User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 10

Check on my categorization, please?

See [1] Ronabop 06:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac

I think he, like many people on here, probably with myself included, is his own worst enemy. He gets too passionate about what he believes and when you lose focus, the first thing to go is often the ability to make compromises and resolve disputes. I personally believe there's nothing anybody can do at this point to undo the arbcom sockpuppet block, particularly since even though he was a outspoken critic of Kelly Martin, Kelly very fairly(I was surprised) reduced the block to what it was before for Internodeuser, the alleged sock of Zordrac.

So, at this point, the best thing seems to be to leave it be. I know that's easier said than done, in the real world today, I laughed my ass off when I saw that the sign of a real estate agency I quit last month had fallen down, and I was tempted to rub it in, but we all gotta take it one day at a time I guess.

Please let me know if I can help out with anything in the future. Karmafist 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Believe it or not, I actually had been letting it lie (no pun intended) because even though he was telling malicious lies about me he was at least telling them in the form of "Oh, woe is me, pity me, for I am soooo piteous, being harassed* by my two Wikistalkers* (* Note: please see User:Zordrac/FAQ for my own private redefinitions of these terms)". But when he went back to naming me by name and repeating the same lies about me, I broke the silence I had been trying to maintain for the sake of peace. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was deleting revisions that supposedly included in their edit summaries the real name of a contributor (I didn't want to take any chances). If you want me to restore the version, I will. --King of All the Franks 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, there were some claims made against you in a comment on the user talk page, trying to give out your real name. I don't think it would have flown with you. --King of All the Franks 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That clarifies things; Zordrac spent some time allied with a user who thought he knew my real name and kept trying to post it everywhere he could to harass me. If that's the case, it shouldn't be necessary to restore the version, if you can just confirm to anyone questioning that none of the edits which were removed were by me. -- Antaeus Feldspar

Absolutely. --King of All the Franks 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Senor Cardgage

To begin with, I'm not the admin you're looking for. :) I VFD'd the article, but didn't end up redirecting it or formally closing it.

Anyway, I reverted to the redirect and replaced the text in the list of characters. He didn't so much improve the article drastically, so much as polish what was in the long list already, thusly I merged his changes into the list. I don't think anyone will complain. -- -- Bobdoe (Talk) 08:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On "Engram"

I saw that you recently moved Engram to Engram (neuropsychology) and made a disambiguation page. That's a really good idea; I've looked at the old page many times, trying to figure out what would be the best way to convey the various very different meanings of "engram" without hitting on that solution. I realize you might be quite busy, but would you consider taking the time to write at least a brief stub for Engram (Scientology) or Engram (Dianetics), whichever is more appropriate? I felt bad when I happened to see a note from you on someone's talk page, saying that you sometimes felt dissuaded from making edits that might be perceived as too 'pro-Scientology'; I just want you to know that I have great respect for you, and think we need more editors like you, who can fairly and clearly present the Scientology point of view, without presenting it as the only point of view, or the only rational point of view. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Antaeus: Thank you for your kind message; I am greatly honoured that you think so highly of me, although I cannot possibly think I could deserve such praise - I am far from a model editor, and indeed have much to learn. As for the issue of not wishing to make edits that may be perceived as being pro-Scientology - I am acutely aware that, since I have openly stated my Scientology background on Wikipedia, it is most difficult to attempt to temper what is often a rather strong critical POV on articles relating to Scientology without being accused of Scientology POV pushing, simply because the view presented in the article tends to be more the mainstream one; it is more I do not wish altercations to occur over the subject, and I am somewhat self-conscious about running the risk of appearing that way albeit unintentionally. However, that can't be helped really. As for the Engram article, if you take a look at Engram (Dianetics) I have fleshed together a preliminary stub; I will add more info. on engram running etc. tomorrow, polish it off a bit, and add critical aspects with a reference or two to critical sources for NPOV purposes. I do hope this helps. Thank you, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow -- it looks like a great job so far! That's impressive, especially for something only started tonight. As for having a lot to learn -- well, we all do, really; we just need to keep ourselves aware of it so that we do continue to learn. You may think you're far from a model editor, but I'm being honest when I say that a new editor could do a lot, lot worse than to take you as a model. Cheers! -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Southall and munchausen

Why is David Southall germane to Munchausen syndrome? --Vees 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Consider posting what you posted to my talk page to Southall's article? --Vees 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

86.10.231.219

Who on earth ordered 86.10.231.219 (talk • contribs). Please have a look at Talk:Mumps. My patience is wearing more than thin. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi Antaeus,

I know it can be a bit frustrating dealing with Dianetics etc, but could I ask you to take the time to explain deletions/reversions? If you don't do that, there's not much for the other editors to work with in terms of working out and responding to whatever your objection is. I certainly don't disagree with (most of) your deletions/reversions but it would help if you could make the reasons clear. -- ChrisO 11:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I try to do that when I can, but we're dealing with editors who pretend they never heard us the last fifteen times we raised the same objections. Tell them fifteen times why they can't just put the results of "scientific tests" that never appeared anywhere except Scientology books into the article as confirmed fact and they'll just put it in a sixteenth time. Show them documented proof and Terryeo will still "cut unverifiable blah-de-bloo to talk page because I don't want to believe it la la la la I'm not listening lol ~~~~". After a certain point you realize that these are people who aren't talking on the talk page to actually communicate, to actually resolve anything, these are people who just want their own way, and will use whatever serves their purpose at the moment to try and get their way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it makes sense, if it isn't published it isn't presentable in Wikipedia. A good lesson to keep in mind for those who support citing unpublished, confidential documents :). However, since Science of Survival underwent 15 or 20 reprintings, is listed by ISBN in the Library of Congress, can be purchased new or used today, to quote a study within that book is not unreasonable. Terryeo 17:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry....

I was responding to a vandal attack and got a little careless in the reverts. Jwissick^(t)(c) 20:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I understand how that can happen. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't some reason that I wasn't aware of for not using that template anymore... -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sylvia and Gerry Anderson

Hi. I wanted to call your attention to a mini-poll I've launched on the talk page for the Sylvia and Gerry Anderson article. I believe this article should be split into two separate articles, one for each person, and as someone who frequently contributes to Anderson-related articles, I'd like to get your thoughts on this. Thanks! 23skidoo 13:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Principality of Marlborough

I noticed your changed vote on the AFD for this article, however it seems to be based on misinformation. The case received wide coverage on TV and in the press in Australia, and generated a lot of public attention and sympathy for those involved. I've added a link at the AFD to a group of 5 press articles on the subject from Australia's biggest circulation broadsheet newspaper. --Centauri 05:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Kring AfD

You have stayed factual and we are all on your side. You certainly did not deserve that horrible abuse. Keep cool and hold to your values. Obina 00:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I wonder if Zothip's lawyer contacted Wikipedia. He said he's not pressing charges against you, but we've got your back, just in case. :P --Kinu 17:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't heard anything about anything of the sort. I really doubt that he could find a lawyer who'd even pretend to take a "case" with so little actual merit, but it means more than I can say to know my back is got. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation re Dianetics

I think we need to expose the editing dispute over Dianetics to a wider audience. Terryeo clearly has no intention of following basic editing standards, whether it's because he doesn't agree with them or just doesn't understand them. We should, however, give him the chance to get the views of people who haven't been involved in this dispute and whom he might see as less partial sources of advice than us. I propose to submit a Request for Mediation concerning the Dianetics article. If that fails, an Request for Comment on Terryeo's conduct may be necessary, though I'd prefer that to be only a last resort. Would you be willing to be a party in the initial Request for Mediation? -- ChrisO 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. I don't know if he'll have any interest in following basic editing standards once he realizes that they won't allow him to put pro-Dianetics and pro-Scientology spin everywhere that he wants to see it, but if there's a chance that he can be made to comprehend that he is not standing up for free speech against censorship, but rather practicing POV-pushing in violation of Wikipedia's principles, I'd like to take that chance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The mediation request is up now at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Dianetics. -- ChrisO 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Antaeus, do you know the process - assuming one exists - for having an admin check certain suspected users' IPs for sockpuppetry? I don't want to just openly accuse someone of being one, of course, but some new users in the last 48 hours are giving me pause. wikipediatrix 01:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know the process. You might ask David Gerard (talk • contribs), though, what it takes to get such a check made. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I suspect they're more probable to be meatpuppets than sockpuppets; you-know-who contacting buddies and telling them "this is what policy is on the subject," (actually his own private understanding/interpretation of policy, which is unlikely to be the same thing) "now go make reverts for me since I'm going to hit my limit." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientology and the Legal System

I notice on that page that you say I remove information that doesn't support my POV. It appears that you may have not read my comments on the discussion board. I would be grateful if you could first read those comments and then set out (1) what you perceive my POV is (2) what specific edits I made that fall afoul of the WikiProject standard. Really Spooky 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

article Psychotronics

Hello Antaeus,

I just noticed your edit summary on the edit to Psychotronics. --JimmyT 11:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Dianetics

In response to your lengthy entry at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Dianetics: Fair Use permits you to cite documents in Wikipedia, but not those which are unverifiable. You may use secondary sources, but then you would be just as "guilty" as I am in some other unrelated articles where you disputed my inclusion of information which was fairly used and based on secondary sources published by writers who are just as or more notable than the only sources you may have access to. --JimmyT 10:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I disagree that the testimony provided by Scientology's own witness Warren McShane under oath in a court case is a source equal to "Patrick Flanagan's Neurophone: Hope for the deaf and superlearning for all" by Eddy Taylor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. This is your talk page, not mine so there was no way to know you answered my communication until I came to write You! :) What does Warren McShane have to do with verifiability? Is he a reputable publisher, or are you attempting to employ OR by using his testimony to substantiate ChrisO's claim? Please discuss it in a short and sweet manner on the Dianetics talk page or on the mediation page so everyone involved can comment on what you have "discovered". BTW, I am still waiting for you to discuss a few things on the neurophone talk page, I have almost entirely conceded to you there, out of respect and to give discussion the opportunity to solve any and all disputes even though your notes on the history page did not clearly explain what you were doing and at least once did not even match what what you did. Thank you for your consideration. --JimmyT 03:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've already made it clear that any of the reasoning and evaluation that editors are expected to do in order to separate reliable sources from unreliable sources is, in your mind, "original research" -- even though it is not. So, since you've already made clear that you will insist upon this error no matter what anyone says, what point is there in anyone talking to you about it? We've already tried to explain your error and you keep insisting that, with roughly two weeks experience of Wikipedia under your belt, you couldn't possibly be misunderstanding anything about policy in the slightest. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Society of Wikipedia Vandals

Hello I am the creator of that page and it didnt seem like the Wikipedia admins thought it would be workable. that is why i deleted it, the deletion was not meant to be vandalism. thanks

Also, i have a question about the text unsalvageably incoherent comment. how is the text incoherent. it follows the Americanized rules of the english language. Im not a second year english student from a foriegn speaking land. thanks --Wsuraider 03:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi. We haven't interacted much, but from what I can recall seeing of you around here, I think I've been impressed. I just noticed you're not an admin, and am a bit surprised. Would you like to be one? I've never nominated anyone before, but you certainly seem deserving. Leave a note on my talk page either way, and if you say yes, I have a couple follow up questions. -R. fiend 05:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, though you should consider that being an admin doesn't mean you have to do admin tasks all the time. It's a useful thing to have, to use when you need it. As for our second reason, well, I had some of the same concerns, but my RFA went pretty well. In any case, if you're definitely not interested shall I cross out your name at: Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts? -R. fiend 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Guitar Garden

Hello, thanks for your NPOV reminder on the Guitar Garden entry. I've gone back through the entry and removed all the non-neutral language. If this meets with your approval, I'd like to remove the Neutrality tag from the top of the page. Please advise (greenscene@earthlink.net).

thanks very much!

MEST

in Re: to the article MEST (Scientology) I see you have insisted certain lines be included in the article. Please understand, this attempt to communicate with you is not about what you believe to be true or false. This attempt to communicate is about the information the article presents. You have reverted the information which I removed to the discussion page. Then you didn't discuss. But instead reverted the information into the article again. I invite your discussion. The lines I am talking about are these:"... eventually attain "cause over MEST' - the ability to influence the physical universe by thought alone.[1]"

• which points to a verification which does not say anything like, "by thought alone." That is the portion which I umm, well, know to be false and which there is no verification of and which I have pasted to the discussion page, saying similar to what I have just stated. I do understand of course that some secondary sources give their interpretation as being "by thought alone" and the article is perfectly free to cite them. But the verification that [1] points to does not use those words.

and secondly this line:

• "In Hubbard's teachings, our Thetans have become contaminated or debased by the influences of MEST, which must be transcended." A secondary source of information (such as clambake or xenu or something) might use those words. Scientology sources will never use those words like that. If that sentence is to be included, doesn't it make sense to use it as a quote and cite a source of information?

Scientology literature does say something like: "we, as thetans, have allowed ourselves to become injured and reduced our abilities because of impacts with MEST and these difficulties can be overcome". Hoping to resolve an editing revert - counter revert. have a nice day.Terryeo 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very easy, Feldspar

at ChrisO's talk page you stated: "may wish to look at a user-conduct RfC against Terryeo instead. His poor behavior is clearly affecting far more than just the Dianetics article". I want to tell you Feldspar. I am very easy. There is only one thing I want. I want the subject material which comprises Dianeticts to be introduced in the Dianetics article. Likewise with every article on Wikipedia. I am not talking about running on for many paragraphs, I am talking about one or two, 4 paragraphs at most which are dedicated to presenting the information which comprises the subject. I am very easy. The rest of the mumbo jumbo can be anything, fairy tale, pseudoscience, anything you all want. I don't care as long as the subject is first presented. On that basis a rational person can then make their own judgements. Without the information of what a subject is, a rational person can not make judgements. I am very easy. There is one other thing I insist on. I will insist that WP:V be followed. This means that legally contested docments, unpublished to the public, shall not appear on Wikipedia if I can prevent it. It means some things further but I intend to follow WP:V. If this attitude I hold bothers you, too bad. I expect you to hold the same attitude in your areas of expertise. I won't give you an example because last time I did (about vitimin B3) you hypered off about how Vitimin B3 information from Dianetics is invalid. So, I won't give you another example. However. I am making a statement here. I am very easy. You all do whatever you feel is right, I will do what is right about introducing subjects. You're being silly to view my actions as hostile. It baffles me that you don't understand that I know Dianetics.Terryeo 22:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am very easy. There is only one thing I want. I want the subject material which comprises Dianeticts to be introduced in the Dianetics article. Sorry, that is a lie, as your editing behavior has proven. The much-missed NicholasTurnbull did more to make the beliefs that comprise Dianetics available to the Wikipedia reader in one half-hour at Engram (Dianetics) than I think you've done in the whole of your time here. Your time, on the other hand, has been spent trying to sneak in original research [2] and trying to force Wikipedia to promote your POV as "reality"[3] -- not to mention harassing other editors by making malicious accusations against them that you knew to be false. Your actions are hostile and all your words pretending things utterly different from what your actions demonstrate will not change that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. You have told me that you view my above statement as a lie. I understand what you have stated. :) Terryeo 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you ask me?

"12:36, 21 February 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (hmmmm, Terryeo just *happened* to break links to *two* articles about Scientology controversy with unsummarized changes. Why was he changing those links in the first place?) " In editing the template and adding the Subsection for books, I might have broken 2 links as you state. The Xenu link is still good I think. If I did break two links, I didn't mean to. I know you view me, you and probably a few others, as some kind of born again Christian who attempts to stifle anything but the word of god. HEH. nothing could be futher from the truth. It is perfectly okay with me of any kind of controversy at all and as much of it as you like. But I do want, somewhere kind of early on, the meanings of the articles. "Dianetics Studies" communicates something, it makes it easier for the reader to know there are things studied, some things to know about that. I'm not trying to obstruct, I am trying to get the good sense of the subject someplace early in the subjects. Because the the controversy can be weighed against the information from the primary source, I hope you see. Terryeo 20:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Spooky

"10:33, 21 February 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (rv to last by ReallySpooky; Terryeo shows bad faith by misdescribing his changes counter to consensus as "correcting")". Let us remove the "spookiness" and communicate. In the edit you just reverted for that reason, I changed "major" to "minor" based on my own knowledge and the following information which I invite you to read: The U.S. Navy's information to its troops. [4] click "About various faiths" click "Scientology". At that site the beliefs of Scientology are discussed. There is no mention of "Space Opera" being a "major" belief. And then further, a number of Doctors of Divinity and esteemed scholars, including people who testify before governments as experts about religion state their opinions here. Those men are Catholics and other faiths. None of them state that "space opera" is a "major" part of Scientology beliefs. Therefore I changed "major" to "minor". Additionally, the article lacked citations (a common problem here on Wikipedia). As per WP:CITE#When_there_is_a_factual_dispute, since I didn't feel the information was particularly "dangerous" (description from WP:CITE} I simply indicated a citation was needed for certain statements. Pleasent editing, Feldspar :) Terryeo 00:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Universism

Antaeus, regarding your question - the LA Times' Column One "appears every day but Sunday and gets its name from its location in the newspaper — in the far-left column of the front page." And yes, it's above the fold. Please see: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/columnone You may view an LA Times front page here: http://www.latimes.com/includes/sectionfronts/A1.pdf and here: http://universist.org/losangelestimes.htm 164.111.21.141 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

No problem ILovePlankton 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Jemima

Hi! I have removed the prod tag from this article as it appears that a tag was added and removed yesterday. As I understand the guidelines at WP:PROD this means that this article would now have to go to AfD for deletion. JeremyA 04:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac

What's up with this guy? As far as I can tell, Internodeuser was banned for a year for legal threats and now Zordrac claims it was an unfair ban. Not to mention this grudge he seems to have against you and some other users. --Latinus 17:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What's up is that Zordrac/Internodeuser/bliss2yu is one of those special people who appear to have no sense of "reality" as a thing that doesn't change when they want it to. I seriously suspect that he may have some neurological condition that makes it impossible for him to distinguish between things that actually happened and fantasies he makes up to match his emotions and his wishes. Once they have "happened" in his head, they become the facts of his world until something happens that makes them inconvenient to him, at which point they change again.

This is how he a) first left a message on my talk page gloating about how he'd written to Daniel Brandt and told him I was "using weasel words in an underhanded way to discredit him"[5], b) later asserted that I had requested him to write to Daniel Brandt as my intermediary[6], and c) still later asserted that "before we had communicated, he threatened me on the Daniel Brandt talk page, and made wild accusations about me, claiming to have been "watching me"." [7]. Obviously, since "requesting" him to represent me to Brandt would be "communication", what he is claiming all in all is that I threatened him on Talk:Daniel Brandt, made wild accusations against him and claimed to have been "watching" him -- and then I turned around and said "Hey, Zordrac? I want someone to speak in my name to Daniel Brandt. Will you do it for me? I want to make sure Brandt gets the impression that I'm up to no good, trying to discredit him through underhanded tactics" and Zordrac, who had purportedly been the victim of my "threats" and "wild accusations" by that point, agreed to do so.

The reason I think he may be actually unable to keep a grip on reality, rather than just being willing to lie when it suits him, is that he seems to have no awareness at all of how easy it is for people to see through his falsehoods. Prime example is what he wrote about me at User:Zordrac/Poetlister: "08:16, 23 December 2005 User:Antaeus Feldspar, wrote to Zordrac supporting Lulu and implying that they both would stalk Zordrac until either he stopped trying to get Poetlister's ban reversed, or else was banned from Wikipedia. [8]". A simple check of the diff included by Zordrac shows that it has nothing to do with Lulu, with Poetlister, with Poetlister's ban, with Zordrac's efforts to get Poetlister's ban reversed, or any part of Zordrac's description of it. So -- that's Zordrac for you. He may or may not actually be delusional, but from the outside the difference seems mighty moot. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Antaeus, it's been half a year since you previously declined to be nominated for RFA. I would like to nominate you to become an administrator, if you are ready now. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 05:57Z