Jump to content

Talk:Arnie Lerma/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

To add

  • copyright raid after posting Fishman Affidavit; Wired Magazine article
  • time in Church of Scientology; leaving after being told to back off relationship with Suzette Hubbard, LRH's daughter
  • other bio details with good refs

User:Antaeus Feldspar, sign your posts. --AI 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • summary para with ext/Wiki links about other critics raided around the time of Arnie Lerma, FactNet, etc.
  • incorporate sentence about motion from Lerma regarding RTC motion for summary judgement prior to Judge Brinkema's Nov 29, 1995 Memorandum Opinion (with ext link to doc)(may go with para of other critics raided around Lerma raid)
  • expand summary of RTC vs Lerma, et al to include url links to all court docs
  • add 1995 raid picture on page

User:Maureen D

If these edis have been made, please mark this topic {{Resolved}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

POV check

Stale
 – No discussion in ~4 months.

This article is in favor of Arnie Lerma. There is more criticism of Arnie than what is presented here. --AI 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Maureen D obviously has a POV which favors Arnie Lerma, she quoted the OPINION of Brinkema but did not include the judge's ruling. I will document this POV for use in any arbitration regarding this contributor. --AI 21:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
And you obviously have a POV which disfavors him. Other editors will ensure that this article is balanced, per WP:NPOV. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding vandalism

Stale
 – No discussion in over 3 months.

Adding one link to a scientology website does not denote a total reorganization of an entire page. To disrupt the integrity of pages others contribute and painting them with POV issues is a pale excuse. To redirect a "Recommended Reading" url link to the Wiki page on William Sargant alone - one that you have already altered, is inane - your POV noted. The reorganization of External Links - to separate the news titles from the urls (with the creation of a new "References" category - shows an obvious intent to confuse readers and researchers. POV is a shoddy excuse for Vandalism.

User:Maureen D 05:41, 29 July 2005

NPOV does not include reorganizing this entire page, and most notably to the date integrity, specifically to include this paragraph of undated information:
"Lerma was on the Board of Policy of Liberty Lobby, an anti-semitic organization founded by Willis Carto. Carto turned over part of his archives to Lerma to continue his "legacy.""
Alot of work had to be done in order to disorganize the date format that had previously been established. Why would anyone have to reorganize the entire article if the addition of material were credible enough to fall under the timeline or categories already established? The reorganization of the context of dates was necessary and intentional in order to insure the addition of this information, knowing it lacked the proper support, and which also served to move other "more notable" information about Arnie Lerma from the top of the page. The paragraph, with credible and supportive dates and ext links could have simply been added to the article under the already established date intergrity had the supportive information been known. The burden of proof to its authenticity had to be in question in order to alter the intergrity of dates as they had already been established. This is not editing, this is vandalism. The total reorganization of dates, in addition to the above comments from July 29. lack not only a NPOV, but have the effect of using a NPOV in order to vandalize.
as it was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnaldo_Lerma&oldid=19799473
AI revised history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnaldo_Lerma&oldid=19868653
Reported to vandalism in progress.
User:Maureen D 23:38, 29 July 2005
Reverted txt to last edit ((8:23, 28 July 2005 206.114.20.121) which include the 7 ext url links removed by "AI" (and recategorized as References) that were directly supportive to the dates and facts of the written text:
  • Scientology Fiction. The Church's War Against Its Critics----and Truth, by Richard Leiby, Washington Post, Christmas day edition, 1994
  • Church in Cyberspace; Its Sacred Writ Is on the Net. Its Lawyers Are on the Case, by Marc Fisher, Washington Post, August 19, 1995
  • Church of Scientology protects secrets on the Internet, CNN, Washington, August 26, 1995[2]
  • Scientology's Expensive Wisdom Now Comes Free, by Mike Allen, The New York Times, August 20, 1995
  • Dangerous Science: The Church of Scientology's Holy War against Critics, by Eric J. Ascalon, The American Jurist, vol. 9 no. 2, November 1995[3]
  • alt.scientology.war, by Wendy Grossman, Wired Magazine, December, 1995[4]
  • Scientology's Funny Photos By Lloyd Grove, The Washington Post, Reliable Source column, January 4, 2000
No discussion of the removal of these links by AI originally or after last revert. One ext link was left in by AI, (Aff of Arnie Lerma) that was mistakingly not filed in date chronological order and will be fixed now that the article has been reverted. Maureen D
This article does not belong to User:Maureen D. Maureen's claim of vandalism documented[1] and reverted. --AI 23:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism: AI has reverted article again, this time changing name "Arnaldo Pagliarini Lerma, known as Arnie Lerma" to "Arnaldo (Arnie) Pagliarini Lerma." No comment on necessity for change, eg did you contact Mr. Lerma to ask what his preference was in order to make this change?
Playing with dates again- moving personal information and birthdate around
and then adding the same undated, opinion:
'Lerma was on the Board of Policy of Liberty Lobby, an anti-semitic organization founded by Willis Carto. Carto turned over part of his archives to Lerma to continue his "legacy."'
Is the subtle shifting of dates supposed to deter readers still, to not notice the addition of this undated, unsubstantiated information?
To the degree that there was less reorganization to the entire article this time still shows the same necessity and intent to use a dispute to the NPOV yet, with having to shift a date, and again add in undated, unsupported information.
Reverted; Reported again to Vandalism in Progress Maureen D
AI stop the Vandalism.
AI has removed media links supportive to written text, and added unsubstantiated, undated material, linked to scientology websites. Moving things around, recategorizing the page, does not cover the obvious need to add this spurious, undated material. It is not believed that NPOV allows fabrication as source for bias. A hundred websites could be listed as a reference, but without the history or support to substantiate the factual dates of the bias text presented, then the information is as good as fabrication. Shifting and editing other facts to degrade the date integrity, has been the underlying factor of this vandalism.
This text has been added several times without a link to its source:
"David G. Post, co-director of the Cyberspace Law Institute at Georgetown University, said..."
The only source found for this quote is from scientology's website, "Freedom Magazine website" http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol28I2/page30.htm that does not contain a date or link to it's being rendered as a professional opinion anywhere else, nor as it may be pertinent to the results RTC vs Lerma. The same "Freedom Magazine" website also claims that Arnie Lerma stole the copyrighted materials that were posted to the internet. Have yet to see a link to conclusive court documentation that proves this "opinion," as well as other allegations made on that website. The balance of credible information on the website is past bias in a rational form.
Same with scientology RFW website that makes allegations without dated proof or evidence of the spurious claims. Maureen D
reported to Vandalism in Progress
Clean-up, wikification and contribution IS NOT vandalism. --AI 21:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism; reverting 3 times with repetitive, undated information; disorganization of page, specifically to date integrity; repeated removal of url links, this time with new edit explanation: "WP is not a link farm." Has removed several media article url links, directly relating to, and including this one, a part of the RTC vs Lerma law suit:
Church in Cyberspace; Its Sacred Writ Is on the Net. Its Lawyers Are on the Case, by Marc Fisher, Washington Post, August 19, 1995
This person seems to be on a mission to write in misleading, undated, unsupported information. Maureen D
Vandalism; a 4th revert without explanation; Won't discuss the information being reverted, instead claims hes doing "Wikification." It is doubted at this point AI knows much about the information he keeps reverting to, nor has any interest in discussing or substantiating the information.

reported to Vandalism in Progress Maureen D

AI: The article doesn't belong to you either. Maureen D, please stop characterizing the edits of those you disagree with as vandalism. The fact that you have reported AI to WP:AIV something like four or five times without him/her being blocked should be a signal to you that you are misreporting editing disputes as vandalism. Please read WP:VANDAL more closely. AI: Please stop making significant edits without gaining WP:CONSENSUS; doing so repetitively is disruptive editing which can get you blocked even though it is not actually vandalism. (Also, a side note: Please do not use bullets in front of your posts. Talk page debates are not votes, nor any other kind of list. I have refactored out the misused bullets, above and below.) And Maureen D, please sign your posts properly with ~~~~, so that they have datestamps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If the edits in question are stable now, please mark this topic {{Resolved}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikified

Stale
 – No discussion in over 3 months.

I have extensively cleaned up and "wikified" the article which included reformatting, spelling correction, grammer correction, introduction of data which may be seen as controversial and can be disputed with discussions here on the talk page. Very little or nothing of Marueen's contributions were deleted except Arnie's "link farm," which Wikipedia is not. If there are disputes, then please dispute things properly instead of simply reverting the entire page. --AI 18:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the connotation to adding the category of "Agenda" to the discussion page, without a comment? Wikified what? Your own reverts of undated information, vandalism? I've never seen an encyclopedia that references events without dates. Repeating, - the underlying nature of this vandalism has been the use of technical editing to remove references, and the degradation of date integrity that supported the dated information that has been cited, (with the spontaneous addition of undated information.) There has been no reply or discussion of the undated information that has been edited in, and reverted numerous times. The discussion of dated information has been noted numerous times on this talk page, without response by AI. (Wikification and "link farm" suggestions have been introduced later, yet that does not address the undated information comments.) "If there are disputes.." is not a logical reason for not bringing information without dates or supportive information. You cannot shift that responsibility, if you have read or understood the discussion on this page so far. The burden of proof to the information is not others, but yours. Maureen D
Rule #1: Be Bold. --AI 05:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Inapplicable. The rule was formulated with the expectation that Wikipedia editors would all be intelligent and honorable enough to comprehend that it was not the only rule. Of course, that hope has since been punctured. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
A policy/guideline are not rendered obsolete by other policies and guidelines. --AI 23:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Which makes your citing of "Be Bold" as if it made all other policies and guidelines obsolete deeply inadequate, not to mention hypocritical. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I take your comment personally as a personal attack. :) --AI 00:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course you do. Just as you take my moving a to-do list, which I did not create, from the article text to the talk page, as an opportunity to whine that I did not sign my post, as if it was hard to figure out as the first edit to the page or it was somehow meaningful that I moved it to the talk page rather than someone else doing so. Just as you take Maureen's quite justified complaints that you are shifting the burden of proof onto others -- a matter far more serious than not signing a talk page post -- as an opportunity to trot "Be Bold!" as if it answered, or as if you'd ever say that to someone being bold with results that didn't favor your hobbyhorse. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
If the edits in question are stable now, please mark this topic {{Resolved}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Stale
 – No discussion in over 3 months.

There is no proof, that this text is from Arnie Lerma: it is not on Lermanet itself but on the CISAR site which is hosted by Lermanet since 2004 or 2005. Joe Cisar is a Journalist who translated lots of German Scientology articles into English and did some investigations about Scientology as well. As the whole Spotlight-Scientology-Carto stuff is on the Cisar page, it is more likely, that the author of these reports (including the description of the Carto visit) is Joe Cisar and not Arnie Lerma - there is no name given about the author. In view of this, there is not enough evidence to write anything about Lermas opinion on the Holocaust: what can be stated is that he hosts a site which contains this material as part of the documentation of an investigation. --Irmgard 17:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Added back was text to include the documentation establishing the relationship between scientology and Willis Carto on Lermanet.com. There are specific original documents which are historically dated and notable, and this information will eventually spread to the other pages mentioned in the text, as scientology was involved and corresponded with several of these organizations. -- Maureen D 21:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If the edits in question are stable now, please mark this topic {{Resolved}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Stale
 – No discussion in over 3 months.

Antaeus reverted my changes without discussion or explanation:

  1. 07:53, 7 August 2005 [2]
  2. 13:59, 7 August 2005 [3]

My contributions were clearly explained in edit summaries and properly attributed. --AI 00:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting his change, if any content is disputed, then we can discuss the particular content instead of simply reverting other user's contributions. --AI 00:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
If the edits in question are stable now, please mark this topic {{Resolved}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RFW Page

Resolved
 – WP:RS is clear on the matter.

Removed the ext link to the RFW website, (Religious Freedom Watch - Anti-religious Extremist: Arnie Lerma) as it applies to no referenced text in the article. The problem with the link being added originally is that the information that was being referenced in added text was undated, therefore unwarranted for addition.

One of the other problems with referencing the RFW website link is that the text often referenced does not match the text on the page. The edits in this article compared to the text on the RFW website were misleading. (Besides undated information.) eg., after AI added the RFW weblink, the first paragraph in the Arnie Lerma Wiki article was changed to say, "Lerma organizes and participates in demonstrations against the Church of Scientology." However, one of the first things that RFW link quotes is, "Arnie Lerma at a hate march.." The addition of text from the page verbatim would certainly be extreme in its own sense, and that brings the question of having to even soften the information to put it on Wikipedia. A supportive reference would back up what the article text says, not say something else when you looked to the link for more information. The language on the RFW page is extreme on the other hand, and if it cannot be quoted directly, or if the source of the page is not actually named on the page itself, it has no merit. The softening of the added language from the RFW page vs what is actually quoted in the text of the article may almost seem intentional, as if knowing that a certain level of extremism on the weblink already existed.

It has been assumed that RFW is a Scientology page, but without any quotation that is directly related, along with its being the only source of information that quotes this information - it would not appear to be a substantial, credible reference to be used for an encyclopedia. 25 August 2005 User:Maureen D

Experienced Scientology critics are convinced that it is a Scientology page - there are numerous factors contributing to this view: similarity of language, lists only people seen as "enemies" by Scientology, site is registered by "Scientology Parishioners Committee". I've seen at different times some Scientologists mentioned who run it. Even if it is not finally proved, the site qualifies definitely as Partisan website, probably as extremist partisan website. Here two examples of comments by persons who have been described there: http://www.xenu.net/news/20010726-ars.txt http://www.lermanet.com/cos/cartoihr.html.
Wikipedia is clear on this subject: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites - so it could be used as (first hand) source in Fair Game (Scientology) ot Scientology controversy, but else only if corroborated by independent sources. --Irmgard 20:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

RTC vs. Lerma: Judge Brinkema

"RTC filed a summary judgement motion in December based on evidence of wholesale and verbatim infringements by Lerma of 33 separate works. ... At today's hearing, Judge Brinkman granted RTC's motion and denied a summary judgement motion filed by Lerma who claimed that his actions were "fair use" and should be allowed." - Church of Scientology press release [4]

..."CoS press release on the Jan. 19 ruling in favor of RTC and against Arnaldo Lerma." - EFF Website [5]

--AI 03:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The EFF had this comment [6] about the Scientology press release, of which text you have added to the article. Based on their opinion of this text, I am reverting back:
cos_lerma_011996.announce"
CoS press release on the Jan. 19 ruling in favor of RTC and against Arnaldo Lerma. This press release diverges from previous ones, having more factual information and less spin, though it does state "This is a significant decision not only for the Church of Scientology but all other intellectual property owners..." This is not true - the case was jurisprudentially routine, and established little or nothing in the way of new precedent. The aspects of the larger case that are interesting from a precedent and legal significance point of view - whether Digital Gateway Systems and the Washington Post could also be held liable - have already been resolved, and not in CoS's favor. The press release also of course neglects to mention the judge's chastisement of CoS for the improper raid on Lerma, and other significant aspects of the decision.
The text you're adding highlights a copyright issue that does not merit the impunity, or precedent, then or now as the EFF's opinion above logically and professionally states - verbatim. The bulk of RTC vs Lerma is on the World Wide Web for others to read. This POV you express, based on a Scientology press release (and amongst many opinions stated in the court documents) suggests the copyright issue as being senior to the overall outcome - which it was not. It was decided that the harassment was senior. Maureen D 3 September, 2005
Nowhere do I suggest that the copyright issue is the senior issue or not the senior issue. The EFF's opinions only represents the POVs of certain demographics in society. Their opinion has no legal authority over official judicial rulings. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The comment by the EFF Website confirms the obviously provable fact that the judge ruled in favor of RTC regarding Lerma's alleged copyright violations, regardless of any other issues. And Lerma's copyright violation(s) are simply an issue, regardless of any seniority of the issue. Lerma's alleged claims of harrassment do not nullify the CoS claims of alleged copyright violation. Seniority does not disqualify the significant-minority view.(see WP:NPOV) Censorship of the copyright issues ruled upon at the January 19, 1996 hearing is a violation of WP:NPOV. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Also AI, please click on the url [7] (as listed above,) and see that the name of the judge in numerous offical court documents listed under the RTC vs Lerma et al case you've cited in the heading - is incorrect. The name of the judge is Leonie M. Brinkema. I'll leave your error so that you will possibly take that as a hint to actually read and familiarize yourself with this case in it's entirety before you make spurious corrections and edits. Just as you could have read the EFF's opinion of the text you've added to the article. The EFF's POV clearly could have saved the addition of this material in the first place, had you read it. 06:56, 3 September 2005 Maureen D
You should have corrected the name, the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to leave hints supporting claims that another contributor's edits and corrections are spurious. The mistake over a judge's name does not justify censorship. Censorship of the January 19, 1996 ruling of Lerma's copyright violation(s) is a violation of WP:NPOV. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
My POV regarding Lerma's copyright violation is not based on personal opinions or my personal activist views on copyrights. On January 19, 1996, the judge granted RTC's summary judgement motion based on evidence of wholesale and verbatim infringements by Lerma of 33 separate works. At the same time, the judge denied a summary judgement motion filed by Lerma who claimed that his actions were "fair use" and should be allowed. Censorship of the POV I am presenting is a violation of WP:NPOV. All POV's must be presented fairly: "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." WP:NPOV Maureen is entitled to her POV and I welcome all POV's, but will not accept her censorship of the POV I am presenting which is based on facts. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
You did not cite your sources in the article - only here, with one press release from Scientology. The listing of your December hearing above: "RTC filed a summary judgement motion in December based on evidence of wholesale and verbatim infringements by Lerma of 33 separate works.. is much past explanation rendered in official court documents if you have read either of the two hearings you refer to. Or the ones before or after the dates. There are linked court docs in the article that discuss these issues as well. (and is it 33 separate works or 31? or 5 infringements?) If you cite the same press release on the article, it will not be acceptable because it doesn't include any official opinion of both of the hearings you have cited. The facts are in the court documents. Scientology makes untruthful statements in respect to the explanation of the fair use, as the denial of one motion is not an overall reason to conclude that the hearing caused a precedent setting event. That is not a POV that is a distortion of the facts. When there are not other professional renderings of such a conclusion, that is not an opinion. In retrospect, the facts have been distorted.
The idea of censorship and NPOV are your words, not mine. I do not accept your summarization that I am censoring a fair use issue because you misspelled the judges name. 6 September, 2005
Reverted back 6 September, 2005 Maureen D
I cited my sources here in the talk page and the source is apparent on the article with the way I worded it. --AI 03:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
AI has placed comment on my talk page which I have addressed and am placing that link here.[8] He is not addressing my last comments on this talk page, and has also neglected to add the full text of my comments in that discussion. AI has instead chosen to accuse of censorship and violation of NPOV. As a matter of fact, the details or other proof are not being brought or discussed. AI is reverting back text without addressing my comments.
I suggest only authentic sources be cited, eg actual court documents, so that the community can see and determine that the details properly render a NPOV. I note the habitual use of ambiguous and distorted documents in this article, that are unofficial and not NPOV, but seem to be used more as a way to draw reaction, bait and harass. This is not a healthy way to debate. AI has shown no interest in summarizing or bringing any other details of both of the court documents cited in this Scientology press release. If AI is unable to bring and summarize court documents that reflect or allow others to have input for a NPOV, I think the citation of sources be rejected until the proper support is brought and can be read by the community. Like this Scientology press release, and with other sources AI has used here, the facts were not authenticated to prove the summary of his text to the article, but he instead argued NPOV. AI stopped discussing and instead started to talk about Wiki policy. This does not replace his responsibility to bringing in of other sources to authenticate or allow others to check the NPOV. Nor should this consume other editors time to have to prove the facts for AI. This is an intentional, repetitive occurence in this article, where AI responds in terms of NPOV instead of proving his summarization from the sources he brings or by attempting to bring other sources. This Scientology press release is not an authentic representation of a proper source.
Reverting back the article Maureen D 05:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I cited my sources here in the talk page and the source is apparent on the article with the way I worded it. Long rants won't drown my statements. --AI 03:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
"On January 19, 1996 this Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on its copyright infringement claim. That ruling was made orally, in open Court, the Court advising the parties that it would explain its reasons in a written opinion and thereafter give the parties an opportunity to address remedies." ... "4. the Court intends to award the statutory minimum of $5OO for each infringement, for a total statutory award of $2,500 in favor of RTC and against Defendant Lerma, unless the RTC convinces the Court to do otherwise." ORDER, RTC v. Lerma, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No 95-1107-A signed by Leonie M. Brinkema, United States District Judge, October 4, 1996.

--AI 04:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. When I first read the article I could not figure out whether-or-not RTC won their case. Of course I remember the case so I knew the outcome, but I think that most readers would have been left scratching their heads. The case and its aftermath were very important to the internet community. --Vreejack 04:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the above mixture (in bold) of two court documents does not equal AI's original citation of sources. The text regarding the award of $2,500 for copyright violation is not in the Scientology press release. Nor did he put a link to cite the source of the document from which it's quoted. This document was already linked in the article.[9] After this opinion was issued, the RTC went to another judge On Oct 8, (in the absence of Judge Brinkema) and motioned to have it sealed because it included a statement about Xenu and advanced level teachings. [10] [11] On Oct 15 Judge Brinkema vacated sealing the order stating, "Because the Court does not find that the three sentences at issue reveal any trade secrets and because the Court does not intend to rewrite its opinions merely because portions do not satisfy one side, RTC’s Motion is DENIED" Maureen D 22:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
If the edits in question are stable now, please mark this topic {{Resolved}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Information control pattern recognition

"Plaintiffs (Church of Scientology) have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter," Kolts wrote. "This constitutes 'extraordinary, malicious, wanton, and oppressive conduct.'" He later stated, "It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs (the Church of Scientology) sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master (Kolts) has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this."

Special Magistrate James Kolts, Santa Barbara Independent, 23 January,1993 [12] Maureen D 02:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Maureen, this article is about Arnie Lerma, not the Church of Scientology or James Kolts. The quote you are citing does not change the fact that Arnie was convicted of copyright violation. --AI 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
"Convictions" exist only in criminal cases. Arnie wasn't prosecuted. Tilman 08:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman
Tilman, you are not correct. Do I have to prove it to you, or can you admit you are wrong? --AI 01:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to ask for permission first. Just go ahead, prove me wrong. Tilman 17:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman
If the edits in question are stable now, please mark this topic {{Resolved}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is AI also user 128.171.51.167?

Resolved
 – Wrong forum; sockpuppettry issues should be taken to WP:SSP.

Who edited 20:11, 17 September 2005 128.171.51.167 [13]

Appears to be [14] Maureen D 21:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require ...

Arnie Lerma was interrogated by the church and was allegedly offered "safe passage out of Florida with all of his body parts" is easily viewed as an "extarodinary claim". It doesn't have "extarodinary proof", indeed, it has no reference at all. Would it be safe to say, "Lerma claims the moon is made of green cheese" and provide no reference? Terryeo 19:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that it happened, or that he claimed it? --Tilman 20:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No, being interrogated and coerced with threats of bodily harm by the Little Sisters of the Poor is an extraordinary claim. The Church of Scientology interrogating one of its own members and offering that member violence is barely enough to raise an eyebrow. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
If the edits in question are stable now, please mark this topic {{Resolved}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Tturresi

Resolved
 – Wrong forum; claims of vandalism cannot be resolved on talk pages but at WP:AIV.

If these edits are in fact made by the same person, this would contribute to an ongoing pattern of conduct:

17:43, 19 November 2006 Tilman (Talk | contribs) (rvv edits by Lerma stalker Tony Turrisi)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnaldo_Lerma&diff=89497716&oldid=88836596

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnaldo_Lerma&action=history

This would be the alleged person:

Previous incident involving Arnaldo Lerma
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=67

Scientology website affiliation
http://members.cox.net/aturrisi/wis.html

Turrisi has also edited the Wiki page on Willis Carto,

21:51, 2 November 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Tturrisi

which is a repetitive pattern that Scientology has continued on other forums with other posters; a significance that on behalf of Scientology, members are providing propaganda on numerous levels concerning Arnaldo Lerma that reveals a conspiracy of character assasination.

http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=237

Maureen D 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Turrisi is simply a wikipedia vandal. He should be blocked, or at least warned. --Tilman 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Page unsourced, WP:BLP vio

Unresolved
 – Refs cleanup work remains to be done.

There are ZERO sources for the whole article. from bio data to later activities. needs major fix. COFS 23:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the external links are actually sources, like the CNN article. It needs to be changed to a proper cite and put into a references section, but it's not a crisis. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Tag is querulous, addition is an obvious conflict of interest edit (COFS is an acknowledged official Church of Scientology staff account) - removed - David Gerard 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't make it wrong to tag the article with {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}. If some of the stuff not under "References" are references, then move them to that section, and tag them for cleanup. The refs section should look like this (for the short term):

==References==

{{Refimprove|{{subst:DATE}}}}
{{Reflist}}
{{Refbegin}}
* One of these improperly formatted references{{Clarifyme|{{subst:DATE}}}}<!--use <ref...> to cite specific facts inline in the article, and use {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, etc., provide source details.-->
* Another one and so on{{Clarifyme|{{subst:DATE}}}}<!--use <ref...> to cite specific facts inline in the article, and use {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, etc., provide source details.-->

{{Refend}}

See thread immediately below for how to clean up beyond this, and resolves those {{tl:Clarifyme}}s. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why a Lerma article?

Resolved
 – Article subject satisfies WP:N's criteria. And wrong forum – article deletion discussions happen at WP:AFD.

Since Lerma's primary claim to fame is the Fishman Affidavit matter, why does this article even exist? There's nothing here that isn't already amply covered in Fishman Affidavit and Scientology vs. the Internet. wikipediatrix 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He is notable. --74.123.73.168 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Is that all you got? Saying it doesn't make it so. wikipediatrix 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If you do a websearch, you find that he is notable as a scientology critic.--Fahrenheit451 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Is that all you got? Saying it doesn't make it so. wikipediatrix 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Is that all you got? Saying it doesn't make it so.--Fahrenheit451 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone say "sockpuppets"? I think this is the first time I've seen sockpuppets accidentally make idental posts!— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Added back personal information in the "Introduction," "Quotes," and "Writings" categories as to Arnaldo Lerma's notability as a publisher and writer. Links to the publications, "United We Stand," which later became the independent, "Arlington Volunteers" are here: [15] More text will be added to the article regarding Arnie Lerma's local/state political involvement, as sources become available. -- Maureen D 03:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
He is notable, per WP:N. The Primary Notability Criterion: Lerma is the focus of multiple, independent, reliable sources. End of issue. If anyone still has an issue with this idea, take it to WP:AFD, since arguing about it on the talk page is totally pointless; actionable deletion discussions do not take place on article talk pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

Resolved
 – Bot assessment has been human-confirmed.

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I confirm the bot assessment as a valid one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for reference cleanup

Resolved
 – Cleanup work done already.
  • Turn every one of those [inline ELs] into a proper <ref>reference</ref>. (If need be, I might be able to dig up the guidelines and policies showing that this needs to be done.)
  • Then, when it's obvious why many of these don't meet the standards for references, discard them.
  • If possible, turn the solid general references into specific footnotes, probably in multiple places.
  • Do a little reading and Googling to find more solid third-party refs. They're out there.

sheesh! AndroidCat 12:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If the "sheesh" means that you think I should have gone to the trouble of doing research for refs instead of simply removing unsourced information, it's not the responsibility of others to rewrite the huge amount of half-assedly-done Scientology articles here. It's enough for me to simply clean up the stuff that absolutely shouldn't be here and let someone else who deeply cares about the subject do further research. wikipediatrix 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hell no! My "sheesh" was directed to the complete mess that this article is for references, even though there are lots of usable references out there that could have been used. I don't mind hunting down (some) references: I think I'm good at it and it's fun. But it's annoying to see articles where people have added large blobs of text without even trying to support it. AndroidCat 14:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll care to help clean up the article, as there is more biographical information that has to be added; including refreshing to properly input the information under Wiki guidelines once more. I read all of the 'Critics' of Scientology' articles before I gathered information to begin Arnaldo Lerma's page here, and the first thing I noticed was the misdirection of both input of information and the arguments that 'AI' was using - the simplest errors that begin to degrade and defy the format of an encyclopedia. You cannot change the format of an encyclopedia, as it's straightforward. Find one and open it up. There is no reason to plop info down without references, or follow a dated timeline.

Is there a way to detect or sense that plops of info have omitted a date or year or source before it gets posted? This seems such a common recurrence which causes unnecessary micromanagement to begin. New information such as events or detail always fits in based on a date an event happened. Titles can be changed after enough dated info or subject matter calls for a division and recategorization. Major altercation requires talk to avoid undue feeling of authors being or causing hijacking.

The format for adding references is a bit complex in terms of coding, and takes time to comprehend, (everyone can do it with patience). Debating references on the discussion page is another simple rule that gets ignored before or after input. This is not an excuse for plopping info either, but is it a violation? If not, its a loophole, and would test that the info was backed by a reference that can be debated, rather it's being overlooked and ill-intentioned. The three posting violation within time limits was invoked against me, overlooking the fact that it was caused by input of undated and unreferenced information. In addition to using source material considered to be propaganda. For that matter, these discussions serves as a tutorial on information warfare using non-original sourced information, (propaganda) by ignoring the beginning formatting guidelines offensively. My arguments consistently bring attention to the fact of references I looked up because they were omitted, and discussion, which AI continuously plopped as if no one noticed. The current unresolved issues on this page today, (POV Check, Wikified, Holocaust Denial, About Vandalism, and Reverts) should all be under Vandalism if you see that the beginning entries all lacked the basic guidelines which were violated to begin with. The User AI just found as many different complaints to tie other people up, as well as misdirect and involve upper managers time and effort. Involvement of so many people at one time is asking for misstatements to occur also, which has nothing to do with the violations invoked. This should never happen. Hubbard faked a dictionary to give new meaning to words to utilize and misdirect media. He didn't fake an encyclopedia, so the redefinition of information falling under various violations has a certain codification issue as such. As well as other users who wander and plop information. (Maureen D (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Okay, it's been almost a year and a half now. If someone doesn't clean up the refs, then the unreferenced material needs to be deleted, per WP:BLP. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the cleanup work was done. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkheader

Preferable to use talkheader instead of archive box, as the {{talkheader}} template automatically does that. :) Cirt (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good reason to use a template the principal purpose of which is to flag a talk page as a zone of extreme contention and flaming newbie outbursts, on a page to which that condition does not apply. I'll fix it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. It will auto-archive just like talkheader now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

searching....

    Searching frantically for Arnie Lerma, profile observed. Kim Newman--Kimnewman (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arnie Lerma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arnie_Lerma/Archive_1&oldid=831967779"