User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 11

Tom Swift

I really hate to bring this up, but you have been one of the protectors of the Tom Swift entry against its persistent vandal. Due to someone making a category edit, some of the vandal's "pet changes" have not been reverted, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Swift&diff=41321835&oldid=40517655.

This vandal is annoyingly persistent, and being anon, cannot be blocked except by blocking all anon edits- which, as I understand the policy, is never permanent?

Thanks for all your good works. I would also like to chime in for you as an administrator. Postagoras 21:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found the edits and restored the deleted text. Dammit, why doesn't this guy get a clue and grow up? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, less than two hours after you reverted, the vandal re-appeared and re-edited. At one point there was actually a discussion going on with the vandal, but when I posted a while back, there was no reply. *Sigh*. When I have a moment I'll evaluate the vandal's changes to see if there's any middle ground possible. Otherwise, I don't see anything in the policy that will stop this person. Postagoras 03:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Account Unjustly Blocked

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am uncertain who to contact to have this mistake fixed. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 04:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding you RV which does not match your edit summary

Antaeus, FLUNK!!

• Me: "writing only of body thetans and NOTs is innacurate POV as there are many things addressed on the OT levels", "Took out incorrect POV mention. OT5 is not the only OT level about OT3" [1]
• You: "If you think something is missing, add it in -- don't remove what's already there" [2]

Notice, I never said anything was missing, I said something was there which should not be because it was innacurate. Care to explain your dishonest and sneaky revert or did you make a mistake? I'm not buying any more confusing dialogue from you, lets stick with the facts and get to the point without the extra blah blah. --JimmyT 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Go flunk yourself, Jimmy. You have no excuse -- you haven't been around very long, but you've been around long enough to know that for you to insert "fake (or forged)" in the description of the Fishman Affidavit OT levels was, at best, your own original research. Let's see, what descriptive edit summary did you use when you were presuming to declare, on behalf of Wikipedia, that those documents were faked or forged? "Description". Go away, you petty little troll. I am not going to waste my time answering trumped-up charges from an editor whose bad faith is manifest. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, FLUNK! You're edit summary didn't match your reversion ONE BIT! You go away. You're stalking of me at the other articles I tried to discuss with you indicate to me that YOU are the one trolling. Go away. AND, your comment about bad faith is noted. --JimmyT 01:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you ..

Where are you cutting and pasting from for the Dianetics and Scientology articles? I see a good deal of what you revert is presented on certain websites, presented as good information of those subjects. Are you copying and pasting certain informations into Wikipedia? In particular in the Dianetics article, you and I went back and forth for some while about a full list of Dianetics books or a very sketchy list of Dianeitcs publications. I later found what you reverted to, to be present even today at a certain dictionary site. This prompts me to ask where you get the information which you feel should present the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. Terryeo 21:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, isn't that interesting? First you present your accusatory theory ("Where are you cutting and pasting from?") and then you present your ... not your "evidence", but your claim that there is evidence, which you cannot describe coherently (hello, what I "reverted to" was most likely by the nature of reverts to be what was there before?) for which you somehow think the most likely explanation is my "cutting and pasting". If you actually thought I copying and pasting from outside sources, you would have followed the correct Wikipedia procedures for alleged copyright violations -- of course, then you would have had to submit your "evidence", which (if it existed) might turn out to have a much more logical explanation (such as that -- Reverting 101: Reverting is the act of restoring a page or part of a page to the state it was in before.) Why am I not surprised that you chose instead to phrase your "question" in fine Joe McCarthy "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" form on my user talk page? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Its a pretty honest question, I presented it in a manner which seemed polite and not accusatory to me. A "yes" or "no" would suffice. What I would like to do is arrive at good aticles. I'm in a position that I understand the subject matter. I don't oppose controversy in the articles but I do oppose the subject matter not being presented. Terryeo 15:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Its a pretty honest question, I presented it in a manner which seemed polite and not accusatory to me." Bullshit. "Where are you cutting and pasting from for the Dianetics and Scientology articles?" is supposed to be "not accusatory"? How can it be "not accusatory" when it actually assumes the accusation to be true? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't you answer a simple question? What are you hiding Antaeus? Are you on drugs? --JimmyT 10:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Because a simple question was not asked, Jimmy; an uncivil question which assumed the truth of an untrue accusation for which not one shred of evidence has still not been offered was asked. I can answer simple questions, however, that does not mean I am obligated to answer simple questions, especially when they are being asked for the purposes of harassment, an excellent example being your absolutely unfounded speculation of "Are you on drugs?" It's too bad that Spirit of Man can't see this (or more accurately, that he can't make sense of what he's seeing since he's blinded by his prejudices): after watching you allege totally out of the blue that I may be "on drugs", based on absolutely nothing I've ever said, then perhaps he'd finally comprehend that legal clause of "malicious disregard for the truth" which he has such trouble with. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OKAY, you win Feldspar. Here is the question in a simple form. Do you sometimes cut and paste from other websites toward creating Dianetics and Scientology articles? Terryeo 15:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If I am quoting another website, I will probably use cut and paste to make sure I am fulfilling my obligation to quote the source correctly. Otherwise, no. Now I have a simple question for you: what is the supposed evidence you have that led you to make this accusation? Where are these sites that were supposedly copied from? Did you in fact have any basis for your allegations or were you, like JimmyT, operating in malicious disregard for the truth? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thetan article

You came into the Thetan article and REFUSED to do any discussion on the discussion page whatsoever. I suppose you are in your "non-discussion" mode and in 2 or 3 days you will be screaming, "I discuss on talk pages all the time". But in this single, solitary and individual situation you refused to discuss and had not been editing the Thetan article and came to the Thetan article which I have been working on and you used this edit summary: "17:25, 4 March 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (rv Terryeo's attempt to remove true and verifiable information which the CoS finds inconvenient. Notice he makes no attempt to remove "redundant" information about Operating Thetan.)" Which is at least critical (obviously) and which could, conceiveably be helpful IF you were involved in discussion on the article's discussion page (but of course that is beneath you are something). It is kind of irritating, you know what I mean? I'm trying to produce good, understandable - to - the - reader articles. I'm dealing with another editor in that article who at first insisted that "spirit" was an idea cooked up by Hubbard and presented in the guise, "thetan" and that "spirit" doesn't exist and shouldn't be believed to exist by anybody, ever. Your edits combined with your inflammatory edit summary aren't helpful. Terryeo 08:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You are a liar Terryeo. I never insisted that "spirit" was concocted by Hubbard. In fact, you know that I know that the idea of a spirit that persists after death is one that has existed for thousands of years. The whole point is that this article thetan isn't about a "spirit". If "thetan" and "spirit" held the same meaning then LRH wouldn't have taken the time to invent a new word that holds quite a different meaning than what most people think of when they hear the word "spirit". Vivaldi 09:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi is a liar and one of the trolls who work with the critic crew. Do you think he maybe is on some kind of psychiatric drug for ADHD (pseudoscientific "quack" diagnosed "disease" of the p$ychiatrists (SPIT)) --JimmyT 10:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you are still around, JimmyT. At Talk:Thetan Vivaldi has been doing a good deal of personal attack. Terryeo 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and JimmyT demonstrates for us again just what "malicious disregard for the truth" looks like in action. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And Terryeo demonstrates that he doesn't mind a good personal attack as long as its directed at the proper editors. And again its apparent that neither Terryeo or JimmyT is interested in the truth, as it is easily provable that Terryeo has lied about my statements. He said that I stated that Hubbard invented the idea of "spirit". Now if that statement were true, then please post the proof. Otherwise, if you don't respond with the proof or an apology, everyone will know that you are in fact using deliberate deceit in your edits here. Vivaldi 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I have no doubt at all that you would like it if, every time you made a clearly incorrect edit in flagrant violation of policy (even one you have made twelve times before), any editor wishing to restore the article to the state it was in before you damaged it had to write an essay of at least 500 words on the talk page, giving a detailed explanation of just why your edits violate policy. However, that is not the case. The fact that you were completely aware of articles corresponding to both the Operating Thetan and Body thetan subsections of the Thetan article and yet you tried to remove only one section as "redundant" shows that you are not a well-intentioned editor who actually tries to abide by Wikipedia policy and might correct some form of mistake if his mistake was explained on the talk page but a blatant POV warrior with no intention to edit correctly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, good for you, nice to not have any doubts, huh? Heh. I would like to talk with you though Feldspar because it seems to me we might better understand each other's position if we did. I do understand you have strong and nearly violent reaction to the way I edit. I think we understand basic Wikipedia policies differently and would like to work out a common understanding. Of course we have different beliefs, but I don't think that has anything to do with the different approaches we take to editing. What say you, can we talk, possibly work out our differences? Terryeo 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"work out our differences"? I highly doubt it. I could do that with an honest editor, but you are not an honest editor, something you proved when you threw allegations at other editors that they violated a policy which you already knew that your interpretation of (the only thing they violated) was and always had been completely mistaken. It isn't a case of "we understand basic Wikipedia policies differently"; it's that I see them as rules we work by to shape our efforts to create a resource of NPOV information and you view them as obstacles to be twisted aside or openly violated so that you can push your POV. It's insulting to me that you think I haven't recognized that by now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Feldspar, where does it start? Don't you think it more productive to spend your time doing something besides reverting my edits without creating anything? It starts by talking. I offer that perhaps we understand Wikipedia policies differently. It is insulting to me that you don't understand that I do understand them. We have similar, if opposite understandings of the same thing and therefore, I would hope, a base to talk to each other from. Agreeing on points of policy might be step we could take toward more productive editing Terryeo 19:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, it is far too late to pretend that you are an honest editor who has, at worst a "different" "understanding" of what policies mean. That lie was threadbare even before you decided to blatantly violate exactly the same policies which you declared, with a maximum of furor and a minimum of grounds, that others had violated. I realize that you are, for purposes of show, trying to make it look like you are an honest, sincere editor just trying to edit the best you can and that I am the pig-headed stubborn jerk who refuses to re-evaluate my beliefs in the light of new evidence. However, the flaw in this is that there is no new evidence -- none that supports your pretenses. The evidence that you're an insincere POV warrior keeps mounting and mounting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Healthyplace.com

You may want to look at my talk page for why I believe we should not link to healthyplace.com. -- Barrylb 12:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to place a higher value on accuracy in your editing

I'm sorry, but was it not you who, upon my adding the Catholic Church to the list, went over to the Sahaja Yoga site and added a link to the critical section? If that isn't revenge editing...

I agree with you on that point though, and will research other sources before I re-incluse the Roman Catholic Church to the list.

Shane 08:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If that isn't revenge editing... No, it isn't. What happened is that when I saw the surprising addition of Roman Catholicism, with the even more surprising source of the University of Virginia Religious Movements homepage, I checked the source to see if it was accurate. Going through the whole article, I found that it wasn't. I wondered whether there were other entries in the list which also used that source when that source did not actually meet the qualification, so I checked the two entries in question that used that source. In both cases, the source did refer to them as a cult. In the case of the Sahaja Yoga entry, I found the U of V article to not just meet the qualifications for the list, but to be an informative article in its own right, the kind of article we try to link to. Since it was not already an external link from the Sahaja Yoga article, I entered it. That's not "revenge", that's "seeing a way to improve an article, and improving it." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Swift

See WP:AN/3RR. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Review?

I'm sorry to bother you with such a matter, but in the I-95 exit list page, there was talk about what to do with such a page. After discussion on AFD and in Talk, which can all be accessed on that page, the consensus was no consensus. Myself and many others work on the page to make it presentable and up to Wikistandards, when suddenly User:SPUI comes out of the woodwork after not contributing to talk or any discussion, and decides to make major changes which go against consensus and talk. This is not the problem. In his latest reversion, he claims that this site is a Fork, which I and others disagree with, since the article is not to represent a different POV, but provide a central hub of information (a person may go to the individual I-95 state page for in-depth information about the route, including information, but for multi-state travel, a single page of exit lists provides easy-to-access information that people, such as myself, like to know. It seems that he is just using anything he can to get his way, which he seems to do quite often, including ignoring consensi. So I was just asking if, since you seem to be more knowledgeable about forks, you could review the article and decide if it was a fork or not. I'd appreciate your input and thank you very much. --MPD01605 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Monty Hall

I'd like to get your thoughts at the discussion going on at Talk:Monty Hall problem regarding WP:FARC. You've spent a lot of time on that aricle and it is important that we have the benefit of your thoughts. --hydnjo talk 13:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in, I was getting worried about you.  :-) --hydnjo talk 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I thought your remark on my talk page was uncalled-for. As I explained to ESkog, I described in full my reason for making that change on the naked short selling talk page. I agree that using the word "vandalism" was a mistake, but I can't go back and change that so what do you want me to do?

This page has been the subject of an editing war going back weeks, in which a succession of meatpuppets coming in from the outside making a concerted effort to turn that page into a flyer for an "anti-short-selling crusade." Just prior to my arrival, a POV fork, aimed at evading consensue concerning the page, was deleted by administrators. Additionally, the discussion on the Talk page has been invariably ad hominem, and I have been subjected to personal attacks and gotten little support in defending myself.

The change that I reverted was an effort by a new anonymous editor to add original research on a tangential issue with unsourced, one-sided commentary. In the past, such edits have been described by other editors as "near vandalism."

I'm not defending my use of the word "vandalism," which was wrong, but I think the substance of the destructive changes being made to that page is more important than your piling on concerning my incorrect description of a perfectly proper edit. --Tomstoner 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Was this edit, editing Tin-foil hat to hold proponents of "the campaign against naked short selling" up to ridicule, was that a "perfectly proper edit" in your opinion? Because in mine it's rather blatant POV pushing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was a proper edit. I wouldn't have added it if I thought otherwise. What has that got to do with the naked shortselling page? --Tomstoner 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Because you may think it's a "perfectly proper edit", and you may think that what you were removing "borders on vandalism" or was "near vandalism" -- but the fact that you think it so doesn't mean anything unless you have an accurate sense of what is and is not proper editing on Wikipedia. And if you think that it's perfectly okay to use Tin-foil hat to make a personal attack on opponents of naked short-selling, suggesting that they are paranoid conspiracy theorists, then you do not have that accurate sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, great. Thanks for sharing. Stop by again -- I enjoyed your ad hominems, which obviously added greatly to the credibility of your "opinion." Bye. --Tomstoner 16:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not post further personal attacks on me on my talk page. --Tomstoner 16:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Asking you to shape up your editing behavior is not a personal attack. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What you have posted on my talk page are personal attacks. Nobody appointed you "Tom Stoner's shaper-upper." Your hostile remarks and attacks are unwelcome. Please stop. --Tomstoner 17:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No one promised you that if you came to Wikipedia, you could do anything you wanted to do and never have to abide by any rules and never face any criticism for violating those rules. Your idea that it is a "personal attack" to request you to not make personal attacks on the sanity of your opponents in article space is completely your own willful misunderstanding. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever say that? I admitted that the "vandalism" comment was incorrect. The edit that I made in the naked short-selling page was not a correction of "vandalism" but it was otherwise correct. You have not even made an effort to understand why I made that change -- you are too busy attacking.

You are not interested in making constructive, friendly suggestions. You assume bad faith and post in an aggressive, hostile manner. When you violate Wikipedia policy yourself by being aggressive and attacking and uncivil, how do you expect your opinions to have any credibility?

I am not interested in your opinion of me as an editor. Your behavior borders on stalking and I want it to stop. --Tomstoner 17:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What my behavior borders on is "keeping an eye on an editor who is so self-righteous he violates the rules and then thinks it's a personal attack if anyone suggests that he learn the rules better." If you don't comprehend why you can't add "hey, lots of people think that my opponents are tin-foil- hat-wearing paranoid conspiracy theorists" to article space, you do not comprehend WP:NPOV. Period. And if you do not comprehend WP:NPOV, your judgement that your edits are "otherwise correct" aside from missing the technical definition of vandalism is likewise suspect. Period. If you don't want people to think they have to keep an eye on you, maybe you could try learning from your mistakes instead of trying to shift the blame to others for bringing it up to you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Fine. I prostrate myself before you. I rend my garmets. You are right. You are always right. Forgive me for suggesting otherwise. Now can you please stalk another newbie?--Tomstoner 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail for you

Hi, please check your e-mails. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Swift

I lost track of which is the consensus version, so I decided I'd better just stick to handling the protection matter and let more involved editors correct the text. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)