User talk:Cyberdenizen

Hello. If you post here, I will reply here for continuity. Click HERE

Greek Reconstructionism[edit]

Hi there! I see that there's a lot of activity on that page now. What are your feelings on the article's progress? (I'm also asking AdelaMae this question too.) --HappyCamper 02:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I feel the article is stagnant, but I haven't had a chance to put together a new one yet or rework the old one. As you can read on the talk page for Greek Reconstructionism, I am hesitant to just redirect the entry to an even more ambiguous definition because I think it will just encourage further strife down the road. I'm actually waiting for the other parties involved to resurface. I definitely think that things are a lot better now than they were a month ago. Also, I wanted to ask you what should be done about the personal information which was not edited out but just archived on the talk page of Greek Reconstructionism. If you take the time to try to make heads or tails of it, there are still several instances of AdelaMae's personal information, as well as private email headers and such for some other party, whose involvement in the argument I cannot surmise. Should this material just be deleted? Edited out? What is proper protocol in this instance? Greek Reconstructionism is definitely a work in progress, and I appreciate your assistance and stewardship in the matter. Thanks again. -Cyberdenizen 18:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

From my communications with AdelaMae, s/he has not made a request to remove the headers in the archives, so I have left it the way they are now. I did remove some of her personal information earlier already though. --HappyCamper 01:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Polytheism[edit]

Hooray! Yes, I was hoping we'd eventually get to the point where we could merge it all into Hellenic polytheism. It's still kind of a merge-mess, but I thought the most important thing was to get the naming section done so that the move and merges would make sense. I didn't even discover the Dodekatheon and Dodekatheism articles until today; if we count those along with Hellenismos and Greek reconstructionism, that makes three independently created articles on what is basically the same religion, each from a different POV. *sigh* I have created what obvious redirects I could think of and put a watch on them to try and keep more of these from popping up. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you need any help, just ask. I archived the old talk page contents at Hellenic polytheism so no one would get confused. You might want to explain what entries you are redirecting and why on the talk page there to curtail confusion about intent. Your user page is growing exponentially I've noticed - Wassup fellow felxitarian! Cyberdenizen 04:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I want to give you this link before I forget - links to FAQs on polytheistic reconstructionism - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link - I had seen it before. It's a good resource, it just seems very America centered and to be wholly lacking any sense of connectedness or common cause with the actual Greeks who comprise the bulk of the practitioners. It seems that the religion is distinctly a more personal affair in the US than an ancestral and cultural one (which is fine IMO, as long as props are given to the integral culture from whence it derived). Have you seen the I Still Worship Zeus documentary? Cyberdenizen 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I own it. I also had the chance to meet and talk with some people from YSEE (YSEE was rather disappointed in that film) and I agree that there is a huge disconnect between American and Euopean Hellenic polytheism. In America, it's largely been a response to what some see as the "appropriation" of the Greek pantheon by Wicca, and as such it focuses on the use of scholarly sources to reconstruct the ancient Greek religion - the "religion with homework" philosophy. [1] In Greece, it appears to me that it's more related to national pride, people wanting to reclaim the religion of their ancestors from Christian persecution. That's why in Greece, you get people talking about Christian actions towards the ancient Hellenic polytheists with some vitriol ([2]), you get claims of continuous surviving traditions ([3], among others), you get rumors of racism within the movement, and you get people who are part of the movement for non-religious reasons ([4]). Those a features that are totally alien to American Hellenic polytheism. And I should go write a final now. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you disagree with the Hellenic practitioners in Greece, then? Regardless, as long as it is entailed in the entry with NPOV. (I like the guy's headband in the last link you provided LOL) Like I said: if you want help or issues arise, let me know. Cyberdenizen 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a disagreement about priorities more than ideology, and I have basically the same disagreement with the Americans. I disagree with everyone equally. *grin* I guess I'm just doomed to be a heretic. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 01:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have Talk:Hellenic polytheism and Talk:Greek reconstructionism on your watchlist, but if you don't, just thought you should know that the anonymous editor has returned. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Sorry, I've been away. The length of the Christo-Hellenism section has already surpassed all of the other headings. This is what I was afraid of. I really think there needs to be a merciless edit of the section or the creation of a separate entry for Christo-Hellenism. Otherwise, this is going to be an ongoing issue. As before, I have to question the size of this seemingly over-represented contingent. Don't forget this:

From WP:V:

Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, 
or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is 
easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", 
"human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in 
the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for 
more information.

Lemme know what you want to do. I'll try to be more active.Cyberdenizen 07:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a RfC about this due to the repeated personal attacks and harassment. Your endorsement and comments would be appreciated. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I signed it. You pretty much mentioned everything I can think of, although I think the issue goes back further than you documented if I recall. Don't know what happened to my request @ the mediation cabal - they seem to have reformatted the page. I'll try to find it. FYI: I am not a Hellenic Recon, I have never posted to a Hellenic list nor do I personally know anyone from Elaion other than reading their writings online. (The headers he posted previously and cites of yahoo postings were not mine.) Cyberdenizen 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for the mediation request as well; as I recall, it garnered some interesting comments. As for your religious affiliation, that's what I thought. Could you add that information to the RfC? That means that this person is lying about your religious affiliation in an attempt to discredit your contributions. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where I should add the information!?!?! Cyberdenizen 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way would probably be to add a statement of your own to the "description" section at the top of the Statement of the Dispute... I'm hardly an RfC expert, of course. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polytheistic reconstructionism[edit]

Your relatively neutral input on this article would be much welcomed. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly seems pretty benign to me. I read the talk page and it seems like there is a fairly wide breadth of contributors and discussion. From my own limited reading, I think that some of his assertions are valid. He pretty much quoted Isaac Bonewits verbatim, but didn't cite him as a source. I saw the stuff you took issue with, and can see your point about pointless antagonism with neopaganism. Needs some work, but not that bad overall IMHO. Cyberdenizen 07:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Thanks, that made me laugh and feel much less stressed out. I think I'm going to go drink some Tension Tamer tea before my head explodes. *laughs* - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely deserve it and I also feel your frustration. Thanks for not just leaving wikipedia. BTW - have you read the top paragraph at the RfC? There appears to be a place to put the UTC date there with five tildes ~~~~~. Does that get the ball rolling, or? Cyberdenizen 06:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wrote the RfC; would you like to write the RfAr? I don't think the RfC is going to do much good, since vandalism by its subject is quickly making the page impossible to read. According to Wikipedia:Harassment and Template:Pinfo4, posting personal information is an immediately blockable offense that is supposedly taken very seriously on Wikipedia. I think it is definitely time that the admins stepped up to the plate here. Blocking a range of IPs is serious business, but so is accusing a Wikipedia contributor of being mentally ill, using her full legal name. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see if anyone intervenes at this point, being that it is some sort of psuedo holiday today. Please be dilligent in documenting the ongoing Evidence of disputed behaviour to include his most recent accusations. I'm sorry this is happening. He literaly has brought all progress to the entry to a complete stand still, and we both have wasted who knows how much time on this. I'm frustrated, and I feel like wikipedia has devolved into an unmoderated usenet. Don't let him grind you down. He's obviously done this before, and the issues are probably irrelevant to him in comparison to the arousal he is getting harassing and demeaning you. There are two of us, and sooner or later there will be third-party intervention. I'm sorry. Cyberdenizen 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your fault! Hey, that last restoration of the RfC page was a truly heroic effort. It looks pretty nice. I'm off to go add more entries to the "evidence of the dispute" section. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...it's too bad when the editing environment degenerates to this...I am thinking of semiprotecting both the article and talk page if the IP insists on not communicating properly. --HappyCamper 05:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a RfAr. I listed you as one of the involved parties. Feel free to remove your name if you don't want to participate in this one. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Cyberdenizen 05:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I award this Barnstar of Good Humor to Cyberdenizen for creative word choices and general amusement. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)}

Christohellenism[edit]

I've responded to this on Talk:Hellenic polytheism. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your messages[edit]

I am sorry - I have not been able to keep up with everything lately. I actually only got your e-mail today; it seems that Essjay has already taken some action against the IP address by blocking for a month. The comments by the arbitrators also indicate that blocking on sight for that IP would be reasonable too. --HappyCamper 02:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have heard from another admin (see my talk page) that at least 5 others are aware of the situation, so I think all is well. --HappyCamper 03:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. :D Cyberdenizen 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

I noticed you've noticed some of the deletions going on... still tidying everything up so haven't gotten around to loose ends. Wikipedia received a complaint that the personal information of a private person was posted in the history pages, so I'm going around trying to remove where that occurs while still making the remaining pages intelligible... let me know if I've botched anything too badly. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in to acknowledge your reply; I see HC has stepped in and gotten the rest of it, so it looks like that's about it. Oh, yeah, if the anon shows back up, feel free to block on sight, delete revisions, whatever's needed to keep him from continuing to harass. (Oh, yeah, and if anyone is given any trouble about doing it out of process, let me know!) Cheers, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your message...[edit]

Not to worry - Mindspillage is a Wikipedian in good standing and is also a member of the arbitration committee - she is very knowledgeable and will see that the issue is taken care of. In the meantime, for your peace of mind I'm going to protect the page. I don't think there is any reason why the RfC should be edited anymore. --HappyCamper 18:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone" has obfuscated the external link to the OSOGD[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I have not been here recently. New job and all that. While I pretty much agree with the blurb on your user page, it is depressing. Wiki is a great idea but one not easily realized.--◀Puck^talk▶ 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]