated the 3RR against multiple users.Voice of All(MTG) 02:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC) Voice of All(MTG) 02:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK So you've proved my point that I've not made myself look any better than anyone else and proved your own point invalid. I've made a point to try to include my own faults. As far as the 3RR rules go, I've not violated them. Specifically, I've worked within the rules for reverting during vandalism which was rampant on this page. - Sleepnomore 03:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

"Notice I said we because I get caught up in the same childish behavior too" does not necessarily mean that you are doing it now, just that it happens sometimes. By attacking the clearmindedness of others, it was implied that you were supposed to be clear minded yourself, hence putting you above the "POV" others. As you gave massive blanket criticism for the people previously on this talk page when you came, it only iritated Silverback, JamesMLane, and the others. They were using logic and encyclopedic standards(read the archive) while Agiantman and several IPs were giving personal attacks; then you came in and claimed that everyone was a hateful partisan blinded by politicians. And even if that was vandalism being reverted, much of it was not. If I violated the 3RR while deleting legitimate comments I would be blocked for 48 hours.Voice of All(MTG) 03:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. So my responses were purely childish and irritating while your responses were highly informed and carefully crafted? I forget, who was being elitist? - Sleepnomore 03:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I never said that. You feel as if I am equating you with Agiantman(although I by no means am). That is how we felt when you gave those blanket accusations, which seemed to equate us with Agiantman. I think that we can agree that nobody wants to be equated with Agiantman;-). Also, if it seems that I am criticizing all of your comments, then I apologize(and reworded the notice above to reflect that), many of them were useful. The problem is that the blanket accusation, equating everyone with Agiantman were very counterproductive. Silverback was especially annoyed, which just hindered the debate.Voice of All(MTG) 03:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I appologize that I've given up on Silverback. I've made several attempts to act civily and each were met with personal attacks. The fact that he's annoyed with me can't be helped at this point. This entire conversation is inappropriate in an article talk page as you've simply reverted this conversation back to what it was before -- an attack fest. I've never made blanket accusations equating anyone with agiantman and I don't see that reference above. If we want to talk about perceptions, I'll be glad to describe how hyou are perceived as well, but this isn't the place to do so. I suggest, once again, that this sort of discussion go back to the user talk pages so 'again' we can go back to discussing the article instead of these distractions. - Sleepnomore 03:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for moving this discussion. Its examples like this that I think can help calm the tone. I may sound arrogant, but I'm simply trying to remind people that the discussion is supposed to be about Ted, not us. - Sleepnomore 03:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy Vandalism

Hello MTG, I would consider the removal of two entire paragraphs to be vandalism. There was no notes posted, just the wholesale destruction of this material. Thanks for putting the waitress incident back. 24.147.97.230 05:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Between the waitress incident, Chipaquidick and the Political Resurrection section info, I believe that most of the criticism of Kennedy that you wanted is already in there.Voice of All(MTG) 05:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Check out WP:RFA for requirements and the process to ask to be an administrator. :) --Golbez 07:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ray Nagin

Ray Nagin: Check out the repeated reverts going on here. Anon 209 is pushing a strong anti-Nagin campaign there...might want to read through it and see what you think.--MONGO 20:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but bear in mind that I think that getting involved in controversial articles in a very civilized manner is the best way to gauge a person's suitability for Admin. I do understand that you don't want to get involved, just know your sentiments about vandals equals mine. Let me know when you go for it so I can support.--MONGO 01:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Corbeh

Blocked indef. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan

Is my name, and I'm female. It's not odd. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem Voice - and thanks! :)

Deletion

I admire you work here on Wikipedia, so I decided to leave you this Deletionist's Barnstar.

Take care, Molotov (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

red warning

Please don't do that again - it was obnoxious. If you have a concern, please put it on my talk page where it belongs and not in the middle of VfD debate... mmk? Thanks. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I hope I didn't sound mean. I've been fighting off vandals and trolls all day and need a break. I removed my comment there too. Take care :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought

This may not satisfy all of your needs, but if you don't show some support, we're not likely to get even this much. — Xiong熊talk* 10:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments, although I wish it were true that I was not the least bit affected by trolls – they do get to me sometimes. android79 15:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Need Your Help

I recently found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black aces in which you voted keep. Around a day after Black aces I created Black Aces unaware the other page was there but my has a little more content except the links. I need you change your vote to merge both articles together. Ty --Aranda56 00:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The charter is here. (Relating to Esperanza)

Hello Voice of All(MTG), the Charter for Esperanza is up. Take a looksie :) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually I already looked 5 min ago.:)GOod work! I wonder how this assembly will turn out.Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 03:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza made less bureaucratic

Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The last time I'm spamming you all with Esperanza stuff

Hello Voice of All(MTG). As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reform on all neccisary polls. P.S. I'm very sorry for spamming you all with these messages, and this will be the last time. I recommend putting ESP on your watchlist. Cheers and please look at that, let's stop the civil war then. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Advisory Committee election deadline set

Our new admin general, Essjay, has set the date for the advisory committee elections, that date being October 7th. By UTC it is October 5th right now. So see WP:ESP/E for voting in two days, and add yourself to the list if you're interested in running. On a personal note, I'm considering running, as I only resigned as admin general because of time. I'm sure I could help out on the advisory committee... Anywho, watchlist that page, and be sure to read the voting method too. Regards, Redwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza Spam

Hello Esperanzians! A few announcements.

The Advisory Committee election results are in. In tranch A are Acetic Acid and Flcelloguy. In tranch B are Ryan Norton and Bratsche.

My other annoouncement is that our founder, JCarriker, has founded Esperanza's sister project, Wikipediology. I have written two essays here (my name is Matt Binder). My essays are under Teenage Wikipedians and Anon Editors.

On behalf of myself and Jay Carriker and the other wikipediologists, I would appreciate it if you were to join.

Cheers Esperanza! Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Image request

Hi Voice - Could you provide a source for Image:Larrykramer.jpg →Raul654 04:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for your assistance on Neuro-linguistic Programming. I think I need to take a few days wiki-vacation. I'm getting too emotionally involved in this discussion. Could I submit some proposed changes to you and ask you rewrite them for NPOV? Or there a NPOV taskforce around here somewhere? --Comaze 14:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

GWB

We crossed edits...got a preference for either version? EricN 16:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

re: boothy443

I think that a simple oppose vote such as he/she often does, without even a "per above" or something similar, should not be counted. As far as being a troll, I dunno, but possibly in violation of WP:POINT as I consider oppose votes like that to be disruptive.--MONGO 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to stick to my vote. Calling someone a "possible troll" doesn't condone the attack. While I'm sure you meant well, I just think that a month or two more would be beneficial. Anyways, let me be the first to congratulate you, since it appears your RfA will pass. And oh, sorry about the orange bar of death, I couldn't resist. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA

Thanks for leaving me a message. The picture is indeed me, and I actually joined Encyclopedic Merit because I saw it in your signature not an hour ago. :P

Addressing more serious issues, would you like me to answer your question here or on my RfA? User:Purplefeltangel/sig 04:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza and Encyclopedic Merit

Hey. I wasn't aware that Encyclopedic Merit had ever undergone a VfD -- your signature was the first time I ever heard of it. ^_^; On Esperanza: I've thought about joining, but I've never really been sure what it does or what kind of commitment it is. Can you explain that to me please? User:Purplefeltangel/sig 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Jobe6

Hey, I'm beginning to think an RFC might be needed on him, it seems like his beliefs might be a sour grapes reaction to losing the Esperanza Election, but I haven't checked his contribs, I just have seen him grow more nasty, particularly on RFA, since then. What do you think?Karmafist 05:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Esperanza

Joined! Thanks for the explanation. :D User:Purplefeltangel/sig 06:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hi, Voice of All, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Voice's RfA

I know the vote was last-minute and you were going to win consensus anyways, but I felt it necessary all the same. Congrats. ;) --tomf688^{talk} 14:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688 RFA vote

I'm trying to make sure that I take the time to thank everyone who voted in my RfA, and verify that they don't have any concerns over my experience, neutrality, etc. If you have a problem, please drop a line on my talk page and I will answer it as best as I can. Again, thank you. --tomf688^{talk} 14:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: statement

Does it really sound that snappish? :S But I'll make it nicer. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 17:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ugh, never mind; the guy already replied. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 17:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• I hate Harry Potter in general. The books are poorly-written and badly-paced and popular for no reason and everybody seems to think they're ultra-smart for reading a book that was eight hundred pages of random trash. Want to feel smart for reading a long book? Try Ulysses. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks, Please remove

---

Original Message -----

From: kategibbs To: info-en@wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:18 PM Subject: TalK: List of Australians in International Prisons

Dear Sir/Madam

I am appalled at the way you allow Wikipedia to be used for people to vent their personal attacks on people, which has recently happened to myself. Please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Australians_in_international_prisons#Improvements_for_article

I was informed some time ago that people had been posting about me and the work I do at www.prisonersoverseas.com

I received an email this morning saying that whilst searching for Prisoners Overseas using my name, the above came up in the google listings. I have not been able to defend myself and the information is incorrect, including the fact I live in the UK, when I am based in Australia. It is in response to my setting up of Prisoners Overseas. This person has sought to blacken my name. There is a comment there from a Robert Frost of Prisoner Dispute in the UK, this is a fictitious name and fictitious organisation. The whole attack on my personality and work is fictional and appalling.

I have been accused of being someone called Diane Elgar, whom I am not. I would ask that this be investigated and removed immediately. I made one post sometime ago in defence of Stephen Sutton whose listing was being vandalised.

This is a blatant personal attack which you state you do not allow, yet this has been on Wikipedia for some time now. This is effecting genuine charity work.

I wrote to you some time ago which was ignored. Please answer this letter and remove this appalling use of Wikipedia.

Regards

Kate Gibbons www.prisonersoverseas.com kate@prisonersoverseas.com

RfA comment

In my comments about PFA's RfA, you accused me of flaming. I don't see how you base that remark. I would not do that to anyone.

1. When I made that lighthearted comment, I had no idea of her age (and I still don't care)
2. My remark about Christmas was merely to imply that the community may forgive her previous vandalism by December. I certainly will support it after some time passes. It was a joke! Lighten up.
3. My contribution to her RfA, or to any RfA, has nothing whatsoever to do with my RfA. I harbor no ill will to anyone in wikipedia because of my RfA, in fact, I agree with some of the comments that the people who opposed it made. I am trying to address those concerns and may re-apply at some point in the distant future.
4. If you want to do an RfC, feel free.

Again, I am not an insulter, flamer, or someone who has "sour grapes". I hope this clears this matter up. Please contact my on my talk page if you have any further questions. --Rogerd 01:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Boothy

Like you, I am happy to have a bit of an explanation from Boothy about his Oppose votes. I am going to paraphrase the reply he left me over at my RFA. Cheers, Johntex\^talk 02:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Your sig

[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|'''<span style="color:blue">Voice</span><span style="color:darkblue"> of </span> <span style="color:black">All</span>''']] ^{<small>[[user talk:Voice_of_All%28MTG%29|<span style="color:blue">@]]<span style="color:black">'''|'''</span>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:darkred">Esperanza</span>]]<span style="color:black">|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit|E M]]}</Sup></span></span>

is your current sig. You could change it to

[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|'''Voice<span style=color:darkblue> of </span> <span style=color:black>All</span>''']] ^{<small>[[user talk:Voice_of_All(MTG)|<span style=color:blue>@</span>]]'''|'''[[WP:EA|<span style=color:darkred>Esperanza</span>]]|[[WP:WPEM|<span style=color:black>E M</span>]]}

So that it's much shorter at a fraction of the length. Please consider it. Here is what my refined version looks like:

Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M}

--Celestianpower ^háblame 17:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

re: RfA

Thanks for the advice. Oppose vote number 20 (from AngryParsley), though, was because I got mad at him in IRC for making fun of Cool Cat. I'd give up forty thousand RfA votes to get Parsley to lay off him. But alas, I shall try to RfA again in maybe March or April and hopefully that will have been long enough for these people. :) ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Your concern

Thank you for your vote Voice of All, but I can assure you I am not a POV editor as described by many editors on that page. Please see [this] for my explanation of Tony's concern. Also see where many of these users are coming from [2]. Thank you.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I remember that, t'was in my first week of editing. Now I would just like to mention a few things: enviroknot is an indefinitely blocked vandal and sockpuppet (see his user page), that information was not sourced (and after it was I accepted it) and also that that was in my early days of editing. I have come far from then. I don't claim that I don't make mistakes, but I don't completely regret what I was doing there, because user:enviroknot made offensive remarks against me. So I would just like to suggest that you look at the edit history of that article and the old talk page discussions along with enviroknot's record and his arbitration case that blocked him and his other 80 sockpuppets. See this is also what I have to put up with on the articles I watch: [3](people promoting hate sites). Thank you once again, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Btw, that was the only 3rr I ever violated. I learned from it and never committed 3rr again. ;)--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely my friend. I think you were swayed a little by Tony's comment, but I really do think I do a lot of community service for the pedia. If you would like, you can look through my recent contributions. With the exception of the one small disputes I had, before my rfa, I was reverting atleast 25 cases of vandalism per day. No joke. And also read some of the major contributions I have made recently at Halaal, Pakistan and Iblis. As for the anti-Indian edits, there is no such thing.

I haven't edited any wikipedia articles about India, only ones that were about Pakistan or the disputed territory of Kashmir. I am very interested in South Asian history and I get along well with Indians who do not have an anti-Pakistan stance and vice versa. I am of course American and neither Pakistani nor Indian and one of the editors I get along with best is Indian (user:Madhev0)! It's just that at one time that I was trying to make articles that had a very patriotic Indian bias neutral and this was interpreted as anti-Indian. Both editors who were reverting my edits knew that they were doing wrong, and I am glad that I settled my disputes with them. This includes a mediation I self-settled and also one where I compromised tremendously. I have watched those articles for vandalism and reverted it many times and I have even spent my time fixing charts and titles on those pages. At times, I can be stict, but I am undoubtedly neutral. I have also settled disputes between other users on those articles. So when others say that I have an anti-India bias, it really ticks me off. :) As I said before you can check my contribs if you want and I appreciate you taking the time to address these concerns. Thank you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not true, and it's not the first time you're not honest: You edited in Islamic invasion of India, Babri Mosque, and india-related stuff on State terrorism and probably some other. I admit however that I should have said south asian, and that the vast majority of your SA edits are in kashmir/pakistan and not india articles. As for the bias, everybody can check his edits himself. Kefalonia.

[4]. If you scroll down to about the middle of the page before my Rfa began you can see all the vandalism I reverted. If you go even more back you can see more reverting vandalism and major cleanups of articles, including Dajjal and Isa and Jesus and Moses and Pakistan (I got a barnstar for this one) ;) and others. Hope that helps :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I'm also a fellow member of the CVU. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Afd's? You have got yourself a deal. Just tell me when and where, I have no problem with that. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually what you can do if you want is just cross out your vote in opposition and then say that "his reasons convinced me" or something along those lines. Thank you in advance, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

re:boycott

Not only was I the first to sign, I actually started the campaign. ;) I will definitely boycott if the sidebar link thing goes through. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥(NO ADS!) 22:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor Rfa

Thanks for the assist, Edit Conflicts are annoying. Karmafist 23:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've found that doing quick little edits per section can help with that, although I don't do it on neglected articles. Keep on rocking in the free world. Karmafist 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

VOAcard.jpg

I'm sorry but I had to remove the image VOAcard.jpg from your userpage and delete it since fairuse only applies on the article space and only if the picture is actually used in an article. The image in question is copyrighted Wizards of the Coast. Thanks. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the NLP article, maybe check out Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/FT2 for a possible proposed approach to the loggerheads and flames? FT2 08:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

If NLP is in fact a pseudoscience, then I invite you to read the pseudoscience section in the NPOV policy. Thankyou for staying on the page. best regards, --Comaze 12:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Body Parts Slang

The vote seemed to me to be more of a non-consensus. The valid keep votes were, in my opinion, cast because it was felt that the article did not violate the policies you mentioned, not despite the fact that it did. Youngamerican 13:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I just came by to thank you for your well thought-out and well-explained closure. I'd have started a new section but I see there's already one on this topic. In response to the above, I just re-read the discussion, and I don't see any keep votes that argued that the article did not violate WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Obviously, as nominator, I have an interest, but I think you did a great job. Friday (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This debate might need to be over-ruled, then: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang. Youngamerican 14:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I just counted the valid votes again, and would have to agree that there is in fact a consensus to delete. I do feel, however, that there needs to be a discussion on what lists stay and what lists go. The list I mentioned above seems to be equally encyclopedic (or perhaps unencyclopedic) as the body parts slang. Youngamerican 14:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed several links that led to this article and have learned many. many things that I simply did not want to know (especially about a cosmetic procedure that Lara Flynn Boyle may have had). Also, I noticed that the sex slang article is being moved to wikibooks...could the body parts slang also be moved there, too? Youngamerican 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, we'll find out sooner or later.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 15:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Relatedly: I was one of the Delete voters in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2. Since some of the information contained in that former article may be appropriate for Wiktionary, and since I have a mind to move as much of the slang as is appropriate from here to there in an effort to increase WP:NOT compliance, I was wondering if there was any way you (as the closing admin) might be able to send me the last good revision of the article in order to facilitate this future project. Whether yes or no, thanks for your work. --Kgf0 20:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming article

Hi Voiceofall

I have recently appreciated your contributions to the NLP article which I was involved in editing until fairly recently. I haven't had the time to contribute as I'm currently starting a new business, which is taking up most of my time

I just wanted to draw your attention to some activity that has been going on in a yahoo group (skeptics-forum). There has been a strong parallel between events on the discussion site and requests for information/postings on this site and it seems fairly certain that one contributor there is currently involved in the editing of the NLP article. The thing that concerns me is that there is clearly a strong agenda here based largely upon misinformation, and I wonder about the possibility of reaching a fair and representative article.

The following is copied directly from the yahoo group site, skeptics-forum, although I have removed names. This is just one example, but it's fairly representative of the view that is being pushed in the article.

QUOTE BEGINS

"I am interested in the psychology of self delusion and wishful polyana thinking. I actually recently took a step back from close scrutiny of NLP to look at is in a broader historical context.

Its fascinating.

Probably the main core belief (presupposition) of NLP is Korzybski's "the map is not the territory". This is a kind of a step away from normal objectivist science. In the 30s he developed some ideas about re-programming people in a theraputic way. Problem is you can infer that "reality is not what it seems" and claim "I have the right reality" instead.

It seems to me, the next guy to pop up was LRon Hubbard with dianetics "the science and technology of achievement". Full of pseudoscience, re-programming, engrams, traumas, inner demons etc but with none of the added aliens of scientology. -- And of course map/territory ideas, with some verbal stuff and heavy command hypnosis and psychotech. Early psychotechnology!

Then we have science fiction writers such as Hubbard, Van Vogt etc who made waves and further inspired minds with map/territory stuff in a fictitious kind of way.

Esalen institute crops up in the 60s, full of the people who were inspired by these things (and the huge financial success of scientology, and EST seminars etc).

Grinder and Bandler get together with some other guys from Esalen new age human potential seminars, take some more coke, and ask "ok, whats the next mindF@%#?"

It needs to be something that makes you insecure/deluded (you have failed to be Einstein because you have not made good use of your 90% untapped potential) (your very words can screw you up big time) etc.

So they start the Hubbard way again. Removing traumas, treating engrams, normal is not good enough you must be your best and tap your shamanic roots, regress into your past lives, etc and be as you were designed to be in the pre-socratic golden age of magic.

You may have noticed in the bookshops, the "dianetics" book and "Unlimited Power" do look kind of similar:)

Do what works, DO NOT ask why!

Things have moved on, and I have noticed some NLP people selling Inner Demon DestroyersTM:) NLP remote viewing, remote seduction, remote influence in business etc. Build yourself a very remote view:)

Both mild and aggressive cults are using NLP, and who can blame them? The presuppositions in NLP have been setting people up for delusion, paranoia and the ability to create confusing excuses for many decades already. NLP seminars often use the "command" hypnosis (not suggestion) that scientology has been banned for using in certain countries. Some seminars even use very liberal use of expletives, even though pillow bashing simply does not work according to science.

I noticed that EFT and other energy theorapies often NLP also. Nice combination of pseudos. I am also looking at how NLP groups are using NLP concepts to create extremely high social pressure for sales. I noticed some energy therapy promoters performing some scary acts of occult domination and social pressure creation for obvious self interest advancement.

Anyway, history repeats itself. Back to to uncle Ron Hubbard:)

Cheers"

QUOTE ENDS

This narrative is so full of assumptions and just plain wrong information it's almost funny. I don't know how this kind of thing plays out in NPOV, obviously multiple views need to be represented. It just seems like all the rules are being bent by some editors to get the particular version they want. It would be helpful if questions posted were responded to, instead of waved away or ignored, but as soons as anything challenges the core message that NLP is a 'mindfuck' related to cults, it gets ignored in the discussion or reverted in the article.

Regards

Lee

Feel free to contact me on my user page if necessary, or I can supply an e-mail

User conduct complaint: HeadleyDown

I would like to make a formal complaint concerning user HeadleyDown. It seems this user is disrupting the normal flow of discussion, using straw man arguments (attacking other users and points of view, rather than presenting facts fairly. There is a pattern of failure to comprimise on anything, even when the facts in favour of showing other views. Violation of 3RR using sockpuppets (AliceDeGrey, JPLogan, DaveRight, R.Right). Manufacture of consensus by using sockpuppets. Notice that this user makes a post and then uses one of the sockpuppets to blindly support the post, even if it is blatantly biased or even a misrepresentation of a source. The pattern has been repeated for weeks, and may scare other editors from weighing in on discussion. I think that this user is either using Trolling techniques, or practising cheap reframes using the anonymous to overcome normal social rules and boundaries. Recent discussion on Neuro-linguistic Programming show these views. What is the next step here? An RfC on this user's conduct? --Comaze 00:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

collaboration on Neuro-linguistic Programming

VoiceOfAll, I'm find it extremely difficult to colloborate effectively on Neuro-linguistic Programming. I have made numerous edits to fix grammar, spelling, minor factual error, and have been reverted. This was a sign of my good faith to improve the article. I then made a addition to the recent development section. All my edits were clearly marked with proper comments. Poor grammar is throughout the entire document. I'm currently checking all the references so adding page numbers and dates is useful for everyone. Wikipedia prefers reputable journals for reference and outside opinions for references, so I have been adding these whereever possible. HeadleyDown has removed notes, removed references, and imported massive bias into the document, eg. [5] sometimes simply justifying it based on a personal grudge, sometimes with legitimate questions. Reverting these clarification is a violation of the policy mandated by cite your sources official wikipedia policy. --Comaze 03:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sexual terms

I would think a discussion like this is better suited for one of the Administrator's Noticeboards than Angela's talk page. Snowspinner 18:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AK-47 vs. M16

I want to preface this by saying you made exactly the right close here, so I'm not disputing that.

Could you please not close AFDs you have a strong opinion on, or add commentary on the article itself (instead of metacommentary on the debate) when you close an AFD? It's rather an unfair way of claiming the last word in a debate, and implies that you're closing the debate based on your opinion rather than on the debate. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I added: "Regardless of this opinion, KEEP was the default choice anyway" to the AfD. Whenever there is No Consensus, then I feel that it is necessary to explain my actions from there, in this case with more than just "Default-KEEP."Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 04:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved this here to keep the conversation in one place and easily followable; there's a mention of this in the header of my talk page.

I'm not sure I understand what you thought; were you summarizing the debate, or expressing your own personal opinion? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

All of the points I have in there where mentioned on the talk, although they didn't use the exact same examples. With No Consensus, then Administrative discretion becomes key when you have votes well split up into 3 categories. Delete would therefore be unreasonable, but Keep or Merge would represent my discretion within the contraints of the votes. I chose Keep, as it was not only the default(Status Quo) but because it seemed to be a noteworthy article and voters also pointed out the difficuly in merging. I did change the wording again though, but I am not changing it again :-).Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 04:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. You're explaining your discretion in keeping vs. merging, okay. Well, keep up the good work, then, and don't mind me. *laughs* - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Anamnesis (film)

Just to remind you that when deleting an article after AfD, it's a good idea to check "what links here", so that you can deal with orphaned redirects, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ban

Wow you act pretty quick. Hopefully he edits nicely and peacefully when he comes back and doesn't have hard feelings towards me. :) Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

208.188.3.80 vandalism

208.188.3.80 has been blocked for 2 weeks as virtually all of the edits originating from that IP were vandalism. On a completely unrelated note, I thought I should mention Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Egil while I'm here.  ;-) Hall Monitor 17:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688's RfA

Well, it seems I'm now an administrator. I wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence, and, as always, feel free to drop me a line at any time. --tomf688^{talk} 01:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Help with library searches NLP

Hello VoiceOfAll.

You voiced a desire to do some library searches, and as I have done plenty myself (and as so many NLP books have no index) I thought I could help you with it. Bandler and Grinders Structure of Magic (1975 II) has a representational system section using preferred as a synonym to primary on page 8 (he alludes to the concept of learning styles which is now classed as scientifically unsupported), and they obviously refer to PRS which of course is unsupported. They have a large section (one third of the last part of the book) on fuzzy functions which talks of VAK channels etc. The NLP theorists tend to use VAK engrams as you saw with the French web reference (Moeneart). So anyone who was taught NLP by Moenaert or Sinclair or anyone else with a psych theoretical background will see engrams wherever anyone mentions PRS, VAK or representational systems.

Later books also talk of PRS or RS. NLP business masterclass (Molden 1990) has a representative section on PRS (p76) and he talks of categorizing people by their preference also (very simplistic thinking according to psychology and of course sci unsupported).

IN Bandler's later books he uses PRS also (Time FOR a Change 1993). He places the shifty eye diagram in the appendix 1, and explains it exactly as he did in his previous early books (even though the research says it is wrong). BTW that book also calls schizophrenia a skill, and recommends that no drugs should be taken for it's treatment (page 107)(right on Tom Cruise!). Anyway, I will post more as I work through. RegardsHeadleyDown 09:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again VoiceOfAll. In Bandler and Grinder Structure of magic 1, (1975) they introduce the subject by refering to the teachings as "magical skills" (refer to the preface) and you may think that they are being metaphorical, but considering Bandler's teaching of shamanism, and Grinder's teaching of Carlos Castaneda and indian shamanism, I wonder! Anyway, they continue and talk about human behavior is really complex but has structure. The structure point is really important because that is where the hypotheses lay. Then they say how to read the book (page 3) and that it gives a set of tools (that do not work according to researchers). It recommends to do the exercises although there is no way of knowing if you are doing them right or not. Page 5 there is some adulation of Perls (the dianeticist), which says he was really intuitive and could leave you laughing or crying and doing his magic "he could take hold of the zipper of your facade and pull it down to expose your tortured soul". In fact the call them all theraputic wizards (p6). Page 9 gives an account by Aldous Huxley about how our brain records everything we have ever experienced (scientifically totally unverified hype) and then comes the theory:

The key theory (and yes they do theory though claim that they don't) is that we have 3 main channels VAK, and these are representational systems. We mostly have one main channel which can be identified. He says if we do not have words for explaining colours then we cannot do it well. This is nonsense. Even in 1969 Berlin & Kay had already disproved this in experiments. The recognition of colour by humans is a constant universal and has virtually junked the concept of linguistic relativism (Levelt 1995 gives a searing criticism of Bandler for this point).

Anyway, the book continues, there are parts about left and right brain, and overexagerations all over the place. One piece of exageration you may have noticed from the NLP users is that they use the word "generalisation" quite a lot. Contrast this with CBT (cog behavioural therapy's) term "overgeneralisation". To generalise is a normal communication mode of humans, it saves time and is normal. To overgeneralize can be unhealthy sometimes (it is a kind of distortion). If an NLP user wants to accuse you of fluffy thinking, they just have to pull out the generalization term whenever they feel like it. Sounds good, but its ultimately nonsense. Whatever! Good luck with the book review. RegardsHeadleyDown 11:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that "review" is completely biased. But anyway, I've reduce the warning on HeadleyDown's page to test3. A much more appropriate warning. --Comaze 23:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. I would recommend reading SHAM by Steve Salerno (2005). I read the NLP section and found it quite clarifying and well researched. It is also funny:) There is a whole section that cover's Bandler and Grinder, then moves on to TRobbins. It is in all of the bookshops I have been to recently on the self help section. Very easy reading.DaveRight 03:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

--- Hi Voiceofall. Further to JP's recommendation to help your search, I've a useful review of Lilienfelds book here. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_27/ai_104733240

It places NLP as pseudoscience in the review and in Lilienfeld's book. It also says that the book gives a balanced apprasial covering pseudo and non pseudo (supported) therapies. NLP comes out around the worst next to energy therapies, and other occult persuits. I read the book myself and its not too heavy, but really very much written for academics in my opinion, though the results are useful for consumer protection groups. I am a bit biased tho. I reckon Scott Lilienfeld is quite sexy:)AliceDeGrey 04:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The actual book is on print.google.com [6]. Just search for neurolinguistic programming in the book. best regards --Comaze 11:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dvyost RfA thanks

Thanks for your kind words and support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

PS Getting close to time to archive this suckah, don't you think? =)

Anarchism

Hi, Voice of All(MTG)

In response to your question, yes, this is the vote in question and it is in support of what was then the prototype article Anarchism/historical, which was started by albamuth as a possible replacement for the hopelessly chaotic, disputed, and POV older article. The main Anarchism article was then changed to this historical version per the poll cited.

The edit war on the old article had been going on literally for years, and had been the subject of recent RFCs and (I believe) formal mediation. Essentially it is a dispute between users RJII, Hogeye, Dtobias, and MrVoluntarist (who may or may not be a sockpuppet of an aforementioned user) and the rest of the Anarchism editors. RJII and Hogeye are the main antagonists; RJII is relatively civil and makes good faith edits (although in my opinion still far too POV) but Hogeye has been known to repeatedly break the 3RR, uses sockpuppets extensively and has been banned for such behavior. In my opinion, PlayersPlace is Hogeye's newest sockpuppet.

The current historical version of the article is by far the best version since I've been editing the article, and is supported by consensus of the good faith editors of the article (even RJII).

Hope that gives you some background on the dispute. --Bk0 (Talk) 20:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Get off the NLP page you are doing damage. This is an overall game of scrimage What is it you hope to find when all that falls unwinds and your diplomatic aire may define

and all that is prevelant is the seeds of a plant grows a mystery evergranted by a stream of undisclosed society that has no means of education as a priority

Into nature of those who question the very words of love, passion, excitement a naive future is held like Alexander and Socrates But to know what you might find With fine intentions and other devices Holds a victory so sweet.

For victory is universal and felt by all Yes I am one who sees it all It does not stall or fall Flourishes by those who are involved Your deliberation does not help the world revolve

Cause all changes are quick and consequential Environment will be non sequential unless you let known knowledge to others That which is known to you And then we might see how mighty the human may fly through the sight of his mighty eye

A discipline so rare and grand may save the world once again.

"please brother our world is in peril the environment is in trouble and many ignore it's significance so as a NLPer I implore you promote this cause. Do not show ignorance. Use your voice for the good of the planet. I could too use all tools available to baffle people but I do not. In a short time this world will be dead. I will show any genius I have to prevent that. Human excellence is not enough. I could show amillion people how to be happy. Then there may not be a world to be happy in. yes a falacy it is that we as NLPers do not share this outcome but real it is and that we may have never been.

Get off the NLP page you are doing damage. This is an overall game of scrimage, What is it you hope to find, when all that falls unwinds, and your diplomatic aire may define,

and all that is prevelant, is the seeds of a plant, grows a mystery evergranted, by a stream of undisclosed society, that has no means of education as a priority,

Into nature of those who question, the very words of love, passion, excitement, a naive future is held like Alexander and Socrates, But to know what you might find , With fine intentions and other devices, Holds a victory so sweet,

For victory is universal and felt by all, Yes I am one who sees it all, It does not stall or fall, Flourishes by those who are involved, Your deliberation does not help the world revolve,

Cause all changes are quick and consequential, Environment will be non sequential, unless you let known knowledge to others, That which is known to you, And then we might see how mighty the human may fly, through the sight of his mighty eye,

A discipline so rare and grand, may save the world once again.

"please brother our world is in peril the environment is in trouble and many ignore it's significance so as a NLPer I implore you promote this cause. Do not show ignorance. Use your voice for the good of the planet. I could too use all tools available to baffle people but I do not. In a short time this world will be dead. I will show any genius I have to prevent that. Human excellence is not enough. I could show amillion people how to be happy. Then there may not be a world to be happy in. yes a falacy it is that we as NLPers do not share this outcome but real it is and that we may have never been.

NLP

How did mediation come up with an intro that is so blatantly biased against NLP? Was mediation simply mob rule? or was wikipedia policy used as a guiding principle at some point? I fail to see how the intro in any way shows the pro-NLP point of view, except through the slanted view of NLP critics. pseudoscientific or not, NPOV does not allow the critic to write the supporters point of view. "writing for the enemy" appears to have been lost here. Whaddup? FuelWagon 05:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, how exactly do you explain such a massive revert as this [7]? I fix a number of different POV issues. Explain each one on the talk page, and they get blanket reverted by the anti-NLP pushers on the article. As mediator, can you explain NPOV policy to these folks? FuelWagon 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Question about revert

Could you please take a look this revert. I have questions about it. [8]. IMO, this information is not really represented properly, but I could be biased. You assistance would be greatly appreciated. Here are the relevant links:

• (NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001, cited as Laso 2001)
• (Quackwatch/Barrett 2003 -> cites Heap 1988) - shouldn't this cite the original researcher?
• Sorting out Junk Science, Raso 2001 (as cited in Laso 2001) - This refernce seems to differe from the NCAHF News (Laso 2001) --Comaze 10:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi,

I am a bit concerned at the state of affairs on the NLP article, which I see you took over mediation of. HeadleyDown has finally agreed to mediation (see his talk page). Although I'm limiting my concern to the single question "How should NPOV be reflected in an article like this?" which should be very straightforward, I worry about the apparent size of gap there is to cross on this article.

I accept I would have to ask ArbCom to review this if mediation fails; I'm okay with that. But I don't want to pre-empt any attempt whereby editors could be encouraged to work together better.

I am still relatively new to the editing of this article (although not to the subject), and I'm aware a lot has gone on already which I'd like to get up to speed on. Could you therefore let me know your feelings on the following questions:

1. What is your assessment of the current state of play on the article? (Do you feel mediation is going anywhere/nowhere, what's the mediation history been, do you see hope for this angle, would you support referral to ArbCom at this point, if not what would happen in order to consider it a fair thing to do?)
2. Would you be prepared to mediate between myself and Headley on the one fixed issue of what is POV and what is NPOV and how does NPOV work on an article like this?
3. Would you be in a position to nudge that mediation along if so?
4. Has this approach (ie discussion of what comprises NPOV) been tried already? If so where's it at?

Comments appreciated. Thanks for all your work. FT2 12:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Success!!! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)