User talk:Hawstom/Archive6

List of purported cults

What to do? I am tempted to support the VfD. What do you think? Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/2 --Zappaz 01:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom: I understand you were involved in this article -- and it looks like a good faith effort toward a NPOV on a favorite internet subject. Exhausting, too. It has good information, but, in your absence, I voted "Delete" primarily from the historical perspective. See below. I would be happy to help in some way - whatever the result. WBardwin 06:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. Early Christianity, in all its various sects, was considered a cult for centuries until its endorsement by Constantine. After the definition of Christian orthodoxy, many long established Christian viewpoints were considered heretical cults. All emerging Protestant denominations were considered heretical cults by the Roman Catholic church - and the later movements (i.e. Quakers and Puritans) by the mainline Protestant churches as well. Almost all religious movements begin as a "cult" - a movement based on the charismatic appeal of one individual. So where in history should the article start? The sources for the article are very recent and reflect modern perspectives and prejudices (which are usually based on old ideas lurking in the mist). Although an interesting, and exhausting effort, I would have to vote to delete. But incorporating the sources -- and the reasons the sources assert these movements are cults -- into existing articles could be useful. Controversial and edgy, perhaps, but useful. This would allow counterpoints and sources to be presented. WBardwin 06:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#FeloniousMonk. --goethean ॐ 17:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr.

During your very long absence, after a lively discussion, the LDS group broke another chunk off Joseph Smith, Jr. Please see the new article: Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. Hope you make it back soon. I miss finding your ID on my watch list. WBardwin 06:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kennedy Page

Can you help with the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page? Thanks 24.147.97.230

Welcome back

Welcome back - did you change your email address? I tried to email you last week again, and got a bounce-back. SOOOOOO glad to have you back! -Visorstuff 21:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you on my talk page again! Thank you for your note. I hope you had a good rest and look forward to working with you. WBardwin 02:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you, I hope all is well, Sam Spade 06:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am dazzled

<< Hi! What do you think of this? Tom Haws 06:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC) >>[reply]

Wow! I am impressed! I will try out the rating device in several contexts. Rednblu | Talk 08:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you back?

Tom, I have been away from WP for a while and logged on this morning. What a pleasant surprise to see your SN!!!

I am concerned about the quality of the content of the WP pages I've worked on. It got to the point that it seemed hopeless. That and the personal abuse became so overwhelming I decided to take a Wiki-vacation for a while.

At any rate, I hope you are well. I have missed you my friend.

--DannyMuse 14:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be more accurate, you ran away dismayed and stopped talking when Evident said that he only feigned repentance in his Jehovah's Witness judicial committee. After pretending to ignore me for a while as part of your religious shunning bullcrap, like you really have the option to religiously shun people on Wikipedia. Hawstom, watch how he now probably pretends to talk through me like I'm not actually here, like the old comedy routine where two people a few feet from each other with someone in between refuse to talk to each other but talk to the middle person like the other person isn't there.Tommstein 07:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I might add, I'm not adding this to harass anybody, but rather because I see here that DannyMuse is trying to set things up like he was some kind of victim fighting the good fight against people screwing up the articles and not someone trying to stick unsourced personal zealotry into and removing fully-documented things he didn't like from various articles, while multiple people repeatedly tried to explain to him why that was no good, over and over and over and over. He was even told this in his own request for comments.Tommstein 08:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, my goodness. I can't even write a private, personal note to a friend without this Tommstein butting in! Tom you as you can see, this is only further evidence of your fears concerning WP being well founded. --DannyMuse 22:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a famous man named DannyMuse once said, user talk pages aren't private. Now if you wish to argue that I butted into your email conversation somehow, that's a whole different issue. See what I mean about talking through me though? I'm a fricking clairvoyant. They should appoint me to the Governing Body, I have a better prediction history than they do.Tommstein 23:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]