User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 09

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Zordrac's categories

Greetings:

I have taken the liberty of refactoring your separate nominations for Zordrac's various categories into one single nomination. It seems obvious to me that people who will vote on one of those categories will vote similarly on the others, and collecting them all into one nomination seems to make things easier.

However, I have no strong feelings on this one way or the other, so if you think the community is better served by having them listed seperately, feel free to revert me. In any case, I felt you'd wish to know.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually think it's better to list them all as one nomination, so I thank you for the refactoring. My listing them all separately was motivated in part by the knowledge that any minor deviation from the letter of the procedure would be jumped on by the users harassing me and cited as purported instances of my flouting the rules. (Though I don't know why they bother; it's not like they haven't shown themselves willing to testify to entirely fictitious events...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

the AfD for Gunk_Land

That page is certainly getting out of hand. I have now removed both the personal attack against you as well as the "sarcastic" delete vote comments and added some advice to 'stay cool'; hopefully that will end the revert war. --Quarl 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It has. On my end anyways. Thanks Quarl. LHF

re: reply

Hey Antaeus, I just wanted to reply to your note. I don't think what I did was quite as exaggerated as your metaphor of stealing from Habitat for Humanity - although as a writer and artist, I do love a bit of drama peppered in here and there. I understand you as well as hundreds of other editors face harassment due to your decisions in editing and revisions. but I think that is a choice you make when becoming an admin here - and as an admin to - not only make sure the quality the information is intact, but to encourage kind and thoughtful behavior - rather then belittling and judging someone and making assumptions about how they feel. I was thankful for Quarl for not only removing the sarcastic comments, but also acting in an unbiased manner to mediate.

I was having harmless fun with wikipedia by posting the hoax article - and when I felt that you weren't gonna respond to inquiry about unnecessary sarcastic comments I adapted and began posting my own sarcastic comments.

I know doing so was basically counter positive, but I just couldn't grasp your comment that for me, summed up Wikiquette as a general "make up the rules as we see fit" idealogy. So that left me disappointed and was not encouraging me to seek some sort of positive conclusion.

My sarcastic edits/comments was me trying to quickly illustrate why i thought all sarcastic comments should follow the wikiquette in all instances - even AfD's.

And in general, I really don't think you are bad person or admin, I'm sure its hard to be an admin, and that is why I don't want to seek any such position out. Truth be told, if I were in your shows, my patience with Wikipedia in general would have worn out long ago. Anyhow, I'd like to think we are leaving off with under good terms. I don't have it in me to hold a grudge.

LHF

First of all, I'm not an admin. Many people have encouraged me to seek adminship; I have been tempted, but always declined, because I know the position requires some qualities that I don't at this point in my life have, primarily a great deal of patience.

Second of all, I understand that it may have been frustrating to you to read some sarcastic comments from Hedley, and it may have been frustrating to ask why sarcastic comments of that nature were permitted and not receive an answer in the timeframe you expected. However, are you trying to tell me that you don't see a difference between "sarcastically mocking a person's insistence that what they wrote was true" (and, let's not forget, it wasn't true, so you can't really fault Hedley for correctly guessing that it was a hoax) and "using Google to try and dig up dirt on a Wikipedia editor, then presenting it in a public place to try and embarrass that editor, and trying to seek out others who want to hurt that editor and hand them all the damaging information you can for them to use as a weapon"? I'm afraid that if you're telling me you thought Hedley phrasing the reasons why he was voting "delete" in a sarcastic manner -- and Wikipedians declining to let you edit other people's votes, as you had done before -- gave you free license to target editors for the kind of personal harassment you engaged in, that's not the way it works. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologized - But Quarl and Hedley's sarcastic comments weren't constructive criticism - just plain insults. I removed the offending words - Quarl thankfully apologized and struck out his criticism. And Hedley knew it was a hoax, I had already posted numerous times that it was at that point. He was trying to sneak in an insult and criticism veiled in a strikeout. I have noticed that this is something that has happened to you as well - noted in your "In Progress" page. I take it as something that immature editors do to veil their insults.

I openly welcome constructive criticism when presented with it - but I won't stand for insults. As a newbie, I wasn't aware of the rules of "vandalism, and general editing guidelines. Perhaps there should be roadblocks for newbie's like me, that can't post until they have understood how to post. What I did was wrong - but it takes two to tango, and you engaged as well.

In any case, I apologize and I removed the offending edits from the current page. Lastly - outside the scope of this blemish - I think you would make a fine Admin. (And if you wanna delete this entry in your discussion section I am ok with it.)

LHF

Well, so that perhaps you won't see Hedley's actions in such a poor light, please be aware that AfD is a very rough place, because of all the places of Wikipedia, it's the one with the highest concentration of both new editors who don't understand Wikipedia or its goals or its procedures, and malicious editors who are only out to cause disruption. Editors who take on the rigors of dealing with AfD deal with all sorts of personal attacks: claims that they're censors, claims that they're in the pay of the CIA/Big Pharma/The MediMafia/the vast right-wing conspiracy/the liberal media conspiracy, personal insults that they're too stupid to understand Wikipedia policy (that the page creator just read that day), claims that they're shallow and narrow-minded -- and that's just from editors who aren't violating the rules purposely. This is why AfD has a much different atmosphere than the rest of Wikipedia (and there used to be a prominent warning on the main AfD page, alerting people of this) -- anyone who spends any amount of time at AfD gets battle-hardened and tends to express themselves more bluntly, and with more sarcastic humor, than would be appropriate on other Wikipedia pages where new editors and troublemakers tend to show up one at a time.

Hedley's remarks were sarcastic, yes, and yes, they were mocking your continued insistence that the show really had existed. It wasn't, perhaps, a particularly acute and targeted bit of sarcasm, but it was on-topic; you were still posing as multiple people who had supposedly seen the show themselves and were testifying to its existence and its hard-to-believe contents, and you were even making personal remarks about anyone who would fail to believe you. "To say a show is a hoax because of its potent content is silly and short sighted." "I also can't help but see humor and irony in the concept of an anonymous jury debating the validity of my memories and experiences. :P" As I hope you now realize, attempted hoaxes, while they may be intended as harmless fun, are perceived as a hostile breach of faith, and this is especially true when attempts to keep the hoax going turn into attempts to discredit the people who have correctly determined that it is a hoax.

If you'd like to know why you weren't allowed to edit Quarl's "crap" or Hedley's struck-out-by-him comments, reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Decision Policy may explain it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Have a Happy New Year. LHF :)

Personal information

I've posted a note on WP:ANI. The guy will likely end up blocked. R adiant _>|< 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for two days. R adiant _>|< 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Two templates, {{Pinfo4}} and {{Pinfo5}} have been created to deal with such behaviour in the future. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want certain edits to be removed from history, you need to contact the DEVs for that. However, since you told me the information was in fact wrong, I figured it wasn't that big a deal. R adiant _>|< 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism and whatever

Gator's not an admin, but I am. I've taken a quick glance at this stuff you mention. Could you provide some diffs for the supposed "vandalism" that DannyWilde alludes to? I think he is rather confused, but just want to make sure of the circumstances surrounding this. Thanks. android 79 06:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. These are the edits to Andrew Orlowski that Danny calls vandalism:

At this point I asked other editors for help, as Danny showed no signs of stopping or even of understanding that he might not be in the right, and it was my understanding of Wikipedia policy that merging the entire contents of an article under AfD to different articles was forbidden as it effectively made an end run around the whole AfD process. Will continue finding all the links tomorrow -- have to go to bed now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at those diffs and DannyWilde's deleted user page. Nothing that would be considered vandalism. Editing his user page might have been bad form, but since it morphed into essentially a user talk page discussion, not a blockable offense. As I remarked on his talk page, reverting what amounts to an end-run around AfD ought to be commended; it's not something you get blocked for. android 79 07:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dianetics problems

Have you taken a gander at the current state of the Dianetics article? The two editors who have been deleting stuff willy-nilly from many Scientology-related articles on grounds that statements are "uncitable" have turned the Dianetics article into a hash of run-on sentences, non-sequiters, and unabashed pro-Scientology POV. On the talk page, they're congratulating each other on how readable and useful they article has become. I don't have the time and energy to hash things out point-by-point with these guys, nor do I want to engage in an edit war. It seems like a good thing to have some Scientologists among the editorial mix for articles on those topics, but they're really making a mess of it. Any suggestions of how to proceed? (I'll check back here for your reply.) BTfromLA 18:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the two users you mention, but unfortunately I don't have a lot of time and energy myself, and most of what I do have is sadly being diverted to a number of problem users, one of whom is trying to get vengeance for what he calls "blanking vandalism" (the pre-emptive merging of the complete contents of an article under AfD to a different article) by posting what he thinks is my real name multiple places, the other of whom is telling lots of untrue stories: first claiming I threatened him and made wild accusations and told him I was watching him; then claiming that after that I then requested him to do what he did, which was write to a difficult person that Wikipedia has had multiple problems with and tell him "Antaeus Feldspar is using weasel words in an underhanded campaign to discredit you"; then claiming that after he "helped" me this way as I had "requested" I "stalked" him by finding out where he was telling people that I was vandalizing, Wikistalking, violating the fifteen-revert rule and suchlike, and posting the correct version of events along with the diffs for proof.

So, uh, yeah. Ironically, one of the latest claims made by the guy who claims I "requested" him to misrepresent him to someone who already had a hard-on against Wikipedia is the claim that he is "unaware of any legitimate edits" by me. Well, a) it only proves that he didn't look, or more probably didn't bother to check the truth because he had no intention of telling it, and b) it's not like I'm going to make a lot more legitimate edits because I have these two harassing me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this harassment, which is clearly a more pressing problem than the plague of whacked-out Scientology articles. I'll turn my question about that elsewhere: best wishes for a happy resolution to those problems. BTfromLA 19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ALien

No need to apologize man :)—jiy (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Squirrels

Per Wikipolicy I removed uncited sentences from the Squirrels portion of the Scientology article and placed it into the Discussion area. I pasted it, posted my reasons clearly and invited discussion. You Ignored the discussion which I cited the reason for the difference, the change and reposted your original research. That is against and counter to Wiki Policy. You have done and act which is wrong and counter to Wikipedia Policy. You ignored the discussion, you didn't cite or verify the sentences which you reposted. You are not editing appropriately. Specifically the last sentence of what I removed and you reposted is:

However, many point out that the Church has itself introduced changes to Hubbard's Scientology, such as the "patter drills" introduced in 1995, and cite this as an indication that the Church is more worried about losing its position as the only source of 'true' Scientology than in keeping Scientology true to Hubbard.

That is an inaccurate statement. The Patter Drills are not within the address of HCOPL of 16 April 1965 Issue II. That Policy Letter addresses Practical Drills. Patter Drills are not Practical Drills. Patter Drills are Theory Drills. Your misunderstand something. Terryeo 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Which makes a generality from one specific action (creation of patter drills) which is probably not true and then states that the CoS is "worried" and further implies the CoS is not using actual Hubbard doctrine. You are required to provide verification to place such a statement in an article. You are off policy. That is probably original research Wikipedia:No original research but if it is not then a source of that information must be cited. I have posted this same line of reasoning on the Scientology Discussion page and you have ignored my alert of it my edit. I am posting it here. Will every sentence you create have to go through this lengthy process of reminding you of Wiki Policy, pointing out line by line where and how you have failed and done wrong? Terryeo 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Probably not true"? In whose judgement is it "probably not true"?

Cite the information. One's ethics level can be observed by how easily the person under observation confronts simplicity. This is real simple. Cite your source of the information: "However, many ...". This is not a dispute about accuracy, this is a dispute about verification. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies here. It is real simple. If you have a published information which contains that statement, cite it. Cite it or lose it, it is just real plain and simple and spelled out in the 3 Wiki Policies. Terryeo 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have proceeded past several misunderstoods. "You Ignored the discussion which I cited the reason for the difference, the change and reposted your original research." This makes it sounds as if I wrote the material which you removed about the patter drills being evidence of the RTC "pejoratively dehumanizing" those it calls squirrels, which I did not write, nor did I restore. However, I restored the facts: The Church instituted patter drills in 1995, after Hubbard's death, and many point to this as evidence for the view that the Church is not concerned with keeping Scientology in line with Hubbard, but in keeping themselves the sole 'official' source of it. If you believed that either of these statements were incorrect, you should have followed the procedures at Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, marking them {{dubious}} and making a request on the talk page for verification, rather than yanking them out of the article where it's unlikely that anyone will fix them, because very few people knew they were there. Wikipedia:Verifiability is an important policy, but if you were under the impression that it gave you carte blanche to remove any statement whose verification

Wikipedia:Citing sources states: "Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable..." Had you done that, this issue would not be before you now. Because the sentences in question begin with "many people ...." and is not cited. I therefore removed the uncited information per that same Citing sources directive. Specifically it states: "When there is a factual dispute .. Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion.... Which I have clearly stated several times now. Those are the Wiki Policies and directives I actioned from and why I actioned from them.

...was not handed to you on a silver platter, you are, again, proceeding past your misunderstoods.

"Will every sentence you create have to go through this lengthy process of reminding you of Wiki [sic] Policy, pointing out line by line where and how you have failed and done wrong?" You would be best advised not to, since you have been at Wikipedia less than a month, and it's just possible that you have not grasped as much of Wikipedia policy as you believe you have, particularly the end goal that all that policy is intended to serve. To be honest, your suggestion that you will go reviewing "every sentence [I] create", "pointing out line by line where and how you have failed and done wrong", smacks not just of arrogance, but of incivility and harassment.

In the meantime, so as not to waste your time and mine, kindly bring up any concerns you have about article content on the article talk pages, and drop a short note to me on my talk page, alerting me that the discussion is occurring there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I shall endevour to do so and prefer to do so. I did, after all, state in my edit summary what I had done. I included my removing it to the discussion page for verification. I established on the discussion page a place to discuss. Terryeo 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

moved from user page

Note to Feldspar: Re clinical depression article. I only referred to my book in the edit summary, not in the article proper. The reason I referred to my book was that mjformica removed my contribtion, citing it as "patently incorrect." This kind of ad hominen attack is definitely against Wikopedia policy. I only referenced my book as a way of establishing my credentials. My Wikopedia contribution is based on years of research, including talking to the leading experts in mood disorders.

I appreciate this may not be the place to talk to you. Please feel free to contact me at mcman@mcmanweb.com.

I'm not sure just what you're referring to as an ad hominem attack, but none of what you've described matches the actual definition of an ad hominem attack. Remember, an ad hominem is when someone tries to attack the argument by attacking the person, and nothing that I am aware of even mentioned you the person.

As far as your book establishing your credentials, the problem is that we have no way of verifying even that you are who you say you are, let alone that your book really is coming out, that it really says what you say it says, and finally that what it says represents either the mainstream or a significant minority viewpoint. If you read Wikipedia:No original research you'll probably understand why Wikipedia can't accept it when people say "I have done enough research to know what the truth is; now Wikipedia should publish the conclusions of my research as verified information." If we did it for you, we'd also have to do it for the guy who has concluded from his "research" that there is no such thing as depression, there's only CIA mind control and the solution is an attractive Thought Screen Helmet.

However, as you'll read at WP:NOR, your expertise can still be put to good use, bringing to us information about what published sources say on the topic, see the section on "The role of expert editors". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit removed

Antaeus, I forgot to let you know that I have removed that edit from the history. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and yes I can understand the dilemma. If it appears again anywhere, let me know and I'll remove it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

afd of Jack Shepherd

Please have another look :) Grutness...wha? 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Email attempt

I emailed you today--at least I think I did, it was the first time I set up the wikipedia email capability. Please let me know whether or not it arrived. Thanks. BTfromLA 22:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

pedelec

a few more comments where left in regards to the deletion of pedelec --CylePat 13:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnarok Wrestling

Truthfully, I simply missed the link to the Mitch Brown (wrestler) article in the AfD. I usually close a dozen or so AfDs simultaneously, and I'm generally careful about catching additional articles in a nomination, but this one slipped by. I'll take care of it. Mind matrix 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD: OGA

Hi, Antaeus! I'm sorry if I didn't follow some particular procedure; the OGA topic didn't have any note of the previous AfD vote. I see that you thoroughly expunged my name and input from the OGA discussion. Is there some reason you scrubbed my input from the record? -- Mikeblas 17:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but what the hell are you talking about? There are four pages you could be talking about: OGA (Office Golf Association), Talk:OGA (Office Golf Association), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGA (Office Golf Association), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGA (Office Golf Association) (2nd nomination). The first, you added two tags to, {{uncategorized}} and {{hoax}}; those tags are still there. The second, you put an explanation of your tags on the first; that explanation is still there and hasn't been touched. The third and fourth pages, you never edited. I think you're a bit confused and I wish you would get your facts straight before tossing irresponsible allegations like "scrubbed [your] input from the record" and "thoroughly expunged". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't mean to make you cross. I'll see if I can find someone else who will answer my questions. Sorry for the trouble! -- Mikeblas 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

straw man

hey could you please check out the discussion page on the straw man article, my comment is titled "this doesnt make sense". thanks iamorlando 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics

I've completely rewritten Dianetics and I must have set some sort of Wikipedia record for the use of footnotes - there are now 72 in the article (!). I've posted the new article; I'd like to get it up to FA status, so could you take a look at it and let me know what you think? I suspect that our resident Scientologists may have some issues with it, so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out... -- ChrisO 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology Series

I've just tagged a ton (well, less than that, depending on the mass value assigned to an electron) of scientology articles with a new template, and I'm fishing about for feedback, screams, arguments, etc.. I know it's a difficult "series" to work on, which is why I chose to work on it. Any and all feedback is welcome. Ronabop 14:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Hey, I just read your article on the Lang film. You left it unfinished ("more to come") since March last year. Are you going to finish it? I would like to read the rest (pls?). Ben ^T/_C 19:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me! I will try to return to it soon, especially if I can get hold of the movie again to refresh my memory... -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do continue :). As for watching the movie... Shouldn't it be PD by now? Do you know why it isn't on internet archives? I found only a trailer for streaming Ben ^T/_C 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. (Just calculated...) Back to 1931 makes 75 years (e.g. M), back to 1933 only 73. So that must be why it's not PD yet (in the US at least). Ben ^T/_C 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A.E.Van Vogt

Hey there... posted about this to the Van Vogt discussion page but just in case you don't see it, wanted to ask you to think about that list of criticisms you reverted my deletion of.... I feel like given the genre and the period, it's a bit pedantic to list various scientific "mistakes" in old sci-fi novels. These stories are fanciful by nature, and it's a bit like complaining that Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator violates the laws of physics, or that Teletubbies have no valid physiological explanation for their abdominal television implants. wikipediatrix 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up; I had actually seen your response there before getting the "new messages" bar, so I replied there. Thanks! -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Narconon

Hello Antaeus Feldspar, once again I find myself attempting to talk with you about something. I don't have great hopes, but here goes. You stated: "Narconon's dangerous use of vitamin overdoses to treat drug abuse but who also opposes drug abuse, you have disproved Scientology's beliefs. --Antaeus Feldspar" Which, from my point of view says you have some concern for those poor people who are forced into vast overdoses of vitamins in an effort to overcome their vast overdoeses of drugs. I realize you consider there is little hope for such sods anyway, but might we talk about this? 66.248.87.133 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You say "once again," so I'm guessing that I know you better under some other name. Terryeo, perhaps? Anyhow, the complete sentence that you quoted above was "If you find a single person who opposes Narconon's dangerous use of vitamin overdoses to treat drug abuse but who also opposes drug abuse, you have disproved Scientology's beliefs." I'm not sure why you think you "realize" that I "consider there is little hope for such sods"; I would hardly describe that as what I actually think on the subject, and I can't think of anything I've written that would even lend itself to that interpretation, but if you tell me what gave you that impression, I might understand better why you think that's what I think.

I'm quite willing to talk about "this", even though I have to admit, I'm not sure which "this" you mean -- whether I have concern for drug addicts in Narconon treatment, whether I think there is hope for drug addicts in Narconon treatment, or something else different. I'm willing to discuss it, though. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda by redefinition of words

I removed this from Category:L. Ron Hubbard because it didn't seem limited to Hubbard or Scientology. Hubbard may have given the technique a name, but given how much he (ahem) borrowed from others, I'd be surprised if he actually invented it. tregoweth 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Anthony Godby Johnson

Hello,

I saw your article on the fake author Anthony Godby Johnson and I saw an interesting connection with the JT LeRoy news. I'm not sure if you had heard about it, but it seems JT LeRoy is alleged to be a fake author, concocted to garner celebrity attention and assistance to help publish a fake history. There is an article on the New York Times and a few other AP sources -

I figured you might enjoy the parallels between the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT_Leroy —Diamondpro2060 2006-01-12 18:28Z