User talk:Rosencomet/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Rosencomet! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Hello! Mike Ingalls is not the appropriate spot to post information about yourself, because that's the encyclopedic part of the Wikipedia website. User:Rosencomet/Archive 1, however, is available for personal information about yourself. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Rosencomet, 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! 

Self-promotion

Please don't use wikipedia for self-promotion. You make Jim cry. It's against the rules of wikipedia. There's also a problem with conflict of interest and imparsiality of your edit. All your edits have been reverted. Thank you. Project2501a 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Dear Netsnipe,

First of all, no, I am not Mike Ingalls. I am the director of a group that has hosted appearances by Mike many times over the last 25 years. I was introduced to Wikipedia by someone who had seen a very incorrect listing about one of the events I facilitate, and after posting corrections I noticed that many authors, lecturers, and musicians that I thought were quite worthy of having listings (comparing them to others who were already listed) had no entries. Being the author of our event catalog and having handy short bios on many of these folks, I decided to post the most recent info I had on them as a courtesy. These are not, in my opinion, vanity listings, but actual short biographical sketches of authors and entertainers of interest.

I hope to expand some of the listings and keep them up to date with new data as I receive it, which is usually when I book them next. In a few cases, I've simply added a bit to existing listings, such as an additional college degree, award, or a new book or CD produced.

I don't think I've violated the Wikipedia guidelines. These are professional folks, usually published or with their art/music produced, often internationally celebrated. I'd say Mike Ingalls is near the low end of noteriety among the listings I've posted, It's true, but I haven't finished checking all his credits. He has been a professional classical musician and a paid speaker on a number of subjects, and did record on the album Neandir: Lady of the Flame with Victoria Ganger and Ian Corrigan. He has appeared on television as a performer, and may have more to his credit. I will follow up on it.

In any event, my purpose was to give the Wikipedia community the benefit of my store of short biographical sketches, mostly just a paragraph long. They seemed tailor-made for the purpose, and quite a diverse collection: New Age, Magickal, Counter-Cultural, Art & Music of many types, the Healing Arts, World Spirituality, and more. I will keep an eye to the guidelines, but please be aware of my good intentions, and that I might either expand a somewhat sparse-looking listing within a week of its appearance or encourage the listed person (or someone from a listed group) to update me on their specifics. I'm just trying to be helpful in the spirit of the good work I see being done here.

Ad Astra, Rosencomet Rosencomet 17:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rosencomet, we've only just realised you're not Mike after going through your log of contributions to Wikipedia and we're very concerned about a conflict of interest here. You are a director of new age festival and creating biographies for all of your guest speakers some of which have been copied and pasted out of your online programme. Since we suspect that no one else would have created these articles otherwise, some editors including myself can only interpret this as an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote your festival by raising its online profile through multiple articles. Patricia Telesco for example will probably deleted because she fails the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. There are also neutral point of view issues here since it's in your interests to promote these people speaking at your festival instead of writing an impartial biography. Please address our concerns before you continue editing Wikipedia. Other editors will get back to you on this matter shortly, but it's 4am in Sydney right now so I must sleep. Please leave your reply on this talk page. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability requirements

To save yourself a bit of grief, please read Wikipedia's notability requirements for biographies. Published authors are certainly acceptible, but some of the bios you are adding will be deleted sooner or later. Please read the requirements and be more discriminating in your additions... Thanks! —Hanuman Das 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Article mention spamming and verifiability

I also note that you are spamming articles, such as Timothy Leary, with mentions of Association for Consciousness Exploration and Starwood Festival. Please note that all additions to Wikipedia must be verifiable. This means that you must be able to provide a book or journal reference (not a web-only one). If you can do that for your additions, fine. If you can't, please desist. —Hanuman Das 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

This edit has a misleading edit summary. You added text to the article in addition to the things mentioned. Thus it could in no way be considered a minor edit, which is restricted to grammatical and spelling fixes which do not add or subtract from the content of the article. Using misleading edit summaries is highly discouraged and may lead to conflicts with other editors. —Hanuman Das 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses

Ok, then. I don't want to bite the newcomer, but rather just make sure that you know what the policies are. Many of your additions are just great and I am glad to see them. On the references to Starwood and ACE, it is ok if there is an existing author bio, say in the back of one of their books that refers to their Starwood participation, but not ok if it isn't verifiable in print. Basicly, the celebrity and their agent get to decide whether they want it called out, unless it should happen to get in the news :-). Also, where it is appropriate, make sure you spell out Association for Consciousness Exploration rather than put ACE, which goes somewhere else! I've fixed it in several location where I thought it was appropriate to leave in. But you would know more than I about sources, so you'll need to decide which artists/authors have self-publicized their involvement and which have only been publicized by the Festival. It's appropriate, I think, to put mentions in the former articles, but not the latter... Hope this makes sense... —Hanuman Das 20:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Are you Jeff Rosenbaum? You have a strange edit history in relationship to that article. Or are you 999 who is always saying he is consulting with you, but you never speak for yourself except in edit histories? There is something very odd going on here, I've started to notice. Maybe you could explain more what is going on regarding you and these various articles you seem to be behind the scenes on that are all related in some way. NLOleson 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

Well, it's going to be tough, probably impossible, to keep all the articles. Starwood Festival, WinterStar Symposium and Association for Consciousness Exploration are safe I think. On people, please see WP:BIO for policies. The festival organizers will not be notable enough to have their own articles, but you could put a paragraph apiece about them in the ACE article, I suspect. Some of the presenters are not going to make it either: having a book or two published is not always enough to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards.

I've known 999 online for a while, and he is a good guy to help with occult, magick and paganism articles and he's been around enough to know the WP policies and maybe bend 'em a little, but he can't save you from a concerted effort to delete anything non-notable. When you started putting mentions of ACE, SF and WSS into existing articles is what got you noticed. If you hadn't done that, you might have slipped by, but obviously you put something in an article somebody was watching and it made them suspicious of what you were doing.

As for verifiability, it is a pillar of WP. It means you have to provide a reference that someone else can look up, preferably in a book. ACE records aren't going to do it. The web site will be borderline, as both web-only and "autobiographical" sources are considered inferior. You may have to take material out of the articles if you can't point to a printed review, etc. etc. Read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE to understand how important references and citations are. I'll do what I can, but give up on Brushwood Folklore Center, Jeff Rosenbaum, and Joseph Rothenberg; the first looks commercial and the latter two aren't notable by WP standards. With the authors, go to Amazon and start listing a bibliography of all their published books. If they have less than three and/or they are self-published or pamphlets, give up, they'll never pass. I think they have to have at least one book which passes WP:BOOK - reputable published reviews!

You have to think of WP like a paper encyclopedia. If someone is notable enough to have an article in Encyclopedia Brittanica, then no problem putting 'em in WP. But someone who's not published or had multiple mentions in third-party sources isn't going to stay. Sooner or later someone will start a deletion process...

Hope this helps... —Hanuman Das 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand why you continue to create articles

Reading your talk page I see that lots of people are trying to help you out and enlighten you as to the rules you must follow here at Wikipedia for articles. Yet you continue to create articles on people who are not notable with no effort to provide the required citations. I don't understand what drives you to do this. Surely you can get publicity for your festivals without misusing Wikipedia. I can see by the edit histories that you are very active. Why not concetrate on a few people who are actually notable, rather than go on creating articles on people who will only remain because they slip through the Wikipedia cracks. I would be more than happy to help you out getting your articles together if I didn't feel you are misusing Wikipedia. GBYork 23:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

GBYork, don't you know how to use "user contributions"? Rosencoment hasn't created any new articles recently. If you think otherwise, list them. —Hanuman Das 01:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right. All I've been doing for a while is trying to improve my existing listings and provide discographies and bibliographies and such. And while I'm at it, I'd like to thank 999 and Hanuman Das for their help and patience. I have two jobs and little free time, but I intend to learn to do these entries better; I appreciate the help making my data into real references and citations.Rosencomet 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia to promote your festival

You are taking advantage of the whole hardworking Wikipedia community when you do so. NothingMuch 00:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise. I have spoken with most of the people who's articles I have either posted or edited. They all consider an appearance as a speaker or performer at these events to be an important credit in their career. It says something about the audience they serve and appeal to, and in many cases it indicates a multi-cultural interest and a desire to network with non-mainstream communities, both spiritual and ideological. In many cases, appearing there has been a milestone or turning-point in their careers and lives.

I have become part of the "hard-working Wikipedia community" myself, and have posted dozens of articles by notable authors and spokespeople for certain segments of society that have been previously neglected. I have created or added to discographies and bibliographies on existing articles as well, hoping to share the information my activities bring me on a regular basis. I have sent e-mails to the folks I've linked to both telling them what I've done and urging them to log in themselves and become part of this community, review their listings for accuracy and such, and consider doing the same for others they consider appropriate. Some have done just that. I have received many letters from authors and entertainers thanking me for having contributed their listing.

I am new at this, and have't had the time (holding down two jobs) to learn all the niceties of proper citation and reference listing, and I thank those that have helped shape up my listings. I've noticed additional data being added to them, and am gratified to see it. I think I'm doing just what a member of this community should be doing, and don't think your accusation is valid.Rosencomet 15:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ellen Evert Hopman

Please read the talk page. You need to supply a citation for every piece of information that you add. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am aware of the problems with this listing, and only included this info about her position with Whiteoak because Ms. Hopman herself sent it to me in a letter just hours before concerning this very issue. I am not the person who has been messing with this listing or posting the non-factual info, and I immediately informed Ms. Hopman of my addition. Rosencomet 18:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Anne Hill

Looks like 999 has already nominated Anne Hill for deletion. Go vote in the AfD if you like, but it looks like it may not be necessary... —Hanuman Das 02:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

AmyLee

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article AmyLee, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:AmyLee. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram 09:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison

Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison has been proposed deletion process for the reasons given on the prod. It does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You can remove the template but it still may be nomiation for deletion through the afd process and a concensus on Wikipedia can be reached regarding the articles's status.

Meanwhile, please attempt to upgrade the article appropriately if you so choose. Alien666 15:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please recreate this article. It is on the shortlist of requested articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism (near the bottom of the page). Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In regards to copyrighted material that has been removed

Greetings. I recently noticed that one of the articles that you have contributed to (Deborah Lipp, to be specific) had one paragraph lifted directly from her 'about me' page, with only a few words removed. I have removed the offending text (diff), however if you wish you rewrite the text in your own words so that it is non-infringing, you are more than welcome to do so. Have a pleasant evening, and happy editing. Kyra_~(talk) 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Timmy12

Go [1] here and add a report of your personal experiences with being stalked by Timmy12. Your complaint will carry more weight than mine. I've probably only seen a slice of it. -999 (Talk) 14:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your messages

Thanks for you notes on my talk page. I think Timmy12's removal of citations has crossed the line into stalking and vandalism. Have you considered bringing it to the attention of admins on WP:AN/I? —Hanuman Das 16:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Link Spam

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks.

Citations should be to reliable sources published by reputable publishers. They should not be to commercial advertisements. Also, I do not know if you are associated with the website that your links have promoted, but please read WP:Vanity before posting any more links. Thank-you. --BostonMA ^talk 00:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Was asked

Was asked to intervene here. Could you please let me know (1) what Rosencomet is and (2) what the affiliation of ACE is with Rosencomet? By that, I mean Rosencomet the organization, not the person. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 02:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no organization called Rosencomet. When the ACE website was set up, the webmaster at that time decided to use the name rosencomet.com as a tribute to a running joke from the history of the group that gave birth to ACE. They were called the Chameleon Club, and their symbol was the Rose & Comet, a variation on the Discordian "Sacred Chao", itself a variation of the Yin/Yang. (Besides, even if ACE.com weren't taken, it would have led to a mountain of spam and mis-directed e-mail. Even Starwood.com would have confused ACE with several commercial ventures. ACE is not-for-profit.)

May I ask, who are you, and by whom were you asked to intervene? Rosencomet 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sally Eaton

I have restored the article on Sally Eaton to its state prior to your massive deletion. A subject not wanting an article is not a proper reason to remove information from Wikipedia. If the article is libelous, then yes. But this article appears to be sourced and therefore presents no legal issues. Therefore, I have restored the text unless a better reason to remove the text can be found, Metros232 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Link spam again

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks.

Please reread WP:V to understand what are appropriate references for Wikipedia. Also, please read WP:BLP. --BostonMA ^talk 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You Are Vandalizing

I have read the material, and disagree with your contention that I have posted inappropriate citations. I have created and/or contributed to many articles on speakers and entertainers I have knowledge of in fields I am involved in. I am new at this, but have learned that I must cite sources for flat statements. For a speaker in these fields, an appearance at the Starwood Festival or the WinterStar Symposium is a legitimate credit, which says something about their standing as a presenter in the communities associated with these fields, just as appearing at Esalen Institute, Interface, the Ojai Institute, Shadybrook, Lillith Faire, Pagan Spirit Gathering, or other institutions and/or events of note. If I am to claim these artists spoke or offered programming at these events, I must cite evidence or documentation of this to verify it, and the only way to do that is to refer to the program material from that event. I have been adding links to pages that verify the claim that each person did indeed appear at the particular event and when. The page each goes to merely lists the artist's inclusion in the bill for the event; unless you start navigating all over the website, there is no advertising for a present event or product, just a record of the past. That's called documentation of facts.

Please cease your harassment and stalking of my citations. I have corresponded with other Wikipedia contributors with much more experience than myself, and they agree I have acted appropriately, and have even helped reverse the vandalism you and your buddies and/or alternate identities have been engaged in. Please use your energies to contribute your own articles instead of sabotaging mine. I believe I have made some very real contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of articles concerning notable individuals in the fields I know. Rosencomet 13:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

First I would like to state that I am not vandalizing, but am making good faith edits for the benefit of Wikipedia. You may say that I am vandalizing if you wish, but I believe it will not help your cause any. The same applies for your accusation of stalking.

Regarding your statement "If I am to claim these artists spoke or offered programming at these events, I must cite evidence or documentation of this to verify it,..." That is not quite correct. You may add material to Wikipedia which you believe to be true, and which you in good faith believe will advance the Wikipedia's goals of creating an online encyclopedia. If proper references are not provided, someone else may remove your material, if such a removal is made in good faith. However, that is not quite the same as "you must cite evidence".

Regarding the type of sources that may be used for references, I think WP:V is very clear.

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy..."

"...Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

"...Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications."

[www.rosencomet.com] is not a third party publisher.

In the case of Biographies of Living Persons the requirements for sources are more stringent.

"Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives."

The recent request that was made to you by the subject of one of your articles underscores the need to use third party references. Had you used a newspaper or magazine article, the Wikiarticle on the individual in question would have been reporting that which had already been reported in the recognized media.

I will not go into issues of Notability, Vanity, Conflict of interest and Autobiography, which I think also apply, but will skip directly to the issue of spamming.

The fact is, that on the plea of needing to provide references to facts (which apparently are not notable enough to merit mention in newspapers, magazines, etc.) you are adding a links to your promotional website in numerous articles. Keep a link to your website in the A.C.E. page, and in the Starwood and Winterstar pages, but don't add your links everywhere.

You are of course free to ignore my advice. However, please be aware that the idea of blacklisting your site has already been raised by some. Blacklisting of your site would prevent any edits which include your website to be saved. This is a somewhat drastic solution, but is final resort to stop link spam when all else seems to fail. I personally do not favor blacklisting your site. I think it is appropriate in a few places. However, if you continue on your present course, please be aware of the possible consequences. I look forward to discussing this issue with you in further detail if you desire. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your evaluation of these citations. If a speaker offers a seminar at a university, that is a legitimate credit. The catalog of that year's session or semester, even an online version of it, is a legitimate citation as to the fact that this person did, indeed, appear at that university. (I could refer to the printed program of the event, a copy of which I may have on my shelf, but what good would that do the reader? It's the same information as the web page, but they can't go to the library and find copies of decades of Starwood and WinterStar program booklets.) There need not be a newspaper article covering the fact for it to be notable, nor is it likely, and any media coverage would be a LESS reliable source than the published curriculum of the institution itself. For information to be notable it need not be "newsworthy". Wikipedia is not a newsgroup or a celebrity promotion. Professional lectures often have only the venues that they have appeared at to indicate their notability in their field, besides any books, recorded material or important articles they may have produced, and I have spent a great deal of time cataloging such material as well, both on articles I have created and as contributions to others' work.

Rosencomet.com IS a third-party source, in that it is neither run by me nor by the subject of the article. It is not a personal website, but the public record of the activities of an organization, and the content thereof. Most of what you have said would be valid if I had self-published a book claiming I did something, then used that as evidence that it was true. But these are the published records of the very events that the citations refer to, produced not by me but by the organization which created and runs the events in question, and has for over twenty-five years. The citation is used merely to establish the fact of the appearance at the time claimed. If the information is challenged because no citation has been provided, do YOU intend to defend the article? This has happened to me several times, and I am merely trying to address that.

And I'm sorry for the confusion, but rosencomet.com is NOT "my" website, promotional or otherwise. It is the public vehicle of the Association for Consciousness Exploration LLC, and I neither run it nor do I have the web skills to do so. I have permission to cut & paste material from it, and I have used plenty from other sources as well. Perhaps I should not have chosen the name I did, but I never forsaw this controversy. Both the original webmaster of that website and I got the name from the same inside joke among the volunteers who contribute their efforts towards the Starwood Festival. Rosencomet 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

"rosencomet.com is NOT "my" website, promotional or otherwise. It is the public vehicle of the Association for Consciousness Exploration LLC...and I neither run it..."

"I have permission to cut & paste material from it,"

As executive director of ACE, I assume you have some oversight control over the ACE website, even if you lack the technical skills for day to day maintenance. --BostonMA ^talk 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, you would think so, but it's not true. ACE is a totally volunteer organization, and it's different departments are run by the individuals involved. If you had been at the last meeting, you would know just HOW little control the Executive Director has over the website, but that's a WHOLE other story. The exec gets to sign things, pretty much, like rental agreements for a hall or something. I don't even run meetings; everyone takes turns, alphabetically. I could step in if someone defied the rules of the group and sabotaged or absconded with the website, but even then I'd have to bring any action I wished to take to a vote at a meeting, then ask someone with the skills needed to do something about it if I won the vote. Trust me: I do not run the website in any way, shape or form. Writing my own copy for my own articles and seeing them posted without having to ask someone else to accept my contribution and not re-write it has been a VERY refreshing change! Rosencomet 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rosencomet, I advise you to go to Samir about this. He (Samir) wrote on his talk page:

I was trying to get to the bottom of these ACE links for festivals from Rosencomet.com. If Rosencomet is the organization that runs ACE or hosts the ACE festival infomation, then the references are valid. The question now turns to whether all these performers need references to having performed at ACE events -- Samir धर्म 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I believe it is the case that Rosencomet.com is the official site of the LLC in question, it appears that you are in the right. Samir is an admin, BostonMA and Calton are not. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have gone to Samir's page, and await his reponse. I am happy to take your advise on this and any matter. Rosencomet 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Festival

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. Also please see WP:3RR. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to self-revert

your last edit to Starwood Festival is your 4th revert in 24 hours. If you self-revert, you can avoid getting blocked. (Just trying to help). Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Owain Phyfe

A tag has been placed on Owain Phyfe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, article #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kla'quot 09:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to you and Owain Phyfe; nominating this was a complete mis-step on my part. Sorry about that!Kla'quot 17:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mattisse/Timmy12

Hello. Just letting you know that an RfC has been opened on Mattisse, here. As it provides strong circumstantial evidence that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet of Mattisse intentionally using two computers to evade checkuser, I thought you might want to comment. I don't really care what side you weigh in on, but I know you've been in a position to observe at least part of the situation and any view would be helpful. —Hanuman Das 11:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Message on my Talk Page

My very first Wikipedia input was August 13th. How have you managed to spend 6 months on this noble crusade of yours by October 26th?

If you have a message for someone, leave it on THEIR talk page, not mine.

So you've only been here since August 13th? My, that's a lot of self-promotion in such a short time. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I preserve my work?

On another user's talk page you ask "How do I preserve my work?" Please understand the Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. It is considered inappropriate for individual editors to behave as is they WP:OWN particular articles. That aside, the best way to preserve content in Wikipedia is to show the content is notable and that it is verifiable. One way to demonstrate notability is to show that some third party actually took note of some fact. For example, if there are reviews of any starwood performances in third party media, this would be some evidence of notability. So, my suggestion is that you search for such reviews or similar mention. If starwood performances are not mentioned in other media, then my suggestion is that you first attempt to gain recognition in some third party publications before you attempt to gain publicity through Wikipedia. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it wearying to hear the double standard your comment and your acts show. I see you and some of the people who have joined you in deleting my citations protecting your own work,

To which work are you referring? --BostonMA ^talk 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

so why tell me it's improper to have the same attitude? I also don't see a general demand for "third party sources" in similar instances to those where I have provided these citations.

I have repeatedly pointed you to policies requiring third party sources. If you look around Wikipedia a bit, you will see many instances of content being deleted on the basis of lack of sources satisfying WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. I invite you to spend some time following the discussions at WP:AfD. --BostonMA ^talk 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my argument that a 3rd party need not be cited simply to establish that a speaker appeared at an event or an entertainer at a concert, and that the fact may be notable without a newspaper or magazine reviewing it.

I agree that a fact may be notable without a newspaper or magazine reviewing it. Reviews are evidence and there may be other types of evidence. Do you have other evidence that you can offer, that we can all objectively evaluate? --BostonMA ^talk 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Many facts are. (Now if I stated "this was the most important appearance in this artist's career", THAT would need support.) Furthermore, knowing how you guys have acted in the past, such reviews would probably be criticized because they would compliment the event in general, and you'd call them "ad-like" or "promotional". Give me a break. Rosencomet 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you Assume Good Faith and give yourself a break. If you address the issues and arguments raised instead of thinking that those who have argued with you are blowing smoke, I think you would experience fewer problems. --BostonMA ^talk 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

re: How do I preserve my work?

Rosencomet, the problem is that this is Wikipedia and no one gets to "preseve" their work. Any editor can edit any article. The articles don't belong to anyone. They belong to Wikipedia.

Also, Wikipedia has rules. One of them is that editors should not edit articles about themselves or about subjects that they are too emotionally involved in to be neutral.

A core Wikipedia policy is that information in articles must be verifiable. This means that the article must cite references to neutral, unbiased, third-party sources. If such sources cannot be found, then the information can be removed from the article by any editor. This is a non negotiable Wikipedia policy.

What Carlton meant by his comment is that since August 13 you have done a lot of editing and it has all been in the service of preserving "your" work. You haven't done any editing only for the good of Wikipedia, for example, on articles that have nothing to do with the Starwood Festival articles or the people that appear there. (Now I expect User:Hanuman Das, User:999, or User:Ekajati will jump in here and tell me I am all wrong.) But I urge you to listen to what other Wikipedia editors are telling you. Mattisse(talk) 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll welcome Hanuman Das' comment if he gives one, but I can say you are wrong as well. As I said to BostonMA, I see you, he, Calton and others preserving your work whenever you believe it has been deleted without due cause, so don't hold me to a standard you do not follow yourselves. I also do not believe for a minute that every article you have written, edited, or otherwise affected were about subjects you don't care about. I have only been doing this since August, and I began with material I already was familiar with for obvious reasons, and topics I am interested in for obvious reasons. I began with material I had on hand, and wanted to contribute the benefit of my experience and research, especially in fields where I might be more knowledgeble than anyone else in Wiki with the motivation to spend some time with them.

I can get no benefit from adding bibliographies and discographies to the articles of musicians and speakers who have passed away like Babatunde Olatunji, Terence McKenna, Timothy Leary, Robert Shea, Baba Raul Canizares and the like, but I have spent a good deal of time doing so because I respect their work and I WANTED TO IMPROVE THEIR ARTICLES. I've searched for and included dozens and dozens of ISBN numbers, publishers, and publication dates for books TO MAKE THE BIBLIOGRAPHY MORE COMPLETE. What possible benefit or advantage could this give me?

Should I provide multiple citations to verify that the ISBN numbers I've added are the right ones? If I got them from Amazon.com, is that an improper source because they sell the books? If I list a musician's album produced by Capitol Records in 1963, is their website's catalog an inappropriate source for the fact? Do I need to find an article in a newspaper mentioning the ISBN number or the record's pressing date to "make it notable"? Some facts are notable without being newsworthy, and appropriate to an encyclopedia article. I'm sure you would not welcome someone analyzing each article you contributed and deleting every fact that lacks what you are calling a third party source.

The website I have cited for the appearances I've mentioned is the official website of the event at which the appearance occured. It is not run by me, it is not my personal page, and in fact I do not have a page anywhere. It is a perfectly appropriate source for the purpose for which I've used it: simply to establish the truth of a fact, that an appearance took place on a particular date. The notability of that fact may be based on the importance of the venue and other factors like how unique it was for such an artist to appear at such a venue, whether it expanded his/her audience, whether the artist is prominent as an authority in his/her field to the community associated with that venue, whether the appearance resulted in a publically-available product (a live concert or lecture CD, for instance), whether the appearance or a relationship with the hosting organization or community is documented elsewhere (say in an interview or journalist's book), whether it began an important collaboration, and a host of other possible factors, which may but need not be a newspaper or magazine. Addessing the Parliment of World Religions, for instance, is a notable acheivement for a speaker whether the fact appeares anywhere else that that organization's literature or not. Rosencomet 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Making Myself Clear

I am sorry if my choice of Wiki "handle" has confused anyone, but I DID NOT CREATE THE ROSENCOMET.COM SITE, I DO NOT RUN IT, I DO NOT CONTROL IT, NOR HAVE I EVER DONE SO. I have no oversight position related to it, nor am I even on the crew that operates it. It is the official site of the Association for Consciousness Exploration, the organization that created and runs the Starwood Festival, the WinterStar Symposium, and the SpiritDrum Festival. IT IS, THEREFORE, A THIRD-PARTY SOURCE, being neither created or run by the subject nor the article's author. (Even in the case of the organization and events, an official site is considered an acceptable reference, and plenty of other references have been provided.)

Neither I nor anyone else is paid for any work done for ACE or on its behalf. I undertook to write and edit the articles I have been associated with on my own with no direction from ACE, nor was I intending to promote the activities of the organization, except in the sense that I wanted the Wiki readers to have complete descriptions of them. I extended my activities to speakers and entertainers who had appeared at them because I had much of the info at my fingertips, I respect their work, I noticed many of them either had no articles or had incomplete ones, and I thought it would be informative to the Wiki reader and fun for me. I linked them to the Wiki pages of the events they appeared at, which I think is absolutely appropriate, and to any other Wiki page I had verifiable knowledge of their association with. (I'd have done more of that, but the demand for citations made this too much work.) I also saw it as a way to give something back to these artists for the enjoyment I've gotten from their work over the years; I am a fan. It also seemed that it would be a benefit to the communities and interest groups I am a part of to make this information available (Neo-Pagans, Magical Practitioners, Consciousness Explorers, New Agers, Holistic Healers, fans of World, Jazz, Psychedelic, Celtic, and other Music genres, etc). It would be much more fun if I wasn't being harassed by those who have targetted these articles and keep coming up with different excuses and selectively-applied standards to mess with them. Rosencomet 18:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you getting ready to add Paul Beyerl & Annie Sprinkle to Starwood Festival?

Hi, when I see you adding your Starwood Festival people to other articles, I start to get worrried that you are grooming them to add to Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium or Association for Consciousness Exploration or Trance Mission or one of the other of your suite of articles sprouting out of www.Rosencomet.com. I'm hoping all roads don't lead to Rome. That is my hope, as Wikipedia is really not for self-promotion. It is supposed to be a collaborative effort and not WP:OWN. It would be better for you to give up your attempts to WP:OWN. It will be better for you and all of us. This is not enjoyable for any of us. It is awful. It takes the good meaning out of Wikipedia. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neither Annie Sprinkle nor Paul Beyerl have been to Starwood or WinterStar. I simply created/contributed to articles about them because I thought them notable and worthy of being included. This is the same crap I keep getting from you: stalking my articles and attacking them for no reason. Your "discussions" are just a cover for a program of regular attacks on anything I contribute, including these two articles which are not linked to Starwood. You have been engaging in this activity for months, and show no sign of relenting. I don't consider what I have been doing to be self-promotion, and I'm quite sick of your accusations. I have as much right to input articles into Wikipedia as you do, and I'm tired of your constant attempts to wage a war on my contributions. If this is not enjoyable for you, all you have to do is cut it out! How could ANYONE "assume good faith" under these conditions? 18:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

your link spam is growing again -

Rosencomet, your link spam is growing again - its up to at least 123 external links from Wikipedia to your www.rosencomet.com site. Do you not think that is enough? Wikipedia is not for the promotion of www.rosencomet.com. Also, you haven't answered my question yet about taking over more articles. Are you going to add more names to Starwood Festival/Association for Consciousness Exploration/WinterStar Symposium and in the process take over the articles on those people like you are doing with Raymond Buckland? Mattisse(talk) 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• A. It is not link spam; these are proper citations to support the information in the article.
• B. I answered your question about the two articles you mentioned. Whether I do or don't add more names or other information to ANY articles is, frankly, none of your business and I have no responsibility to discuss the possibility with you.
• C. IN NO WAY can anything I have done constitute "taking over articles". In the case of raymond Buckland, for instance, I added one sentence (with citation).

As I have said many times, I only referred to the Rosencomet website for citations to support statements about appearances, which I consider proper. YOU are one of the people who have made this necessary, posting "citation required" tags on articles where I did NOT do so. I recommend you stop complaining about it and go about posting or improving articles, instead of stalking and harassing me. Rosencomet 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

hi Rosencomet, if you give me a list of the folks you want to create articles on, I will help with finding external sources. Geo. 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to some complaints, I can only give my opinion of whether or not the articles are notable. Geo. 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I highly recommend that you do not put back the citations any more. Looks like you are seriously outnumbered on the mediation page. However, there does not appear to be any agreement that the links to the Starwood Festival article need to be removed, so..... I suggest you simply restore mention of Starword without citations. If you persist in puting the citations back, the reaction might be to start removing wikilinks to Starwood and even a round of delete nominations. Really, I think you have won, the decision seems to be that Mattisse, socks and Timmy12 were wrong to insist on citations and that those citations are not needed. If you put them back, it may do more harm than good. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Please go to the mediation page and object to the attempt to close the mediation. —Hanuman Das 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Starwood

I see that you were not notified of the RfC on Starwood. This is, IMO, another indication of bad faith on the part of your opponents. They notified Mattisse and others on their side, but didn't notify you, H.D., or myself. Go to Talk:Starwood Festival and respond (last section). Try to keep it short and sweet, I think it will be more convincing and you can always link to your longer responses if you want. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Starwood Festival Request

When I put the small, intended as neutral, paragraph at the top of the "comments" section of the RfC on Starwood, I hoped that people would take the hint and mostly allow editors uninvolved in the situation up to now to comment. I am disappointed to see replication of the arguments detailed rather thoroughly by mostly the same parties from both sides on the Starwood Festival Mediation page. The reason I linked to the mediation page in my short summing up of my position was to forestall such duplication and long-winded back-and-forths. I am putting this notice on the talk page of everyone who has posted in the comments of the RfC so far and who has also participated significantly in the mediation. I'm asking you to please refrain from using the RfC comment area. If you feel compelled to post there, please attempt to keep it short. This isn't a demand. There's no penalty for going against my request. I sincerely want to hear different voices on this matter and I am concerned that we are discouraging others from speaking up. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion on Talk:Starwood Festival, would you please hold off on adding, removing, or otherwise altering the links in question until the issue has been resolved? Thanks. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I will if others will, but this mediation should not be used to freeze my ability to do anything while others remove links, which has been happening all through it. Paul Pigman, in particular, not only removed many of them but characterized them as "linkspam", or even "gratuitous Starwood linkspam", on every single page he touched, and Kathryn called it "Google-bombing" even when there was no external link. On the advice of others, I have eliminated the external links on virtually all pages (even when they were not challenged, and against my view of what proper citation consists of). I had hoped that this would satisfy those who thought that I was trying to "link to a commercial site" or "advertise". That has not been the case: internal links have been taken down, articles have been challenged for notability, and Paul has declared his desire to see "at least a third" of the articles themselves taken down. Will you ask the same of him, Alli-oop, Kathryn and others? Rosencomet 18:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Abandoning the effort

Sorry to do this to you, but I've been intimidated into abandoning the effort. I wish you luck and hope you find many new allies. My last advice is to try to get more Neopagan editors involved. Most of the people involved have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the Neopagan community and I think most have at least a slight, possibly unconscious bias against it. Some may actually be acting out their (anti-pagan) religious upbringing. I don't know how to tell which is which and don't care anymore. Good luck, though! —Hanuman Das 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, if they nominate anything for deletion, please let me know. I have no problem voting keep in such a case. I can't think of any offhand which deserve deletion. —Hanuman Das 02:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Skip

Yes, Skip is specificly requested as a needed article (although under a variant name) on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neopaganism. —Hanuman Das 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

actually, that's a place where you can find a list of neopagan editors to contact to get them involved in the mediation. Scroll to the bottom. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You should let Ekajati know too. I noticed that she had voted keep in at least one of the others that (heh, heh) closed early. —Hanuman Das 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Assume good faith is an important principle of Wikipedia. However, I understand this to mean to not assume I know the motivations behind another editor's edits, particularly if I find the edits questionable. (There's more to it than that, of course, but this is what I'm focusing on at the moment.) This means I assume that the editor doing those edits did so with the best intentions, not as an act of vandalism. I assume you started these entries and links with good faith and intentions. But when there is a series of edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, and when warnings and advice from Admins and numerous other editors is ignored, I feel there comes a time when claiming "good faith" doesn't carry much weight. "Good faith" does not mean ignoring or condoning continuing violations of policy.

This is my personal belief and I like to think I'm generally in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines but I concede I might be wrong. I'm not perfect and there is still plenty I don't know about Wikipedia. However, any suggestion or advice to me from a more experienced editor or Admin gets my attention. I'll evaluate it and change my actions accordingly. Heck, I'll take advice from less experienced editors if I judge it useful, helpful, and within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In other words, I am adapting myself to what could loosely be called "Wikipedian culture".

Whether it was your specific intent from the beginning to "google bomb" or spam Wikipedia, I don't know. This is my assumption of good faith. I've tried to be clear and differentiate between you and the pattern of actions and edits you have taken or supported.

Comments you've made elsewhere have indicted you think I'm out to get you or I have a specific desire to deny the importance/influence of Starwood. Neither is true. I have not followed your specific edits, never even looked at your contributions page. Despite never actually attending Starwood or other ACE events, I've considered going more than once over the years. It's not a milieu unknown or foreign to me. Yet I judge ACE/Starwood et el on Wikipedia by the guidelines and standards of Wikipedia as I understand them. I look to precedent, I look at the guidelines for how, say, musical groups list venues they've been at over their career or how authors' lectures are listed. And I look at notability guidelines because not everyone or everything can have a listing on Wikipedia.

You obviously believe strongly that you need to be ACE/Starwood's advocate on Wikipedia, perhaps that the entries you worked on and added would be non-existent or much less accurate, that the links to ACE/Starwood truly enhance the articles they've been placed in. That's as may be. But, as an advocate, you may want to consider the possibility that you are too close to ACE/Starwood to properly assess the importance in a forum such as Wikipedia. This is why there is a conflict of interest policy.

Why am I taking up your talk page with this? Because I still believe in the possibility you don't understand what a number of people have been saying to you. If I explain it another way, perhaps you will hear it differently. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood

Thanks for your response. I've set up a mediation page at Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation where I've addressed the issues raised on my talk page.

Peace! - Che Nuevara 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to respond to Pigman's post on the mediation site since you asked us not to, but I think he's straying into motives and away from the issue, and using negative terms like "gratuitous" and "with little regard" (unlike the other contributors so far). I'm not whining, I just hate to leave his statement unchallenged (which I could do on several points). Rosencomet 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and they will be addressed, but everyone needs to be on the same page first. The pertinent issues will be discussed, just not quite yet. - Che Nuevara 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall be patient, though it isn't my best feature. :-) I guess I was just a bit shaken by the success of those who wished to drive Hanuman Das away from the issue; I have a great deal of respect for him and his contributions. Waiting is. Rosencomet 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked HD, if he won't join the discussion, if he would at least follow it, and told him he can contact me with any concerns he has. - Che Nuevara 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Musart

The reason I deleted the external links from the article was because they did not seem connected to the Musart described in the article. One of those links referred to a Mexican record company founded in 1948 and the other was broken but a little fiddling found it referred to the same company. This seemed incorrect for an event sponsored by a group based in Ohio and a musician based in Ann Arbor, MI. Was I wrong? If you have different supporting information, please add it to the page. I'm acting on the information available to me. While I've heard of the rest of ACE's projects, I'm not familiar with this one. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It hardly matters. The whole article should be re-done. The sole artist in the list that actually HAS worked with Musart is Dennis Chernin. The only connection ACE has with Musart (besides booking its founder, Muruga Booker, and his band Global Village) was a co-sponsored event called the SpiritDrum Festival, a tribute to the passing of Babatunde Olatunji held in 2002 at the same site Starwood takes place. The two groups also plan to release a CD (and maybe a DVD) from that event one day. Musart is an interesting company which, among other things, released a CD called Cosmic Rhythm Vibrations, re-released by Chesky Records recently as Circle of Drums, featuring Muruga Booker, Babatunde Olatunji, and Sikiru Adepoju. I believe it has ties to Merl Saunders, George Clinton, Jai Uttal and Krishna Das. Rosencomet 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on Musart. Perhaps you didn't notice that I had added that one as an external link in the article the same day I removed the other external links. Thanks again for your suggestion and input. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon

Care to take a look at this article and see if you think it encyclopedic? —Hanuman Das 04:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you could put it on your watchlist as well. It seems someone is removing cited info from it. Silly secret societies... Also, could you keep an eye on Tantra massage, some massage therapist in Austin, TX wants to replace it with text designed to denigrate the documented developer of the technique and use the article to promote his own massage studio (check out the external link in the uncited version of the article). —Hanuman Das 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Various comments

That's interesting about another creation by a sock of Mattisse that actually added refs to Starwood and ACE. I also wonder how many articles this might be true for. You might want to let the moderator and maybe User:Ars Scriptor know about this incident as well. This is much more deceptive than I had thought Mattisse had been. I thought all the socks were working against you, not pretending to add (false) support. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re your longer post. Very interesting. Not sure what to make of it. Rather odd behavior, though, I must say. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ars Scriptor

From what I've seen on admin pages, I believe he received death threats over his moderation of Muhammed, or something. He' already changed his username once, but Mattisse outed him. One should never call out that a user had a previous username - there is usually a good reason for the change... —Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekajati's scenario in which Mattisse "outs" the user revealing his/her previous username to participants in the Muhammad mediation is exceedingly unlikely, as the user changed his/her username after the Muhammad mediation began, and was known to all particpants. --BostonMA ^talk 14:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. However, it is only my assumption that it had to do with the Mohammed meditation. It could have simply been a nut case that A.S. was attempting to evade. It's still not a good idea to go around accusing people of having taken biased actions against one under a previous username. --Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also not a good idea to spread rumors and blame people for things when one doesn't know the facts. --BostonMA ^talk 15:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Craziest AfD ever - do drop by

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahbulon (3rd nomination) —Hanuman Das 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood / assuming good faith

(I must say, with all due respect, that it seems some folks have decided the entries should not be there, THEN looked for a rationale to support this, one that has changed several times.)

I find this comment problematic. While I understand your frustration, comments like this seem to imply a lack of good faith assumption about other editors. As I'm sure you realize, that is problematic. Now it begs the question, are you assuming good faith in the other editors or not? I would like to believe that you are. If you indeed are, then it would seem to me that this comment was a simple case of misspeaking, and I would ask you to redact or retract the comment. If you are not assuming good faith, then that will cause significant problems within this mediation, problems which I might not have the vehicles to address.

Thanks for your understanding. - Che Nuevara 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood link Arbitration

I have put in a request for arbitration on the Starwood/ACE conflict here. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF

Do you know what happened to Hanuman Das? He seems to have disappeared just like Ars Scriptor. His talk page seems to have been deleted just like when A.S. left, so it's kind of hard to figure out what happened. Do you know? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and "our list of allies grows ^thin" (Elrond, Lord of the Rings). Sorry, couldn't resist. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found out what happened, here. He requested to leave Wikipedia, invoking m:Right to vanish. I still don't know why, but I suspect that you don't either. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars

I noticed a bunch of mutual backslapping on the "other side", and realized that nobody has ever awarded you any barnstars for your efforts at expanding the representation of notable pagans on Wikipedia. Normally, I would have put them here, but as your user page has been so bare for so long, I decided to decorate it for you. Hope you don't mind. :-) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

From Wikipedia's Policy on Conflict of Interest: If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
2. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam). - WeniWidiWiki 15:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Arbitration

I noticed your questions on Ekajati's talk page. Here's a brief rundown: Read the top of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page, that should explain some of your questions about the Arbitration process. Essentially this is just a request for arbitration. At least four (of nine?) arbitrators have to accept the request before it can go on to actual arbitration. "Recuse means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest." You should be aware that they ask people submitting statements at this stage to keep them under 500 words.

Hanuman Das was apparently very upset that he was being named in this arbitration and wished to have his name and actions withdrawn from consideration since he had opted out of the mediation on about Dec. 6, 2006. Unfortunately, inclusion in arbitration is not voluntary. A clerk gathers names and the assorted Requests for Comment and such and creates a list from that. My original Request for Arbitration (RFAR) named only two people: yourself and Hanuman Das. As you can see, it now includes most of the people involved in the mediation.

If you have any other questions, I'll do my best to answer them but I'm probably only marginally more informed than you. New territory to me as well. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 04:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to finish: So Hanuman Das decided to leave Wikipedia under the "Hanuman Das" account and have his pages deleted. Of course, pages are rarely completely deleted from Wikipedia. I believe the content of the pages and their histories are still available to admins, just not to the general public. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Rosencomet I feel you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing articles related to Starwood, WinterStar Symposium, ACE LLC, etc. I feel that these edits could be used to further personal interests as well as diminish the efforts of competing enterprises who are not equally represented or promoted on wikipedia. I feel that you should not be participating in deletion discussions, mediations, Arbcom or RfC's on any subject related to these organization due to this conflict of interest. I feel that you should no longer place internal or external links to any related organization or business. My basis for this is clearly explained here: WP:COI. I am formally asking you to stop. The next step is an RfC for consensus on your conflict of interest. - WeniWidiWiki 04:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with WeniWidiWiki's statement. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Recusal

Got your note. I think that a certain number of arbitrators have to accept the case. I don't think the recusal of a single arbitrator means anything at this point. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

999 asked me to look into a couple of things on Wikipedia while he is on vacation. One was the Jahbulon thing, the other was your situation. I've been monitoring it for a week or so now, but didn't want to get involved. However, you'll find the developments over on Talk:Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism to be quite amusing, I'm sure. Frater Xyzzy 23:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Starwood mediation

Dear Che, I have been trying to get some feedback about an actual compromise position which would allow me to proceed with some actions that would satisfy those trying to dump my work, but I just don't seem to get any response from them on any constructive path. I am prepared to begin reducing the number of links and names myself (actually, I took down a number of the external links that had been untouched by Pigman in his last round). I would like your opinion on these questions:

1. Is this something that would help or hurt? Is it improper to make ANY changes while the mediation is ongoing, including some that might help allevate the conditions that inspired it, or would some real actions on my part to change the situation be welcome?

2. I am still not clear as to when EXTERNAL links are appropriate or even NECESSARY. If a mention is generally NOT considered non-notable (for instance in the article of a subject who has written a published article mentioning his appearance, or has been quoted in a book discussing, it or posted info about it on his/her website), should there be an external link to support the fact of the appearance to the program for the event in question?

I feel that I have obviously made mistakes in the way I've gone about things, but there are some like Hanuman Das who went from initial criticism to a great deal of help showing me how to reference, cite, verify, and otherwise wikify my work, and others who (to put it mildly) are not interested in such a path. I have made what I consider real contributions to Wikipedia, creating roughly 50 new articles and contribution to as many more, and I wish to be able to continue. I would like to make things right, rather than constantly having to defend myself against what I perceive as hostility. I hope you can advise me on such a path. Rosencomet 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, I would like to commend you on your willingness to admit your mistakes; we all make them, but precious few recognize and accept their own. I believe that shows a great deal of maturity and both a real willingness and an ability to continue to be an effective good-faith editor.

In general I try to discourage editing an article under mediation because tendentious editing during mediation displays a lack of good faith effort. In your case, however, removing these links displays a willingness to give from your original position towards a compromise position; you are in effect acknowledging the legitimacy and merit of the position you originally contested. I do not see this kind of editing as a problem.

In theory, everything that is not by its very merit self-evident needs to be sourced somehow. In practice, although it sounds like a contradiction in terms, there is great disagreement over what exactly qualifies something as self-evident enough. In general, I think the objection to the links was on the basis that the information might be unnecessary -- that the information was included to "justify" the addition of link. I'm not saying that was your intention, but it seems to me that that's how it came across.

I think the most important thing is to work with the community. You need to make your intentions very plain to the Arbitration Committee -- I would recommend telling the committee everything you've told me here. If you show a willingness to do the right thing -- which, on Wikipedia, means working in the framework of broad community consensus -- then you have nothing to fear from an Arbitration process.

I will be around if you need help or advice in any way; I'd be more than happy to weigh in on things.

Peace - Che Nuevara 19:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know that your comment is directed to Che, but I will offer you my (univited) opinion. I think that if you voluntarily removed some of the links it would greatly help to reduce tension. The external links to rosencomet dot com are in my opinion not necessary. Assertions in articles must be backed by reliable sources or they may be deleted. However, it is not a requirement that reliable sources appear as external links. Mention in the talk page is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. I.e. no one should remove assertions merely on the grounds of lacking reliable sources if those sources have been provided, even if they do not appear in the text of the article. --BostonMA ^talk 19:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rosencomet

I thank you for every attempt you make to recify the situation. I believe you were given bad advice and that your did not mean to have the effect you did. I believe you mean well. I fully understand how confusing it is here on Wikipedia and apolise sincerely for any distress I caused you. I am sorry. I hope we all can do better. I meant to do so myself as much as I am able. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Moore & Rosewood

Hi, not sure why you removed that mention. I've readded it with sourcing/attributation. Moscatanix 21:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

3rd party sources

Hi Rosencomet, I noticed that you commented I have been assembling whatever "3rd party sources" I can find for articles I've created, but I'm not sure I know how to properly list them as references. I would be happy to help you with this. Could you provide the list of sources? Thanks. Sincerely --BostonMA ^talk 16:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rosencomet, I commend you for providing third party references to starwood appearances. Thank you. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rosencomet, I will take a look at the edits you mentioned, and either revert or let you know why I am reluctant to revert. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Ok, my first question is this, is any of the material that was added non-factual? Do "the Illuminates_of_Thanateros" regularly attend? Satanists? Is the claim giving undue weight to information that might be true, but which may give a reader a misimpression of the overall nature of the event? --BostonMA ^talk 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remove them. --BostonMA ^talk 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Done. By the way, they are called redirects. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Paddy

Up for deletion for I think the third time, twice deleted, third time the charm (maybe it will stay dead?). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddy. -999 (Talk) 03:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Big Bang

Do u have a digital copy of Mickey Hart's The Big Bang in 3 Disks? I do *gloats*...

Namaste in agape and walking my talk in beauty

I don't know how i busted my signature but my user name is "B9 hummingbird hovering" User:B9_hummingbird_hovering 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Take Comments to the Appropriate Talk Page

I would appreciate it if you would direct conversation with another user to that user's talk page rather than mine. If necessary, you could copy the comment from my talk page in your discussion on their talk page. Thank you. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the tone and wording of my previous comment. It was unnecessarily rude and overly accusatory. It's also been brought to my attention that it embodied an unreasonably strict interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. I've changed my comment above accordingly, if that is acceptable to you. Again, my apologies. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you made the news!

I was reviewing my talk page and noticed I'd never responded to you about your post. Really I don't know much about the Starwood thing so I looked at the article and then the links to the article. I discovered that it has been written up in Wikipedia Signpost, here Thought you'd be interested to read the summary... Jefferson Anderson 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting on Mattisse's talk page

Please do not post on Mattisse's talk page. Thanks --BostonMA ^talk 19:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Please do not post on Mattisse's talk page, whether or not Mattisse or any other editor writes things there about you, or which annoy you. Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 19:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question, if someone requested that I stop posting on their talk page, I would stop posting on their talk page, even if I were the subject of comments on that talk page. If I thought it really important that I be able to communicate with that editor, I would attempt to open a channel of communication through a third party. --BostonMA ^talk 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Rasputin

I believe this person was named in the sock check request on the arb case, no? - Che Nuevara 06:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For being a decent guy and opposing a punitive block. As I said in my initial Arbitration statement, I have nothing against you. And truly, since August/early September I have not harmed you nor your pages nor engaged in illegal sockpuppets. So thank you for understanding this. I believe both you and I have better things to do than engage in this ugliness. Have you looked at my user contributions? I am interested in so many areas! Sincerely, Mattisse 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sufis

I'm not sure that removing mention altogether is the best solution, but I am also not sure I want to spend the time finding "the best solution". "Western Sufis" might be a good term, but again, I don't know, and I really don't want to spend a lot of time with this. So I guess the best choice is to delete for now. I have no objection to someone else improving, undoing, etc. --BostonMA ^talk 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rosencomet. If you could, I would appreciate it if you ask another editor to delete the mention of Sufis and the citations needed tag. Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse

Hi Rosencomet! Mattisse has requested assistance. She has mentioned you in her request. I am starting to look into the issue. Any background information you could give me would be very welcome. Cheers. SilkTork 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am working my way through all the material in this case. What have I let myself in for! Probably time for a nice cup of tea and a cookie.... Regards. 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Arbitration 2

Hi Rosencomet. You recently added a comment to the starwood arbitration with a plea for returning to the job of editting. Might I offer you some advice? The advice might be taken as criticism so I am reluctant to share it with you unless you desire to hear it. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My offer still stands. --BostonMA ^talk 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My first suggestion is that you take a step back and take a deep breath. My advice is to first stop doing a number of things, or at least stop doing them without first asking for the opinion of others. This means a) stop adding to the arbcom case b) stop editting starwood for now c) stop raising the issue of what Mattisse may have done d) stop insisting that your estwhile allies have done nothing wrong e) stop defending yourself. Just stop and chill out. If you want to edit, edit something entirely unrelated to Starwood, arbitration, Mattisse, 999, Ekajati and everyone else. If you are willing to take that suggestion, I will suggest what you should do. But my first suggestion is to just stop. If you find this suggestion difficult to follow, I would be glad to discuss the reasons why I think it is the right thing for you to do. Please let me know if you can follow this advice or not. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry that I have not been able to respond until now. I will try to explain my rationales for you stepping back. Unfortunately, in the interest of speed of communication, some of the things I say may sound harsh, but I hope you will not take them personally.

1. It wouldn't be the end of the world if you are banned from editting Starwood related articles. You could still contribute by adding material to the talk page, which other editors could review and add if they find your contributions appropriate. My humble opinion.
2. This opinion might hurt. You should refrain from defending yourself in Arbcom because your comments are not contributing to your defense. (ouch! sorry, that's my opinion).
3. Sorry, another one. Every time you insist that this or that past behavior on your part is acceptable, you send a message that you are likely to repeat that behavior. Do you really want to be sending the message that you think it is OK to call someone a stalker in an edit summary? (If you do, please reread WP:NPA, because arbitrators may have a different opinion).

That's probably enough pain for the moment. If I have not persuaded you and you would like me to clarify further let me know. If I have persuaded you, and you would like some positive things to do, let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood arbitration 3

Do you really support a ban on my editing anything on an article of someone who has even appeared at an ACE event? Do you realize that this means I can't edit ANYTHING on most of the authors in the Americam Neo-Pagan communmity who do lectures, and many musicians who do Celtic or world music? Do you understand that about 40 of these notable people would not have articles at all had I not created them, and many of the others would have no discographies, no bibliographies, or very incomplete ones? And you really think it's right to place an INDEFINITE ban on my editing ANY of them, regardless of what that input might be? Rosencomet 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do, you have made lots of trouble. Most of these people are significant people that will have articles about them in any event. There are hundreds of thousands of articles which you are free to edit. Fred Bauder 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So I must be limited to articles concerning things I know nothing about? Is this a rule just for me, or does it apply to Mattisse, Pigman, Kathryn, and Weniwediwiki and the articles they edit? Does it apply to ALL editors and their interests? I can't believe that it is proper that the moment an artist like Brian Auger or Cyro Baptista or Paul Krassner appears at Starwood, I should be forbidden to input ANYTHING on their articles. They do not work for me, they are not linked to me, I have no stake in their careers.Rosencomet 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No editwarring over links to Starwood. I've not thought about the other users yet. Hopefully with you gone, things might settle down.Fred Bauder 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood arbitration update

The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [2] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An article you might want to help with

I don't believe Allen H. Greenfield has ever appeared at Starwood, has he? Perhaps you could lend a hand? Jefferson Anderson 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re.: Rosencomet's Starwood Edits

I hope you accept my replacement of the Starwood mention in Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart's article with a list of "Public Appearances". I did this in consultation with Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, and I think that satisfies the issue of Undue Weight. As far as I'm concerned, such a list would be a good addition to any professional lecturer's article, and Starwood and/or WinterStar need not be anything but one inclusion in that list (where appropriate), except when there's some special additional connection to mention (like, as you said, if the subject is an organizer of the event, or recorded a commercially-available CD of their appearance, etc.). I don't have the facilities to supply such a list for everyone, but I will try over time to contact speakers and get one, or find one on their own websites, if they have one. Rosencomet 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that I still think you're trying to plug A.C.E. events in an area where it seems to me that there isn't all that much of an audience or potential audience for them which isn't already aware of them, but creating such personal appearance lists for articles on notable persons seems to be an appropriate way of meeting both your needs and Wikipedia's requirements (or so I perceive: Y.M.M.V. and all that).

I hope you'll include links to other venues and festivals in those lists with the same assiduousness that you do Starwood and Winterstar Festival.

Cordially, Davidkevin 00:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask permission to put stuff in your article?

I'm new here so I didn't know that you are in charge of this article. I'm sorry that I did not ask permission first. Please forgive me. Maybe I'll get to be in charge of a bunch of articles some day and get to decide what goes in an article! BackMaun 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BackMaun

This user appears to be intentionally breaking things. He has broken external links in Allen H. Greenfield and internal links in Hermetic Brotherhood of Light as well as making what appear to be disruptive edits to Magick. I noticed some changes to Starwood Festival also, and am tempted to revert them, but don't know whether they are legit or not. Are they? I was checking his contribs to see what else he might have broken, and found his comment here. Khabs 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sam Webster

I see you've worked on some articles about pagan authors. Could you see if you could improve and/or find material to add to this article? Khabs 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions you requested

Dear Rosencomet, I went to the Starwood festival article to delete the names you requested, but they are not there anymore or I could not find them at least. If they are there, then I am perfectly willing for them to be deleted if you do not think they should be there. I have been very badmouthed for trying to edit this Starwood festival so I will not edit it anymore. thank you. BackMaun 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

you gave me a heads up that the mean guy would get me, that Khabs who is mean to everyone, so thanks. BackMaun

" I smell a sock" you told Khabs about me!

That is not very nice of you. He is newer that I am and I have looked at his contributions too. He started for the first time February 10, 2007. These are the characteristics of a sock according to Wikipedia"

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

Look at our contributions yourself. Which one of us fits that profile best? And it is not nice for you to tell him or to say I smell like a sock! BackMaun 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You say you smell me as a sock so your friend Khabs calls me a sock?

I had thought you were a nice guy. But you are not supposed to call people socks because you smell something. Are you not a decent human being? I ask that because I wonder now? BackMaun 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Dear Fred, I have never done this, so I don't know how to go about it. How can I request a checkuser on User:BackMaun and User:Alien666? The former has been specifically visiting articles I, and others who have been involved in the Starwood arbitration and certain other issues, have edited, and making unexplained and often IMO nonsensical edits (like breaking links or duplicating material and revert-warring over it). The latter is, I believe, a former suspected sockpuppet of Mattisse who reappeared for one day (Feb. 19th - so far) after 6 months of inactivity, and edited some of the same pages. From the style, the choice of edits, and the line on Alien666's userpage "Wish me luck this time!", I suspect both of being sock puppets. Certainly the behavior doesn't match someone new to Wikipedia, as BackMaun claims to be.

Thank you, Rosencomet 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser shows the three users share an ip from time to time. How serious is the problem? Fred Bauder 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I Hate To Do This

Rosencomet, I have to suggest that you take a step back from the Starwood and related articles. I realize you feel strongly about the issues, and I can't disagree with you that some parties' actions could easily be seen as being "aimed" at you and/or Starwood. However, I think you're doing yourself more harm than good by continuing to butt heads with people over these things. Any time you try for an arbitration or other proceeding, you're going to find people referencing Conflict of Interest and Ownership issues, which is going to make any position of yours really hard to defend.

Regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: step back

I understood. However-- I'm not an arbitrator, nor am I an administrator. I'm just clerking for changes. The decisions come from the ArbCom-- clerks are just helping to alert the ArbCom to changes to people's statements. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: statement

We try to avoid threaded comments on the statement/evidence page since it's not meant for discussion -- that's why the talk pages are there. Just so you know. I've gone ahead and move the section back to your statement as well as posted on the arbitrator's page. My mistake on that one (been sleeping bad lately) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not losing sleep, just not good quality. Also... I'm trying to delay the votes (the votes were cast before the 2 statements were considered). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're gravely mistaken. Look at the history page. There has been -NO- vote since the 16th. This means that neither Kathryn's statement nor yours were being considered. In this case, delaying the vote actually would be asking the arbitrators to possibly change their current votes. In which direction? That isn't up to me. I can't be anymore objective than that. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now, delaying the motion to close is procedural until the arbitrators are satisfied with the statements and make necessary changes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Understand that I mean you no offense. I'm just trying to make it so that the ArbCom actually notice the updated statements. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 16:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Would you please use edit summaries. I know saving repeatedly is advisable so you don't lose material, but you've made 5 consecutive edits to Isaac Bonewits with no edit summaries explaining what you are doing. Also, editors who use vandal fighting programs and the anti-vandal bots flag every edit you make without a summary as potential vandalism, and every time you hit "Save" without an edit summary on articles, it pops up as vandalism. Fill the rest of the world in on what you are doing. Thanks. - WeniWidiWiki 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Neo-Pagan festivals and events

Thanks for the welcome back! I've added this list article to my watchlist. My only comment at the moment is that I think all the festivals should be wikilinked, whether there is an article yet or not... at least, the notable ones should be... Jefferson Anderson 14:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanley

"sounds like a way to get people in trouble". The best kind of trouble, I'm sure. I met him at Saturday's Saybrook open house. Nice guy. --Duncan 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

T. J. Anderson

Would you mind putting this article on your watchlist? "Somebody" has been messing with it. Jefferson Anderson 17:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Soo Jefferson Adnderson follows sockpuppets kahbs, Ekakati,999,Hanumaan Das, Frater Xyxxy, and ????

See User:Ekajati and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati. what a crowd you run arond with!!!!! and i though you weere my frend when you gave me the heads up on khabs. But Jefferson Anderson seems to fit right in. and you all know each other! thatis so wonderful. --BackMaun 21:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

T.J. Anderson external link

The link that I deleted came up blank this morning. That's why I deleted it. It seems to be coming up fine this afternoon. Just thought you'd want to know. I wasn't being arbitrary. Maybe there was a problem with the web server for the external link.

--Richard 23:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop calling me a sockbpuupet an getting admins invovled in phoney complaints.>>User:talk William M Connollay

Stop that and I will not have to post, but when you have so many socpuppet friends and suspected sockpuppet friends, don't you think it's a little unfair? Rembember how you got Khabs after me? why don't you apologize for that? --BackMaun 00:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post on my talk page and PLEASE STOP CALLING ME A SOCKPUPPET

Please do not post on my talk page.--BackMaun 18:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

About Mattisse

While have have not agreed with all the actions this user has taken fanning the flames will NOT help. Please assume good faith. The Starwood case is over lets move on no need keep bring it up and causing lal of us unneeded stress. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I have apoligised to you and you have not accepted

I offer you this, in hopes of clarifying some of this: The user you are defending now User:Khabs has been found to be part of the sock pubbpet ring. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati, This is offered only in the interests of clarifying the current problens between us.. Again, as I have in the past, I offer you my deepest apologies for causing you distress. Soncerely, Mattisse 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse etc.

Thank you for the civil tone of your comments on my talk page. I apologise if you feel I mischaracterised your activities in any way. I find the whole case very confusing, and am relying on the piecemeal information from the archives. I will strike out my comment concerning you on Fred Bauder's talk page, as I didn't mean for it to provoke controversy.

You're quite correct that this has nothing to do with the Starwood case. Really, it's just between Mattisse and Jefferson Anderson. Mattisse has apologised to you above for causing you distress, and it would be helpful if you would accept her apology. She will try not to get into more conflict with you in future.

Once again, I would like to thank you for being civil and reasonable about this. Please continue doing so, and accept Mattisse's apology offered above. Leave myself and Mattisse to sort things out with Jefferson Anderson. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now struck out the comments on Fred Bauder's talk page to which you objected. I apologise for inadvertently dragging you into this conflict by naming you there. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether you can accept her apology or not, it might be best if we all just move on and leave this dispute behind; I've said so to Mattisse as well, and will say the same to everyone else involved in the dispute. Concerning your comments at Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati, the reason the user talk page is listed is because the blocking template was left on the talkpage as well as the userpage, which adds both pages to the category. Just a minor error; I wouldn't advise removing the duplicate template, as such actions tend to be controversial. As to Danuman Has, the account is still a confirmed sockpuppet whether or not it was used for an abusive purpose. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF, I am assuming that BackMaun and Mattisse are not the same person. Mattisse has told me she does not use sockpuppets (except in the case with her grandchildren, which wasn't her fault). As such, BackMaun's behaviour towards you (which I agree is unacceptable) is not related to this case. As to Aeon and JA, I imagine that Aeon just meant he wanted to cool down the dispute, not that he was actually planning to abandon JA's case. But I would advise you, as I keep advising Mattisse, to simply disengage from this dispute and carry on with your lives. If BackMaun continues posting negative comments or harassing you, you can ask for help through WP:DR. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Please don't post on my talk page again thank you. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse

I have sent Mattisse a long and detailed e-mail message of my thoughts and recommendations regarding her situation. I will not discuss the contents in detail, but I would like to ask you to stay away from her for a week to see how she responds. Please don't respond to her comments on other talk pages, file further sockpuppet reports, or otherwise engage her in debate. It is my hope that with Jefferson Anderson undergoing a "reincarnation" that it will be possible for all parties to put aside old grudges and move forward. Certainly new problems should not be ignored, but continually dragging up old grudges is not helpful to anyone. It is my hope that you will be able to give her at least this 7 day breather. Jefferson Anderson has chosen one path to move forward; hopefully you and Mattisse can each find a path of your own. Thanks. Thatcher131 14:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To say it again

Please stop posting on my talk page thank you. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 03:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I reomved your posts from my talk page you posted after Jefferson Anderson. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I have not posted on your talk page since you asked me not to, except just now to say that I have not done so (and was curious as to why you were asking again). Rosencomet 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Rosencomet, I posted separate replies on Fred's an my page (I had not yet seen the one on my talk page.) I guess my advice is to ignore Calton. Short of that I do not know what to do; he or she is a valuable contributor. I apologise that I am of no more assistance. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. --Iamunknown 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Coding

There hasn't been any major change in the coding. Fred Bauder 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hippie-related topics

You may be interested in voting on this AfD. —Viriditas | Talk 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Lehto and Wright

A tag has been placed on Lehto and Wright, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The duo does not pass notability guidelines for musical groups, pure and simple. No charted songs, no airplay by any notable outlet, no citations of articles about them in independent publications. They appear to be a local group in a niche musical format. It looks obvious to me. Put a hangon tag on it of you want, or if it's simply a mater of needing more time to add stuff, let me know and I will replace the speedy tag with an {{underconstruction}} tag to give you the time you need. Realkyhick 21:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. As for comments others have made about me being quick on the trigger, the vast majority of them were very obvious speedy-delete cases, and handled accordingly. Just because the original author doesn't like it doesn't mean a speedy shouldn't be applied and quickly. Be advised that posting the underconstruction tag (and be sure to remove it when you're done) does not guarantee the article won't be proposed for deletion (even a speedy) later. This just buys you more time. By the way, there's no time limit that I know of, though some admin may check on you if the UC tag is up more than a month. Realkyhick 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Judeo-Paganism

Hi. I've seen some of your edits on articles on my watchlist. I think this article might be something up your alley? IPSOS (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Golden Dawn

I think Golden Dawn is within your area of interest? A bunch of G.D. articles have been recently nominated for deletion. Thought you might be interested.

• Chic Cicero
• Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati
• Ordo Stella Matutina
• The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn
• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.
• Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega

IPSOS (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Leary

Can you help write a few paragraphs about Timothy Leary and the hippies? I'm in the process of splitting the history, culture, and legacy sections off to separate articles and I think we could use a "Notable people" or related section that discusses the most important figures of the hippie movement. —Viriditas | Talk 00:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

List of occult writers

I'm going to be cleaning up this list shortly but I see you reverted someone who attempted to take out the redlinked names on the list. Lists such as this should not have redlinks on them. Please see Wikipedia:Listcruft but more specifically Wikipedia:Lists which is a style guideline on lists:.

Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic. (my emphasis added)

If you wish to write articles for the people/writers you would like to see on Wikipedia, please do. Putting them on a list like this before they have a Wikipedia article is a kind of POV pushing. Please be aware of this in the future. Pig^man 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of your opinion, but I disagree with it. A list of something is a list of something. If I wanted to list the elements of the periodic table, or the line-up of the 1969 Yankees, or the species of butterfly found in New York State, I could go ahead and do so as long as I could support the inclusion of each member of the list (and the usefulness of such a list in the first place). I do NOT have to wait until someone writes an article about each element, or Yankee, or type of butterfly, and the list need not remain incomplete and a less valuable research tool until that happens. That can come later, and need not be my sole responsibility, nor is it "a kind of POV pushing", and your saying so does not make it so. Such lists ARE encyclopedic in and of themselves, and I see no reason not to say the same about a list of occult writers. However, I do agree that there's no reason to create a "red link" around the name/item; I would just include them without an attempted link. (It does, however, remind the observer that no article presently exists, and perhaps inspire one to write one. I've written several articles for that precise reason; a red link made me aware that someone or something had no article, and if I thought it merited one, I wrote one - like Bernie Siegel, Pamela J. Ball, and Nevill Drury, none of whom I've even interacted with.) Rosencomet 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lauren Raine

Lauren Raine, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Lauren Raine satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Raine and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Lauren Raine during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pig^man 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gabrielle Roth

This was deleted as an expired prod (the notice had remained on the article for five days). Per your request, I've posted the deleted text to your userspace at User:Rosencomet/Gabrielle Roth.

The article didn't have any independent sources showing Ms. Roth's notability. Please don't repost unless you can find some. Thanks, NawlinWiki 19:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Festival

Hey, I just noticed you are responsible for Starwood Festival. Nice work. —Viriditas | Talk 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Gabrielle Roth. BTW, do you have a date for the lecture/workshop McKenna gave at Starwood? I wanted to cite it in his bio. —Viriditas | Talk 10:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good info. There is a lot of truth to what you have written; I've listened to maybe 85 percent of his recordings, and the bits and pieces I've heard from Starwood show without a doubt that he was very relaxed and happy to be there. —Viriditas | Talk 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wicca

I'll take a look. I know what you mean about "another battle". It's depressing, isn't it? —Viriditas | Talk 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Starflight Network

The name of the organization founded by Robert Anton Wilson in 1976 was the Starflight Network. It was active in 1976 and 1977. I simply recorded my memories of what happened there when I attended the meetings during 1976. I used to help Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson set up the tables to sell their books at Star Trek conventions. I can use the Starflight Network bulletin as a reference I suppose, but it will take me some time to find them in my voluminous file cabinet; I can’t remember right now which section I filed them under. I will try to find them in the next week or two. The Starflight Network is where I met my friend John Draper in 1976. If you want to confirm the information about the Starflight Network you can e-mail John Draper on his website. I intend to create a Wikipedia article about the Starflight Network as soon as I can find the Network bulletins in my files. Keraunos 19:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term Holocaust

I mentioned that the term Holocaust only came into generally in 1978 because I never heard it before then. Thank you for the article “The Secular Word Holocaust” [3]. It was very interesting. I was going to insert it at the end of the Names of the Holocaust article, but I see it is already there! However, it confirms what I suspected, that the term “Holocaust” was mostly used by Jewish people to refer to the Nazi genocide before the 1978 TV miniseries and was not adopted by the general population until after the broadcast of the Holocaust (TV miniseries). I’m not Jewish and I never heard the term before 1978. I have been collecting numerous books about the history of Nazi Germany since 1960 and none of these books published before 1978 mention the term. I have even seen Neo-Nazi literature in which they pretend that the Holocaust didn’t happen because it is not mentioned in the literature published during the period 1945-1965, and thus that means it must have been made up later! How absurd! That’s why I put that comment—-so that younger people would know that it is simply a question of terminology and not a question of the fact that it happened. Keraunos (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look

...later tonight. I'm out the door at the moment. Hope all is well. —Viriditas | Talk 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article and I've left a note on Kathryn's page asking for an explanation. I would suggest that you avoid editing the article for the next 72 hours or more in case this escalates. The more you stay away from the article, the sooner we can solve this problem. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what JzG is doing, but if I were you, I would let go of any past conflicts and start anew, right now. Pay special attention to WP:COI and you should be ok. Please contact me and let me know what I can do for you. I still don't get what Kathryn was trying to do to your article by removing citations, but this appears to be part of a long-running user conflict. Since she has an admin bit, you will have to be careful, because she can try to have you blocked for any perceived violations. My suggestion is just to relax, and take this slow. There's no rush to do anything just yet. —Viriditas | Talk 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I highly recommend following the procedure for declaring a COI on your user page. This will show that you've learned your lesson and you are willing to work with the community to improve the encyclopedia, and will in all likelihood prevent you from getting blocked. Please do it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, Kathryn has made a number of changes. While I'm sure you are unhappy about this, remember that the material is preserved in the edit history and we can restore it as needed. I would recommend not engaging in any revert wars, but using the talk page calmly to make very short, brief points explaining your position. Do not blame, accuse, or attack anyone, and I think we will get this resolved rather quickly. —Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

They are targeting your work, but don't let it bother you. The last editor who did that to me was an administrator, and is now permanently blocked (albeit for other reasons). Karma can be a real bitch. Don't react; practice kung fu and go with the flow. It's a dance, all you have to do is be graceful.—Viriditas | Talk 04:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could track down the PBS documentary so we can cite it in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me say this one more time. If you continue editing the disputed page in question, the administrators in question will find a way to block you, even though I think you are in the right and they are wrong. You see, it doesn't matter what we think; you just need to stop editing so that things cool down. I recommend a wikibreak if you have the self-control. I'm saying this because I don't want to see you blocked, but you are heading down that path. —Viriditas | Talk 06:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

I was just trying to inform you that the article that you wrote has been nominated for deletion. Please comment here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grey_School_of_Wizardry_(2nd_nomination) --SimpleParadox 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rosencomet, in response to the message you left me, I have moved the article to your userspace here – User:Rosencomet/Grey School of Wizardry – so you can continue to work on it. Please also review the WP:Notability guidelines to avoid problems further down the line. Drop me another note if you need any further help. Marasmusine (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet, you can request a copy of the deleted article and try sourcing it again. I can help if you want. You seem to have made a few enemies who are trying to delete your articles. To me, this looks like a pattern of harassment, but to others it will appear to be "enforcing policy'. Your best bet is to play within the rules and don't let them get to you. Let me know what I can do for you. —Viriditas | Talk 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Matthew Abelson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Matthew Abelson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Abelson. Thank you. Pigman☿ 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I thought you'd like to know that I've formally requested withdrawal of my AfD nomination of Matthew Abelson. The sources added by User:Viriditas satisfy the concerns which prompted me to nominate it in the first place. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked

Blocked: Per this admission this account is indefinitely blocked. Sharing of a single account by multiple individuals is prohibited. If you agree that only one person will be using this account, you can post here with {{unblock}} or e-mail the unblock request mailing list at unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Thatcher131 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

Thank you for posting this. First of all, I will definitely agree not to allow anyone else to edit on this account. I did not know that was forbidden; I have, in the past, heard people who said that they and their spouse used their account, or their grandchildren did, and such. I've seen edits that I questioned, and when I looked at the contributions, it said that this was an account used by several people, usually associated with a school. So I simply did not know that there was such a rule; but I will definitely agree not to allow it again.

You see, I am part of a group of people who, on a volunteer basis and in our spare time, help run educational and entertainment-oriented events. We are a circle of friends, but I am the only one who edits on Wikipedia. I talk about it a lot, and have often tried to encourage my friends to become editors, with no luck so far.

On several occasions, one of my friends comes to me and says they saw a Wiki article about a favorite author or musician that was missing some book or CD thay know should be in their bibliography or discography because they own a copy, or they see something in an article that they know isn't true. Instead of editing for them, I sit them down and say, "No, you'll do it. It's easy. I'll show you how." And I try to get them as excited as I am about editing.

In a couple of cases I've gotten them to do it more than once, but ALWAYS under my supervision. In two cases I've gotten them to open their own accounts, though I don't think they've used them more than three or four times, if that. (I could be wrong; I haven't asked lately).

Now I don't know if this is something I should not have done, or if this is really what OrangeMike blocked me for, but regardless of that I will never let anyone else use this account. If I want to instruct someone, I'll let them do so as an unregistered newcomer or open an account first, whatever is right.

I don't know how to do this {{unblock}} thing, so I hope you are watching this talk page. I ask anyone else watching to bring it to your attention, or properly apply the unblock code for me, just in case I'm doing this wrong. I don't think I can edit on your talk page. Again, I'm sorry if I either broke a rule or lead OrangeMike to think I did, but I will be much more careful in the future.Rosencomet (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, ideally you would have posted the unblock template without the nowiki tags, and it would have made a big info box and set a flag to attract an admin to review the request. But I was watching anyway. If you try to edit and are still blocked, it is probably an Autoblock; you will have to post the unblock message again being sure to state what the autoblock number is.

Accounts should not be shared. If you see other people sharing accounts, you could certainly advise them of this, or report it to an admin. Part of the reason is so that account holders can't avoid responsibility for things posted in their name.

I mean to address your other concerns this evening after dinner and shopping (at work now). Thatcher131 19:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your speedy attention and understanding.Rosencomet (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, if you have friends or colleagues who would like to edit I would encourage them to create their own accounts. Thatcher131 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)