User talk:Cleo123: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:07, 14 May 2007 editCleo123 (talk \| contribs)1,494 editsm →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:09, 14 May 2007 edit undoCleo123 (talk \| contribs)1,494 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 192:		Line 192:
	:Please desist from any attempts to further raise the allegation that I tried to "stack the deck" or similar personal attacks against me or the other editors involved. I acknowledge that I am relatively new here, and that I may have taken some of the steps out of line. However, your own blatantly prejudicial statements about how I tried to "stack the deck" and other at best poorly defined accusations may very possibly fall within the range of conduct defined as personal attack. Personally, now that I know that Bus stop's own history of unilateral misconduct is sufficient cause to revert any of his clearly prejudicial work, I have no reason to have any further direct contact with him. Also, if I had been as clearly prejudiced as you accuse me of being, I wouldn't have sent the above message to you, would I? I believe your own clearly prejudicial ways of phrasing events, and viewing them, may be at least part of the problem here. Please also note that, for perhaps the first time, I have clearly asked Metzenberg on his talk page if he would be willing to perhaps help form and be a member of a group which might have as part of its scope dealing with matters of interreligious controversy. I believe the clear facts of the incidents more than indicate your own phrasing is at best inaccurate, and at worst violation of unjustified personal attacks rules. However, as I anticipate having no further contact with you, I would only honestly ask that you at least refrain from making any explicit attacks on individuals, which may very easily result in a request for discipline against you. Also, if you will note and , I actually made contacts with other supervisory entities before doing what one of them told me to do, which was to seek to place a block on that user. Whatever your own existing prejudices are regarding this subject, I think that it would be seen that there was an honest attempt by an admittedly inexperienced editor (me) to resolve this matter, and that I simply acted a bit too fast? Considering Bus stop's repeatedly noticed flat refusal to actually respond to any of the points raised by those who disagree with him, can you honestly say the same thing about him? Also, in light of the evidence I have shown above, I believe that it would be a disply of good faith on your part to remove the flatly inaccurate statements you have made elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if you do so. ] 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)		:Please desist from any attempts to further raise the allegation that I tried to "stack the deck" or similar personal attacks against me or the other editors involved. I acknowledge that I am relatively new here, and that I may have taken some of the steps out of line. However, your own blatantly prejudicial statements about how I tried to "stack the deck" and other at best poorly defined accusations may very possibly fall within the range of conduct defined as personal attack. Personally, now that I know that Bus stop's own history of unilateral misconduct is sufficient cause to revert any of his clearly prejudicial work, I have no reason to have any further direct contact with him. Also, if I had been as clearly prejudiced as you accuse me of being, I wouldn't have sent the above message to you, would I? I believe your own clearly prejudicial ways of phrasing events, and viewing them, may be at least part of the problem here. Please also note that, for perhaps the first time, I have clearly asked Metzenberg on his talk page if he would be willing to perhaps help form and be a member of a group which might have as part of its scope dealing with matters of interreligious controversy. I believe the clear facts of the incidents more than indicate your own phrasing is at best inaccurate, and at worst violation of unjustified personal attacks rules. However, as I anticipate having no further contact with you, I would only honestly ask that you at least refrain from making any explicit attacks on individuals, which may very easily result in a request for discipline against you. Also, if you will note and , I actually made contacts with other supervisory entities before doing what one of them told me to do, which was to seek to place a block on that user. Whatever your own existing prejudices are regarding this subject, I think that it would be seen that there was an honest attempt by an admittedly inexperienced editor (me) to resolve this matter, and that I simply acted a bit too fast? Considering Bus stop's repeatedly noticed flat refusal to actually respond to any of the points raised by those who disagree with him, can you honestly say the same thing about him? Also, in light of the evidence I have shown above, I believe that it would be a disply of good faith on your part to remove the flatly inaccurate statements you have made elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if you do so. ] 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

	::: In the first place, your name is mentioned no where in the posting to which you refer. In the second place, I have not made any personal attacks. I have noted inappropriate editorial conduct by editors on your side of the dispute. I have done so in response to your attempts to rally other editors to seek Arbcom against ]. I feel it is very important that both sides of the story be recorded so that any administrator reading the page will have access to all the facts. These are facts, not accusations, as they are substantiated by contribution histories. It is very obvious that you are new to Misplaced Pages, because you really do not seem to understand the spirit of editorial policies. Whether you realize it or not, you have behaved improperly. ] is an established editor who had a spotless record prior to this dispute. Rather than assuming good faith on his part, you have treated him as if he were a vandal and encouraged others to do the same. Very shortly after he expressed a point of view contrary to your own, you requested a Community Sanction blocking him from articles (one of which, I don't believe he had ever even edited). This was very inappropriate and the reason you request was rejected. Rather than learning from this mistake, you appear to be trying to up the anty even more!		::: In the first place, your name is mentioned no where in the posting to which you refer. In the second place, I have not made any personal attacks. I have noted inappropriate editorial conduct by editors on your side of the dispute. I have done so in response to your attempts to rally other editors to seek Arbcom against ]. I feel it is very important that both sides of the story be recorded so that any administrator reading the page will have access to all the facts. These are facts, not accusations, as they are substantiated by contribution histories. It is very obvious that you are new to Misplaced Pages, because you really do not seem to understand the spirit of editorial policies. Whether you realize it or not, you have behaved improperly. ] is an established editor who had a spotless record prior to this dispute. Rather than assuming good faith on his part, you have treated him as if he were a vandal and encouraged others to do the same. Very shortly after he expressed a point of view contrary to your own, you requested a Community Sanction blocking him from articles (one of which, I don't believe he had ever even edited). This was very inappropriate and the reason you request was rejected. Rather than learning from this mistake, you appear to be trying to up the anty even more!
	::: Your request for mediation (which '''followed''' the failed Community Sanction Request) appeared very disengenuous. On the surface it read like a simple content dispute. However, other comments you made on a variety of talk pages would seem to indicate a desire on your part to have Bus stop blocked or punished in some way for disagreeing with your POV. Several editors on the ] article shared Bus stop's views, yet none of us were included in the "content" related mediation. If your request truly concerned content, why would you invite 3 editors with your view and Bus stop alone? That certainly does appear to be an attempt to stack the deck in favor of your POV.		::: Your request for mediation (which '''followed''' the failed Community Sanction Request) appeared very disengenuous. On the surface it read like a simple content dispute. However, other comments you made on a variety of talk pages would seem to indicate a desire on your part to have Bus stop blocked or punished in some way for disagreeing with your POV. Several editors on the ] article shared Bus stop's views, yet none of us were included in the "content" related mediation. If your request truly concerned content, why would you invite 3 editors with your view and Bus stop alone? That certainly does appear to be an attempt to stack the deck in favor of your POV.
	::: ] has consistently responded to all article related queries. He has presented multiple policy based arguments for his view, all of which have been ignored. Other editors have supported his arguments, and they too have been ignored. Many editors on your side of the debate have behaved in a very uncivil and inappropriate manner. Indeed, accusing me of making personal attacks, when my record clearly demonstrates that I haven't is uncivil. You may not care for my view, but I assure you that it is a nuetral and unbiased view. I came to the discussion in response to your request for a community sanction against ].		::: ] has consistently responded to all article related queries. He has presented multiple policy based arguments for his view, all of which have been ignored. Other editors have supported his arguments, and they too have been ignored. Many editors on your side of the debate have behaved in a very uncivil and inappropriate manner. Indeed, accusing me of making personal attacks, when my record clearly demonstrates that I haven't is uncivil. You may not care for my view, but I assure you that it is a nuetral and unbiased view. I came to the discussion in response to your request for a community sanction against ].

Revision as of 05:09, 14 May 2007

Looking good :)

Welcome!

Hello, Cleo123, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 Misplaced Pages: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! KittenKlub 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Cezar Kurti

Thanks for supporting keeping the Cezar Kurti. It won't be deleted. Yes, he is a hero in academic circles for his translation of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra into Albanian. KP Botany 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards

I gave up on editing the article due to the edit war. Maybe enough time has elapsed for that ugly incident to lessen its grip on the article. Wahkeenah 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Meg Ryan

I have added my response on the Meg Ryan Talk page to your decision to remove the entire Parkinson interview section. I respect your contributions and I do appreciate your time, but I have to say that I totally disagree with your decision. She has made a lot of bad press over the years (the Russell Crowe affair, her mother's falling out, Parkinson) and it's not our job as editors to "protect" celebrities from bad press but to report on the events that make up their biography.

Otherwise, for example, why have her marriage to Dennis Quaid or her relationship with her mother mentioned at all? They aren't relevant to her movie career either. You are just picking and choosing what to include.

But we can agree to disagree but I would interested in your thoughts. Thanks! --Mezaco 00:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! I knew you'd weigh in sooner or later and I'm not really surprised by your response! LOL I think you may be misinterpretting my actions. I'm not trying to censor negative material, only trying to put it in its proper perspective within the larger context of the article as a whole. The Parkinson Incident still has its own paragraph, just not an entire section. I left you a LONG note on the article talk page. I am open to further discussing the matter. Thanks! Cleo123 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard Simmons

I can't find any good sources for the conflicts with Letterman and Stern. Have you had any luck? Frise 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I do actually remember seeing at least one of the Letterman episodes mentioned. I don't know anything about conflicts with Stern. I'll see if I can find anything on the Internet. I see where you are coming from on this. Thanks! Cleo123 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You weren't the one

Cleo123, you weren't the one who started this fiasco but rather the banned editor User:Wik (aka User:Kgeza67 a la User:Killroy4) was the one... I don't see a consensus for the version that that banned user was pushing and now that some time has gone by and the gravity of the event has been established it makes perfect sense to start an article about it. (→Netscott) 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Netscott User:KramerCosmo (indef. blocked)

i just got into this michael richards discussion but this user netscott is repeatedly reverting other users' edits and trying to make dramatic changes against consensus, and even reverted your edits again here, does that break the 3RR? KramerCosmo 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the "Fat Man" found an equitable solution to the problem. Thank Goodness! OMG! This has gotten SO out of control! LOL Cleo123 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say you're keeping interesting company with some of the folks who've been reverting me there Cleo123. (→Netscott) 04:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That is really unnecessary. I cannot control who leaves messages on my talk page, and the fact of the matter is - sock or not - he was right. You were engaging in edit warring with several editors when he left his message. You should stop this Netscott. You are harming your working relationships with other editors by acting in bad faith. You will have to continue working with all of us in the future, whether it be on the Michael Richards article or on a seperate stand alone article. You should think about that. Cleo123 05:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton

Thanks :-) -SpuriousQ 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My Message Too.

Don't worry, my message on the AfD disappeared as well. I think there was a brief bug in the edits. Whatever it was, it seems to have gone now. Sorry I wasn't able to help more: I wasn't actually on my computer when you posted your messages. Acalamari 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks any way! Cleo123 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross-Purposes aligned

I think philosophically you and I disagree about things such as the Mel Gibson DUI incident and the current Michael Richards deal, but us disagreeing amounts to taking the same path. As public figures, there can't really be too much of a defamation issue (at least legally, in terms of POV thats another matter). The reason I want these pages gone is because it makes the encyclopedia harder to navigate, more awkward in its structure and less helpful to quickly gathering information. All this data should be available in the main article for whoever is involved in it. Anyway, all that to more or less say that if you want to help reopen the debate on the Mel Gibson, I'd love to help, and I'll weigh in on the Michael Richards issue as well on it's AfD. -M 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Its relatively simple, bring it up on the talk page, add the {{merge}}, {{merge-to}}, or {{merge-from}} tags. If it does/does not get resolved on the page, and there seem to be strong opinions, the bring it up on AfD and poke towards a merge, see if theres consensus. It's relativly simple. -M

02:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Meg Ryan

Good to know there's some people out there who are aware of the contrasting perspectives on the Meg Ryan interview. My main intention is for the article to be accurate, I think it was an important incident in her career, but in my opinion the honeness was more on Parkinson than her. I hope the article can be made accurate, not by dismissing the incident but by telling it fairly. The british media love their spin and they made Ryan look like a stroppy prima donna - but Misplaced Pages shouldn't concur with that.

It says you're a writer Cleo123, i'm graduating from the Bournemouth Screenwriting School this summer. Are you looking for a writer over there? I've worked on BBC radio, at a Script Agency, with a small TV production company and i've made a bunch of silly films... tell me where to sign, right!

What's your advice for a young writer like me? I'm looking at getting a sitcom or drama commisioned in the next few years. Perhaps if Meg Ryan's seen my campaigning for her she'd agree to star in one of my shows! Bobbyfletch85 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleo123, many thanks for your kind greeting and the really useful advices you shared! :) Kind Regards! - very sincerely, Old Donkey 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

William Hung

NP, I was reading it and I could tell that section was poorly written. Don't delete it though I'll go back and try to fix it when I have a chance (because it does have some valid citations so I think that section could be updated). Only reason I didn't fix it then and there is I have a physics test tomorrow morning so I didn't want to spend a bunch of time on wikipedia. SirGrant 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Good luck on your test! Cleo123 08:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Meg Ryan interview.

Hi there. I've added back the information that you previosly removed on the Parkinson interview. You removed a statement which Parkinson made about her which I feel important as it is about Ryan, and that it was voted a most shocking moment. That is directly linked to Ryan so it should be included. However, I have moved it from her career section, to the trivia section as really speaking, it has nothing to do with her career. Feel free to discuss this with me on my talk page. Many thanks, Eagle Owl 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Eagle Owl

Understanding wiki

I think the only way anyone can understand how to work in wiki is to see what experienced editors do, because that is what will determine any outcome eventually. There are often two opposing viewpoints on controversial subjects. The outcome is then determined by the middle ground editors who tip the balance one way or the other. It is often a torturous way of arriving at a conclusion, but I have seen it eventually work. It is a living organism which has three non-negotiable policies: WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, with a strong emphasis on WP:CONSENSUS and a caution of WP:LAWYER.

Wiki does not aim for truth. It aims for what established sources say are the truth. When Einstein first came up with his theories they would not have been admissible on wiki, because they would not have been endorsed by a reliable source. Opposing viewpoints or interpretations from different reliable sources should not be judged or synthesised, but represented as oppositions that exist. We are not originators, but robots that replicate what other people say. This requires a very different set of parameters from those in, for example, journalism.

Tyrenius 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for me. I appreciate your efforts to help me understand. You are quite right! LOL! It is a bit different! LOL! Cleo123 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada strikes back

You're right. I've never heard of that commercial, but thanks for the positive feedback. By the way, you might want to check your user page. There seem to be "alot" of errors that you wouldn't want "broadcat". Clarityfiend 07:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Misplaced Pages Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Trendy

id like to thank you for your work with the Bobby Trendy page! so thanks for all the hard work Evaunit666 02:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Michael Richards comments

Of course your comments have some "impact" on me, as mine do on you. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother responding to them. I really like Kramer and don't wish to discredit him. It actually hurts my feelings a little when you claim otherwise. It's fair to say I have a limited view about what makes Richards notable or worth mentioning, but it's not fair or especially pertinent for you to speculate why I have such a limited view. For me to try to discredit a man whose already done so much irreparable harm to his reputation would be truly malicious, and it makes me sad to be accused of maliciousness, when I harbor none. If not so much out of respect for wikrules as a personal favor to me, I would humbly request asking that you stop accusing me of showing ill will toward the deeply troubled subject of that article. That's what Good Faith means, in my view.

I am exceptionally kind to new editors and avoid biting them; Ecostaz edits patterns do not follow those of a new editor. Still, I meant him no insult; I just wanted to warn others of his previous shenanigans, as I have no tolerance whatever for vandals (which he is) and sockpuppets (which, as Bulbous correctly pointed out, he has not yet proven to be). As you become more seasoned, you will learn to recognize genuine newbies from people wishing to distance themselves from previous accounts.

I've only been accused of incivility once before your accusation above (it was toward an editor who blanked my user page), and I maintain excellent relations with legitimate editors whose judgment does not coincide with my own; if you'll kindly point me to instances where I've transgressed against others, I will certainly examine my actions.

You know, I've actually cleaned up a number of lead sentences from biographical articles, not just Kramer's. Check out the Gertrude Stein, O.J. Simpson and Michael Moore edit histories when you have time. Speaking of having time, you made the comment that I'm wasting others' time with my attention to minor changes in wording. We're all volunteers; anyone without a spare moment to respond to ridiculous minutiae won't engage in the discussion; others--apparently with time on their hands--will. It's a matter of priorities; people on wp "waste" (POV term) their own time, not those of others.

I hope you respect my personal request to you out of decency, even if my editorial decisions do not strike your fancy. If you cannot grant this request, I still wish you happy editing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, too, for the nice note. I now better understand you strong reactions to the discussions taking place on the Richards talk page, since it is only natural to defend the good name of your friend against perceived attacks. I probably went a little overboard trying to mitigate what I saw as a whitewashing of what I hoped would be a sober, informative, neutrally-worded article. In retrospect, the "dynamic duo" comment was a mistake; although the two of you are indeed rather forceful presences (hence "dynamic), I should have thought twice before employing the term with such a disrespectful tone. I'm sorry for that.

I hope that, despite our prior frustration with one another, we can help restore balance to many overly biased articles in the future. Peace, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tim Hardaway

Thank you for taking the initiative and pruning back the section on Hardaway's controversial comments. When the comments were a top news topic, I think they warranted the attention the article gave them. Now that the fuss has passed, I was hoping that somebody would cut it back. In fact, on Talk:Tim Hardaway, I asked one editor to do it, but for some reason he didn't. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do some editing too. I didn't feel like I was the best person to start pruning that section because I was one of the editors who kept a close watch on it when Hardaway's comments were in the news — trying to remove vandalism and POV statements, trying to stick closely to quotes from the individuals that could be pulled from newspaper articles. I agree that the section is probably still a little too long. We'll see how it goes, and whether other editors disagree and try to restore some of it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Good edits on the lead there Cleo123. Thanks for picking up my slack. :-) (→Netscott) 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thank you! Cleo123 06:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And you seemed to have such a negative view about me relative to that article. ;-) See ya. (→Netscott) 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers

Hey see my proposals at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Great to get a pro writer on board. There are so many terrible actor and director articles we need as many quality writers as possible!!!Abbas Kiarostami is one of my better efforts with help from the copy editing wikipedians. Its amazing what can happening if people work together. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Model page for WikiProject Film Bio started

I have started a page model for the new project User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld/Film biography page model. Please note that it is still in its infancy stage and the templates have not been fully completed. THis is how I'd like the page to look but with an adaption of the task side plate further to incorprate film and biography goals on wikipedia. What do you think as a start? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has started but needs some effort to get all the components set up. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dylan

Hi Cleo 123, I've posted a response to your query about my sources on Dylan's Christian phase on the Bob Dylan Talk page. regards Mick gold 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cleo 123, I've re-written the 'Born Again' section with page references to Heylin, Sounes, and Gray's Encyclopedia. For anyone to assert that No actual conversion process took place in the face of the 3 most authoritative biographical accounts of Dylan seems, to me, absurd. What do you think? Mick gold 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cleo, Please don't worry about Dylan's 'born again' controversy. I think a clever editor patsw has solved it with quotes from New York Times. all best Mick gold 10:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin's acclaimed episodes

If you write for a popular Tv series then you must understand the value of watching a writer's most acclaimed episodes. Please reconsider your Delete. Anyone showing up to read about Aaron Sorkin with an interest in TV writing, will be most interested in the Further reading section, picking up a few of his scriptbooks, and the awards section where they will compare the acclaimed episodes to those in the scriptbooks, to even their favorite episodes. There is real value in that list to the student of Sorkin's works.-BillDeanCarter 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan.

I'd be pleased to know your thoughts on this discussion. I feel like the discussion is becoming antagonistic. I've tried to stay unbiased- my persistence, at least, has nothing to do with my 'religious beliefs' and everything to do with the fact that I feel that this stance conforms to Misplaced Pages's standards. We are maintaining and continuously updating lists like List of converts to Christianity for research purposes, and not to "boast converts" as Bus stop seems to have claimed, in more or less words.

I'm not sure how long you've followed the discussion, and since it is all mixed up between several talk pages, trying to make sense of it all is difficult. From the starting point, Dylan was on this list with a reference. When I noticed that Bus stop removed it for reason of "unreliable source", I took it upon myself to look for additional sources. As you can see, Dylan now has more sources which claim that he converted (just as much as any other sources for any other person claim that they converted), and yet Bus stop doesn't find this sufficient for inclusion on the list.

I'd prefer to discuss this with you to understand our points of disagreement. --C.Logan 09:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very shy on time right now, but I'll try to take another look at the various talk pages tomorrow. I do not have any objection to well sourced information regarding Dylan's "Christian years" in the article as long as a balanced and purely factual view is taken, with no subjective interpretation. I do see problems with his inclusion on a list of coverts to Christianity, when the validity of his "conversion" has been the subject of historic dispute. He is a practicing Jew and inclusion on such a list could give reader's a misimpression that falls within the potential boundaries of libel. Cleo123 07:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, the criterion for the list is simply conversion- if you hadn't noticed, the list contains a disclaimer which explains that the list is simply of people who have once converted to Christianity, regardless of later choices (although each individuals situation will be noted on their entry).

Many of the people undoubtedly lose their interest and no longer practice, and some may quietly return to their former religions. The fact of the matter is, we have added published sources which clearly describe his conversion period, and clearly state that he was baptized. For a time after, he did seem to honestly believe in it, if not practice some of the teachings. Whatever the case, his return to Judaism is noted on the list, even though I haven't seen any sources for this. Also, as far as I know, the participation in Jewish rituals is not sufficient evidence (of course, it depends) as many Jewish Christians continue to celebrate Jewish holidays and participate in Jewish rituals. The sources state this as well. (This is assuming that this is what you're speaking of, as I've heard this before).

I'm open to whatever evidence you may have. However, considering the criterion for inclusion on this list, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference beyond the fact that I'll add it in as another reference. (I don't mean that to sound rude, but text can convey the coldest meanings, it seems).

I'm beginning to question Bus stop's motives (although I have before, on his talk page). In our discussion a few minutes ago (I think, time flies), he stated: "All the disclaimers in the world do not counteract putting a Jew on a list of Christians." It seems that he's taking personal offense to the idea, despite my explanation (several times) that his (sourced) conversion satisfies the criterion for inclusion.

You're more familiar with him than I am. Is this an unfair judgment? Other users seem to say that he is helpful and supportive, but comments like this and the ones listed on his page seem to make it seem that his bias is playing more of a part than the sources he has yet to present.

Take your time. And I apologize if any part of this comment seems half-baked, but I'm very tired at the moment, and the thoughts aren't coming as clearly as they should be.--C.Logan 07:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty low

That's extremely intelligent reasoning on their part. I guess all users with "Charles" in their username better watch out too. If you think THAT Xfd is bad, take look at the massive WP:CANVASSing, meatpuppetry, and trolling here: . People just don't understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia anymore. Bulldog123 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Christianity

The request for mediation for the above article has been rejected because one of the parties involved, User:Bus stop, would not sign to accept or reject mediation, so the request was automatically rejected after 7 days. Personally, I don't think that anyone is really interested in continuing the discussion much longer. Please indicate at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Possibility of referring this discussion to WP:ArbCom? what you think the appropriate next step to resolve this matter would be. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please desist from any attempts to further raise the allegation that I tried to "stack the deck" or similar personal attacks against me or the other editors involved. I acknowledge that I am relatively new here, and that I may have taken some of the steps out of line. However, your own blatantly prejudicial statements about how I tried to "stack the deck" and other at best poorly defined accusations may very possibly fall within the range of conduct defined as personal attack. Personally, now that I know that Bus stop's own history of unilateral misconduct is sufficient cause to revert any of his clearly prejudicial work, I have no reason to have any further direct contact with him. Also, if I had been as clearly prejudiced as you accuse me of being, I wouldn't have sent the above message to you, would I? I believe your own clearly prejudicial ways of phrasing events, and viewing them, may be at least part of the problem here. Please also note that, for perhaps the first time, I have clearly asked Metzenberg on his talk page if he would be willing to perhaps help form and be a member of a group which might have as part of its scope dealing with matters of interreligious controversy. I believe the clear facts of the incidents more than indicate your own phrasing is at best inaccurate, and at worst violation of unjustified personal attacks rules. However, as I anticipate having no further contact with you, I would only honestly ask that you at least refrain from making any explicit attacks on individuals, which may very easily result in a request for discipline against you. Also, if you will note here and here, I actually made contacts with other supervisory entities before doing what one of them told me to do, which was to seek to place a block on that user. Whatever your own existing prejudices are regarding this subject, I think that it would be seen that there was an honest attempt by an admittedly inexperienced editor (me) to resolve this matter, and that I simply acted a bit too fast? Considering Bus stop's repeatedly noticed flat refusal to actually respond to any of the points raised by those who disagree with him, can you honestly say the same thing about him? Also, in light of the evidence I have shown above, I believe that it would be a disply of good faith on your part to remove the flatly inaccurate statements you have made elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if you do so. John Carter 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, your name is mentioned no where in the posting to which you refer. In the second place, I have not made any personal attacks. I have noted inappropriate editorial conduct by editors on your side of the dispute. I have done so in response to your attempts to rally other editors to seek Arbcom against User:Bus stop. I feel it is very important that both sides of the story be recorded so that any administrator reading the page will have access to all the facts. These are facts, not accusations, as they are substantiated by contribution histories. It is very obvious that you are new to Misplaced Pages, because you really do not seem to understand the spirit of editorial policies. Whether you realize it or not, you have behaved improperly. User:Bus stop is an established editor who had a spotless record prior to this dispute. Rather than assuming good faith on his part, you have treated him as if he were a vandal and encouraged others to do the same. Very shortly after he expressed a point of view contrary to your own, you requested a Community Sanction blocking him from articles (one of which, I don't believe he had ever even edited). This was very inappropriate and the reason you request was rejected. Rather than learning from this mistake, you appear to be trying to up the anty even more!

Your request for mediation (which followed the failed Community Sanction Request) appeared very disengenuous. On the surface it read like a simple content dispute. However, other comments you made on a variety of talk pages would seem to indicate a desire on your part to have Bus stop blocked or punished in some way for disagreeing with your POV. Several editors on the Bob Dylan article shared Bus stop's views, yet none of us were included in the "content" related mediation. If your request truly concerned content, why would you invite 3 editors with your view and Bus stop alone? That certainly does appear to be an attempt to stack the deck in favor of your POV.

User:Bus stop has consistently responded to all article related queries. He has presented multiple policy based arguments for his view, all of which have been ignored. Other editors have supported his arguments, and they too have been ignored. Many editors on your side of the debate have behaved in a very uncivil and inappropriate manner. Indeed, accusing me of making personal attacks, when my record clearly demonstrates that I haven't is uncivil. You may not care for my view, but I assure you that it is a nuetral and unbiased view. I came to the discussion in response to your request for a community sanction against User:Bus stop.

As a newcomer, I would advise you against focusing so much effort on getting established editors who disagree with you blocked or punished. Rather than rushing off to file complaints against User:Bus stop you should have engaged in an open minded debate with him and attempted to reach a consensus. Misplaced Pages is open for all to contribute, even those whose views you dislike.

As for this statement : "I would only honestly ask that you at least refrain from making any explicit attacks on individuals, which may very easily result in a request for discipline against you." - I would advise you against making baseless threats. I stand by the statements I have made and will be glad to provide citations to any administrator who expresses an interest in this matter. Cleo123 05:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)