User talk:Arion 3x3/Archive 1

Hello, Arion 3x3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Aburesz, I will be mediating the dispute on Ascended master at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Ascended_master. Please indicate on that page whether you are interested in mediation. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for posting your concerns on my talk page. Are you interested in mediation regarding these issues and any other issues mentioned on Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Ascended_master? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, As mediation requires the agreement of all parties involved. If you do not agree to mediation the case will be rejected. Please respond by Friday to avoid rejection of the case. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have agreed to Mediation, and welcome this opportunity to restore a neutral, academic and informative atmosphere to the article page on the topic of "Ascended Masters" - which is NOT unique to any one person or religious organization. Aburesz 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. If you go back in the history to the original Ascended Master article from eight or nine months ago, it also included for example the Eight immortals of Daoism. Theosophy is only one of many religious traditions that believes in this concept.Keraunos 09:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, I have sent you and the other members involved in the dispute at Ascended master an email using Special:Emailuser/Aburesz. Once everyone has responded mediation will begin by email. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retreats

What exactly is a "retreat"? According to the Church Universal and Triumphant it is possible to go there when you sleep, so apparently it is on the etheric plane or astral plane. I assume you are saying that it is not a whole "etheric city" but simply a small ashram on the etheric plane where people are said to go at night, would that be correct? Keraunos 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

I admire you for keeping your nerve there even when being outnumbered and insulted; however, the point is surely to argue only for a proportionate representation of the matter rather than to challenge the work of writers on the subject. There surely is a case to be made that Bacon might have been a homosexual, but it needs to be made dispassionately and without overemphasis if the article is not to sound amateurish. I would favour a formulation of the following sort, which I found in Zagorin: "Although the question of Bacon’s sexual identity will probably always remain a puzzle, the likelihood that he may have been a homosexual is undeniable". Good historical scholars will speculate but always acknowledge the limits of that speculation: what is lacking in the article for me (apart from proportion) is the hedging language with which I'm familiar from scholarship (might, probably, likely, perhaps, on the other hand, can be interpreted, etc.). qp10qp 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that for you to argue against what writers have written is original research. As with women's studies, there are scholars of gay history who have reinterpreted history according to a non-traditional agenda, determined to unlock secret history, codes, etc. Much of this work may strike one as tendentious; but as long as these writers are in print and we are not, then their theories are validly referenceable on Wikipedia. However, the article is very unsatisfactory at the moment because those who would use material from such books have gone about it in the wrong way. They should quote the scholars rather than the primary sources (which in themselves prove nothing); if they did so with integrity, they would find that, as in the quotation from Zagorin above, claims that Bacon was homosexual are always circumscribed. Even scholars who conclude that Bacon was homosexual will note, for example, that d'Ewes, being Bacon's enemy, is an unreliable source, that other possible sources were written later on the basis of gossip or in a political atmosphere that reviled anyone associated with the Stuarts; they will also place his mother's letter in context. None of this balancing comment is reflected in the article.qp10qp 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I just wish I had as an extensive Francis Bacon library as you apparently do. I am proud of what I do have, though, especially the books by Batchelor, Pott, Dodd and Dawkins. Artemis1102 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the discussion on Talk:Francis_Bacon for some time. Although I am not in any way competent to participate in it, I felt that I must compliment you on your unfailing courtesy and objectivity in the face of what, I have to say, can only be regarded as a virulent personal attack. Personally I would not have had your forbearance - well done. --Stephen Burnett 09:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick response to one of your approaches to Bacon...I'm not all-too-qualified in this area, and this will sound rather vague, but I'm not sure if this might be a reason for discussing Bacon's sexuality. It is sometimes claimed that Bacon regarded scientific pursuit as a mode of male exploration of a female body. Some have argued, as a minor point of interest, that this is a theme throughout colonialism and the scientific enlightenment. Anyway, the point is: the claim that Bacon's mode of thinking of scientific discovery is gendered and sexualised may well make discussion of sexuality relevant in the long run. I thought it worth mentioning, without much commital.

Anyway, it's good to see such commitment to wikipedia. It's well worth kudos. Great stuff. Bosola 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith : the heterosexual claims are unsubstantiated and there are false, because there isn't the tiniest proof of Bacon's heterosexuality, but indications of his homosexuality. I think you don't want to realize that your old friend "Francis" is gay. I tkink you couldn't have a gay friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.25.190 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nieves Matthews was an homophobic narrow-minded biographer. She didn't know anything about homosexuality like a lot of people. You should read Havelock Ellis, who was a specialist of sexuality, homosexuality and a humanist : While Shakespeare thus narrowly escapes inclusion in the list of distinguished inverts, there is much better ground for the inclusion of his great contemporary, Francis Bacon. Aubrey in his laboriously compiled _Short Lives_, in which he shows a friendly and admiring attitude toward Bacon, definitely states that he was a pederast. Aubrey was only a careful gleaner of frequently authentic gossip, but a similar statement is made by Sir Simonds D'Ewes in his _Autobiography_. D'Ewes, whose family belonged to the same part of Suffolk as Bacon's sprang from, was not friendly to Bacon, but that fact will not suffice to account for his statement. He was an upright and honorable man of scholarly habits, and, moreover, a trained lawyer, who had many opportunities of obtaining first-hand information, for he had lived in the Chancery office from childhood. He is very precise as to Bacon's homosexual practices with his own servants, both before and after his fall, and even gives the name of a "very effeminate-faced youth" who was his "catamite and bedfellow"; he states, further, that there had been some question of bringing Bacon to trial for sodomy. These allegations may be supported by a letter of Bacon's own mother (printed in Spedding's _Life of Bacon_), reproving him on account of what she had heard concerning his behavior with the young Welshmen in his service whom he made his bedfellows. It is notable that Bacon seems to have been specially attracted to Welshmen (one might even find evidence of this in the life of the Welshman, Henry VII), a people of vivacious temperament unlike his own; this is illustrated by his long and intimate friendship with the mercurial Sir Toby Mathew, his "alter ego," a man of dissipated habits in early life, though we are not told that he was homosexual. Bacon had many friendships with men, but there is no evidence that he was ever in love or cherished any affectionate intimacy with a woman. Women play no part at all in his life. His marriage, which was childless, took place at the mature age of 46; it was effected in a business-like manner, and though he always treated his wife with formal consideration it is probable that he neglected her, and certain that he failed to secure her devotion; it is clear that toward the end of Bacon's life she formed a relationship with her gentleman usher, whom subsequently she married. Bacon's writings, it may be added, equally with his letters, show no evidence of love or attraction to women; in his _Essays_ he is brief and judicial on the subject of Marriage, copious and eloquent on the subject of Friendship, while the essay on Beauty deals exclusively with masculine beauty.

Stop to write that Francis Bacon was heterosexual.

Alice Barnham

Any suggestion as to how to handle this issue on the Alice Barnham article? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "Any suggestion as to how to handle this issue on the Alice Barnham article?"

I don't believe the speculation on homosexuality needs to be interjected into the Alice Barnham article. It appears that Bacon married Alice to get himself more acceptable for holding public office, and to let King James know (by marrying a "commoner") that he did not intend to challenge him for the monarchy (since he was the som of Queen Elizabeth). Arion 09:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. You seem to be saying that the Barnham marriage wasn't that important to Bacon; well, that may be so, but it was rather important to Barnham, and I'm interested in the point of view of writing the Alice Barnham article, not as much the Francis Bacon article. In that article, the Bacon marriage really is over half of the Barnham story; and the main points of it seem to be that:

• they married when she was 13 years old
• the marriage was unhappy
• no children
• she has been accused of adultery,
• after Bacon's death she married the person she was accused of adultery with
• Bacon changed his will to revoke grants to her "for great and just cause"

Now if Bacon were homosexual, that would throw all those points into a completely different light; rather than him being madly in love with her and her betraying him, it would imply that she was deprived of intimacy during the years of their marriage, making any adultery, and even romantic attachment to another man during the marriage, much more understandable, from sheer loneliness. I can't see leaving that out, it seems quite important. Your comment, about yet another political, rather than emotional, reason for the marriage, only adds to that.

I can make it brief as it was, or I can put a paragraph in with sentences about why it's disputed, or I can put it some other way if you suggest, but ... well, for an article about X, whose main reason for notability is "unhappy wife of Y", leaving out "scholars believe Y was gay" seems to miss a rather important point. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(copying from User talk:AnonEMouse as an attempt to keep one place with a reasonably complete record of the conversation) The only problem I would have with the Alice Barnham article perpetuating the homosexuality theory about Francis Bacon is the protrayal of those theorists as "scholars" - they are a few authors who have questionable methods. For example, Alan Bray's book Homosexuality in Renaissance England states that male servants were male prostitutes, and since Francis Bacon had male servants, he must have been having sexual relations with them (!):

"There is though a further form of homosexual prostitution which it is possible to distinguish, and there are parallels with heterosexual prostitution here also: the young man living in a household, nominally with the status of a servant but haying a relationship with the master of the household with strong overtones of prostitution. This might be a matter of no more than a few days, as in John Marston's description of the sodomite whose personal servant — apparently a page — is really a prostitute who has been 'closely' i.e. secretly hired:

"But ho, what Ganymede is that doth grace

"The gallant's heels, one who for two days' space Is closely hired?

"It might also be a matter lasting weeks, months, or even years. This is presumably part of what Middleton, Brathwaite and Wilmot, quoted earlier in a different context, had in mind; their pages and 'private parasites' seem to have been prostitutes, albeit established in the household, as much as they were servants. It also partly explains the ambivalent position of some of the young men in the households of Francis Bacon and the Earl of Castlehaven: it is not clear whether these young men were servants or a kind of domestic prostitute, and perhaps one would be wrong to try and make a sharp distinction between the two. The relationship between client and prostitute — as indeed between teacher and pupil — had obvious analogies with the basic and influential relationship of master and servant; in the domestic prostitute the two are hardly distinguishable."

The real story that I have been discovering is much more interesting than the simple pet theories that he must have been a homosexual. For example there were the money issues . . .

Francis was secretly publishing materials for the Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Spear-Shakers, Knights of the Helmet, as well as publishing the materials he had written under the pen name of "Shake-Speare". Alice was very interested in fame and fortune, and when there were no large reserves of money left in the later years of their marriage, there was constant complaining about where was all the money going. I am waiting for some additional research materials that I had ordered several weeks ago, and when I assemble a rough draft of a paragraph proposal, I will submit it to you for your editing and modifactions. Arion 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that certainly sounds interesting, but the Bacon/Shakespeare theory is no less controversial than the Bacon homosexual theory, and slipping it into the Alice Barnham article as a way of explaining marital strife seems a bit of a stretch. I understand that Alice was supposed to be highly interested in fame and fortune, but surely being Shakespeare could not have been that much of a money sink. Shakespeare may not have been universally acknowledged as greatest English language writer of all time just then, but he was generally acknowledged as at least one of the top 3-4 playwrights at the time; it's hard to believe anyone can lose money being a successful playwright. But clearly you know more about it than I do; write it, let's see. Don't feel you have to run it by me before putting it in; I wrote most of the article, but I don't own it. Put it in, and we'll both edit it "mercilessly" as the blurb at the bottom of the page says. :-)

Also, I am still interested in keeping at least some kind of mention of the homosexuality bit. I understand that the books speculating about Bacon's homosexuality may not be correct, but they do exist, we need to say something about them. Perhaps we could put both that and the Shakespeare theories under a "speculations" section, or add additional references to books which explicitly question their scholarship or otherwise argue with them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it has been a month, and I haven't seen anything added here or to the Alice Barnham article that would tend to resolve our issue. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

GWB

Hello,

Iam sorry, what do you mena by millions of years ago? Why don´t you write abt it on the article? The article ie very poor, it tells almost nothing abt this secret society.

Besides, seven rays explain and is a complement to the name: white.

I also observe that when you say millions of years, it reffers to the ever existence of the spiritual entities. When I reffer to the foundation it concerns the period when they became a secret society.

Do you agree with that? I think it would be also wonderful if we could explain to the readers this difference.

I do look forward to hearing from you.

If you pls consider this artcile. I´ll be expectign yr comments.

http://www.qdeansloan.com/articles/brotherhood.htm

This WP article talks abt "metaphysical/occult" and "adepts" --all of this are pointing to secret society.

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don´t agree

Iam sorry, the article is very good. It talks abt the secret socities that derive from GWB.

What ´s the meaning of these words: :"metaphysical/occult" and "adepts" ? They are written on the article. AS I´ve said, I agree that as divines beings, as spiritual entities, they have always been there. But as a beings that help humanity, they started their contact with humans and tehir teachings in Egypt. Have heard of Kenneth Burtun? He says that in his book.

Yes, I agree individuations of God, The One, ever existed, yes, ok with that. But we also cannot precise when GWB, S. Kumara appeared -- as it is really millions of years ago. Secret society for me is every gathering os "sages", such as those I mentioned on my draft, Socrates, Pitagoras, Aristotle. They transmit and receive their tasks, their knowloedge in a private, secret ceremony for their adepts when they are ready. Maybe that´s why the article talks abt "adepts" (paragraph above) and "occult". Secret society for me means that the wisdow is not transmited to anyone.

Well, according to yr words, the IAm movement teaches that --but is that the teching of GWB as whole? As far as I know, the "I am" is one of many GWB schools or whereveer name you give to it.

Well, I think all of this talk we are having should be mentioned on the article. I find very important to offer a histocial context of this: from a secret society to an open initiation (1930). Do you have citations of this shift of GWB?

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pops

Hello Aburesz,

Can I disturb you again? Do you know how can I insert pop-ups?

Tks

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 14:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Their reply

Hello Aburesz,

There are branches of the GWB that are relatively secret, but most aren't these days. The GWB has been part of the Egyptian tradition since its inception via Atlantean missionaries, tens of thousands of years ago.

Best wishes, Mark Amaru Pinkham

Just as a curiosity.

This was the reply I received from that web site.

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello and Suggestion

Hello Aburesz, with your interest and skills you might be a good contributor to the on-going difficulty in the Alice Bailey article/discussion.James 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Metaphysics

Category:Metaphysics is for philosophical metaphysics; that is for articles about the philosophical discussion of existence. The theosophical pages do not contain philosophical arguments at all. There are no arguments referring to recognisd phuilosophers or noteworthy arguments. If they were to be discussed philosophically, they would be treated as empirical examples, not part of the discipline of philosophy. Perhaps you could start a new category Metaphysics (spirituality)? Although, I would have thought that it would contain exactly the same things that are already in the spirituality category. If you diagree, perhaps we could shift this discussion to the Category:Metaphysics talk page? I am, to be honest, bemused as to why you want these pages included in the metaphysics category at all. They are in several other completely appropriate categories, are linked into the philosophy category through Category:TheosophyAnarchia 23:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by theme and foundation. I think I know what you mean about teaching about the nature of reality and the relationship between mind and matter etc. The problem is that saying the nature of reality is X is not doing metaphysics. Consider the pages in question:

1. Lady Master Nada contains no arguments about the nature of reality. This page is a bunch of statements about a person. There is no discussion of anthing to do with metaphysics.
2. Kuthumi also contains no arguments about the nature of reality.
3. Sanat Kumara also contains no arguments about the nature of reality. It is, again, a bunch of statements about "the Lord or Regent of Earth and of humanity", which makes a claim about existence, but this is not what metaphysics is about. It would be as ridiculous to include Jesus or Buddha or every page form the Catholic church, which probably also thinks it is inherently concerned with existence, in category:metaphysics.
4. Morya Ditto.
5. The Temple of The Presence Ditto, athough it seems to state facts and events that occur in a community rather than facts or events that occurred for people.
6. The Bridge to Freedom Ditto.

Where is the philosphical metaphysics on these pages? Why do you want these pages included in the category?Anarchia 06:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the articles that you have asserted should not be listed under the category of "Metaphysics" are in fact directly concerned with philosophical metaphysics. Organizations of Ascended Master Teachings, as well as those discussions purported to originate directly from Ascended Masters, investigate principles of reality that transcend any particular science, traditionally including cosmology and ontology. They are also concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of existence, self-conscious being and the physical and non-physical world. They discuss subjects that are purported to be beyond the physical world, thus bridging the known material knowledge of man and the purported "Science of the Initiates".

There does not need to be a discussion of the general subject of a category for an article to be listed under that category. For example, there are 145 articles listed in Wikipedia under the category of "Nanotechnology". Each of these articles does not go into a discussion of the general subject of "Nanotechnology" - nor would it be expected to go into such a discussion. Arion 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that an article does not need to include the word 'metaphysics' to be in catregory:metaphysics, and also agree that an article need not discuss the subject in general terms to belong in a category. I believe that none of the pages concerned in our discussion here shows signs of investigating reality that would be recognised by any philosopher, and the category in question in philosophical metaphysics. They definitely do discuss "subjects that are purported to be beyond the physical world". But, as most of the pages on Wikipedia do this, this cannot, on its own, be an indicaiton that they belong in cat:metaphysics.

I ask again, what is it you believe is achieved by including these pages in cat:metaphysics, especially when they are already appropriately linked into cat:philosophy?

Would you like me to ask for this dispute to be mediated?Anarchia 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that anyone who is familiar with the subject of "Ascended Masters" and the organizations promoting this philosophical metaphysics regarding the nature of existence and the nature of Reality would agree that "Metaphysics" as a category best describes this subject. Those unfamiliar with the subject may disagree. Arion 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but I, on the other hand, believe that anyone who has a decent degree in metaphysics would agree that it does not. I think we have a situation here that really is best dealt with by informed mediation. Do you agree? Anarchia 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree for the reason that I stated above. Arion 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seven rays

Hi -- I noticed you reverted the capitalization change at Seven rays today. It's not a big issue to me, so no worries. I though you might want to know why I made the change:

It was based on the MoS at WP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents, where it states:

Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin or transubstantiation.

If you prefer the other way, I'll leave it, but it wasn't an arbitrary change, it seemed better to follow the guideline.--Parsifal _Hello 02:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Received your message. Thanks for the explanation. --Parsifal _Hello 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there

Hello, Aburesz! I´d like you to comment on this spirituality subtitle I´ve just wroted on Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira. Can you please? Tks...Ludovicapipa ^yes? 15:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, tks, indeed. DO you knwow Simone? Have you ever heard of her? What is yr opinion abt this light focus she sees? Oh, by the way, she was born on 25th december, Jesus´s birth.

Do you knw this Youtube video? Shows how many miths were born under this date, from a virgin, on a lighty day, etc...

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=QKd45wDcXEc&mode=related&search=

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 12:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I´d also add the fact that aside from 25th (2+5= seven), she was born seven minutes after midnight, she is the seventh daugther, according to numerolgy, the resullt of the sum of the letters of her name is seven...and, in portuguese, the seventh note SI is the first two letters of her name... [1], [2]. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 12:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu Margarida (talk • contribs)

Texts

Hello Aburesz,

You once told me you don´t trust this site --do you still think they are not to trust? They look very good, I think.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jb/index.htm

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 21:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Celebs

Hello, Arion, I wonder if there are many celebrities such as Simone who are GWB discipules. Do you know? Wouldn´t be interesting to cite them on the article? Ludovicapipa ^yes? 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Simone´s trivia

Hello Arion! Would you like to take a look at this?? Nad if you´d like to comment... Ludovicapipa ^yes? 15:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she is blessed. Why do you think there isn´t a public list with clebs that belong to GWB? Are there celebs and they don´t make it public or there are not? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

December 25th

Hello Arion, Have you heard of this: the mith of december 25th?

[3]

[4]

This is a portuguese language article, but it has links to a Youtube video, where we can watch an analisys of this day, the myth of it related to astrology. You can also see on the article the comparisons between Buda, Hórus, Mithras, Baco, Hercules and Krishna (and Simone, LOL) --all born 25th december and many other coicidences. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 10:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. This is Simone singing Alma (Soul) when she was only 33:[5]. Best regards. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 14:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When the video reaches 2:20 minutes you can see how she opens her arms --like a Christ. This gesture of her is very famous and beautiful. She was in front of a crowd of 150 thousand people! Lulu Margarida ^yes? 14:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

I was amused to see at the top of your user page the earnest declaration that you are against personal attacks. That is a very good policy, which I would request you to start applying at the Francis Bacon article where you re-inserted a deleted paragraph, with some admonishment about how you were against censorship. Thank you for the compliment. I had removed previously, as I have just now, since it does not belong in the PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS section. I am appending it below so you can place it where you think appropriate. Anywhere but in the relationships section.

Various authors have written that there were indications that Francis was secretly funding the publishing of materials for the Freemasons, Rosicrucians, "Spear-Shakers", "Knights of the Helmet", as well as publishing (with the assistance of Ben Jonson) a selection of the plays he had written under the pen name of "Shake-Speare" in a "First Folio" in 1623.

Thanks, Haiduc 21:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To my eye, this material belongs elsewhere and is incongruous and weird in the middle of a paragraph having to do with marital relations. Do we have something indicating the woman reproached him for it? Do we have someone claiming this to have been the cause of their marital difficulties? If so, fine. Until then, let's put it elsewhere in the article, where it does not stick in the reader's eye.

As an aside, I am sure that our modern notions of partnership have nothing to do with marital relations in England in the sixteen hundreds. Partnership? Between a 45 year old philosopher and a 14 year old girl?! Haiduc 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I still feel awkward combining the two discussions. If I may make a suggestion, either explicitly set out the connection and its source, or summarize the allegation in a few words and detail it elsewhere in the article. But as it was, I found it confusing and disorienting. Haiduc 04:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LISTEN, EVERYBODY, I didn't realize, but there's even no need to wonder if "coach companion" had a sexual meaning : the meaning of "bed companion" is sexual too : Bacon's mother is not alone to use these words : D'Ewes wrote : "yet would he not relinquish the practice of his most horrible and secret sinne of sodomie, keeping still one Godrick, a verie effeminate faced youth, to bee his catamite and BEDFELLOW." So Nieves Mathews looks clever claiming that it is a "misrepresentation" to state that words such as "bed companion and coach companion" are not evidences of Bacon's homosexuality, because that's not sexual. Now, it is very clear to me that all her argumentation is false : she is just one of these biographers of homosexual personnalities who tries desperately to link them to heterosexuality, because homosexuality is a very bad thing. So it is very not disturbing to quote Mathews in the article : everybody can see that "coach companion" as well as "bed companion" are evidences of sexual activities and deny that, like NM is a perfect example of bad faith. The only thing to do is to read the texts to see that NM is not only weak -no formal proof of Bacon's heterosexuality- but false. The only thing she is able to provide to proove Bacon's heterosexuality is her intimate conviction. I am definitely convinced that all the primary sources in question deal indeed with homosexuality. I am very happy : I now know without possible doubt that NM argumentation is insubstantiated. Is anybody still able to pretend that "bedfellow" had no sexual meaning in mind of Bacon's contemporary ? I guess not. 90.3.151.138 17:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you are Aburesz and Arion : a sort of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde ? 83.200.58.60 21:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So, your point of view is that there is evidences of Bacon's heterosexuality in documents from his own hand. If it isn't so, you can say all what you want, but if Bacon's didn't aknowledge his attraction for women in his private papers, you can't say that he was heterosexual. I admit it is the same for homosexuality and therefore, there is a doubt. You could suggest that he was heterosexual if other people, neutral or not have discussed the topic, based on the facts they knew, with details. I believe have understood that there isn't accounts like that. But there is documents to discuss Bacon's homosexuality, with authentic details : the characters of the effeminate Godrick and of Perez are not inventions. The fact that Bacon thought that men without a family were better than the others is not an invention. The fact that, at the age of 45 -middle age for his time-, he shouldn't considere his wife as a "mistress", but as a "companion" -which is different of bed companion, you will find the quotation- and that his marriage was then not a pretext to sex and then not a proof of heterosexuality, that's informative. I think it's rather convincing.

Perhaps I shouldn't have say that you were homophobic, but at this moment, I remembered all biographers who deny with the most perfect bad faith homosexuality of different characters. If you search "Tchaïkowsky homosexual" on internet, for example, the first result is "How homosexual was Tchaïkovsky", saying that there is no proof. I read the biography of the composer by André Lischke. His biography is absolutely not centered around sexual questions, but he was allowed to see the letters, even the letters who were censured by USSR and the family. He says clearly that an important number of these letters deals with homosexuality and even the physiological aspects of the sexual acts. He read the unpublished autobiography of Modest Tchaïkovsky, who dealt without self censure the psychological aspects of his homosexuality and the homosexuality of his brother. There was only one passage dealing with homosexuality in the published correspondance -not so frankly that the censured letters, obviously- and the author of the first entry of internet, using a dishonest argumentation, says the only letters that was published deals with alcoolism, not homosexuality. It is just an example, I could make references to many cases where evidences of homosexuality are denied.

Anyway, if I may ask you, it seems that you read the book of Rowse. You are not forced to answer, but could name just a few of the characters you are convinced they are homosexual thanks to the argumentation of Rowse and what is the essential difference between these case and Francis Bacon's case ? 86.218.89.149 18:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Aburesz, just a quick note to thank you for your response at Bacon-talk and to let you know I will attend to it as soon as I get a free moment - I am swamped with work right now, middle of the term. Regards, Haiduc 12:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You are presenting a hypothesis. It may be plausible, it may not. I happen to disagree with you, but that does not matter. The problem is that you have no standing to generate such theories. Imagine if the citation for that sentence read "Personal opinion of anonymous Wikipedia contributor." You would be laughed out of court. Haiduc 03:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am happy of your congratulations, and I have no objection that the form of the paragraph remains like that, but I think there is still little problems of neutrality and balance. I quoted quickly d'Ewes because I thought that it was the illustration of why the supporters of the homosexual theory thought he was homosexual. And for Aubrey, I insisted that the main problem is that he was not a eyewitness. It is more neutral than speaking of "gossips" If some people think all the work of Aubrey is gossip, we need to mention it in the Aubrey article rather than here : say that it is an indirect source seems better and more adapted to the special case of Bacon. Generally, the paragraph is still too much centered around the theories of Matthews. Only the first sentence is really devoted to the theory of homosexuality. Then, the three primary sources are only named and it is explained why it is not believed by Nieves Matthews, and there is a kind or redundancy at the end of the paragraph : we had still understood that Matthews criticized the credibility of the two sources. So, I am not going to restore a precedent version, the present form of the paragraph is acceptable, what you have written about the credibility of the sources must be preserved, except perhaps for the term of "gossip", used two times in the article about Bacon and even not in the Aubrey article. I think really that the most important critic is that it is an indirect source and we need to quote at last d'Ewes or Aubrey to illustrate the homosexuality theory. One of these words, "ganymeds", "favourite", "catamite" must be quoted. Personally, I prefer Aubrey because he is far more sympathetic than d'Ewes. So, I don't want to irritate you, but it seems to me that one theory has still a better part than the other ; I think that my conclusion, stating that none of the theory was conclusive, because Bacon didn't acknowledge his sexual orientation, homosexual or heterosexual was a good compromise because we can't really and definitily say if Rowse, Norton or Matthews are right and here, you seem to conclude that it is Matthews.

So, I thank you to have taken my suggestions on consideration, you indeed have, but I am still not very satisfied. So, as I am an user, I have the right to make changes, taken your suggestions on consideration, of course. If you think that my new suggestions are not unreasonnable, you will perhaps make the paragraph more balanced and neutral. But be sure I am not going to alter the theory of Nieves Matthews : it is well presented. I just think that the other theory is not well presented and that the conclusion of the reader of that paragraph can't be something else than it is Matthews who is right. The real and neutral conclusion, should be, clearly exposed, that despite of the supporters of the two theories, who perhaps think that the evidences are conclusive in the way of their theory, the evidences are actually inconclusive, in a way or in the other, for different reasons exposed in the talk discussion -especially the fact that there is no evidence of heterosexuality that could counterbalance the other disputable -as I think- or unreliable -as you're think-, evidences of homosexuality . And it is not clear in the paragraph. I am not going to write that there is no evidence of heterosexuality in the article, because it is obsviously not neutral but it is a fact that the lack of documentation about a taste of women that is by definition suggested by the supporter of the non homosexuality theory force to conclude that if the case is not conclusive, it is because the evidences of homosexuality are not conclusive, but because the evidences of heterosexuality are not conclusive too. The two theories must be neutrally respected in the conclusion, you follow me ?

I wait some time to see and if nothing is done, I will see what I can do, in the respect of the supporters of the two theories. Actually, I thank you to have banished the word "speculation" : you have understand that it is not neutral and we can indeed mention the two theories and don't say that one is speculation and the other not. I am not going to write in the article that the work of Nieves Matthews is speculation, but a theory.

PS. I have read that Ann Bacon was not the biological mother of Francis Bacon. I don't know if it is a serious theory, i find it astonishing. But if it is a serious theory, we should perhaps mention it in this paragraph of the personal relationships ?

So, I think :

1. We are not going to say that there is no evidence of heterosexuality in Bacon's life because we can't proove anything by the lack of documentation. Rowse, Norton and Stewart quote the primary sources well, but it would be desirable to precise, in the first and too short sentence, why they think that they could be true : because they think -presented as a part of their theory of course- that some clues we know about Bacon's life and lifestyle seem to support their theory. That's why what they think about the close relations between Francis and Anthony, his late marriage, his servants...

Then, shortly precise that theory, that remains a theory.

2. I think that the part on Simon d'Ewes can stay like it is. The main idea remains his hostility to Bacon even if his diary is very precised and may be true or false.

3. We really need to change the part on Aubrey. The place of Edmund Wilson's quote is in the Aubrey article, not here. It should be good to quote the "Brief life" : "ganymeds and favourites" the same statement than d'Ewes, but in a sympathetical way. Then, the precision that it is an indirect source, it's enough. I think that using "gossip" two times about Aubrey, only in that context in wikipedia, is a little bit suspect. Or, precise that it is Matthews who insist about this aspect of gossip in that context. I add that a rumor can very well be true : an exemple : the divorce of Sarkozy was for a long time a baseless rumor, but actually, it wasn't.

4. It is not acceptable that the last sentence of the paragraph mentions the name of Matthews, Rowse or Norton in the point of view of the neutrality. As I say, a neutral conclusion should be that none of the theories is conclusive, for different reasons.

I have understand why the last sentence is suspect to me : it is said that "Bacon's government career and public life were never affected by any rumors or accusations involving sexuality." That's not completely false, but not completely true : not completely false, because it is bribery accusations who really affected Bacon's career, and not sodomy accusations, in the context of justice. But it is not completely true, because the rumors and the accusations about homosexuality are not a fantasy, at last between 1619 and 1621. So, I think that the formulation of this sentence, that can't be the last sentence of the paragraph is not totally correct : a good formulation should be : Bacon was never judged after accusations involving sexuality.

I have another good reason to consider that a claim such as "Bacon's government career and public life were never affected by any rumors or accusations involving sexuality" is very curious." Louis Crompton in Homosexuality and Civilization (page 389) write :

"But the historian Arthur Wilson noted in 1653 that Bacon's generosity to his young, prodigal, and expensive servants opened a gap to infamous reports."

So, there was reports, it is rumours and accusations, no ? That's why I think that a sentence such as "Bacon was never judged on accusations involving sexuality" is really more adaptated and, first of all, more true. If I may, I will add that it is certain that all these report didn't survive, so we have not all the documentation about Bacon's homosexuality. Personally, I think it's a good reason to think that the theory of homosexuality is the good one and dare to be correctly and neutraly presented.

Limitorder 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Collectonian 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Aburesz (2nd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Collectonian 21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You, Collectonian, wrote regarding the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article that my edits "did not appear to be constructive". Do you consider the accusations that you threw at me to be "constructive"? You just wrote in the edit notes that I was engaging in "VANDALISM" and "trying to undo the clean up again". In my last edit I simply added information about her premature birth. Since I consider common courtesy a requirement for anyone wishing to be a Wikipedia editor, I would hope you adopt a similar philosophy. Arion 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My request for courtesy in dealing with other Wikipedia editors resulted in your now accusing me of "sockpuppetry"! Your immediate deletion of my comments to you on your user discussion page is also not an expression of courtesty or good manners! Answering my request with a new accusation is not good Wikipedia protocol. Arion 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|I consider my opportunity to be a Wikipedia editor a tremendous privilege and I am grateful for it. My reputation as a fair editor, who assumes good faith in other editors, is important to me. Please reconsider this block on my account, and reconsider the placing of tags on my User page that call into question my integrety.

• 19:27 11 November 2007 (UTC) - I went to the Simone_Bittencourt_de_Oliveira article to do the grammar correction that I had on my "to do" list (since 30 September 2007 (UTC)) and after seeing large amounts of the article deleted without apparent consensus on the Talk page, I restored the full text from 8 November 2007 (UTC). According to WP:Vandalism I had understood that "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content" was one type of vandalism, and by restoring the removed content, we, the editors of Wikepedia, could proceed with the grammar correction that was sorely needed on that article. I then changed one sentence at the beginning of the "Biography" section to correct the improper grammar and sentence structure.

• 19:30 11 November 2007 (UTC) - Three minutes later User:Dalillama reverted what I did.

• 19:49 11 November 2007 (UTC) - I decided that there was no point in getting into an "edit war" over this, so I simply contributed the same one sentence at the beginning of the "Biography" section that I had edited into grammatically correct form. I wrote in the edit notes: "(birth information + grammar correction)"

• 19:51 11 November 2007 (UTC) - Two minutes later User:Collectonian reverted what I did. She made the untrue accusation that I was "trying to undo the clean up again".

• 19:51 11 November 2007 (UTC) - User:Collectonian placed a "vandalism1" template on my user talk page. I wrote back to her on her User page "Since I consider common courtesy a requirement for anyone wishing to be a Wikipedia editor, I would hope you adopt a similar philosophy." My request for courtesy in dealing with other Wikipedia editors resulted in her then accusing me of "sockpuppetry"! Her immediate deletion of my comments to her on her User talk page was also not an expression of courtesty or good manners.

• 21:11 11 November 2007 (UTC) - User:Collectonian placed "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppertering. using TW" on my User talk page accusing me of being a "sock puppet" for User:Lulu_Margarida

• 21:11 11 November 2007 (UTC) - User:Collectonian placed "Adding supsected sockpuppeter tag. using TW" on my User page.

• 22:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC) - You blocked my account for 72 hours - before I ever have a chance to respond or defend myself.

Please reconsider this block on my account, and reconsider the placing of the tag on my User page that calls into question my integrety.

Thanks!

Aburesz/Arion}}

See Daniel's edit [6] too. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 13:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your autoblock was still in effect, it's been undone now. You should be able to edit now. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

rm'd the other tag. See Collectopian's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Just a friendly note. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What is a Universal Field...

... such as you reference on your user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis Bacon's love life

Thanks very much for your lovely message. Yes, it is helpful, especially in what regards his relationships with women. As for the Platonic love of others for him, I do not think anyone could contest your view - it would be perverse to make anything sexual out of that.

All I can say is that we are close to a balanced presentation of something as important as his love life (kings have abdicated thrones for it, you know), and I hope some of the material you shared with me will find its way into the article, it is very evocative of the man. Haiduc 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am prepared to wait a couple of weeks. After all, it is justice : Aburesz and other people who are not convinced of the theory of homosexuality have not initiate an edit war and your edit remained two weeks. So, we have some time to think. But I believe that Aburesz and others think that it is the ideal and definitive and I can't agree : the new version is not neutral in the way it is presented and one of the most problems is the sentence of conclusion who must reflect the fact that the two theories are inconclusive, even if I personaly think that the theory of homosexuality, pederasty or at last bisexuality or homoeroticism is the good one. But that's the point : I'm prepared to be completely neutral and to write in the article and to give the same inconclusive place for the two theories in the article, without even alluding, by a wrong word, that one or the other could be true. Of course, it is possible to write that "Aubrey write gossips", but only in that way : "Nieves Matthews think or considere -that's more neutral words than argue or speculate- that the gossipy way of Aubrey make the informations about homosexuality in the Brief life, unreliable. Rowse and Norton considere that these information are more disputable than unreliable and that it could have a part of truth. Of course, Rowse and Norton could be first quoted, before Matthews. And I think that the same way must be adopt for all points. If we respect that way, nobody will be entirely satisfied, because the other theory will be mentioned as a valuable theory, but will be partialy satisfied, because each theory will be taken on consideration, as a valuable but an unconclusive theory. Obviously, if one of these theory was prooved and the other denied, that way won't be neutral. But here, that's not the case. I am not going to do anything about this until at last two weeks.

Limitorder 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would't say that Bacon's servant were "prostitutes", but the flesh is weak, even Francis Bacon's flesh. About Aubrey, you seem to believe that he discussed Anthony's case and not Francis. I don't know, but it isn't probable, because of "rumors and accusations" about Francis.

Limitorder 16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is no interesting me trying to convince you and you trying to convince me. The only thing I'm sure is that the case is inconclusive, that the supporters of the homosexual and of the heterosexual make interpretations that can be true or false. To say that Bacon couldn't have sexual his servants -you see, I prefer to use the term couldn't- isn't based on what you can know but on a judgment of value. There is two inconclusive theories, one thinking it is absolutely impossible, the other that it is quite possible.

So, I will not write in the article that Bacon slept with his servants, but that the supporters of the homosexual theory think that it is possible and that the supporters of the other theory think it is not. That's all.

Now, I swear that I won't do anything until two weeks. If you think it's better to use that time to discuss the other part of the article or to continue to claim, that's horrible, Bacon couldn't have sexual relations, that's your problem.

Limitorder 13:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And the word "ALLEGED" Ah ! What a good word : "alleged homosexuality" : it is almost impossible to write to word homosexuality without the word "alleged" -a synonym of obvisoulsy false and stupid- for people using it. So remember, homosexuality is perhaps "alleged", but at last, as well as heterosexuality. And did all rich people sleep with the domesticity ? Of course not, but you can't assert it is unfrequent and Francis Bacon was unable to do that just because he was Francis Bacon and you don't want to be disappointed. You are not forced to believe it blindly, but it is not a reason to believe blindly the contrary. That's all.

Limitorder 13:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, the two theories will be neutrally presented in two weeks or rather in 12 days.

Limitorder 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that some people have no problem to quote extensively primary sources without any critical sense when it is in their way and to censure the other sides of the history. There is no reason to keep homosexuality in a minimum, the book of Jardine and Bray is as valuable as other works. When I claim there is censure here, it is no personal attack, but the truth. Anyway, don't think it is the last version. If we must take time to have a neutral presentation of the two theories, we will take it.

I think I will verify in french biographies of Margot if Bacon had a so important place in her life.

Another think : the words of """Sage""" are words of a genuinly censuror. No personal attacks : the truth.

Limitorder (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem. The problem is the respect of equality of treatment between two theories defended by scholars. If the primary sources can be so extensively quoted to make a case about Bacon's heterosexuality, there shouldn't be any contestation to quote extensively the primary sources to make a case about Bacon's homosexuality. That's all I said. After that, if you want to believe he couldn't have been homosexual because he didn't make an interview, that's your problem. If you want to believe that bisexuality don't exist and that Kinsey's scale is a joke, that's your problem. And if I was ironic about your sentence : "the joys of loving women", it is because I found the lack of neutrality of this sentence very funny. There is a lot of homosexual or rather bisexual men who are able to write such a poetry. See Torquato Tasso who wrote public poetry to two famous ladies ; however we have a part of his correspondance to a young man. You will say that we don't have such a documentation for Bacon and you will be true. But Bacon was a public man and had 1. to get married 2. To be careful. If these two points are not taken into consideration, the level of neutrality is disputable.

So, it is legitimate to considere that the paragraph is not neutral because homosexuality is precisely kept as a bare minimum, like someone says. I will say something : it is quite possible that homosexuality is speculation, but strict and active heterosexuality remains speculation too. It is quite possible that he wrote poetry to his wife, but it is quite possible too that he didn't have sex with her. Anyway, the problem remains that some people want to present a one-sided version of the history. Sorry, but it is not acceptable and it is very legitimate to contest your way. The present version can't be the last version, because I am sorry, it is not neutral. And it is not personal attack, it is the a fact. One of the proofs of the lack of neutrality is to disdain scholard who are not in your way. So, I must say to you that it is completely legitimate to quote primary sources about homosexuality and therefore, it will be done. Obvsiously without deleting your primary sources. I will not use that unfair mean.

I will add something else to be clear. In one part, I am not neutral because I think the fact that Bacon may have had homosexual leanings is all but a joke. But in other part, I am neutral, because I think that the two theories defended by scholars have to be neutrally presented. So, when I write you are not neutral, you see it is not a personal attack in my mind.

Limitorder (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is better. But I must add it is perfectly legitimate to discuss that poetry - I didn't know it, I must say- if it is well done without a too suspect enthusiasm toward "heterosexuality" and I have no qualification to say you haven't done a good job, especially if you use the reasonable term of romance. But I think that scholars like Stewart and Jardine knew that poetry. I made a sugggestion to Haiduc : to see what is their argumentation about that point and to present it. It is not done yet. I think that the solution is to discuss -not too long but not too short- the point of view of that book without any judgement of value. This is not the same way than take all concording evidences and systematicaly destroy it one by one without been really able to say it is not true ; to say it is false is speculation and interpretation in intself. I think it is the best way to admit that. Writing that some scholars thought he was homosexual and point, it is not fair ; these scholards should have made a treatment of these evidences ; the simple fact there is several concording sources is interesting and forbid to disdain that. I think there is no other way : taken into consideration the poetry, which is a proof of relations with women and taken into consideration the complexity of the case, remember that we don't have all the documentation to be conclusive.

Limitorder (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And please, don't try to convinced me he couldn't have been homosexual because d'Ewes said that he was. I think it is a little bit more complex than that and I am not alone. The fact that he was hostile is not completely correlated to the fact that what he said is true or not. That's why a lot of people is not convinced by the too systematical way of Nieves Matthews. I give you an example : Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York. There is an awful and homophobic woman, Esther Thrale who delt with his homosexuality, well but she was not alone : Giuseppe Gorani, who was homosexual acknoledged the fact too.

Limitorder (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what scholars such as Jardine, Steward, Bray, Rowse... have written is that Bacon was homosexual because there is good reason to think that he was. We need a paragraph to present their point of view, as well as your point of view about his heterosexuality. That's why the biography of Jardine and Steward is interesting. I hope somebody can read it and present what these SCHOLARS have written about Bacon's homosexuality without the judgement of value of some people.

Limitorder (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

academic views of theosophy

It is disappointing to see you demonstrate ignorance as to academic views of theosophy, i.e. in the case ofBook of Dzyan. A man of your reading ought to aquaint himself also with views opposing his own. I do not accept the heavy academic prejudice against Blavatsky, but for Wikipedia to retain its's objectivity, it is essential that the main academic consenus views be presented fairly. --Vindheim (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the Müller reference. !--Vindheim (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthemoessa

Hi! I created a page called Anthemoessa. It's about the island of the Sirens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Limitorder

I left this editor a message about NPOV, but they have not responded, and simply reverted my edits. They do not use edit summaries, either, so it is impossible to discern the reasoning behind the edits. I left a message on the Bacon article talk page about this. Jeffpw (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in Talk:Quackwatch. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatchis a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. [7] [8] [9] [10] --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will only comment on the contributions. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)