User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2008/July

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. I'm afraid I've been a bit inactivity for the last week or so, please forgive the slow reply. And belated wishes to you as well. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Nobs

On what basis did you decide that the article The Nobs should be merged with less than one hour of discussion, and only one nominee. I believe an explanation is owed by you. MegX (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. I merely voiced my opinion in the Afd discussion. It does appears that another user closed the discussion prematurely, but that was done without my knowledge. I would support you in having that discussion re-set so that you and others could comment as well. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It was closed prematurely, in fact that would be the quickest closure I've seen in my entire time here on wikipedia, but i wasn't blaming you for doing it. I was pointing out that you are the only person that voiced an opinion and I just wanted you're side of the story. There was btw no previous discussion on the Talk page where this type of thing should have been dicussed in the first place. That would have been the correct thing to do by the nominator. MegX (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it probably didn't need to go to Afd in the first place. Would you like me to revert the early close and reopen the Afd so that others can weigh in? I see that you're a bit of a subject matter expert, your input certainly would be appropriate. On the other hand, if you and your project are going to handle it on your own, I'll respect that as well. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I lodged a formal complaint with the admins over the "rapid-fire" AfD process however they appear not interested in taking it further other than having a word with the people involved. I'm going to message a few other editors to try and get some consensus over this otherwise it's not going to change. MegX (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this up in a formal complaint would certainly be appreciated. The original "The Nobs" article I created was mostly mutilated after only a brief debate. Based on the original comments to nix the article, it's hard to ignore what appeared to be an egotistical agenda in completely altering referenced material, rather than adding to what was already there. If Wiki is looking for positive contibutors, it would be great to make people feel welcome in their efforts. Yobbo14 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RTC

The changes you made to the article are less accurate. It is not "The" Recruit Training Command; it is just Recruit Training Command. Also, Recruit Training Command is a Tennant Command not an organization. I have undone your changes to restore the article to a more accurate state. If you have further concerns please feel free to let me know.Rossusna02 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of my concern has been addressed by the subsequent move from the old title (U.S. Navy Recruit Training Command) to the current title of Navy Recruit Basic Training. I altered the old article because the lead did not describe RTC, it described the training process. I took out the language about it being a tenant command because while that is the clearest description for chain of command purposes, I felt it to be less appropriate for a general audience that is likely to include readers unfamilar with the military. I will, however, offer no defense for the extraneous "the" ;). Now, please correct my if I'm wrong, but RTC's mission only extends to enlistees, correct? The old article didn't make that distinction, so I added it. I know for Navy people "sailors" carries that meaning, but again, the article also should accurately communicate its meaning to those unfamiliar with the miliary. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Robert L. Hymers, Jr.

Hi. I'm the person who put the Robert L. Hymers entry in Wikipedia. Thanks so much for coming along and helping to adjudicate the situation! We really needed for a grownup to get involved.

I have a list on this page of article about Hymers; the first two include the full text (yes, I actually paid to get the articles pulled out of the LAT archives):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scooge/Robert_L._Hymers

At the end there are a few more sources sent me by people who are recovering from the experience of Hymers' "church." I do have a copy of the Enroth book on "Churches that Abuse" on order, and I understand that he describes therein some of the goings-on at one of Hymers' churches.

The problem is that a lot of people don't want to come forward publicly, because they are scared Hymers will retaliate in some way. Even I got an anonymous note at my home address warning me about "internet libel." (It was definitely from Hymers, because a few other people who participate in the Hymers-Warners newsgroup got the same note.)

My concern is partly that the truth come out as a simple matter of justice, but more importantly, I'd like there to be a way for young people to be warned about the abusive nature of Hymers' church, so no one will have to go through what I went through as a teenager.

(BTW, the consensus among the former Hymerites is that Bob told his son what to say on that page. And some of those people were themselves prohibited from going to college or getting advanced degrees while they were in Hymers' church--so while they have no ill-will toward "Leslie," they do complain about a double standard going on there.)

Thanks for your comments. I also went and was able to pull a couple of the old LA Times articles, and they do read as your had represented. Still, our BLP policy calls for a restrained approach to biographies. It certainly appears that the episode of organizing the rally to pray for the death of Justice Brennan was a notable moment, and I would say that the comments surrounding the release of the Last Temptation of Christ were notable as well. Still, a biography must cover the subject's entire life, not just the negative moments. We probably need some coverage of Hymers' books, prior pastorates, etc. Although I understand that there are a number of people who state that they suffered as members of Hymer's church, unless it has been reported by a neutral, independant reliable source, it really doesn't belong in the article. Ideally, we write the article based on the sources, rather than writing the article we want, then attempting to source it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)