Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:54, 5 May 2006

Request for Comments regarding Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While I do believe that many of Terryeo's edits are ill advised and against consensus, I'm not sure I support him being banned for a lengthy period of time. It seems like we are currently able to control his innappropiate behaviour through the standard means of reverting and reediting his bad edits. I believe that Terryeo has made at least a few edits that are worth keeping, and I have recently even reverted back to one of Terryeo's edits after a vandal hit a page. I think Terryeo is becoming more and more familiar with the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. If in the future his edits become too disruptive, I may change my mind and support a "lengthy ban", but for now I do not. Vivaldi 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary

States: " 09:26, 17 March 2006 Vivaldi (rv to last by Vivaldi. You removed cited information from Hubbard himself because it reveals information you don't like. See discussion page.)" but in looking at the discussion page, you have made no discussion. What portion of the discussion page were you refering to? I'm trying to be in good communication on these things and I understand you view the whole subject as an evil sort of subject but we are all constrained by the same policies here. Those policies include user collaberation and discussion. What discussion do you mean to point toward but not contribute to? Terryeo 19:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I did in fact make discussion. I contributed towards this discussion with my edits at (Vivaldi 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)) You removed a section of text in the main article that was properly cited and attributed to LRH and then claimed that your reason of doing so was because you were presenting "what Hubbard meant". So you removed cited text and replaced it with something that explains what you think that "Hubbard meant". You did this in the main article, and I believe that is original research on your part to remove certain Hubbard citations that are inconvenient to your POV, because you claim you don't think Hubbard meant what he wrote. Vivaldi 06:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about Tone Scale

It looks like my edit inadvertantly removed the Tone Scale from the series template. I'm still a little weak with Misplaced Pages's weird table markup. I'll probably move it back to beliefs, though, as the Tone Scale necessites belief for it to even have meaning in its definition. --Davidstrauss 12:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Belief, Doctrine, Practice....ugh....maybe we can just have a section: Scientology Things (that normal folks laugh about). Certainly we can all agree that the Tone Scale is a thing! Vivaldi 06:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Glen talking about "Mrs Rathbun" ;)

Jesus crazy ol' "Mrs Rathbun" (lol) has really got a bee in her bonnet with you on ars huh? It's really quite pathetic watching her attempts to 'dead agent' you! Laughable in fact. Keep up the great work mate File:Glenstollery.gif 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is sometimes amusing to see her in a tizzy. However, I admit there are some times that I feel sorry for her, since her life has been such a miserable and pathetic waste of time. She's done nothing for many years except be a huge drain on the people of Salt Lake City, the court system of Utah and the US Courts and her family in Germany that is forced to send her money to pay for her room and board.

Scientology is largely responsible for keeping Ms. Schwarz in a damaged condition, since it trained her to hate psychiatry with a passion. It is sad that now, as a person that is clearly suffering from a severe delusional disorder, that she is too scared to seek help from the only folks that have the skills to help her.

I pray that one day, Ms. Schwarz will receive the help she needs and make amends with the folks she has abused for so long. (but I'm not betting too much that my prayer will be answered) Vivaldi 06:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO's Request for Arbitration - Terryeo

Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you are doing to help improve Terryeo's behaviour. I hope it works. I do not support a lengthy ban of Terryeo myself, because I believe we are successfully curtailing his ill advised edits without such measures. Take care. Vivaldi 06:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Loudenvier writes about: Doublethinking...

(Please, the headline was meant only to be funny, because it was what brought me here). I do not like to have someone who I think aligns with me going against me! I don´t whant to discuss my posts on the Scientology article. I really think humanity to be a very big chunk of doublethinking "followers". It seems that people "need" to believe in something spectacular to be complete. I can´t differentiate Scientology from Christianity, Islamims, Judaism, Candonble, or even Atheism. I saw many of my friends or even some notorious authorities who are fervorous Christians going against Scientology very furiously. It makes me a litle mad! But I shouldn´t ever had brought it to wikipedia. I think it was a moment of weakness on my part! I´ve read the entire discussion on the Scientology article. I liked very much the things you said and the way you are working to make the truth about Scientology evident to all who really want to now the truth. When I said that the facts doesn´t matter, it was aimed at those people who still believe in "men" libe Hubbard and things like Scientology (or even greek Mythology for that matter). And please, apologize for my poor english because I´m not a native english speaker (actually I´m brazilian). Regards Loudenvier 01:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Vivaldi 04:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Glen's OSA article

You are I were adding sources at the same time it seems... I cited sources for all the {{fact}} claims and removed the unreferenced tag, hit save and you'd done it. I added the parts that you removed again (with sources) so let me know your thoughts. Glen 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Glen. Vivaldi 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(rv to last by Terryeo (I've always wanted to write that!))

You feeling okay? hehe. Just had an interview with a reporter for Wikinews re ScienTOMogy - you can see it here :) Would enjoy your thoughts...- Glen _C 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Glen. Vivaldi 22:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I may have violated 3RR

I may have accidentally violated the 3RR policy at Sollog. I apologize for violating the policy and I will refrain from any further reverts there.

I was hoping that people would explain their reverts before they re-added the material to Misplaced Pages, especially since this is an article about a living person, for which guidelines have been introduced at WP:BLP, but instead I am reverted, for what seems to be spite than any particular quality reason. Vivaldi 21:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Input from Saxifrage re: Sollog

You said:

I will try to be more civil. However, you will note that you called me a bull, while I did not criticize you, but only the article. Vivaldi 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In response, thank you. As for the bull reference, I hope you recognise it as a common English metaphor for careless conduct. I applaud your standing up for policy, but keep in mind that policy is not a stick to enforce compliance, it is a reference for what we are working together toward as a collective editing community. (Emphasis for emphasis only, not shouting.) There's no room at Misplaced Pages for single editors to conduct the project as they see fit, even if they are in the right. I realise the Scientology articles that you're familiar with may have been contentious and bilious battlegrounds, but that breeds poor habits of cooperation when you find yourself in an environment with no enemies and only shades of grey.

I understand the "bull" reference and I wasn't offended. I just don't see why it was okay to be called a careless bull, but it was not okay for me to state that the ARTICLE itself a work of poop. Vivaldi 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And, I would like to point out that I am not a single editor conducting the project. After a few deletions and a few comments on the talk page I did receive the support of at least one other editor for my edits. So for quite some time I was laboring under the misguided notion that a teeming mob of like-minded individuals were about to spring to the article if necessary. Obviously this didn't happen, but I didn't receive an overwhelming number of dissenters. (and I still haven't for that matter). I think we have only 3 or 4 folks that have now weighed in the subject. Not to suggest that I could round up a couple of friends and begin an edit war, because I am not of the inclination to do that, but I want to point out that I initially I was labouring here with the understanding that other people have similar goals to follow WP:V and WP:BLP and other policies. Vivaldi 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And that last bit brings me to an answer to your question about not following guidelines. Guidelines will only get you so far, and that ends as soon as someone disagrees with you on what the guidelines mean. You're only one person, and we're all fallible. Thus, the only real way to get anything done at Misplaced Pages is by dialogue, discussion, consensus-building, and agreement on what we should do and how to apply the guidelines and policy to any given article. If you convert and convince rather than shout down from a perch on top of the policy, you will get more sympathetic ears for your message.

I certainly understand the point you are making. I was hoping that I had more support than I really did at the beginning. Before I do any massive reverts or blanking I will attempt to gain more of a consensus from the editors. Vivaldi 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And there's one more pitfall that can be avoided by this soft-power approach: you won't find yourself misquoting the policy. You have half the time logged and a fifth the edits I have, and I think I am still inexperienced. Be cautious when you think you understand policy clearly, because it's a large and tangled web of interacting policies and easily misinterpreted. I guess that means my advice amounts to "walk softly, and leave the stick at home". After all, you don't need a stick at Misplaced Pages—if you're in the right, you will find you are only one of many people championing your cause; and if you're in the wrong, then a stick is just going to get you in trouble anyway. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the policy is something that wavers around a bit and I certainly agree with you that I am inexperienced too. I am through making changes for today at Sollog, as I said, and I am willing to start the process of discussion about improving this article, and it appears as though we are going to have to do it line-by-line and even word-by-word in some cases. Like I said previously, my intention was to make this process as speedy as possible (and I was assuming, naively perhaps, that even more editors would climb on my back). The guidelines suggest that unsourced information from biographies be removed immediately because of the potential for harm if the information is wrong. Why can't the article leave out the information until it is properly cited from reliable and reputable sources? We should always err on the side of the subject when writing a biography of a living person. Also, we must weigh the potential benefit of announcing these titallating details about Mr. Ennis versus the potential harm if such information were untrue. And there are certainly privacy concerns to be considered here as well. Unnotables like Mr. Ennis don't deserve to have all of their court records put in a public forum like this. Vivaldi 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look deep enough at the archives you'll see that The Number proved he was in England and that he was not Sollog. nevertheless he was banned without any comeback - and Sollogfan likewise. --anonymous message left by 05:11, 15 April 2006 by 81.157.94.110 (talk · contribs · count)

Well, I'm not sure what to think of The Number or Sollogfan, and I'm really not sure it matters -- even if either or both of them can be "proven" to be not Sollog. Because I don't think you can "prove" these people weren't "supporting Sollog" as a means to troll other Misplaced Pages users, nor can you "prove" that aren't both insane fsckwits. Sollog is an insignificant troll that deserves his rightful place in history -- totally forgotten and ignored. Vivaldi 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism using sock puppets / dialup accounts across a specific IP range

Please see my requests here User talk:80.47.242.200 and User talk:80.47.184.178. Thank you. --12.192.160.2 (talk · contribs · count) 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a very petty request that you are making because I have criticized your ill-advised and undiscussed edits at Sollog. Vivaldi 20:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And just to prove how petty and ridiculous this Wikistalking was. Here is a list of other edits that demonstrate how my assessment was correct about this IP range:

80.47.*.* is responsible for a long series of very recent vandalism attempts at Scientology. See also:

• 80.47.159.223 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.47.115 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.33.220 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.79.246 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.142.199 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.159.111 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.254.166 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.90.54 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.50.137 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.243.96 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.85.169 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.54.237 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.148.222 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.191.42 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.157.14 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.248.99 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.242.200 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.184.178 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.238.94 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.41.97 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.59.251 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.130.161 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.88.67 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.54.244 (talk · contribs · count)

Vivaldi 11:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Notice

Hi Vivaldi, please read Misplaced Pages:Civility if you have not already done so. --Amicable

LOL. A user is pissed off about getting his ill-advised and undiscussed edits reverted, and he chooses to stalk me on my other edits and make silly, petty, and unwarranted demands. Now, I get told to be civil? Go back and do your homework, O Sockpuppet of Friendship and Civility, because there is no way the edits by 12.192.160.2 (talk · contribs · count) were made in good faith. Vivaldi 09:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating a user's request is "petty" and saying their edits are "ill-advised" is uncivil. Telling a user to go back and do their homework is uncivil. Taunting is also uncivil. I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Civility if you not already done so. Thanks. --Amicable 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you to read WP:Wikistalking and WP:CIVIL if you have not already done so. This user 12.192.160.2 (talk · contribs · count) deliberately followed me to two seperate articles that he previously had nothing to do with, in order to continue his harassment, abuse, stalking, and intimidation of me. According to the policy at WP:HA, this in not appropriate behaviour. Since I was being stalked, harassed, and intimidated just because I simply pointed out this user made edits without ever providing a reason in the edit summary or the discussion -- I felt justified in pointing it out that I was being wronged. I was actually quite WP:CIVIL about it, since I merely called him petty, when I could have easily pointed out that I didn't appreciate his stalking, harassment, and abuse. And I'm now of the opinion that the person behind Amicable is being deliberately obtuse, since its quite clear from the edit summaries what happened here. I wasn't angry before, but I'm getting more so now. Perhaps you can step out from behind the curtain, because I don't even think you are really Amicable at all. Vivaldi 10:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW: The realname of "Vivaldi" is Korey Jerome Kruse. He just came out of jail and he never did anything in Scientology and he is - lets say not too bright.

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

Nikitchenko and I are now in Mediation based on his allegation of POV editing to the Office of Special Affairs article; See here. The Mediation is being held at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology. I notice there is a section, Comments by others so I thought given you have edited the article you may wish to comment when Mediation begins (I am unsure of the process at this stage). Look forward to hearing your opinion if you choose to offer it, and thanks in advance - Glen _C 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attn. I've made my response to the ill-advised and against consensus edits of Nikitchenkno. I believe Nikitchenko is now acting in bad faith and attempting to disrupt the editing process itself rather than improve the quality of articles or Misplaced Pages. The evidence for this is his lack of willingness to specify the reasons for his disputes and his unwillingness to use talk pages to respond to his ill-advised edits and his refusal to follow the principles of Misplaced Pages which involve consensus. You can see my comments on the mediation page, the talk page for the article, on the Nikitchenko talk page, and on your talk page. Vivaldi 01:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, and to be honest I'm seeing some very similar editing styles, accusations of POV and civility attacks, an obvious attempt to harrass the same specific editors and obviously, fixation on the same types of articles of JimmyT and UNK. A red flag really jumped up at me when he started using the phrase "stop being uncivil" at yourself, wikipediatrix and myself. Plus, strickenly similiar grammatical/spelling errors, and, just to "throw us off", JimmyT claimed he was american, UNK Korean and Nikitchenko claims to be a Russian photographer on his user page. The odd thing? He has not edited a single russian nor photography based article. In fact, he HAS made edits to Korean based ones, and told me on my talk page that he and UNK were extremely close friends (Russia/Korea - close enough) - he's a sockpuppet if you ask me, his tone and methods are carbon copies of the other "two" What are your thoughts?Glen _C 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the UNK and JimmyT fiasco. I only learned of it very recently, so I'm not prepared to comment on that. Vivaldi 14:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Glen says: "WTF is up with you and Sollog?"

Oh, and I'm curious, I noticed you take a lot of interest in the Sollog artcile - I know nada about him but it doesn't seem to fit with the genre you usually spend your time around. Is there a reason at all (if you don't mind my asking...) Thanks for your support on the mediation, really appreciated. - Glen _C 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the Sollog article removed from Misplaced Pages. If it can't be removed my next choice is to have it moved to the bad jokes page. If that can't be done, then I want it to at least follow the policy of WP:V and the guidelines at WP:BLP. My interest in Sollog is related to my interest in all new religions, however in this case, Sollog is so unnotable that he is a non-entity. I believe Misplaced Pages itself looks terrible when defamation articles like this persist. They are a blight on Misplaced Pages. This kind of article is why Misplaced Pages is mocked by many mainstraim researchers and journalists. This type of article is very much like what Scientology would call a Dead Agent attack. Sollog came to Misplaced Pages and tried to get a vanity article inserted about himself noting that he was God and a psychic predictor of great import. Of course he failed to get that article to stay, but he did piss off enough people here to get them to write this article about him. They even have made a point to bring up nearly 20 year old crimes and misdemeanors in his past to defame his character, even though such things are not appropriate according to guidelines at WP:BLP. So now a complete non-entity is proven to be a charlatan and a fraud with a criminal past. WHO CARES? Well I gues we will see soon. Unfortunately about 20-30 seperate editors have now been involved in the article and it might be difficult to persuade them all to remove the article now that they have spent so much time defending it from Sollog and his sockpuppets. Vivaldi 14:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Xenu removed from featured articles ?

I might not have made any contributions for four months but that doesnt mean that i havent been browsing through wikipedia countless times.

I understand that. I just thought it was interesting. Vivaldi 20:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Xenu article I was merely making a judgment on the facts of the article as I saw them, many of which are farfetched to say the least, however on reading your comment I can see your point of view about the article not trying to assert the accuracy of the Xenu story. So maybe I came across in the wrong way with my questioning of its status as a feature article, this apart I still dont think it deserves a place among the best wikipedia articles, but its not my opinion that counts. -- comment left anonymously by JACurran (talk · contribs · count)

I guess its a question of what you mean by far-fetched. Is it farfetched that a religion might be started based on the testimony of people that claim a virginal woman was impregnated by God? Is is farfetched to believe that a man could turn water into wine instantly or multiply fish and loaves of bread? Many people would think so. The actual supernatural events described in the bible, the Torah, and the Koran are pretty far-fetched if you read them literally. However, it is not far-fetched to believe that some folks believe in supernatural events. There's a large segment of society that explicitly does. Vivaldi 20:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 21:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to do it if I have some time. Maybe in a few months. User:Vivaldi | (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

you should find the specific quote in APOBS

At Thetan you wrote the edit summar to me: "11:34, 18 April 2006 Vivaldi (The source for the claim is already referenced at the end of the paragraph. Perhaps you should find the specific quote in APOBS and replace the text here with it? Then you can say, Atack wrote, XYZ.)" Just so you can be perfectly clear, I am going to quote a piece of WP:V to you: 'If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun..."' Further, the policy by which we edit states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain" WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. I know that source, the man can't string two peas in a row. ChrisO felt he is god's gift to understand Scientology or something and stuck that drivel into the article. I am not about to support it. I am actually going to revert it right out of the article until one of two things happen. * it is gone forever or * It is appropriately cited. I have talked for a week about it, I have tried to get it appropriately cited, I have even blockquoted the guy. You all insist such drivel must be included and you all insist that my methods of attributing it "don't read smoothly" and you all insist that "why don't you go get it appropriately cited". I'll just let you know. It violates WP:V. My patience with that particular piece of drivel is finished. Terryeo 23:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo- I don't insist on anything. I think the material is fine as it as, and it is sourced properly with a proper reference. I was only suggesting that if you wished to include Atack's name for the text, it would be better if you provided an actual quote, because every method you used to include his name has not looked good. Misplaced Pages doesn't require that we use actual quotes for every sentence in an article. All we need to do is have consensus that a statement is backed up by a verifiable source. Right now, I think the consensus is, that those words are properly sourced. I would encourage you to gain consensus for any deletions that you make to the article. Vivaldi (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Fair Game, section: ===Cancellation and controversy===

Please provide exact query on which grounds you wipe out my added information! Do you question the existence of HCO PL 21 July 1968? It is listed in the Policy Letter Index where it is cancelling the earlier 1967 issue (same title). Do you question the incorrectness of the correction about the GO pack? I supplied you with the reference supporting it (HCO PL 23 Dec 65 in OEC vols).

You wrote: "I find it highly suspicious that your very first edit to Misplaced Pages would be a highly technical edit replacing material that was reverted twice already. I would warn you that using sockpuppets to bolster your point-of-view is not appropriate. You can be blocked for doing it."

I object to being threatened on empty grounds. I have not replaced any information. I added information. The added information was carefully implemented without obstructing the existing text as a whole.

I am waiting for your arguments! Olberon 12:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"wipe out my added information"? I thought you just reinstated 87.227.20.229's edits. I think that it's clear from your language that you are both 87.227.20.229 and the author of that web page. AndroidCat 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I reinstated from the backup and implement changes in that. I also added referencing. Do you have any idea how many there are on this planet that do not have English as their first language. Your insinuating has no place here. It was by the way your post on the ARS about this that caught my attention. Olberon 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, you still haven't denied being 87.227.20.229. And Vivaldi calling this into question is not a threat in any language, so stop saying Vivaldi has threatened you. wikipediatrix 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi's revelations are based on personal opinion. He does not address the information itself. 87.227.20.229 bears no relevance to the issue in any way. This is supposed to be solely about data that can be verified for it's truthfulness. This is what Wiki is all about. Vivaldi has up to date failed to clarify himself. --Olberon 12:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just found out what is meant with sockpuppets on the Wiki. When I first edited I was not registered, now I am registered. I trust that this clarifies things. --Olberon 13:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a rule against reverting an edit 3 times in one day. Using a sockpuppet account to avoid the penalties for that rule is against the policy of Misplaced Pages. If you continue to violate the rules of Misplaced Pages, administrators will block you. Vivaldi (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a problem duplicating? You use the wrong and false reasons for trying to get me out of the way. Back up your assertions that my additions and editing are incorrect. I don't think the Wiki administrator will take too kindly of your approach. Quit trying to intimidate me. Use sanity and gentle communication. --Olberon 17:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Olberon- You are violating the policies of Misplaced Pages which prohibit sockpuppet accounts to bolster your point-of-view (or to avoid the rules against 3 reverts or for whatever other reason that someone would choose to have a sockpuppet). You are also ignoring the policy of verifiability and WP:Original Research which advises that you do not use your own personal published webpages as sources for articles on Misplaced Pages. A WARNING: If you continue to violate the policies of Misplaced Pages you will be blocked. (note: That isn't a threat, because I don't even have the power to block you if I wanted to).

An anonymous response from a person who is making unsubstantiated threats. This is duly noted. Any of the editing that I implemented is verifiable, referencing is supplied. Olberon 10:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As I told you, I have no power to make any threats. I cannot block you. However, I do know for a fact that if you continue to violate the policies of Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked. Vivaldi (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You are threatening me, is that allowed around here? Use reasoning. What policies do I violate? What's your support for that assertion? You don't tell. --Olberon 17:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not threatening you at all. I am advising you that if you continue to violate policies you will be blocked. That isn't a threat. It is a warning. I have not power to block you at all. I can only give you advice and warning. Vivaldi (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is duly noted that again you fail to support your assertion. Put up or shut up. --Olberon 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I advise you to please be civil. You have already admitted that you have violated Misplaced Pages policy against using sockpuppet accounts. You violated the 3 reverts in one day policy by using two different accounts to get around the rule. That is a blockable offense and its an offense that you have admitted to. I would also advise you not to attempt to violate the privacy of Misplaced Pages authors. Please do not attempt to use Fair Game intimidation tactics on me. This is also a blockable offense. I edit under the name of Vivaldi and I have never used any of my webpages or my own writings as a source for any of my own edits on Misplaced Pages. Vivaldi (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From the start you have been intimidating me. In addition you have not forwarded any queries to my additions which are fully supported by officially printed reference material. What are you implying with "I have never used any of my webpages or my own writings as a source for any of my own edits on Misplaced Pages"? --Olberon 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Any of the editing that I implemented is verifiable, referencing is supplied. Olberon-- Misplaced Pages also has policies that require Verifiability and No Original Research. The website that you are using as a source for your claims does not meet the requirements of WP:V. If you would like to continue to discuss your claims on the talk page and garner consensus for your edits, then you would have a much better chance of making a difference here. Your confrontational and anti-consensus approach to editing is not appropriate. Vivaldi (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You say: "The website that you are using as a source for your claims". Where might I ask am I doing that? What data? What argument? Please provide EXACT data. For so far I know I have been referencing to printed publications available to all. --Olberon 17:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk about your additions and your sources on the discussion page for the article. Before you make large scale additions or deletions from a controversial subject you should try to make your case for it on the discussion page. Be prepared to demonstrate that your reference sources are verifiable and reliable. Vivaldi (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's just false information. The policy is "be bold", the policy isn't, "tweak and snivel and discuss every edit to full concensus before editing" Particularly when iserting additional information, particularly when inserting verifications of current publications, be bold. That's the policy. You mis-state both the policy for editing and the intent of Misplaced Pages toward encouraging editing, Vivaldi. That's just plain false. Terryeo 07:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right about that. I have however commodated to this 'proposal'. Because of that another argument of those who query the data that I forwarded has simply vanished, and can not be used as an argument to revert. --Olberon 10:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I make my case through supporting it through documentation and referencing. Thus making discussing it unnecessary. You have been given the opportunity. To date you have not offered any substance to your arguments and opinion. --Olberon 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you will discover that you will actually need to discuss your edits on the talk page. It is part of the process of consensus building which is how Misplaced Pages operates. The reliability and reputation of your sources has been challenged. Your edits are against consensus. You can continue to work against the process of consensus, but you will find your editing time here unproductive. If you wish to garner consensus for your controversial updates, you should seek to develop it on the talk page for the article rather than on my talk page. Vivaldi (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You wipe out fully verified reference sources. once again:

"Do you question the existence of HCO PL 21 July 1968? It is listed in the Policy Letter Index where it is cancelling the earlier 1967 issue (same title).

Do you question the incorrectness of the correction about the GO pack? I supplied you with the reference supporting it (HCO PL 23 Dec 65 in OEC vols)."

You fail to respond. You use a generality to get rid of it. In addition that website linked to is support with reference material which is fully verifiable with printed publications. --Olberon 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I question the reliability and reputation of "that website". If indeed the material is fully verifiable, as you claim, then there are certainly lots of other published sources that have published the information. Go back and make your changes and use verifiable sources. If your own personal website is the only source you can locate to verify your claims, then the material should not be in Misplaced Pages. Your continued insistence to insert your own original research is against the policies of Misplaced Pages. I would suggest that you please read these policies and familiarize yourself with them. You are certainly free to make edits and changes to these articles, but you need to follow policies and you need to develop consensus for your changes. You don't own these articles yourself. Lots of editors have an interest in them, and many of them want to make sure that only information that meets policy requirements is inserted. Vivaldi (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't know which is my site, or if I even have one. Please stop that line. I have not at any point insisted on using some site for sole source of reference. So quit that line also. If you talk about Church of scientology issues there may not exist "lots of other published sources that have published the information". I also point out to you that you don't own the articles either, I don't need your approval or wikipediatrix's or anyone else's. I also read in the Wiki policies that one is encouraged to improve the Wiki, not to revert whole entries. About every change I made since I have been here has been totally reverted, if I had valid referencing or not. It got wiped out either way. --Olberon 19:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very confident that you are indeed using your own webpages to source your edits here, which is not recommended. I specifically deny that I have ever used one of my own websites as a source for my claims. Can you specifically deny that you are using your own websites as sources? Vivaldi (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that I wrote and issued OEC volume 1, the HCO PL Subject Index, Scientology; Basic Staff Hat Book - Number 1, the ''Foster Report'', William J. Widder, M.A. - The Fiction of L. Ron Hubbard: A comprehensive bibliography & reference guide to published and selected unpublished works and any other reference that I quote. I am most definitely denying that I use any personal websites of anyone as source for edits! If you make the claim that I do use any personal or questionable site as actual source for any editing implemented, then you would have no problem at all to point out the exact places where and how I do so! --Olberon 17:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If there aren't any reliable and reputable sources for your claims than a personal website owned by Michel Snoeck, then I believe your information should be left out of Misplaced Pages. Please find other sources for your claims. If there don't exist any reputable or reliable sources except for those on personal webpages, then the material probably doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. Of course, you can always try to garner consensus for your changes on the discussion page and perhaps argue why an exception to the guidelines is warranted. Vivaldi (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Again and for the very last time. MY ADDITIONS WERE FULLY VERIFIED AS PER PUBLISHED PRINTED (as in books) MATERIALS. Your insinuation has NO GROUND! Stop insinuating something else! In addition you have allowed the reference links to Gerry Armstrongs site which are higly biased as he makes a conclusion based on him ignoring HCO PL 21 July 1968 but you do not object to having that there! (It is violating NPOV wiki rule!) Link to Fair Game page Section Cancellation and controversy you see a , why is that there? Show good faith and remove it! You removed my that was directly following it. --Olberon 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need your approval or wikipediatrix's or anyone else's. No, you do not. You can continue being confrontational and anti-consensus if you want. Your approach thus far hasn't been successful for you. Would you like some advice on how to make your editing experience on Misplaced Pages more fulfilling and useful, or do you want to continue making edits and deletions that are against consensus? Vivaldi (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My data got reverted in spite of the simple fact that my additions were supported by printed referenced materials! That tells something about the people doing the reverts! Nothing more to say is there! --Olberon 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely the sort of difficulty I had when I introduced current Church Policy into the Fair_Game_(Scientology) article. Other editors simply refused, as Vivaldi is refusing, refused to believe than any policy letter which did not appear on Xenu.net was a real policy letter. Feldspar, particularly said, "how can we believe you" when I quoted and cited current HCOPL. Vivaldi is likewise stating his disbelief of policy which does not appear on Xenu.net (or other anti-scientology source). Vivaldi is finding additional things to say which do not reply to the information being discussed. This is unfortunate, Vivaldi is making a personal issue rather than discussion of what information is to appear in the article and what information should not appear. Olberon is doing as Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines specify. Vivaldi is dispersing the issue and refusing to confront the issue. Terryeo 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

He nor anyone else can actually query the published documentation that I supplied about the existence of for example HCO PL 21 July 1968. It is also obvious why this policy letter is not found on xenu.net and the other critical sites. The Fair Game page still need some editing for example concerning the GO hatpack and few other things. Gerry Armstrong himself supplied the correct data on the title and the date of that policy letter on the ARS this last week. In the article it says: "Included there for study was the original 7 Mar 1965 HCOPL, "Fair Game."" that HCO PL with that title and that date does not exist! The correct title and date are HCO PL 1 March 65 Justice - Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law. When I corrected this Wikipediatrix reverted the whole thing! Please be with me on this! I will be monitoring these pages for a while to ensure that correct verified information will be supplied on these pages. I only got acquainted with the Wiki since April 26, but I think I got the hang of it now. I soon noticed that a battle between Scientologists and anti-Scientologists is fought here. --Olberon 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Scientology contr

You wrote on my talkpage:

You recently added a cleanup tag to the Scientology controversy article. I would appreciate it if you would outline the reasons for this on the article's talk page. There are many editors willing to help fix the article and clean it up, and we are willing to discuss the issue on the talk page. But if we aren't provided with the specific reasons for you insertion of the tag it makes it almost impossible that we will be able to fix the article and remove your tag in a reasonable time frame. Also, in the future you should use the {{cleanup-date|April 2006}} tag for any articles that need cleanup. The tag you used is not to be used anymore. Vivaldi (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is my answer

However I did argue at the talk page for why I thought it needed a cleanup tag , I wrote:

I think the intro needs to be cleaned up to follow the WP:MOS. I tried to wikify the first line so it looked like the template "This article is about....for other uses see...." What do you think? Snailwalker | talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The general problem with this article, is in my opinion, that it doesn't bold the name of the article which is required acording to WP:MOS. The quotes section is poorly formatted as well. I don't know why I didn't use the cleanup-tag tagged with the date, I usually do so. Have a nice day -- Snailwalker | talk 14:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Preying from the Pulpit

I feel that if you wish to delete this article, you should go through the WP:AFD process, not PROD. PROD is really only appropriate, for things that would likely go uncontested. This seems to be something worthy of an AFD discussion. So, you may wish to nominate the article instead. --Rob 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. I only tried prod first because there was nothing on the talk page to indicate that this would be a contested deletion. It seemed pretty clear cut case to me. I've already put up the AfD. I look forward to your comments about why the article is or isn't notable. Vivaldi (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information from Hyles-Anderson College cited by the Associated Press

Why did you remove cited information involving a court case from Hyles-Anderson College, which two babysitters testified at trial about reporting suspected abuse of a teacher to the school president? You removed the entire segment and history of abuse which the teacher was convicted for "torturing" this girl for "nearly 20 years." Arbusto 05:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it appeared to me that the source given was sullivan-county.com. Sullivan-county.com is a personal website that is not reputable or reliable. If you have a source that is reputable or reliable that says Combs was convicted for torturing this girl for nearly 20 years, then go ahead and put the statement back in. Vivaldi (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The source was the Associated Press and it was reprinted by Sullivan-county.com. The section was noted as such and if you click on the Sullivan link you also saw the AP date, source, and author. The case made national television. Arbusto 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see it. On the link I clicked on sullivan-county.com there was no indication that it was from the AP. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the page wasn't an AP story. Would you please provide a proper citation for the article including the original published date, author, and source? I would like to WP:V verify that the original exists.

If you clicked on the link that means you clicked right beside the reference of "Esther Combs faces the woman she called mother and asks: Why?. The Associated Press. 25 April 2000" and "Experts say Combs child abuse case unusual," The Associated Press, April 7, 2000 by BECKY CAMPBELL" If you are going to remove something because you consider it bias then yopu should take the time and READ the reference. Arbusto 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also why did you put tags for a section available right on their official website? These sources were also noted in the history of the page as well. Arbusto 06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because I wanted to see what the source for the claims made in the article was added to the article. I thought it was pretty clear. It says "CITATION NEEDED" right? The sources for claims made in the article ought to go in the article or in the reference section, People shouldn't have to read the edit histories or talk page to find out where in the world the information is coming from. Misplaced Pages requires verifiability which means that every claim that is made in the article must be attributed to a source (unless its undisputed common knowledge, e.g. 113+234=347 need not be attributed).

Well, a fundamentalist church being a King James Only church is common knowledge, but had you clicked on the page history to see when it was inserted or bother visiting the subject's official webpage you would have found that information. Arbusto 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that fundamentalism = KJ only. There are fundamentalist Catholic groups and fundamentalist Christian groups that do not use KJV. And like I said previously, the sources need to be added for the reader of Misplaced Pages, not for me. Readers of Misplaced Pages shouldn't have to travel to the edit history page or the talk pages or figure out own their own that the material is available at the "subject's official webpage". What is so difficult about providing a proper citation in the article? Why would you object to such a simple task? Vivaldi (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What is so difficult to source this stuff by clicking on the subject's official website if you wish to call it into question? Also STOP removing the cited books in the Hyles article. Arbusto 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What is so difficult to source this stuff by clicking on the subject's official website if you wish to call it into question? I didn't put the claims in the article to begin with. I am a reader of someone else's claims. I have no idea where they may or may not have generated the information from. It is not the reader of Misplaced Pages's job to go out and figure out where the claims came from. They need to be properly sourced and cited.

Also STOP removing the cited books in the Hyles article. You cannot use self-published books from Hyles opponents in an article about Hyles. They are only qualified to speak about themselves and only in articles about themselves. Please read the policy of Misplaced Pages on this topic at WP:V. I will continue to remove the parts of the article that improperly sourced to self-published books. Vivaldi (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't offered a source for your claims. If you do, we can keep them because "In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." The newspapers count as a credible, third party publication. Arbusto 08:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't offered a source for your claims. What are you talking about? What claims are you talking about? Are you trying to argue that Brevia Publishing is owned by someone other than Voyle A. Glover? Even after you have been shown his own webpage at http://www.brevia.com? Even after seeing his email address is vag@brevia.com? Glover owns Brevia Publishing Company. You CANNOT USE SELF PUBLISHED BOOKS IN WIKIPEDIA. It is a policy which you have been pointed to numerous times at WP:V. Glover is not a professional researcher, nor is he a professional journalist, so you may not and cannot source any claims in the Hyles article to Glovers self-published book. Vivaldi (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Arbustoo, you cannot use self-published books in an article about Hyles. It is Misplaced Pages policy. Read WP:V. Only in the case of professional researchers and journalists. These people were not. And getting a quote in a newspaper is not "being published" by a credible third party source. It is merely getting a quote in the paper. Also, newspapers are not all considered reliable and credible sources of information. Newspapers vary in their reputation and reliability. Some are like tabloids and should be avoided. Vivaldi (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not supposed to make personal attacks or modify other people's posts either. Obviously, you are just picking and choosing policies to suit your agenda. Arbusto 09:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not supposed to make personal attacks. I apologized for offending you, but your blatant intellectually dishonesty on the talk page for Jack Hyles was frustrating to me. You actually tried to argue that Voyle Glover perhaps didn't own Brevia Publishing company in 1990 and has henceforth purchased the company (as evidenced by his email address at vag@brevia.com and his current ownership of brevia.com and Brevia Publishing). Your argument was so stilted and so irrational that I could only assume that you were willfully being obtuse and willfully disregarding the policies of Misplaced Pages so that you could get your biased point-of-view put in the article about Hyles. Yes. I thought that was a bone-headed move on your part. I'm sorry if you took offense. I'll try keep your sensitivities in mind in the future. Vivaldi (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "If you are really are' stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry" was not an apology. Rather the grammatically incorrect claim that I am "stupid" was a poor attempt to get around the fact that you still have not offered a source for your claim. Arbusto 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry" was not an apology. I previously said, I was sorry if you are offended. Vivaldi (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo goes in circles again: you still have not offered a source for your claim. My respons: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHAT CLAIM HAVE I NOT OFFERED A SOURCE FOR? Please state what claim you are talking about. Vivaldi (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

or modify other people's posts either. Modify other people's posts? I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about editing an article? Refactoring a talk page? Can you explain yourself? Vivaldi (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You modified the title to delink it without commentary or reason. Arbusto 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) It's my talk page and I'll remove your ill-advised graffiti from it whenever I feel like it. (2) It is inappropriate form to put links in the headers. I remove all links in the headlines in any article, not just my talk page. I will continue to do whenever I see you or anybody else make the same mistake. (3) What is wrong with you? Why do you care what I do with my talk page? That has to be one of the most petty complaints I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. Vivaldi (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You will also note that EVEN IN THE CASE where there is a professional researcher (such a professor at a reputable university) AND credible 3rd party publication (such as a peer-reviewed journal), the policy says we "may" use such sources. It doesn't say that they must all be allowed. Vivaldi (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because a newspaper documents that someone in the fundamentalist community has made accusations against Hyles, doesn't mean you get to add every single claim the guy has made in his own self-published works. You may add what the paper says, if consensus opinion says it is important and notable (but see What Misplaced Pages Is Not. Just because something can go in Misplaced Pages doesn't mean that it should. Unproven allegations against individuals and spurious claims from dubious sources should be avoided, (especially in biographies). Vivaldi (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please refrain from personal attacks such as "I thought I was argueing with someone with at least a little common sense." Arbusto 04:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended. After watching your amazing display at the discussion page of Jack Hyles, I just didn't think you were demonstrating any common sense. In fact, I thought you were being deliberately and intentionally obtuse in order to justify your edits that are clearly in violation of the policies of Misplaced Pages. If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry. If you are not really stupid and you do have common sense, then I wish you would please stop making ridiculous arguments in order to get around the policies of Misplaced Pages. Take care. Vivaldi (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)