User talk:Coffeepusher/Archive 1

Hm.

I'd like to suggest that you try using a spellchecker before you make further edits. You're adding good information, but with some serious spelling mistakes. Please don't take this as an insult. DS 13:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it's spelled "distinction". No harm done, I've fixed the article already. DS 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous and your edits

Please stop removing relevant and cited information within the article. And AA and the law is highly relevant and well supported. The AA article is not your personal property. Thank you. Mr Christopher 14:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Christopher,

I have no intention of "owning" the AA page, and I am sorry if I have given that impression. the reason for my deletion of the AA and the law section was I felt that it didn't actually give any information actually pertaining to AA as an orgonization (which is the perpose of the AA page) but rather some random trivia revolving around several other subjects, that happened to mention AA. another reason for my edits was the fact that the page is noted as beeing "way too long" and lacking relative information. I am not trying to annoy anyone, but I would like people who log onto the AA page to get information about AA, not hearsay and personal opinions. all of my edits have been supported and referanced, and my reasons for deletes noted in the discussion bord. if I deleted some of your stuff I assure you it was not a personal attack (I have no idea what was writen by you). please inform me of what your philosophy is regarding the "rewrite" of this page, so that we will not butt heads in reviewing the page.Coffeepusher 14:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My "rewrite philosophy" is thus - Do not delete relevant, cited, supported information. If you feel the supported and cited information is irrelevant bring that discussion to the talk page prior to deleting it. I've added more on the talk page. And you're right the article is way too long, I think we should first start deleting the orginal research and unsupported comments. Thanks. Mr Christopher 15:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on how to rewrite this article. I still feel that the law and alcoholism section is misguided, and I will comment on the talk page for my reasoning. I also appriciate the tone of your message, I was afraid that I might have started a editing war with you and your message aliveated that concern.Coffeepusher 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Christopher, ok. I owe you a appology in both the way I have addressed you on the discussion page and in the error of my personal perseption of you. Your latest post on the AA talk page made me realize that not only have I "owned" the information on the AA Page(contrary to what I stated and really belived) but I have not been behaving well at all when it comes to my interactions with you. I really believe (in error) that there are two ways to see things, my way and people who havnt had my way explained to them properly. I will endevor to keep an open mind on things that I edit, and I really do apriciate the way you helped me out with the edits(you already know spelling is a major hinerance of mine, is there a wicki spell checker?). I look forward to working with you, and hope you consider me an ally.Coffeepusher 00:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude it's all good :-) This sort of medium lends itself well to miscommunication and such, not a big deal. I think we're both on the same page. On the spelling issue you brought up, you might try using Word or some other word processor program as a spell checker. Write (and spell check) and then copy the results to Wiki. I often do that since I am not the best speller. I appreciate the time and enthusiasm you have for the article. Mr Christopher 14:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey where have you been?? Mr Christopher 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha! thanks for the message. School kicked up a notch, and I havn't been doing any edits in a while (school, work, sleep when you can grab it). I havn't given up on the page, but it is nice to be missed.Coffeepusher 02:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Anastasia

The information about the remains being found at Ekaterinburg this past summer was already in that article at much greater length. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The information you added was not needed. The remains have not yet been positively identified, though it looks likely it is Alexei and Anastasia. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, however all I did was insert a link where a was located, so that people could cross reference what was already on that page, if you have a more valuble link feel free to replace the ABC report...when I posted it, the link was only about 10 hrs. old.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hay

thank you for helping me out with that message earlier this morning. I didn't really know what to do, as you pointed out I am relitivly new at this, but I do want to take an active role in Wikipedia. That beeing said, I believe we are on the same page and hope that we are working together. I would appriciate any help you can give me in navigating the role of a Wiki editor. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- sorry I busted your balls a little bit there. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to give you my input. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Exorcism

I think I will take you up on your offer to help. I am about to engage in some major rewrites on the Exorcism page in an attempt to make it a worthwile article. the discussion section isn't very active, however I can see that several editiors have been making minor changes fairly activly. Demon possesion and Exorcism are hobbies of mine (strange I know) and I have the resorces to do this project. The question is...what can you tell me that may make this a good experience. I am up to date (I think) on the guidelines, however I know that there are things that are about to happen that I have not forseen. any advise will be appriciated.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you've had a good look at all of the guidelines, I think you're prepared. Go ahead and be bold. If you make mistakes, that's okay. I'll add the exorcism page to my watch list and if there's specific things that I can clarify/fix or whatever I'll help you with them. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I do appriciate it. I look forward to our...um collaberative (in a very loose sence of the word)? work. hope you like the paranormal...although judging from your edits you are more of a down to earth person.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the changes since you started editing: [1]. So far it looks reasonable. You may want to consider using citation templates, and named references. -- Craigtalbert 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been in paper hell for the last few weeks and have APA on the brain.Coffeepusher 05:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(humorous aside:)On the note that you just wrote on the AA talk, this was my responce (which really is supposed to be funny)...I am in scholarly article hell...I can't wait to get to the day when I can research AA stuff...oh beautiful day, when my time becomes my own and not some egotistical academics who happened to write something that pissed a bunch of other academics off so they make all their friends read it...and before you know it, it is required reading for some subject just so everyone knows what arguments have already been used... that was my response...and I am giggling a lot (and I died a little inside)Coffeepusher (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Star

Thanks for your note. Please let me know if you hear back from them, I'd be interested to discover what their attitude is but "we'll look into it" is probably going to be a standard response. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hay, this is in reference to the article that was copied into the toranto star. I just checked their website, and it appears the writer is still working for them...but her articles are all her own now. No word on the donation, but I will imagine that somthing was contributed because the thought makes me smile. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in touch; it's seems the message has worked in any case. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

heya

Cheers for your comments on my submissions. Appreciated. I guess we have a long slog ahead, but I hope that you can see that I haven't added in anything outrageous and have put the books in on grounds of notability as a fringe theory. Clearly others disagree, so I guess we will have to make slow progress, but thanks for your comments. See you on the AA talk page. Step13thirteen (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: MisterAlbert

I have a problem that I was hoping you could help me out with. I seem to have gotten into MrAlberts bad graces on the Bill W. page because I questioned the validity of his adding of "other woman" to the page...and then I took it off because of a lack of responce. currently he is going to report me for vandalism (which won't stick, so I am not worried about it) but I need to know how to resolve the situation. I know you have delt with him in the past...and that you have experience with this thing.Coffeepusher 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. He's a strange bird. Just keep doing whatever it is you're doing and believe in yourself. :) -- Craigtalbert (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PhGustaf

Thanks for being a voice of reason in that whole ordeal. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me how heated people can get on line. funny, when I started editing wikipedia's AA page the first thing that happened was a 3 day flame war with mrchristopher. AA does that to you, and it was over little things. I will try and be calm, as long as you biteme when I am unreasonable...deal.

somthing I thought of...and thought I should show you. does this look familiar Fred04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) The Library04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Mr.Miles04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah MisterAlbert/Fred/.13/.93/TheLibrary has problems signing his posts. So does Mr. Miles to be fair. Makes everything a little bit harder, but you know, God bless'em. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous comment

This is just a thank you for putting your two cents in on the "see Sharp Press" contriversy. too often people shy away from the RfC because the debate has hit the "uncontrolably hostile" catagory (I will admit to loging on to wikipedia about every hr. during that one just to see who had screamed next...poor behavior, but I am human)

Your comment actually cooled things down a bit, it was pointed out by one of the members and we where able to simmer down and get on with it. so Thank You for your contribution.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am not shure how familiar you are with bell hooks, usualy she does race, but recently she has focused her attention to feminism and relationships. her talk at USC (i believe that was the school) last month focused on relationships, and how to form a partnership today. anyway, feminism is one of my interests, so I just wanted to pass that one along.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your follow-up on my RfC comment [2]. I'm so glad that my comment was able to help. It was really nice of you to take the time to let me know how things worked out! Seriously, it made my day.

As for bell hooks, what a woman! Phyesalis (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Dune

Welcome to Wkipedia. I liked the section you added to Dune. However, if you have a source for the information that would make your addition much better. sections that arn't sourced have a tendancy to be delieted, and I want that story to stay. if you need any help let me know, I look forward to your future editsCoffeepusher (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the "To Tame a Land" thing and others have been added and deleted to Dune articles many times because no one has yet cited a source for the info. Also, I believe some editors have challenged its notability. Please try ot address both issues if you want to assure the paragraph stays in. And by the way, I will say that yours is probably the best-written of the versions I've seen. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 22:41, 10 December 2007

Hello! thank you. Well i first read it in the most recent iron maiden Fan Club magazine that there was an error in the printing of several versions of the Piece of mind album, and meant that they were very collectable. I then went to google the information to see what was the controversy behind the name, and found this source http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2348

Is this credible enough? cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Sniper (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! Well I looked at your source, and it gives the source as an interview given in germany. I can't seem to find the actuall transcript of the interview (which would be ideal), but I am not into music that much, so you may have better luck (know the places to find transcripts). currently if you write it like..."in an interview at (such and such) (this random famous guy whos name excapes me) said the basis for the song..." and then cite the source at the end (using the referance tabs), it will have a much better chance of standing up. like TAnthony said, some people think it isn't notable enough for this article, so you may have to discuss it on the discussion board. Thank you for the followup, I look forward to seeing your future edits.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job with that one. TAnthony didn't like the extended quote at the end (and I agree it made it messy, but adding it didn't hurt at all) but the citation really cemented that peice of information...i see you found the actuall interview, awsome. Have fun on wikipedia, and if you need any help, be shure to let me know.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

cheers! yeah i thought it was a little wordy and a tad messy. will do! Jim_Sniper (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just added a hotlink to the title of this section...just so anyone who reads it can click and go right to the right section.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

yeh thats cool. nicely done. Jim_Sniper (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill W.

Howdy! Thanks for your insight with the Bill W. page. Sometimes the discussion can get heated, and it is nice to get a fresh perspective. I hope you decide to continue with the work on that page, since your edits have been really good and your insight on point (although it dosn't neccisarily mean I agree with your opinion, its good to have someone who has earned your respect disagree with you)...if you want another fun page, try checking out the Alcoholics Anonymous page...thats another one where personalities come out in full force.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I do feel that friendly disagreement is the point of Wikipedia. May stay around a bit, but am also embroiled in many other disagreements, e.g. cold fusion. Happy editing.

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

Itsmejudith (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

Feel like working with me to bring a couple South Park articles up in quality status? Perhaps to WP:GA, and beyond? Cirt (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

I would love to help. Just tell me what needs doing. I will warn you, my grammor and spelling are lacking, but I will do all I can so you don't have to go over my edits. are directors comentaries good sources?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I will try to remember to keep you posted. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

Userbox

Hi. Re "This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know." I would say that robotically reverting another's good-faith edits en masse is a mistake. That is what talk pages are for. Please consider WP:0RR. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I reverted your edits. both of them had already been the source of many actual vandels, and the use of them discussed at lenght on discussion pages (some of which are now archived, so obviously you where unaware). The xenu page is a hot one, and the undo feture is burning on a daily basis. I am sorry I was quick to undo when an explination was actually in order.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, apology most definitely accepted. I am happy to work with any well-mannered editor no matter their stand on Scientology. If you have any questions about my edits please bring them up on the talk page and we can hash them out. Happy Holiday! --JustaHulk (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I posed the question on the discussion page. I may not agree with your edits, but you arn't posing an irational opinion. I don't think I misrepresented your position, however you may want to post in order to explain exactly your intent. lets see what the editiors think about this one.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, at least we both like TMBG. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

seen them 4 times, and own all their albums (except the ABC's). I am glad we are both up for discussion, I also edit the Alcoholics Anonymous page, and somtimes discussion is just futile...imagine beeing stuck in a foxhole by yourself...WWI...France...and it is just too quiet... that is what editing that page is like.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean that you edit from a pro-AA POV and feel lonely? How do you suppose I feel, as the (usually) sole Scientologist? --JustaHulk (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I do understand feeling like you are the only one. I am actually not pro-AA...or Anti-AA...just...well I feel shot at alot...I had a stance at one time, but that got blured sometime aroung the "See Sharp Press" debate that came from the "Throwing spagetti on the wall" section that led to the "Wikilawyering" feasco (that turned around on the person who posted that one, his posts havn't been the same since) then the "Bill W" page crossover debate...2 RfO's and that was just since the 25th of november. and all I was trying to do was push a non pov stance. honastly the Scientology pages are tame, try recovery to get your blood boiling, I edit Xenu et al. to relax from a hard day of debating.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I Am Legend (film)

I support your comments on Talk:I_Am_Legend_(film)#The_trap. Nice one! SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you restored the medical terminology to the Plot. On the talk page, Jim Dunning expressed concern about its usage since such details require specialist knowledge, which would be a form of original research per WP:PSTS. Can you weigh in at the talk page about this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hay Erik, thanks for the message. oops my bad, that was actually accedental. I was reverting an edit...and I guess that the medical terminology was in the version that I used. My goal was to remove a POV edit that talked about how "an obvious alpha male was trying to get his woman back after she was captured" (simplified explination). I will go back to the talk page and clear up amy misunderstandings of my intentions.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I thought it was a slight snafu. Appreciate your comment! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Woodland Critter Christmas

Hello, I believe you misunderstood my edit to Woodland Critter Christmas, which you reverted. My goal was to remove original research, not add to it. The article now and before my edits asserted that the "episode contains a continuity error." This factual assertion is unprovable, unless the creators themselves were to speak on the subject (which I don't think they ever have). The article also offered up the bold claim of a "mistake" by the narrator Cartman, again the sort of assertion that could only be proven true or false with verification by the creators. I removed those assertions and reworded it to something more neutral, saying that it could either be a mistake or it could be intentional (which, correct me if I'm wrong covers the entire universe of possibilities). My codicil explanation about the undead is a straight reading from the script, but if you think that counts as OR, you could easily remove that phrase and leave the rest of my explanation intact. I'd be fine with that. Finally, if you think that any discussion of continuity errors is always OR (an argument that I can sympathize with; even if you cite a "source" like a TV critic, the source still is asserting an opinion), then the proper thing to do would be to delete the entire paragraph. I'd be fine with that, too. As it is, though, a full reversion of my edit increases the amount of OR on my page, and so I have re-reverted it until I hear further from you. --M@rēino 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your message. The problem I am having is the statement "This could be chalked up to a mistake by the show's makers, or in the alternative could be intentional, if Cartman meant the critter to be undead or reincarnated." because it offers a reading of the show that isn't contained within the origional script, and if that statement isn't backed up by a source shows only what an editors opinion of the situation is. I also don't think it holds true to the storyline because if he is in fact "undead or reincarnated" why does he show up in one scean and then disappears after that shot? this requires an elaberate explination that wasn't given within the show.

Personally I would like to delete the entire section because it is only a small step away from trivia, and I don't want that door to be opened ("...the mountain lion is a referance to Ansolon...the joke about Aids can be cross referanced to an earlier episode...This isn't the first time an abortion clinic was the topic of south park...Tray and Matt ordered chinese take out while writing this episode...etc.")however the other editors seem to like it so it stays. Those are my concerns.

If there is in fact dialog within the episode that backs up this claim, perhaps you could add that to the statement. however if this is just an observation you had about the show, it is my opinion that it should be deleted. Coffeepusher (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Strangelove

Please stop inserting material until you take a look at the insertions I've already done as part of a general clean-up of the article I've been doing for the last couple of hours -- you're duplicating effort. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Your edits are not that good"...I understand you deleted that one, but I did see it and it hurt. I hope you understand that I am really trying to work with you here...but statements like that one make it difficult to believe you want anything but to beat me into submission. I did make the mistake of not checking what your edits where before I started, and I appologise for that. Now, according to the discussion page you intended for the section to stand which was why I started editing. What is it you intend to do? Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I apologize for hurting your feelings -- I thought better about it, which is why I went back and changed the comment. My intention is to insert into the article, or as footnotes, material which can be readily inserted without disruption to the flow of the writing, and to leave the rest of the material where it is. I do not find list of miscellaenous facts objectionable. I understand they have the potential to grow like Topsy, but that simply means they have to be kept under control, just like any other aspect of an article. I'm continuing to look at the material and see where it can fit in, but I believe I'm nearing a stopping point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

An electronic medium is a poor way of communication, and it has a tendency to amplify...well everything. I know you didn't intend that the way it sounded, especialy judgeing from your last post. once you are done, please post on the discussion page what direction you think the article can go. I look forward to your edits. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, and your point about electronic communications is a good one, but the fault is mine -- I felt harried and rudeness came to the surface as a result. In any event, I think I'm done with the article for the time being -- I'll take a look at it later today or tonight, but I think I've done what needs to be done. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

it may have been rude, but it was somewhat justified. I took a look at your edits, and they do work alot better than mine did. I do like the direction you where heading in. (I must say that when I was editing I ran into the footnote about the song at the end of the movie and was wondering who put that there). in any case, I am glad we are able to discuss these things and look forward to working with you in the future. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Kyle Field

I've responded to your concerns on the RfC on Kyle Field. I would appreciate any additional feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Public sphere

Howdy! You have been correcting the Public Sphere article for a while now, and I really appriciate your help. I am currently done with the major revisions to the article, and I need someone to look it over to see if it makes sence. evidently all the other editors left some time before I started, and I was hoping you could see what you think. It is a specialised section of communication studies, but if someone who hasn't been exposed to the theory before dosn't understand the page, then I need to rework it untill they do...that and the fact that you know grammer better than I do could help improve the article.

If you have the time I would appriciate a look through, and then just contact me to let me know what made sence and what needs to be worked on...probably on the discussion page since future editors will need to know why changes have taken place. Thank you again Coffeepusher (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold and reworking this article! The content is very readable, and reasonably interesting to someone with no knowledge of the subject (that's me!). I did a few rounds of spelling correction and clean-up. The only non-minor change I made was to indicate that a work mentioned early on was Habermas' habilitationsschrift rather than his doctoral thesis (which was called Das Absolute und die Geschichte. Von der Zwiespältigkeit in Schellings Denken according to the page on Jürgen Habermas). Hope this helps! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the look through. I am glad you understand the concept and that it is "reasonably interesting" (I got a chuckle out of that one, I have come to find that dry theory isn't everyone's idea of a good Sunday afternoon...just me) for you. Thank you for the addition of the habilwachamacallit, it makes the article even more credible and I was unaware a change needed to be done. wow! I learned something! anyway, if you come across anything else that you can think of to improve the article I would really appreciate it, otherwise I will see you after all my misspellings. Coffeepusher (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

alaska mental health

My undo was because you modified a cited reference with information not contained within that reference. I like your other additions, what is the citation for the block quote you gave?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I will cite it, it is the WikiMedia thing. Gotta be careful about OR based on primary materials. I can go either way on the bit in the lead but that thing under "controversy" is OR - we don't know when Hubbard first became aware or when Scientologists first became active - all we have is the telegram. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AA, excorcism and public sphere?

Wow! thanks for showing up, it was getting lonely on that page. This is just a note to let you know I revamped the private sphere section as par you advice, and I was wondering what you thought? Coffeepusher (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

P.s. what are your thoughts about the article as a whole? I would like to see it turn into a great article, but naturaly I need input and more editors contributing (I am not an expert, but I want to be one day :))Coffeepusher (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vielleicht wirst Du nochmal die Geister, die Du gerufen hast, verfluchen. Sorry to tell you: I'm sort of an expert on this matter, I came across this article to annoy somebody completely different. It'd be a first for me to contribute to something, I actually know really something about. But, heck, that might be fun. PS: The article is crap, as it does not exhibit all the wealth of approaches to the PS, which exist. Read Jean Cohen as a first intro, if you haven't yet. Let's roll: Fossa_?! 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, how shall I put it: Welcome to Wikipedia! Fossa_?! 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

plus bell hooks, gettin' better by the minute. Fossa_?! 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

While its not Faust...it should be. Since you started your statement with such an introduction, I pose the following question...are you so sure you are the spirit, I was minding my own business when I saw an edit summary that called to me...

I have the advantage of you (your homepage link is impressive), so I will make introductions. I am an Undergraduate Student at Christopher Newport University in communications. I have chosen to peruse public sphere theory, and have been studying it for 2 years (I also work full time, and have my other studies to deal with so my knowledge is limited at best...the Wikipedia article has a good summation of the direction I have gone). One paper is about to be published in Romania, which dealt with the basic structure of Habermas' theory, and I have another one going to conference which dealt with the framing aspects of the media and how the public sphere under Hausers model interacts with the media to deliberate. I used the Immigration debate in the United States as my case study.

What book by Jean Cohen would you recommend.

The semester is about to start, so my activity will be limited (I am graduating in May, so this semester is going to be tough) but I really look forward to seeing what direction you want to take this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield

I am really sorry if you interpreted my comments toward you as sarcastic. That defiantly was not my intention, and I assure you that there was no hostility directed toward you. my only goal was to clean up the page, and you reverted without any explanation on the talk page, so I did my best to post on the talk page how I understood the situation, and my reasons for reverting back. if anything was considered sarcastic...well that just shows the fallacies of an electronic medium...it forces the reader to make too many assumptions about what the message said (it suddenly occurs to me i did write "that is what a talk page is for"...and I would probably have taken that as biting sarcasm rather than humor that we are talking about cleaning up a talk page...please understand I didn't think that one through). I want to work together, and I appreciate you explaining your actions. I agree that posts should be deleted immediately if not constructive...and I understand why it is probably a bad idea to do it later. I am also unfamiliar with the how an when of an non-automated archive system, if you could just give me some pointers on that I would appreciate it. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

as noted in the discussion board, I re read my comment and it does come off as really sarcastic. I am not shure what I did wrong in typing it, but I will be mindfull in the future.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement

It has been at least a week, and you are still working hard. Thank you for your dillagence.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Music

Hey. I thought of you just now. What do you think of this cover (the guitar playing is a bit weak but otherwise). --JustaHulk (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1000 edits

Congrats! You can put this on your userpage. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor is an
Apprentice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Scientology membership

Thanks for the correction. In re reading my addition it did appear misleading as to the source. I have redone the sentance, and believe it accuratly demonstrates what was said in the interview.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the cite could be salvaged, but wasn't comfortable the previous wording. AndroidCat (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Angry Ufologist

I find it insulting that someone who couldn't out-spell a first grader feels that they have the authority to dictate who gets to be listed as a famous ufologist. I'm a doctor for Christ's sake! What are you? Some hack editor with a god complex? Get over yourself and stop sticking your greasy little fingers where they don't belong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.99.47 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

for starters I am someone who knows what an ad-honimin falicy in logic is "Couldn't out spell a first grader"...yah Ive heard that one. Next "has watched every episode of X-files and considers David to be super dreamy" hardly qualifys as a ufologist. Finaly both of your "Dr's" (I am assuming one is you) where born in 1984&1986...unless they started college at 16, they arn't Dr's...Its possable, but I Highly doupt it. Either your edit was a hoax...or you need to better understand what we are doing here on wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

hummmm....According to facebook you both are undergraduates...Well one of you was supposed to graduate at least. Natasha L. Rodriguez '08 and Matthew Carroll '07 Kent state.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

List of UFOlogists

Hello. Recently you removed two names that I added to the List of Ufologists, Dan Akroyd & David Sereda. Both are UFOlogists. Why were they removed from that list? Nhl4hamilton (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I removed those links was the referance was an advertisement for the video interview and thus was WP:SPAM. beeing an advertisement it also didn't qualify for a reliable source, and seemed to be riding on the fact that a celeberaty was interested in UFO's rather than the information he was presenting. additionaly I havn't found anything about the reserch he is doing, studies he is participating in, or what his area of specialty is. He just appears to be a celeberaty spokesman. those where the reasons for its removalCoffeepusher (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK Thanks for the explanation.  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hay, thank you for adding all those citations and improving the article significantly.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. I still have a few more to do in the United States section. Should be done sometime this week.  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  09:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cult

I added the text you asked for on the talk page. personaly I believe it would realy help drive home the point that what makes a cult a "Cult" is hard to interperate, however I will leave it up to you on what infromation to add, and how to add the information.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

I also recently edited the Alcoholics Anonymous site and received a welcome message from you indicating that my content was not neutral. My contribution was an assignment for an e-communities course where we were assigned readings on how to cite on Wikipedia properly. I am confused by your choice to undo the edit. I have worked in the addiction research field for over seven years and have a significant amount of expertise about AA. For the purposes of the class, we were asked to follow up when our entries were undone. Could you provide more clarification on your definition of "neutrality". Thank you for the welcome and thanks in advance for your insight.Lmclaug (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)lmclaug

Thank you for contacting me, your class sounds great I wish I could take it. I want to start out with saying that I agree with the information you presented and it was cited accuratly and it was correct. You can quote me to your prof in that you did your research.

However you chose one of the most contriversial articles in wikipeida to edit I have ever seen (and I edit scientology articles, if that gives you any idea of its contriversy). Normaly your edits would have probably stood, but in highly contested artcles things are much more likely to be reverted. Every part of the AA page has been under great scrutiny, check out the archive section of the discussion page to see how heated it can get.

The reason it wasn't NPOV was that it came from the primary source and was placed in such a way as to counter other infomation. Secondary sources are prefered. and the placement of a counterargument can unballance the article...I am not shure if this makes sence.

we have sources that talk about AA and court mandated attendance, suddenly we add another source that dosn't directly mention mandated attendance but does attempt to discredit the first source, now what we have is a section that uses WP:SYNTH in order to foward an argument.

I don't think I am getting my point across well, however it is a start. please post any other questions on my talk page (I am moving your comment to the bottom of the page, so it is in order) and I hope to be of service.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

your edit to the talk page

Hay, this is to let you know that I reincerted your statement onto the anonymous (group) Talk page. usually we don't delete comments from talk pages (except in the case of vandalism or outright abserdaty like the "is bin ladan a scientologists?" comment that was removed yesterday from the scientology page...no he is a muslem...duh!) I appreciate the fact that you only removed your own comment, which shows great understanding on what the effects of removing anothers comment may be. Unfortunatly it caused the entire section afterwards to be incoherant...having no basis on which to found it on. If you would like to "delete" your comment, or otherwise show everyone that you want to change some sections of it, feel free to strike the comment with a line through. I am actually unfamiliar on how to do this...since I havn't ever done it, however it is in the "how to edit" section above and I have seen many comments that have encorperated this tactic. again, I appologise for undoing your edit...I hope you appreciate why I did it and understand that I really want you to feel welcomed at wikipedia...(especially after that very vvveeerrryy civil comment left on a vandals talk page...I laughed a lot, and it shows a good understanding of how to do things here on wikipedia)Coffeepusher (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Coffeepusher- thank you so much for your message to me on my talk page. I knew I shouldn't have been deleting my posts but they came back to haunt me on IRC. I really appreciate your encouraging words and advice. I didn't get a the oppotunity to read your whole user talk page but I saw that your g/f likes SMASHING PUMPKINS. Fuckin' kewl, dude! You gots a good lady, then.

And even though I may be a newbie at editing I have used this Wikipedia as my go-to source for info for almost 2 years running. I as wrong in some of my facts on the anonymous page and it was embaressing, believe me. But thanx ya much for your kind wordz when I was gettin' flamed. It meant a lot to me. See ya 'round, homeboy.

Oh, by the way, that last post was by me, Floridanon (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)floridanon. sorry I'm still working out the kinks in my game.

Don't worry about making a mistake about when "Anonymous" was formed and why. I myself was unaware of its existance untill people started talking about it on the talk:Scientology page (which I monitor)...and if it wasn't for wikipedia (and this guy I work with) I wouldn't know anything outside of the Scientology part. be bold (using reliable sources of cource)...and don't limit yourself to the Anonymous article...There are millions of articles that need help, find somthing that interests you and start editing. good luck (and keep your cool like you always have, it pays dividends here)Coffeepusher (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspeak

hay, I found the article and you sudjested that the bottom section should be deleted. However it appears that you didn't delete it. I came to the same conclusion that you did in reading the article, and was going to go ahead but I thought it would be prudent to ask you why you didn't delete it just in case there was somthing worth wile that changed your mind (or you did and got met with great edit wars). Coffeepusher (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply forgot it... it has been done now. Probably, somebody will be discontent with this. Let's wait and see. -- 790 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have waited almost a month...and no revert wars. Thank you for cleaning that up, it looks alot better. I also like your comment on the talk page, your explination was much better than the one I would have used. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspeak

hay, I found the article and you sudjested that the bottom section should be deleted. However it appears that you didn't delete it. I came to the same conclusion that you did in reading the article, and was going to go ahead but I thought it would be prudent to ask you why you didn't delete it just in case there was somthing worth wile that changed your mind (or you did and got met with great edit wars). Coffeepusher (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply forgot it... it has been done now. Probably, somebody will be discontent with this. Let's wait and see. -- 790 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have waited almost a month...and no revert wars. Thank you for cleaning that up, it looks alot better. I also like your comment on the talk page, your explination was much better than the one I would have used. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IP

Will, I saw that you placed a level 3 warning on a IP talk page...although he did have a level 2 already, it was for obvious vanalism...I know, I placed it, I am questioning the placement of a level 3 for somthing that appears to be a good faith newbee edit (although pov definatly). what I am trying to say is it looks like you WP:BITE him.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which IP you're on about. Care to elaborate? Will ^(talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It was User talk:71.163.67.110, sorry for not including that information.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That revert must've been either:

1. A mistake, or;
2. Someone reverted an edit he did to that page and warned him. I normally revert if that happens.

Thanks. Will ^(talk) 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

...um...I can't make any sence out of that statement. the ip made what appeared to be a WP:GF edit, you reverted his edit, and then you placed a level three warning to his talk page which I thought was severe and questioned you about it. your responce dosn't adress any of those points that I can see.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You placed a level 2 warning on his talk page. I then reverted his edit, and the software I was using gave it a level 3. Warnings stack - there's no point in multiple level 2 warnings. Will ^(talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ooh! now your statement makes sence. I will ask if you think what he did realy constitutes vandalism? personaly I think you should remove the template since it was placed by your bot, but that is only my interpritation of the situation. the problem is that the damage has probably already been done. Coffeepusher (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You're overstating the impact of the revert. But sure, it's not a bad edit, I'll revert my warning. Will ^(talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Scientology Handbook

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Scientology Handbook, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scientology Handbook. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I was like "wtf? I never edited that article," and then I realized that I removed a backlink. :P Cheers :P --slakr^\ talk / 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was a scientology article, so I was doing my best to follow every letter of the law (notify all contibuters). You where actually one of the few, so I just went down the list without looking at what you actually did.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother

Regarding this edit, he seems to have been saying he scrambled his password to try to enforce a wikibreak. Please advise: is there some way to tone down and normalize this situation? Durova^Charge! 21:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your contacting me. I was unaware that he scrambled his pasword (and am still a little confused about the logic in such an action). Justahulk as I knew him was a rather contriversial individual (he had a reputation in the Scientology section...I am shure I do as well come to think of it), who although him and I had more conflicts than agrements, we had more in common than he realised and I just want to look out for him while he is gone. I assure you that I am just trying to keep his page from beeing vanalised. Given this new information, I am not shure what to do. What would you advise?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

never mind, evidently he left an e-mail, so I will contact him there if I have questions about future edits.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK and thanks. Not sure what to do here. Durova^Charge! 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, what situation are you refuring to?...what are you not shure what to do about?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's pegged me as an opponent. A couple of days ago I found myself reverting an invitation to join a featured list drive when he asked me to stop posting to his user talk. Can't reach him. Wish I could. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! well I read all that on his page...initialy I ignored it because it is quite lengthy. He even mentioned me! Ok, it was brief, however I do like seeing my name in print. What I can say is in my experience he has a set style (we all do, if I had any sock pupet accounts they would easily be taged for mispellings) usualy he attacks what I will call the "wiki charicter" of his opponents which will suck them into a socratic defence dialectic where he gets to controll the direction of the conversation. This would work best in person but electronicly it has less success for reasons I don't care to get into. "new admin" falls right within this style. Our first confrontation had him calling me ignorant in an off handed way by quoting the no revert rule, and asking me to consider it. However when I made it clear that I was willing to work with him on the talk page it calmed things down. since then we have had many disagreements, however it hasn't blown up into anything big. unless you have experienced any additional harrasment, I would say that he has calmed down from the blocking (I have seen him throw that tantrum before about Cirt, and I think you where just an afterthought). Does this help?Coffeepusher (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well this goes back nearly a year. I make no claim to expertise about Scientology, other than to say they're a newish religion with an image problem, but I do know a lot about conflict of interest issues as they relate to Wikipedia. I saw some very short-sighted activity by pro-Scientology editors that was placing them at risk for a serious PR backlash. I tried to communicate this to them in a number of different ways, and wound up taking the matter to arbitration. The case went very slowly and before it ended the WikiScanner came out...and along with it exactly the type of headlines I had feared would happen. Unfortunately, he and the other Scientologist (or pro-Scientologist) editors seem to have perceived only that I was some jerk who was telling them no. With a situation as polarized as that I can understand how that kind of trench warfare perspective sets in. I just wish I could break through it, and apparently I can't. Real world disputes that leak onto Wikipedia are very hard to address. Durova^Charge! 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

if you check my talk page archives, you already know that I cut my wiki teeth on the Alcoholics Anonymous article...so I understand (it is by far one of the most contriversial talk page in history that I have seen). I will give this a think, because you are adressing some problems that I have experienced as well, and I want to come back with a well thought out answer. thank you for contacting meCoffeepusher (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh...I cut my teeth on Joan of Arc. And as incredible as it may seem for a woman who'd been dead for 600 years, the page was being owned by two trolls. Took me half a year to raise it to featured. A lot of my work since then has been built around the idea that I didn't want other volunteers to go through the same problems I endured. Tough stuff, and guaranteed to make me unpopular in some quarters. But I follow my heart and my conscience. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I had this long elegant reply, but I realized that the only one who would get something out of it was me. I will say that based on your experience, I don’t think I am going to enlighten you…however I will try and give you my interpretation of a solution. If you are trying to break through to Hulk…well all I can say is play by the rules (you do, that just happens to be my only advise). Editors who have an agenda usually at least respect rules (if not try and find many many loopholes) because if they don’t they will get booted and the agenda is lost. If he has picked you as an opponent…well based on his debate style I would say let him know that this isn’t about him or his or your agenda…its about the rules. In this tactic it restricts the conversation to a tangible ruling body of order that is accessible to all. And don’t get caught up in the defensive dialectic. This will allow them to steer the debate away from the topic at hand.

As for how to break through the trenches…I don’t think I do that too well. Using the tactic described above I have kept a fairly NPOV in my writing. I rely heavily on consensus in talk pages to keep from getting into a one on one debate (in hulks case we brought 3 discussions to talk pages and agreed not to touch the edits…come to think of it, he “won” 2 of those…nutz). These are things I learned on the AA page…after messing up a lot, and they tend to work for me.

although this is my experience, I would like to hear your response. It would give me the opportunity to become a better editor.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back

I saw that you started editing again, and wanted to say "Hay". Your insight has been missed on the AA page. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Good to be back. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Leapeiron

I am not sure if this is how I am suppose to talk to you, but I hope you read this. I am new here in wikipedia, and so far I am extremely confused and sad. Just seconds after posting the JACOS page, they are trying to delete it!!! I really dont understand some of the reasons because it is in wikipedia jergon and even if I try to fix it I am still not used to the controls or which button should I use to fix. If somebody could help me or at least let me know what do I have to fix and show me how, then please do, but dont delete my article, it is my very first one. Thank you very much. email me at leapeiron@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leapeiron (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, here are some thoughts and experience that I can share with you. First off, you didn't recieve a welcome template...I will take care of this for you. It contains a collection of links that tell you all about wikipedia policies and give advise on editing and creating articles. Secondly, I am really sorry that your first experience with wikipedia policies is a AFD review...Mine was that I pissed off some guy on the Alcoholics Anonymous article that caused a "screaming match" between the two of us for a few days...but AFD reviews are brutal, especially when it is your creation that is up for deletion. Ok, on to your article.

The reason your article was nominated was twofold. First the corperation doesn't appear to be notable. understand that notable dosn't mean it isn't important, it just means that it hasn't caught the publics attention. The criteria for notablility is found in the blue link that is in the explination for why the page was nominated (on the AFD page). Basicly it boils down to is there enough WP:RS (reliable secondary sources) that have talked about this company (press relieces don't count). usually I do a Copernic or Google search to get a good feel of wether there are enough sources (there isn't any set number, but if it is less than say 5 or 10...I usally don't think it is notable). additionaly those sources usually have to tell about some event, or somthing that has captured the public eye.

The second reason your article was nominated was because it appears to be an advertisement for the company. it tells alot about the inner workings of the company, and its future plans but nothing about events that have recieved media attention, catastrophys, law suits, etc. this is also the reason you recieved a WP:COI (conflict of interest) notice that appeared on your talk page. you have more information about this company than the average writer, and more than your sources provide. Now I am not saying that you work for them, I am only telling you the reason you got that notice.

now that beeing said, You arn't in trouble and no one is trying to ban you from wikipedia. although you feel like you are under attack right now we do want you to continue contributing to wikipedia (yah, I know...funny way of showing it...right?) but it is true. I don't know if your article will stay. if you think it is notable, then add some secondary sources (sources not published by the company or press relieces) from reliable sources to the article. tell the human interest side of the company, are they involved in any notable scandals? Did they have any significant press coverage over an action? add that to the article. all that beeing said, It may still not stand. in that case, I encourage you to review Wikipedia policies, and contribute to other articles of interest to you. read the talk pages, and get a feel of where the other editors have been taking those articles, and what areas of the article are under the most scrutiny. get a feel for the policies, particpate in the behind the sceans work.

Again thank you for contacting me, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Public Sphere

(discussion with Pragmatismo (talk)

Would you be able to elaberate on each of the articles you mentioned in the public sphere article. Right now it reads like a literature review (a good one I may add), and would greatly improve the article if you could elaberate on how each work discussed, changed, viewed, structured, added to the theory of the public sphere. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ShamanDhia's

ok - what are the comments you found about me? Can you tell? Thanks for your help, I'm a newbie here, but not with computers ;) Can you suggest a better format for the bio if it shouldn't read like a resume (I thought facts are good) should I write a little about each project as a timeline? the Hitochi Princess (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

Thanks for contacting me. I found 3 sources from your art school where students spacificly mentioned you as an insparation, it was found during a copernic search.

I am not shure if I am going to have the answers you are looking for, but I will do my best based on my point of view. First off, the biggest problem is the question of Notablility, I believe the qualifications for notability are found in WP:BLP, but a good rule of thumb is "extensive coverage in secondary sources" using WP:RS. Please note that self published and press relieces don't count for reliable sources. Now you have named a few sources in the AFD (article for deletion page), I would say encorperate them into the article itself. I believe you recieved a welcome template when you signed up (if you didn't I will get you one), if you havn't read through it take a look it gives great suggestions on how to format an article and put in citations. I personaly prefer non-timeline/non-bullet point writing because it gives a list of disjoined information which dosn't read well...but that is just a preferance, you will find those formats in articles on Wikipedia all the time. use what you are most comfortable with, and what reads best. For reformating I would suggest that you understand you are trying to tell a narritive of events, not a collection of facts. Facts are neccisary, however the "why should I be interested" question always is in the back of my mind when looking at articles (think human interest...if I am not interested I am much more inclined to think it isn't notable). You have been thrown into a malstrom early in your wiki carreer. AFD's are always confusing and chaotic, and involve a lot of wiki rhetoric and quoting of rules. Right now, it dosn't look good for your article from my perspective...and I am not shure what you can do to save it. What truly pains me, is that you are a good editor and you have the kind of instincts and tone that we need on wikipedia. Most people I have seen in your position bite at the nomination (which dosn't help their case at all), but you truly looked for help which I admire. Given the revisionist tradition in Rhetoric (great speeches are often rewriten in light of events that occured after the speech)(cisaro's speech to Cataline is a perfict example) please imagine that I gave a effective persuasive heartfelt appeal for you to continue editing after all this is said and done. The article is about you, but the AFD is about the article, not you. I hope this helped, feel free to contact me with further questions. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put in this citation, but it comes in as text... Licata, Elizabeth (March 18), Watch Out for a Computer That Talks Back, Buffalo, NY: The Buffalo News, pp. B9 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) the Hitochi Princess (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

Did you use the "ref" bookends that are 3rd from the right on the first line of the Wiki Markup section in the box under the edit summary section?...they are also located as the last button on top of the edit box. they sometimes screw up.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the page - I just dont get it. Can you edit one reference correctly for me? I'll do the rest on my page. Thanks 161.38.223.246 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

ok, there you go. the first reference is taken care of. if you have any more problems please let me know, I will be glad to help you. additionaly, if you want to see examples of extensive references see the Public sphere page. I kinda rewrote the entire thing, and it is heavily footnoted.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I did what you did, but the "anchors" aren't working - shouldn't the page jump to the footnote or reference? Check my edits, please... and thanks so much for your time. Some of the editors are mean - plus in the habit of re-stating rules and skimming content. Your dyslx makes you more attentive in the way that you need to read everything to proceed - they're just skimming - either because their new or because their trying to do a lot of edits to get their points or ratings or whatever. Thanks for your attention - I'm doing ok with this, but honestly, if I wasn't writing about the stuff I know (me and my work) I could never interpret the copyright info or the editing - or anything. This has been a very helpful process for me - I know it takes time for you, and I appreciate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.246 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah, got me?!? I am just suposing it is a glitch in the formating, just wait for it to fix itself...because otherwise I have no idea what to do. the citations look good, and even if the ancors don't work, it dosn't really matter. as for your question about talk pages. every wikipedia page has a talk page. your talk page is used just like what we are doing, exchanging information between users. the pages themselves have talk pages to discuss the article (not the topic of the article like a forum, but just the editing of the article itself). See WP:TALK for more information. then you have the actuall wikipedia pages where the community discusses issues that affect wikipedia itself. the AFD's are one example, then we have pages where we discuss promoting people to Admin (they run the nuts and bolts of wikipedia) etc. the one common factor is that the discussion involves wikipedia itself. don't worry about contacting me, you happened to catch me at a good time, it is always good to help someone unfamiliar with wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an inconsistency with the _note tags (top little #'s) and the _ref tags. (under references) it says in the code example.com|1| ... I'll wait on it, thanks. endnote vs. end_ref ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShamanDhia (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, shure. honastly you probably know more about code than I do...Pascel was a mathamaticion and philosopher as far as I am conserned. so good luck on that...and if you figure it out, feel free to share your findings. I love info.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read your question about the endnotes again, and realised that I didn't answer it at all. check WP:REF and that probably has the information you are looking for about foonotes and endnotes. You are working hard, and I applaud you for that. even if the article dosn't stand, you are head and sholders above most people who have been on wikipedia for such a short time. revel in the now, and remember Changtzu's parable about the farmer "is it good? how do I know?". Feel free to contact me at any time...however for tonight I am going to bed.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New ppl from visual arts are looking now - can you read my page again - I looked at the bio stuff and tried to write about the projects like you suggested...now more formatting and citations are necessary. Thanks 24.188.143.21 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

Thanks for your comment on my talk page - I tried my best, but not my hardest! My portrait picture is on my userpage, but the GOLEM image was deleted by someone. Why is one accepted on my portrait page, and one deleted... can I have a self-published picture on my userpage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.246 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not really the correct person to ask that question since the relm of images is vege and confusing to me (the map of that area of wikipedia states Here be dragons in my brain). However I may know some users who will be able to help you, I am in a time crunch for the next few hrs, however I will do some reserch and refer you to someone in a little bit.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: images

I have contact with a newcomer who has questions about image rules. she had a image that she holds the copyright to that got deleted and whants to know why. I have no idea about image rules (it really dosn't interest me to tell the truth) however I know you have been on for a while, and have experience in this area. her question is here [3], she has just goten her first article deleted, and has goten a crash cource in wikipedia policies in the prossess (to tell the context of our conversation). her name is the Hitochi Princess (talk) I hope that you are able to help her, she seems like a great new user who would be able to contribute to the project. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Without a link to the image, I'm lost :/ Will ^(talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

(this discussion refers to actions taken in order to stop 71.11.126.200 from adding this edit [4].)

(note that Stifle (talk) failed to give 71.11.126.200 the same warning, untill he read this comment on my page (over an hr. later, check the time stamp "20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)" and compare it to my time stamp)...I have my opinions and am a little upset by the whole situation.)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alcoholics Anonymous. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You have added this template to my page, and I kindly ask you to remove it. I was not engaged in an edit war, but rather removing content placed by another editor that was not supported by the citation that accompanied the edit (he disputed the accuracy of the study, and put his personal opinion about the study into the quotation accompaning it). if you look at the editors account you will notice that all of his edits have been pov and disruptive in nature, while I have never had a template added to my page untill now.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

additionaly I discussed issues on his talk page (added templates according to vandalism guidelines) so I did attempt to stop the situation (and was called a religious nut in the prossess)Coffeepusher (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You may remove it if you wish (which will acknowledge that you have read it, but nothing else).

Reverts are only exempt from the three-revert rule in a very limited and specific set of circumstances. Uncited edits are not one of those circumstances except where they are negative and added to a biography of a living person. The three-revert rule is very specifically intended to stop bland reverting as an editing method, even with the best of intentions. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i read your comment, and appriciate it. however I do think that in this situation applying the 3RR rule to my edits (or even giving me a template) is in poor spirit. the sentance origionaly stated that "evidance has been found to support the use of Alcoholics Anonymous in treatment (paraphrase)" and it came with a citation. it was changed to "there is no scientific evidance to support the use of Alcoholics anonymous in treatment (again paraphrase)" and the origional citation was left. I do not understand how this isn't blatent vandalism, nor do I understand why we should discourage its removal. In short it really upset me that I was warned by an outside editor of wikipedia policies while I was defending the content of wikipedia from a POV vandal, and feel that while the template can be considered technacly correct, it ultimatly served as a distructive force for wikipedia (I will be much less inclined to defend wikipedia in the future). I have no idea what I am looking for here, since I doupt that either one of us will admit wrongdoing right now, but I am sorry that this is our first contact with each other.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepusher, don't template the regulars. Take a look at Special:Contributions/71.111.126.200. It's all vandalism. Coffeepusher does a lot of good work, and there's no reason to spam his talk page with templates -- especially if it means ignoring vandalism in progress. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence along with the kind words. I am under the opinion that my appeal got pigonholed (and any further complaints by me will be just Beating a dead horce. I took a look at this admins talk page, and it appears there are alot of 3RR template appeals. This leads me to believe he may be quick on the draw, but also doing a thankless job. from that pov, I was able to calm down and let it be (although I still believe he was misguided in my case).Coffeepusher (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Scarpy (talk) 3RR Report

(cut from Scarpy (talk) page)

Your current 3RR report looks malformed. It looks like the editor in question only changed the article once, then reverted twice. So first of all, this is only 2 reverts, not 4, which would be breaking WP:3RR. Second, the diffs you have given aren't all the diffs by the editor in question, at least one is you reverting the other editor. Might want to clean that up, or withdraw it. Gwynand (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

hay, I have a question. do you know why I was tagged for the 3RR in this prossess. you know more about policies than I do, but I viewed the entire situation as vandalism and thought the 3RR didn't apply to that.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it was a content dispute, although a closer reading of that user's edits would lean towards likely vandalism. You were template-warned over edit warring and the 3RR rule, but not punished for it, per se. Remember, 3RR is only an exception to the most simple and obvious vandalism, like page blanking or vulgar language. The other editors edits were more likely very POV, unsourced, and totally wrong, but technically not obvious vandalism. Just to be clear, I agree with you two on his edits being wrong, I'm just clarifying some things about the 3RR process. Gwynand (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have something to do with the diffs I included, I thought showing someone correcting a bad revert would be as good as showing the malicious revert. I don't know. It hate it when I report obvious vandalism, and the admins defend the vandal. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Please assume good faith, I was just attempting to help you. Gwynand (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

::: I think your most recent comment on my talk page was not meant for me. I never templated anyone, nor warned you or Cofeepusher for 3RR. Would you mind removing it (I'm assuming it was intended for the admin you were dealing with in this case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwynand (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't post anything on your page, I even checked the history and have no idea what you are talking about? could you please elaberate. (ps. I do understand in this whole fiasco you didn't do anything)Coffeepusher (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am being obtuse. I struck through, the message was intended for Scarpy.Gwynand (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AA Supporter?

(in relation to this comment [5].)

(conversation origionaly posted on PhGustaf (talk)'s page)

Now now, I thought I covered it up better than that?!?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AA is all about bad coffee and cheap cookies. I still think the page needs a section about the hundreds if not thousands of bumper-sticker slogans that pass for "honesty" at meetings. Best wishes, your contributions are valued. PhGustaf (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the bumper sticker thing...I put it in the same catagory as sound bite politics. I just found it funny that you said somthing, and my first gut reflex was "no way, I am NPOV" but then after some thinking I figured that others would have a better view of any slant I may have, and laughed a little.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe in laughing as often and as loudly as possible. PhGustaf (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AA as a cult

Hi, I notice from the Cult article that you have read the Alexander and Rollins study of AA as a cult. Can you tell me if the entry in the article Alcoholics Anonymous accurate to that study? It reads:

'Alexander and Rollins measured AA against criteria developed by Robert Jay Lifton, in his work on Thought Reform and concluded “AA uses all the methods of brain washing, which are also the methods employed by cults,” “It is our contention that AA is a cult."'

Particularly did they conclude the line: “It is our contention that AA is a cult.“

Let me know, if it doesn't match, we can change it.

Thanks very much. - Mr Miles (talk) Mr Miles 15:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the Alexander and Rollins concluded that AA used the same techniques that a researcher named Lifton identified as “thought reform” (brainwashing, but without the additional baggage that brainwashing holds) and those techniques where also used in cults. Now we get into the argument of wither that makes them a cult or not… Alexander and Rollins thought that any thought reform was negative and thus AA was a cult…while Kevin Wright (1997) in another study found that those techniques where seen as beneficial and thus AA wasn’t a cult. I actually added the text

“And Kevin [Wright], in a study of several members, concluded that although the [Lifton] techniques [were] present in the Alexander and Rollins study, the conclusion that AA was a cult was erroneous because AA bore little semblance to religious cults because the techniques appeared beneficial in AA.[6]^ Wright, K[B] (1997) "Shared Ideology in Alcoholics Anonymous: A Grounded Theory Approach". Journal of Health Communication, Volume 2, pp. 83–99” to the cult page, but it was rejected by the editors.

I hope this helps outCoffeepusher (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Coffeepusher, that's great, I'm going to propose reinserting it. Mr Miles 16:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

reverting AA page

please stop reverting well thought out and good faith edits (explaned on talk page) on alcoholics anonymous page. there are other wikipedia editors who should be given chance to write article. you spend to much time there and are almost vandalising by your edits. -SandymcT (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

there is a consensus that you need to go to the talk page and be civil to us when explaining your edits (I suspect that this is your second language, so you may not understand that your behavior on the talk page has been insulting and rude. hence my explination on how to bring up edits on the talk page in a constructive mannor). instead you have chosen to tell us "there is a problem and I fixed it my way since you guys couldn't do it". your edits arn't good faith because you are ignoring input from the community and refusing to bring your edits up for consensus. we do agree with those two points, however that does not give you licence to do change the page without input from the community. yes the changes need to be made, but we need to discuss what those changes are going to be (and it is obvious that your version is not the one that should be done). we are willing to work with you, however we are not willing to let you change the page however you want. since you want to quote wiki rules, read through the policies and you will see we run off of consensus (a common agreement from all interested editors) not just bold edits. either follow these sudjestions, or go away, your current behavior hasn't been constructive to either wikipedia or your own goals. Coffeepusher (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AA Sandbox

Hi Coffeepusher, do you have any comments on the sandbox edit? Thanks. Mr Miles 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology controversies

Hi there, when someone adds a tag to a page suggesting improvements, please don't just blindly revert, if you believe that tags aren't needed, please discuss this with the users in question and/or on the article talk page, try to gather consensus that those tags aren't necessary. If they are, please do leave them on the article and work with those with concerns to improve the article, if more people spent time improving articles instead of reverting each other, we could have articles that are considerably higher quality. Thanks for your time. (The diff in question [6] ) Nick (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

hay, I appreicate the message. Septer origionaly added the tags after he went on a rampage of deleting articles with the word "contriversy" in them (by redirect in this case) and after it was reverted he slaped all those tags on with no discussion. now he has added 10 tags, many of them don't make sence without more detailed information(how is the factuality disputed?, is the "manual of style" comment about contriversy a argument about the article in general, or is it refering to the "scientology reponce" section, there are already many sources why do we need more?, etc.) I am trying to assume good faith, but without detailed discussion it really looks like he arbitrarily slaped tags on to deface the article. (he hasn't contributed to any part of the article at all). also we have been having a discussion on the talk page, and the consensus has been to remove the tags.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would believe Sceptre is referring to the controversy section. I had a look on the talk page and there's not a great deal of comments, and as far as I can see, no indication on whether or not the tags have merits. Controversy sections are generally a bad idea, tends to pile all the negative commentary into one section and they can very quickly begin to dominate an article. It's best if the information is integrated into a more balanced article overall. You can never have to many sources, and if there's a claim, it's always best to have a source to back it up, inline style. If you know that some sources have information that is relevant to another section tagged with a {{fact}} template, add another reference. Nick (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

question on Scientology Controversy

Cirt, I understand your comment on the Scientology Controversy was addressed to both me and Will. You stated the discussion to this point was pointy. I wouldn't mind if you could elaberate on that (on my talk page). I didn't "think" I was beeing pointy, however obviously I was...and hearing how you personaly read the discussion would give me some insight into my own behavior (and improve my editing practices). for obvious reasons I am in the middle of it, so I can't see it as a whole. Coffeepusher (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

To clarify, no, the discussion is not pointy, though it is getting pointless. What is pointy is the placement of (11) count 'em, eleven tags at the top of an article, particularly after the article failed a WP:AfD. However I have neither the time nor the inclination to delve to deeply into that particular article at this point in time - but I left the note on the talk page because I noticed that the discussion was not constructive (and neither is the tag usage). 3 tags are plenty for that article, to alert other editors that it could use some attention/work. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

L ron hubbard

thank you for the rewrite of the sexual section of cult. unfortunatly as it stands I don't think it belongs in this section. the Church of scientology didn't start untill the publication of Dianetics...which was in 1950, while the plural marrage that you referanced was in 1946. So although he was technacly a paligamist for a year, he wasn't "using his position of power for sexual gratification" as the intro of the section talks about. I am not against the addition of L ron into this section, if a source can be found (There are many rumors about "sex with kids" later in his life...I just havn't found any sources). I personaly think it should be deleted as it stands, what is your opinion?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point. That makes this a secondary reference suitable for use after a first tier ref can be found. I found a lead suggesting a source to a first-tier ref in the Corydon and Hubbard, Jr book.

I'll do a 'temporarily delete and save for secondary use when post-1950 ref is found' edit summary. Milo 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The new entry only implys sex... "hot pants" etc, and only gives the same slant on discription that an anti-catholic publication would give to say alter boys (exept they don't ware hot pants, but rather "dresses"). If a solid source or accusation can't be found, I am wondering why L Ron should be included in this section. I understand that it is in vouge to critisise Scientology, but this entery comes from a one page source from a critical publication that is obviously slanted standing beside enterys that have been verifyed by multipal sources with better credibility. If this is the only source fo this information, it is questionable at best.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My most recent edit was entirely about not biting good-faith-edit newbies. Yes, the entry does not work on topic, as I wrote in my edit summary addressed to the anon. 209.128.98.90 put in the entry and wrote:

"Cult 06:19, 23 April 2008 209.128.98.90 (Re-added line about Hubbard with ref. The reference mentions he was in a plural marriage with 3 of his followers, and that's what this section is about - so please don't remove the reference!)"

Yet 209.128.98.90 had obviously made several serious errors in reading A Piece of Blue Sky, one of which you already had pointed out (that there was no mention of "slept with" in the sexual sense), and there was also no marriage with 3 of his followers. Checking his/her contribs, 209.128.98.90 seems to be making a serious attempt to contribute usefully, though s/he's still what one might call a cub editor. So rather than offend hir by simply removing the material, I rewrote it to match what the ref actually said, and pointed this out to hir in my edit summary:

"Cult 08:08, 23 April 2008 Milomedes (Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders: Hi 209.128.98.90 you've provided some good item leads, but you got the Blue Sky ref's facts wrong; see my rewrite for how it doesn't work here.)"

As for the source, I didn't RS vet it because I didn't intend for this entry to be retained long term. It does appear to be a book chapter, and professionally published books about Scientology are particularly well-vetted before publication, as lawsuits and threats of them have been frequent and publicly documented.

The basic principle of Reliable Source, is that the more people who critically examine a manuscript before publication, the more likely it is to be reliable ("Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers..."). Books issued by established for-profit (not vanity) publishers, and authors with at minimum a lack of significant fact-check criticism (check professional reviews archived at Amazon.com), are minimally considered WP:V Reliable Sources. The more experience, credentials, or credibility an author has increase reliability above the minimum.

So I've done my part to be cooperative with 209.128.98.90 by demonstrating a quality-referenced factual rewrite. Since the corrected entry doesn't progress the section subject, how do you think the next step should be handled so that 209.128.98.90 believes hir contribution has been fairly disposed? Milo 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really admire your way of bringing the ip into wikipedia. I have some stuff to learn. The source is evidently reliable (it is cited by many critics, however its publisher is questionable) but as I have stated I belive the entery, as it stands, shouldn't be included (I am gathering you are on the same page right now). I will respect the IP, and send a message to them, directing them to this conversation and ask for their input. when I was a newcomer a well respected member did the same for me, and I appriciated it.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

its been 10 days, and I havn't heard anything from the IP. I propose the section gets deleted, because the only mention of sex is baced on a plural marrage prior to the creation of scientology, and the reast of the entry only imply's sex through well chosen language. If you have any objections I would appriciate your input, otherwise I will go ahead and delete the entry on monday.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We did the proper things, so deleting it is ok with me. Since s/he left a note in their edit summary, you might mention our efforts to discuss it with them in yours. Milo 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Orange Papers (Conversation started on Milo's talk page)

I understand the criteria for external sources. However you may want to reconsider your support for orange papers. I understand that any site that clasifies another group as a cult is contriversial and apt to fail the criteria for reliable sources, and that the inclusion of these voices can be helpfull to the article. But Orange Papers blatently misrepresents studies to push his point of view, and for that reason falls into the...second criteria I think...for links that should not be included. You can also check the Alcoholics Anonymous talk archives #6, where there is a large discussion over inclusion of articles. The "Orange" sub note and some of the discussion that preceded it offers some insight into what happens when you cross check his conclusions to the origional studies. The Cult article is contriversial enough, I think that if we include this link it will damage the credibility of the article itself, especialy when there are reliable sources that are critical of AA that are available.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting editorial problem, and I welcome your input on how to solve it.

The central problem is how to reveal that just like other cult-referred groups, AA has cult apostates, not mere uninvolved critics typical of reliable sources. Orange Papers frequently refers to AA as a cult, "Orange" mentions attending many meetings, and I think shows criticism rising to the level of apostasy. Yet Orange Papers does make an attempt to reference these criticisms, and I formally cited two reliable sources that Orange Papers provided about AA Midtown Group, showing that AA can become locally unpopular (Washington DC meetings booted from churches).

It isn't necessary to endorse Orange's views of AA which are beyond the cult topic. As for disendorsing them at the external link, I did search Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous/Archive_6 but didn't notice much besides a complaint about Orange's website section having someone else's misrepresentative AA study. Maybe I missed it, but the discussion about Orange did not seem pointed or extensive. It seems like it is Lemanski who is being criticised, and that Orange merely cited and followed Lemanski's lead. Is that enough to disendorse the entire large set of Orange Papers?

AA is very important as a lead-featured article counter-example, because it breaks the public's stereotype of what populist cult must be like: a heretical religion, and/or a systematic mind-controlling group exploitation. This is an NPOV breakthrough to years of vaguely-expressed but persistent complaints against Cult's systemic bias against cults. AA may well be the only known group that has been scientifically studied concluding sociological cult status with mind-control features, scientifically studied concluding beneficial membership, yet popular with the cult-disliking public, as well as being a non-fan cult regularly recommended by cult-averse psychological professionals.

I think Cult is becoming somewhat less controversial than it was two or more years ago. This article has become much better referenced, and the subject's difficult-to-explain homonymic conflict over definitions is slowly becoming more understandable. However, controversial articles are typically edited in circles, so this may be a temporary lull during which centrist editors should work together to balance the conflicting POV's in their proportional weights. This provides the best chance for Cult to become non-controversial, if that is possible. Milo 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of AA in referance to a cult, and I do believe that we could glean some referances from Orange to encorperate them into the article. However I do not endorce the iclusion of his link, because it is highly selective in what he referances and thus is not a good canditate for external links. you can see a rebuttle at this link for agent orange (it was in archive 6...and I was involved in the argument, so I probably read the conversation differently from an outsider). I understand why you are trying to answer the question "The central problem is how to reveal that just like other cult-referred groups, AA has cult apostates, not mere uninvolved critics typical of reliable sources." but an external link to Agent Orange implys an endorcement of the content...which is why #2 of external links to avoid cautions against including links that distort content. My solution is delete the link, because it dosn't fall under the criteria of good external links. (incert Snowball fallicy in logic argument here)... and the earth spirals into the sun. we can definatly search for a reliable critic, posibly from the Ratonal Recovery website. However the inclusion of unreliable links to prove a point usually takes away from the point beeing made. My takeaway from orange is that since his argument can't be made without distorting figures and studies it appears his conclusions must be wrong, and anyone who uses his figures just don't know how to fact check. now that isn't necisarily the case, but if his arguments are the ones used to prove the point...wellCoffeepusher (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Agent Green link. I didn't notice it at WP:AA archive 6. I find it very helpful.

Agent Green does make your point about Orange's distorting of figures and studies, though accusing Orange of lying strikes me as a distorted charge of hir own. "Orange will not admit that AA has helped a single one of them" isn't lying. Furthermore, Orange does imply an intended commitment to facts per both Orange and Green, and Green compliments Orange's huge amount of reading and thousands of pages website.

I haven't read much of Orange, but based on Green, Orange doesn't seem to have written overt "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". Rather, according to my reading of Green's analysis, Orange seems to have drawn hir own faulted summary conclusions based on poor scholarship of scholarly sources. Green is being harsh on Orange's massive research efforts, since Green agrees "It's hard to find objective opinions, even in the research world" and "AA is simply a tough topic to research".

Of evidence toward cult apostasy, Green discusses how "AA often provokes extreme reactions.", "If AA helps them, they swear by AA for the rest of their lives.", "If AA harms them, they become angry critics.", "Q: Are all AA members abusive cult extremists, like Agent Orange says? A: No. Q: Are some AA members abusive cult extremists? A: Yes.", and "By his obsessive anti-AA stance, Orange may be turning away desperate people whom AA might be able to help."

As I understand it, Wikipedia does allow external links to POV sites for various good reasons (for example the KKK website), and disendorsement of a useful external link is permitted: "Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view."(Wikipedia:External links#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view)

So I suggest a solution to the problem is to link to both Orange and Green, draft like so:

• The Orange Papers - Massive referenced site keynoted with angry cultic criticism of Alcoholics Anonymous by ex-member "Agent Orange". Some of Orange's conclusions may distort the referenced AA-effectiveness studies.
• The Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous - "Agent Green's" referenced site strongly disputes Orange Papers' "obsessive anti-AA" conclusions, and that only some members are "abusive cult extremists, like Agent Orange says".

Milo 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I like that pairing. it would frame the contriversy accuratly, and allow people to draw their own conclusions. I have taken care of the edit.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Johannes Vermeer

This is an explination for my recent edit. I went through the history of those vandals you where fighting, and came to the conslusion that some may have slipped through. so I found the page that was prior to all that crap and switched it back, only to find that you did a great job (and only one thing was different). long story short, my edit was useless after all, and kutos on your vandal fighting.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Actually, I was wondering what that edit was about.

Happy editing

/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Public Sphere

Cirt, I am asking you and another editor to look at a project I am working on, and tell me if it makes sence so far.

I have been editing the Public Sphere for a little while now, and it is heading into a direction that I am happy with, I am about half way through with what I want to do. My problem is that it is a highly specialised page, and that I seem to be the only one editing it (outside of typo correction). It reads well for me, but then again I know the topic matter.

I was wondering if you would be able to look at what I have so far (through the Counterpublic section) and tell me if it makes sence. I am looking for someone who has no experience with public sphere theory, because if the page sounds like gobily gook to them...its a poorly writen page. if you have the time, look it over and tell me what makes sence, and what questions you have about public sphere theory. this would greatly help me in my future edits to the page. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a read-through, message me if I don't get to it in a coupla days. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

• Sorry I haven't gotten to this yet, I'll try to take a look soon. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

Culture

This article used to be a trainwreck and I have been trying to rewrite it to cover all academic approaches to "culture". The section on "cultural studies" is weak, and one topic that perhaps could be better explored is the idea of "critical theory" as an important theme of or infuence on cultural studies' approaches to "culture." Could you look at the section and see how you could develop it? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to take a look at it as see what I can do. Thank you for contacting me.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!! The article is getting long, but before people start talking about spinning off linked articles, I want to make sure there is some kind of coordinated, comprehensive, and coherent discussion of "how do different people use the term culture" and "how do different people study culture." I know a lot about anthropology and the article is top-heavy with that - in comparison cultural studies is anemic (but it was recently rewritten and is at least intelligent and well-informed ... just highly abbreviated). I really appreciate your help!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What you propose on my talk page sounds very sneible. I think the key thing is: to focus on what scholars mean by "culture" and how they study it (and thus, what marks really original approaches to the definition/description/classification of "culture, and innovations in how to study it). The Frankfurt school and Critical Theory are important influences on cultural studies, which is why I reached out to you (even if you do not consider yourself an expert on "Cultural Studies" as such, you can as you say help expand and explain this important stream of influences especially as they shed light on "culture"). As you add to the section on Cultural Studies you may wish to reorganize it. Or you can use what currently exists as an introduction to the section, and consider adding a subsection. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your plan, and your helping out. The key thing is this: eventually the article which is getting quite long will need to be spun off into daughter articles, with summaries in the main article (I just think that there should be a comprehensive main article before this is done). It is important that the section on "culture" according to Cultural Studies does not simply replicate the article on CS or FS. I think the trick is to focus on how different people conceptualized culture, and how different people studied culture. As long as these are foregrounded we will be improving the article. thanks again, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you had any chance to improve the section on cultural studies, in the Culture article? I thought you had good ideas! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am currently working through Lukas's idea of Reification, which is fundamental within the frankfurt schools idea of culture...its the idea that everything within a culture takes on the basic elements of a commodity (from Marx's framework) and lose their inate qualitative elements. so...the answer is lots of study, not a lot of typing.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds terrific! Thanks! Do you think this connects back to the view that some, including many editors here, think that "culture" is a list of different objects found in different countrees (e.. American drink coffe, English drink tea, that's their culture)? There are some editors who would like to see the whole article rewriten to be culture of Germany, CUlture of France, Culture of Thailand, culture of China, culture of Eskimos, Culture of Samoa, and so on. Is this a way both to explain and critique that? Or am I getting on a tangent? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The frankfurt school didn't take it there, but I think you have a very accurate view of what the theory says. The frankfurt school took their criticism into the relm of asthetics (in the case of culture) and I have a really good quote that defines culture for those thinkers. I will see if I can find something that will allow me to say what you said without origional research, because I think it is good.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the welcome message. but aint you scientologists been banned from Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowardwithabeard (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, the scientologists who edit anonymously from IP addresses based in their orgonizations have been banned, as well as single purpose accounts (users who's only edits appear to be around a single topic or coming from a single point of view)focused on Scientology pages. I am not a scientologists, but I do work on the Scientology pages on Wikipedia, and if you click on the "user contributions" section of my page you will find I also do work with 12 step groups, Continental philosophy, Exorcism, and several other pages. anyway if there is anything I can do to help let me know.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cult

Hi Coffeepusher. You have previously expressed interest in editing the article Cult. Efforts are being made to round up as many interested editors to colaborate towards making the article more neutral and more reflective of the academic viewpoint. Your assistance would be valued.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My real name is Magnus, but I·Maunus·ƛ· 16:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC) spell it ""maunus" because thats more suggestive of how it is pronounced in my native danish tongue.

SmartAction

Hi Coffeepusher. In response to your suggestions I've made some changes to the SmartAction page. Please let me know if you have further suggestions. Thanks! R001605 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

your article still falls short of proving it is notable for a company in my opinion. It is also really heavy in the description of services and products...which is why it reads like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. Check out Booz Allen Hamilton for what I consider a good article about a company, and see what elements you can use to improve your article.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coffeepusher. Thank you very much for your vote of confidence regarding my contributions over at SmartAction. After my initial (perhaps naively idealistic) excitement about becoming a Wikipedian, I was starting to get a little discouraged by the feedback, but I'm learning as fast as I can, and your feedback has helped me a lot. If there's any way I can help you at any point, certainly let me know. I'm planning to make further contributions in other areas of Wikipedia soon. An article on "proprietary communities" is next on my list. Thanks again, R001605 (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

you certainly have been lacking in the encouragement department yet you still edit, and haven't blown up at anyone...that alone deserves recognition, additionally your work has been good. getting thrown into an AFD on your first edit is tough, its like learning how to fight by crawling out of the trenches for the first time...no matter what happens please feel free to contact me, and I will help you as much as I can.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your encouragement means a lot to me. I love the Fight Club quote! Thanks again, R001605 (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice the SmartAction article is still marked as "spam", even though it has been completely rewritten and no editors have subsequently considered it to be spam. How does the "spam" tag get removed? Can anyone (including me) remove it, or does it require a process? Thanks for your help! R001605 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the tag on top that states that there is a discussion on wither or not to delete the article, only an administrator can delete that tag and only after the AFD discussion has been "closed" by an administrator. this discussion has not been closed because the adminsitrators who have viewed the discussion felt that more discussion was necessary. look at the top of the articles for deletion page which have a lot of links to explain the process in full. usually the discussion goes on for 7 days, however it doesn't appear that consensus has been reached so...well we keep discussing it until someone decides to close it. now if you are referring to something else, let me know more specifically what spam tag you are talking about.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ok, I looked back and saw what you were talking about. I think it is fine for you to remove a tag since the article has been much improved since it was places. Now if someone replaces the tag, then a discussion should take place on the talk page to justify the placement. both you and the other editor should strive to come to some sort of agreement on what conditions should be met for the tag to be removed (note that this is an ideal communicative situation, one which rarely comes about...most tag discussions are solved by "lots of yelling and arguing followed by the owner of the game having the final say" Munchkin (card game) rules...well someone goes away is what usually happens). anyway hope this helpsCoffeepusher (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I had a look at the page source code, and noticed that there was a comment that anything below the AfD tag could be freely edited, so I deleted the "ad" tag. I much appreciate your informative "insider's view" of how this process works! I had no idea what I was signing up for when I "just jumped in" as Wikipedia recommends. I would have practised in the sandbox first. And if I knew how much work and time was involved, I probably wouldn't have bothered in the first place! Anyway, thanks again, R001605 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, I want to thank you for your encouragement at a crucial point when I was about ready to give up on Wikipedia. In the meantime, my first article (SmartAction) was approved, and I've been working on further articles and edits. After the frustrating learning curve in the beginning, I'm now enjoying contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks again for your thoughtfulness! All the best, R001605 (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Don't forget that I was the one who initially tagged the article (and started your frustrating experience with Wikipedia) I came around when you demonstrated not only a willingness to grow from criticism, but that you were writing what has become a really good article. good luck and if you ever need some help let me know.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent reversions and changes in question

Hello. You recently, without discussion, reverted out some edits I made to some articles.

• 20:41, 29 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Rowland Hazard III ‎ (→Relationship to the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous: switched to text only el with minimal comintary) (top)
• 20:37, 29 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Drug rehabilitation ‎ (→Media documentaries: WP:EL) (top)
• 20:36, 29 August 2009 (hist) (diff) History of Alcoholics Anonymous ‎ (→The Oxford Group: switched link to a text only page with minimal comentary, referance text remains the same) (top)

With regard to Dr. Carl Jung's 1961 to Bill Wilson about Rowland Hazard III, the website you replaced my footnote with, namely sober.org does not show the letter as it was originally. The site has some opinions and its scholarly academic or journalistic credentialing is unknown. The website I used is a respected public radio program documentary which has a computer photo image of the original letter from Dr. Jung including corrections and additions in his own handwriting.

• Jung, C.G., Retrospective 1961 letter from Dr. C.G. Jung to Bill Wilson about Rowland Hazard III

Please advise. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually you will find that the website that I used backed up the citation with no deviation, the relevant passages are in both sites, but the one I used is more in line with WP:EL since the original site exists to "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" (WP:ELNO #5, Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" since the letter itself is only a small part of the link you provided. I don't see how the content is different in regards to the citation, and it avoids the opinion that there is some sort of website promotion going on by providing a text only with no advertising (WP:ELNO #... what ever the one about advertising is.

The external links were removed for the reasons stated above.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read my note on the Rowland Hazard III talk page, where no one but me ever bothers to write anything. I did not duplicate it on the AA history page. It seems to me that you are basing your preference for a certain link on a technicality, when the issue should really be the appearance of the page to which the link leads. I'm actually not sure that the letter should be part of an article about the historical, flesh-and-blood, Rowland Hazard III. The subject of the letter is a legendary AA proto-founder named Roland H, whose life story was somewhat different (and Jung may have had his reasons to go along with Bill's project). However, if you agree with the other editor that there should be a link to the letter, have some respect and discuss before you revert.Rose bartram (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Speaking of Faith" link promotes the radio show for starters, and does have banner advertising (the other page has none). additionally it appears that the link was added in a mass promotion of the radio show where it suddenly appeared on several wikipedia pages as an external link with its own section. I do not assume ill intent with the addition, but wikipedia is not a collection of links and an obscure radio program suddenly appearing on several addiction pages (under the section "media sources" with no other sources referenced) provides a little undue weight upon the source (since Jack Alexander is not referenced in the source at all, or any other notable media source). The reference within the article is in a section that was previously cited by the earlier citation of the book "Alcoholics Anonymous", so personally I think this citation can be done away with entirely since it was added in a previously cited section with no modification to the text.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"have some respect" is a phrase you should probably avoid on other peoples talk pages...it incurs a reaction that you probably didn't intend.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But, in my opinion, the sober.org version is not as accurate as the photo image of Jung's letter and there's interspersed commentary, although seemingly on-point but of uncertain cite-able origin. Just cite "sober.org" or "the Big Book Bunch". What are these sources and their veracity? Oh well. I see you've reverted the changes again before this was resolved, which might be considered off-colour as a Wikipedia community action. It's now just been reduced to a bit of a tempest in a teapot in the global context of writing an encyclopedia. There are other things to do, other new material to write. Take care, Coffeepusher, anyway. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Rowland Hazard III played a big part implicitly in the founding of AA. See the article by Finlay in a scholarly journal referenced in the articles.

• Finlay, Steven W. (2000). "Influence of Carl Jung and William James on the Origin of Alcoholics Anonymous". Review of General Psychology. 4 (1): 3–12. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.4.1.3. ISSN 1089-2680. OCLC 34948489. Retrieved 2006-10-20. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Mind you, as did Carl Jung and, inferentially, William James and his Varieties of Religious Experience. Thanks for your help. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

for someone who called for discussion, you missed the talk page discussion where three editors agree that the edit didn't belongCoffeepusher (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it, despite your intended sarcasm. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

not sarcasm, frustration that I made an attempt to enter in discussion and it was ignored.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated question

Hello Coffeepusher. I have a question unrelated to our Foucault discussion. I noticed that the page on Derrida has no lead. I want to try to craft a lead from the information there. Would you be able to critique and edit it? I'm not confident that I know how to properly present a lead for Wikipedia, and I notice that the discussion on the relevant talk page has been dry for some time. Thanks. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Could be some time; will communicate. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting you mention exorcism on your userpage, too. Particularly non-Christian kinds. Bizarrely enough, I have a book which deals with that right here. I will be interested in contributing to that topic. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Numbers

I am not sure what you meant by this edit. Notability for AfD purposes and reliability are two separate things. The Weekly World News is a notable publication, but that doesn't make it reliable. On the other hand, there could be other sources which are reliable, but not notable. My comments at WP:RS/N were devoted to the reliability issue as is appropriate on that page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-structuralism to poststructuralism

Hello, do you think it would be acceptable to change the article from the former to the latter? I have left a note about it on that talk page:[7] No one responded. I have asked you and clsoat for ideas. Check Google for how often the terms are used: it seems clear that "poststructuralism" has greater currency. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Ecout

Well spotted. I am normally hesitant to speedy-delete hoaxes that need a second glance (because the most surprising things sometimes turn out to be true - would you believe a festival celebrating the culture of persons of mixed Croatian-Maori ancestry?) but the non-existent books remove any doubt. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. He's put it into Spanish WP as well. I have tagged it for speedy there, with an explanation on the talk page which might interest you, if it's still there. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Coffeepusher. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Xenu

Check the talk page archives, you will see posts from similar IPs. Not quite sure what to do about this yet, I think it is trolling, and violation of WP:NOT#FORUM, simply for use of talk page as a way to waste time and cause disruption with frivolous comments. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sciologos. You have been involved with this issue in the past, perhaps you could help with investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced (?) additions to Sharron Angle

Hello. I've noticed that you reverted an edit to the Sharron Angle article as "unsourced additions" and issued an L3 warning. Although the prior edits by that IP were unsourced, the latest edit had numerous supporting references. Please take another look. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at them, only the first three sources actually mentioned Sharron Angle and the first two didn't qualify as WP:RS in my opinion (an opinion paper and her personal website). the third source that mentioned her cited the sentence "Among her most notable accomplishments was passing the Homeschool Freedom Bill" while the source only gave her an honorable mention for helping out along with six other individuals. the others were the bills themselves with no reference to sharron. the whole section looks like a publicity paper IMO, with an agenda... "causing the press" (the omnipresent "press" which we should all oppose?).Coffeepusher (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for looking. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that in retrospect my summery was really misleading, and I apologizes for the confusion. Thank you for keeping me accountable as an editor.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of deaths related to Scientology

The article List of deaths related to Scientology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unless these deaths were specifically the church's fault, then I don't believe we should include this page or else every member of Scientology who passes away could potentially be listed on this page.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PoeticVerse (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

you will notice that the criteria for inclusion into the list is that the peoples death has been attributed to the church or one of its affiliate organizations by a reliable source. I don't believe that every memeber who passes away will have a reliable source reporting that it is the churches fault.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In the future could you please look closer at the article and talk page, you may miss some important information regarding the list when you are obviously just trying to improve your edit count (you have tagged over 50 articles with speedy deletion in the last hr.).Coffeepusher (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

List of deaths related to Scientology

Coffeepusher, each entry on this new list should have its own independent citations, and not just rely on sources in the articles of the entries themselves. (Similar to List of Scientologists). -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable criteria. Ill clean up the article a bit.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I am doing it.  Doing... ... -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that will cause a major conflict...its all you now.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how does it look now? [8] -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that a whole lot better. My only criticism is that it isn't listed in an order I recognize yet (the criteria currently reads that it should be alphabetized...but eh?), but that is minor compared to the drastic improvement in both content and defensibility of the list.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The list is sortable by year, or name, with just one click. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice...Really nice. I always wondered what that symbol on lists did but never was curious enough to actually research it.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if there are other noteworthy deaths you can think of that could be added as entries in the list, that were reported on by independent reliable secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sharron Angle Article

Hey, I feel ya - and I see you have a particular interest in Scientology, but that article is crap. I'm seriously surprised that nobody has dropped Xenu and e-Meters in there. I checked some of those citations and other politicians backed the same idea, but you don't see 2/3's of their pages devoted to this. Dougieb (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

actually it is reflective of the WP:RS that are discussing the election (from both sides) and isn't drawn from the opponents press release. While I know Sharron Angle has called for her supporters to whitewash her image, this article is an accurate dipiction of the events surrounding her terms in office.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

and for the record I have a particular interest in participatory democracy, philosophy, and new religious movements...Scientology happens to be one topic.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of deaths related to Scientology

BorgQueen (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sortname

Neat, huh? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a nifty tool...Coffeepusher (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock update

[9]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

didn't get far enough down to the "not turning the other cheek" edit (which is a signature York move) before I reverted. Thanks for this, as we already knew he is still out there.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusations in list of Sciontologist discussion page

Hi Coffeepusher, I noticed your remarks of yesterday on the Talk page for List of Scientologists. For the avoidance of doubt, could you please clarify whether you are accusing me of being a meat puppet or of engaging in a vendetta? If so, would you be kind enough to either justify or retract the accusations?

And, to take up a point from the RfC discussion on that page around 8th June, you accused me of making a direct personal attack on you. Just to clarify, I did not mean to make a personal attack on anyone, and I am sorry if you misinterpreted my remarks as such. I did not mention anyone by name and did not even know the identities of the editors who made the changes I was referring to. I thought I had explained the aspects I was objecting to - that associating individuals with Scientology was effectively defamatory unless they were happy to accept that association. For the record, I know very little about Scientology and have no particular opinion on the subject; but I am of course well aware of the public perception of the organisation. DaveApter (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave, While technically there is no meat puppetting proper going on since all the editors who commented on the page are well established (and meat puppets are new users who register with a common agenda), there is the sudden appearance of people new to the scientology section of wikipedia with a common train of thought regarding how this page should be handled (which is interesting since the complaints they are registering are much more applicable to other lists that are less well laid out, but the scientology page is the target) that appear to mirror comments on the wikipedia review with one exception, the wikipedia review page has a definite anti-curt agenda rather than a "this violates BLP" as the driving force of the discussion. reading the wikipedia review you can smell the torches and see the pitchforks. additionally the RFC closed over a week ago and the discussion had trickled off long before that, but new editors appeared and at the same time the wikipedia review page suddenly became active again (after several weeks of inactivity). so while I am sure not all editors are engaging in a vendetta, reading the wikipedia review alongside the discussion of the list of scientologists defiantly shows wikipedia editors in a poor light.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying those points. I can't speak for anyone else but my interest is merely that articles on Wikipedia are accurate, fair, balanced, respectful to living persons, and in accordance with the policies - especially the NPOV, UNDUE WEIGHT, and VERIFY ones. I'm not out to attack anyone, but I am committed to calling editors to account who abuse Wikpedia to further their own agendas (or who seem to me to be doing so). I have no personal acquaintance with Werner Erhard, but I know a number of people who have, and they all have the utmost respect for his integrity (and they are all people whose judgement I would have faith in). It seems to me that he has been treated unfairly by the media and on the internet, and that some are using Wikipedia to perpetuate an inaccurate image of the man. My personal interest (which I have declared on several occasions) is that I am a satisfied sometime customer of Landmark Education. (I did several of their courses a few years ago, found them beneficial, and don't have any plans for doing any more in the foreseeable future). I think Landmark has often been portrayed inaccurately and unfairly in the media and on the internet, and that there are some Wikpedia editors who attempt to exploit that to further an agenda of their own. It is for this reason that I keep a general eye on topics and personalities related to that organisation.

Regarding the Wikipedia Review thread - you will be aware (since I made no attempt to mask my identity there) that it was I who initiated that discussion. You will see that I did so at about the same time that I started commenting on this talk page, and that all I did was ask for comments on the developments here.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no communication with any other editor who has been active on this article or discussion page since I started commenting. The only participant in the WR thread that I have identified as being active here was already involved before the start of that discussion. DaveApter (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

suggesting foul play is disingenuous

Coffeepusher. I'm a bit perplexed by how to take your comments about Wikipedia Review in light of this. Cirt has himself admitted that his interest in the topic came from his own dealings with groups outside of Wikipedia that protest Scientology and people who have left Scientology (one of the restaurants founders has this connection, Cirt admitted). You share the POV Cirt has on all this? And you suggest that Cirt's opponents are voting at the AfD for reasons outside of good faith based on information from outside websites? Why would you even go there? Now, I think this is as irrelevant as what you brought up at the AfD, and that's why I'm writing to you here on your talk page instead of there. But seriously what gives with that?Griswaldo (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

that is interesting, except that you just showed that both Cirt and I edit Scientology topic pages. That is a big "well duh!?!" find you have there. how exactly does this perplex you about my comments on the wikipedia review? Please complete the enthymeme you have laid out for me, because it sounds a little threatening. what exactly do you propose this information suggests.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly nothing in the message was meant to be threatening. I clearly didn't articulate very well, but the point was exactly that stuff like this is irrelevant to the conversation. It's simply poisoning the well. My point was that I could look at your shared habits with Cirt and immediately concoct some ridiculous baloney that insinuates something about your motives too. Again poisoning the well, uncalled for and unproductive. This is exactly how I take your comment about the third party website at the AfD in relation to some of the delete votes. Anyway I certainly meant nothing threatening in that message. If you took it that way I'll gladly apologize.Griswaldo (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

you proposed an non sequitur fallacy in logic, I pointed to direct evidence of canvassing the two are completely unalike.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What canvassing? I took a look at that conversation and I see no canvassing, I saw a discussion of something going on at Wikipedia, but no suggestions or requests to vote in the AfD. These things are not completely unalike. Both insinuate motives and cast aspersions on editors based upon these insinuations. The one editor that joined the AfD that I also saw in the conversation at Wikipedia Review actually voted Keep at the AfD ... granted in an inappropriate and mocking manner, but this editor certainly did not, as you suggest, vote delete because they were canvassed to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

really? you realize that few people use their real names on WR right? oh and you don't have to participate to read the thread. so how do you explain the sudden influx of voters on the restaurant section?Coffeepusher (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

and again, what motives does your link provide? ZOMG!!!! THEY BOTH EDIT SCIENTOLOGY PAGES!!!!!!!! ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!! Your tinfoil hat is a little tight dude. "Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up"Coffeepusher (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize that. Who from Wikipedia Review has voted in the AfD then? How do you explain your own interest in this AfD? I've made mine clear on AN/I as well as the AfD in response to you. My point above was exactly that calling motives into question is the wrong way to go here. Isn't what people have wrongly done with Cirt regarding the creation of the entry in the first place? It has nothing to do with whether or not this content deserves space on Wikipedia. Regarding Scientology you seem to be the one making a big deal of this. I took a minute and tried to find the easiest way to cast the type of aspersions you're casting back at you to prove my point, but really I couldn't care less about it. I don't own a tin foil hat. Sorry to disappoint you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

reading this section, I am not sure if I am the one who is making a big deal of this... "Mr. couldn't care less" would probably not have posted on my page. And judging by the post's you placed on other peoples pages at the same time as this one lets me know you used more than a min. to figure something out, and you were probably pissed you couldn't find the kind of collaboration you were looking for. as for my own interest...well I think that since you have proven your point that you have to go batshit crazy to argue for any disingenuous actions on my behalf...Coffeepusher (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

See it as you wish. My point was that I don't care about the Scientology connection ... and those diffs don't show any such "caring" either, they show me caring about obvious on-Wiki Canvassing totally unrelated to Scientology. I see we are at a complete impasse here. Please understand that I did not bring anything up regarding you in the discussion, because once again I think all such insinuations are simply poisening the well and have no place in an AfD discussion. That's been the point all along. That also includes the WR comments you made. But we clearly don't agree. Be well.Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

NA History

Wondering why you object to the part of NA History involving the lawsuit filed against Grateful Dave and the Fellowship Intellectual Property Trust (FIPT) that was created as a result ?

There is no question the lawsuit happened. There is a full court record. Those of us that were members at the time remember it only too well. Grover N cherishes the "Cease and Desist" letter he was sent - certified - by WSO. The FIPT itself is embedded in the official NA web site.

Yes, it was a dark time for NA. But it happened. Should it not be included in the Wikipedia entry for Narcotics Anonymous ?

TJBeekman (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

if you find a reliable source which states that then we can talk about adding it to the page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research. Currently your edits come with extra commentary that you have added which would be fine if you were writing a news article or opinion piece, but that doesn't work here. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the changed text in question is not only common knowledge to all those that were actually around back when it happened, but easily and simply verifiable by looking at a fifth edition next to an earlier (2nd or 3rd or 3rd revised), the "fact" of the deletion of the one line and the deletion of the second half of the other line - well, that isn't really "commentary".

As a member that was involved at the time, I can also assure you that any comment stating that the changes were controversial, are also accurate. There was great controversy over the changes at the time, a controversy which continues to this day, with many members in the "25 Years Plus" clean time range continuing to print the earlier, fellowship approved version of the Basic Text.

The references to the "Fellowship Intellectual Property Trust" (FIPT) were not only factual, but cut straight from the "official" NA web site at www.na.org. Direct links were included. Verification was as simple as clicking on the link. Yet that section was also removed, and referred to as "vandalism". How on earth can a link to the official NA web site be possibly considered vandalism ?

And since the lawsuit filed by WSO was, in the eyes of many, many long time members of NA, the single most important piece of our history, why is there not an independent section on that lawsuit ? A history of NA without mention of that is much like a history of the US with no mention of the Revolutionary or Civil Wars. I have a document that recaps the lawsuit, one that was co-written by more than two dozen members of NA, all with more than 20 years clean at the time it was written. That lawsuit is also discussed in the book "The Story of the Basic Text". There is also a court record of the case. I have a document which is a written transcript of Judge Pollock's remarks during that trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJBeekman (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, so give us a reliable third party source as required for inclusion into wikipedia. This is an encyclopeida and has rules which I gave you access to with the welcome page, if you want to edit I expect you to read and follow the directions, they aren't suggestions and personal experience doesn't count for crap if it isn't followed by a reliable third party sourceCoffeepusher (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

hi tjbeekman, as per your repost of your latest comment here on my talk page. i completely agree with coffeepusher, your addition appears to be original research. personal accounts of events are not included in wikipedia unless they are supported by a third party reliable source. if you were to shorten your addition to a factual summary of the events (supported by inline citations), instead of a three paragraph personal narative, this might assuage some oppostion to your edit. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong. When I said you were uneducated,

I meant it as a description, not as an insult. Anyway, you don't have to worry, everything's under control: you might not be aware of your limitations, but I am so I guess it's my moral responsibility to step back and let you have it your way. See, I'm actually a busy guy, and I can't afford retro-nurturing your inferiority complex any further. I think we can leave it there, I basically made the point I wanted to make, so if you really wanted to make this a personal issue, then go ahead and relish on your triumph, little fella! Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

this comment is a classic.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of deaths related to Scientology for deletion

The article List of deaths related to Scientology is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of User:George Washington Hunt and User:Jann Scott

I removed the prod tags you placed on User:George Washington Hunt and User:Jann Scott, as prod cannot be used on pages in the user space. Hunt looks like the content barely squeaks by the G11 criteria and will have to be taken to MfD. You are of course welcome to try tagging it for G11 and leaving it to an admin to decide. Scott looks like he may qualify under G11 and I have tagged it accordingly. I noticed you did the same about 24 hours ago and redacted it because it is a userspace page. All the "G" speedy deletion criteria apply to pages in all namespaces, so it can be applied here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 06:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you, I tagged it as such. If the admin decides discussion is needed then I will follow other channels.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a Look at this reference found on the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous=

This is absurb.

the authors have no names, and the data is suspect and pov Arthur S; Tom E., Glenn C (11 October 2008). Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Recovery Outcome Rates: Contemporary Myth and Misinterpretation. Archived from the original on 2009-12-19. http://www.webcitation.org/5mA3r6hSn. Retrieved 2009-12-19Jayseer (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientologists. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Another Comment like this will result in an ANI Thread. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record the individual has been blocked as a Sock of shutterbug The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

there was nothing wrong with that comment, it occurred after the sock demonstrated he wasn't going to understand the quote and gave a facepalm. go ahead on the ANI thread.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Xenu - Hawaii

You undid a edit made in the above article about xenu with reference to Hawaii - you really ought to give a reason when you undo an edit so that we can know what basis this revision was made on - 122.150.200.116 (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I did, the edit summary was WP:SYNTH. This policy states you can not take two reliable sources and draw an original conclusion. In this case you can't take source X which states that Xenu used blady blahdy blah volcanoes such and such billion years ago, and then use source Z which states blady blahdy blah volcanoes are such and such old, and then put them together to say "so according to Z blady blahdy blah volcanoes were not even in existence when the Xenu legend occurred". You need to find a reliable source which uses research Z to analyze the Xenu legend, otherwise you are engaging in original research.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not too up-to-date with wiki shorthand, although "WP:SYNTH" is more a references to accepted rules, rather than an explanation of why you though the edit offended this rule.

However, I don't agree that this edit constitutes original research. This edit was exactly in line with the edit already in the article about the age of the Universe. i.e.:

"OT III also deals with Incident I, set four quadrillion[34] years ago (or roughly 300,000 times longer than the current scientifically accepted value for the age of the universe)."

Both relate to a scientifically accepted fact seemingly in contradiction with Scientogy doctrine.

However, I agree that this edit should be supported by reference to a reliable source which should not ne too difficult.

Thanks for answering my question 122.150.200.116 (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Coffeepusher/Archive 1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Way to Happiness SYNTH

I have a couple of questions, trying to understand synthesis. An accepted article says that TWTH is promoting relativism (let's call it that at the moment without further research for the most correct term). The book says that relativism is self defeating and quoted a well known dialogue with Socrates to illustrate that (see link p28 of book). I did not make any original conclusions that the sources didn't say.

At a different angle. Since TWTH emphasis relativism, is it natural to include further references to relativism? (the philosophy book). The book also commented on, and reiterate the wide spread view that relativism is self defeating.

Is the Wordpress blog of Dialogue Ireland a reliable source, which quoted what an archbishop said? (about relativism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwk (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, let me try and explain this. So the synthesis occurred when you stated that A) Hubbards philosophy promotes relativism, and then B)stated that relativism is wrong according to argument C) Plato and Aristotle. Plato never addressed the way to happiness. The best way I can describe Wikipedia to you is think about the articles as giant lit reviews. If the literature doesn't specifically mention the topic at hand or specifically make your argument chances are hight that it is original research (and P.s. just for fun I am going to mention that many smart people think that Plato was wrong in this case, all Plato's arguments rest upon a specific metaphysics involving the dissemination of truth to spirits by the gods ending in a hierarchy of class with philosophers on top). and I would read WP:RS to figure out if the blog is a reliable source.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Bob_craig.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bob_craig.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado

The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. Several users have asked us to reactivate WikiProject Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. Many articles about Colorado need to be updated and many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs some new featured articles.

Can you help us? Please see our list of some requested articles. If you would like to remain an active member of WikiProject Colorado, please leave me a message at User talk:Buaidh or e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Buaidh. If you cannot help right now, you can go to inactive status and then reactivate your status later. Thanks for any help you can provide. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Freemasons Revert...

Hi! When I first added Richard Tyson to List of Freemasons I never dreamt it would cause so much heartburn for so many people.

• First of all, thanks for marking your reversion of my edit as AGF. Not everyone is courteous enough to do that.
• I tried citing http://www.beashrinernow.com/en.aspx and including in the cite "third video from the left, 3:38 his name, Richard Tyson, appears on the screen and then at 3:49 he put the Shriner’s fez on his own head." MSJapan, the seemingly self-appointed guru of the list deleted the cite and simply said "Not Good Enough" (he's on my poop list.) I was then told by BlueBoar that videos are problematic as cites because of who produced them, where they are hosted, etc. The video in question was produced and hosted by Shriners International. I don't think they’d say Richard Tyson is a Shriner unless they were certain.
• So you don't like the cite http://www.abbashrine.org/images/Mags/janfeb11.pdf . Ok, fine. Is this one better? http://www.beashrinernow.com/en/About/Shriners/FamousShriners.aspx .
• You marking my edit as SYNTH does not make sense to me. I don't think its original synthesis to state "This cite proves this person is a Shriner and this cite says all Shiners must first be masons, therefore he is a mason." Look at it this way; Let's say there a wiki list entitled "People who were at least 35 years old in 1960." Then someone added John F. Kennedy to that list using a cite proving he was elected President of the U.S. in that year and also citing Article 2 of the US Constitution where the 35-year-old age requirement is spelled-out. Would you mark that edit SYNTH? Really?
• I would argue that this cite: http://www.beashrinernow.com/en/About/Shriners/FamousShriners.aspx shows Tyson as being a Shriner and this one: http://www.beashrinernow.com/en/Roadmap.aspx says "To become a Shriner you must first be a Master Mason." These two pages are on the same website. I therefore hereby argue that ONE source (www.beashrinernow.com) published by a RS, Shriners International, proves both that Richard Tyson is a Shriner and all Shriners are freemasons.
• Finally, see List of Freemasons#All Shriners are Masons.  Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so first some explanation...the reason I reverted was because a PDF pamphlet from a supposed Shriner event is not a WP:RS whatsoever and we are better off not adding those types of sources (anyone can make one and there is no way we can verify its authenticity). Secondly I kept the entry because while the other source is not a WP:RS either, it can be traced to the shrine and it is more authoritative than the pamphlet.

now I respectively disagree about the WP:SYNTH. by definition having source A say X is a shriner, and then having source B say that all shriners are masons, and then concluding that X is a mason is in fact synth by the very definition presented in the policy. I am not arguing that shriners are not masons, but it becomes synth when you plug it into an entry in the "T" section of the list...wouldn't it make more sense and not be synth by placing it in the lede somewhere?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I had to google 'lede'. My wikipedia vocabulary grows every day. YES! I agree completely that there could/should be a section in the lede of the article/list explaining that any member of the Shriners, Scottish Rite, York Rite, etc. are by definition freemasons. I'm willing to write and cite that section.

Re SYNTH, but doesn't my fifth point above fix the problem? One website, that is published by Shriner's International, that both shows Richard Tyson as a Shriner and says you must first be a freemason in order to be a shriner?

I just want to say that the PDF in question was the current issue of the newsletter that is published by the largest Shrine organization in Alabama, not a "PDF pamphlet from a supposed Shriner event".  Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, so with the WP:SYNTH I think that would fix it, but I will still argue that it should be in the lede. and while you are right that it came from one of the largest shrine organizations, it still is not a reliable source by wikipedia standards neither can that be verified based on the publication.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just added an Appendant and Concordant paragraph to the lede of the article. Please take a look at it. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Pal, I need you help. As I suspected the List of Freemasons trolls deleted my work almost as quickly as I posted it. Come look at this discussion and lend a hand. List of Freemasons#Appendant and Concordant Organizations in the LedeThanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting in dosage conversions is WP:SYNTH?

You reverted my edit on Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant:

"The USFDA requires a safe maximum one-time radiation exposure of 30 mSv for a subject in voluntary medical research, which would be reached after 1–10 hours in this environment." ((ref: Radiation: How much is considered safe for humans?, with cpm calculations based on estimates at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Conversion factor is 60 kcpm ≈ 1 mSv/hr, allowing for an error of as much as a factor of 10.))

claiming WP:SYNTH. This is a unit conversion that is properly sourced, and I think adds needed clarity. Otherwise, the previous conversion from cpm to Ci is SYNTH, because cpm does not convert to Ci without "synthesizing" estimates of the type of Geiger counter used and the coordination thereof. Either way, listing cpm is utterly useless without some reference point, which is exactly what I give, sourced properly. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your complaint. However WP:SYNTH is using two or more reliable sources to further a conclusion. In this case the source you used had no mention to the power plant. however you may notice that I placed the appropriate wikilinks in the article right after that which gave reference to the exact table which you stated "we may need to insert a table" avoiding synth yet respecting and furthering what you were trying to accomplish. I should have done it in one edit and I am sorry you felt like I slighted your contribution. in fact I was trying to find a good way to present it.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Both sources list facts. It's like using two textbooks in an article on an airplane: one to convert Mach number at 3km to Mach number at sea level, and the other to convert Mach number at sea level to mph. WP:SYNTH is about opinions. I am listing facts to clarify a citation of cpm which would be useless without this clarification. Furthermore, one should not be concerned about my re-listing of sources, as these give explicit unit conversions and are cited only to clarify where the actual conversion comes from (because, as I said, cpm conversions are far from consistent). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We may not agree on the synth thing but I added those charts back in a format more consistent with wikipedia style. The information was not lost, and we were able to avoid an extra paragraph that had nothing to do with the power plant.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what charts you're talking about. The entire point of that paragraph was to clarify units (counts per minute) that themselves have nothing to do with the power plant unless so clarified. Do you understand what I'm referring to? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To get past this impasse, I recommend the two of you get a consensus (that includes additional editors) at the article's talk page as to how to handle this issue. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Shutterbug

Noted. Thanks, I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Scn

Before this turns into an all-out p..sing contest (a raise, and a raise, and a raise ...), let's de-escalate matters just a little bit. :) My past and present interest in Scientology is actually limited to WP; I never got past page 8 of Dianetics (which I only bought because a Scientology scholar I know from de:WP told me I should try and read *some* of the primary literature). I'll admit that I prefer scholarly to journalistic sources, but that's only because I think the level of discourse is better in the former, and they're more suited to encyclopedic writing. Cheers, --JN466 15:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

glass houses and swards of justice.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of mentioning

Hello this is courtesy notice regarding the mention of your name in a WP:RFC/U. The RFC/U is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Thank you for your time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I also mentioned you on the talkpage here - thanks Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

noted, back to my wikibreak...real life and all that jazz.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Colorado

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Colorado, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lovecraft in Popular culture

Yes, that article is in fact intended to be used for just that. It's primary purpose is to reference the impact HP Lovecraft's mythology had on other aspects of media; Hence it's name "Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture". Look at the rest of the article. It is nothing but this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.46.137 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

the word Cthulhu makes not cthulhu mythos...it has to contribute or add to the mythos.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? So Cthulhu is not a Lovecraftian character/invention? It's purpose is not to add to the mythos. It is not titled "Lovecraft-Inspired fiction/media". It is "Lovecraft in Popular culture". IE - Lovecraft in external culture that is known publicly. Allow me to quote from the Chtulhu page here "Cthulhu[1] is a fictional character that first appeared in the short story "The Call of Cthulhu", published in the pulp magazine Weird Tales in 1928. The character was created by writer H. P. Lovecraft.". "Popular culture has multiple origins. A principal source is the set of industries that make a profit by inventing and promulgating cultural material. These include the popular music industry, film, television, radio, video game publishers, and book publishing. " (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Popular_culture) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.46.137 (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

well, see what the other editors have to say on the talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A welldeserved trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Wasbeer 14:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. Never abuse anti-vandalism tools in a content dispute again. You risk being blocked.

you changed an editors comment on a talk page to completely change the meaning of the argument. That is vandalism.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a lie. Give me a link to a diff where I have changed another editors comment, or apologize. Wasbeer 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

really??? a lie? what about this edit? Coffeepusher (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you redact that 'brain tumor' comment please, Coffeepusher? I think its over the line. Syrthiss (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about that, my poor sense of humor got away from me. I will delete the statementCoffeepusher (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Syrthiss (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I have listed you here. Wasbeer 15:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

this is probably the most amusing thing that has happened on wikipedia for me in quite a while. Bravo Wasbeer! you have a unique way of seeing the world and dealing with conflict.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasbeer sums it up on his(?) talk page: "The problem is that I understand what you are saying but you do not understand what I am saying." -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Truth. Well at least this madness is over with for now and we can look forward to a new madness in "David Miscavidge page land" at a later time...Coffeepusher (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am probably foolish to respond to this, but Wasbeer is still arguing his case--in thoroughly disingenuous terms, to put it politely-- on the talk page of Syrthiss. I posted a reply.... you might want to keep an eye on it. (If I misrepresented any detail of Wasbeer's edits or your intentions, please correct me--it's important that I have that right.) -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know...I did notice the first reply but was unaware that the comment had gained any traction. Currently both you and Syrthiss are accurately representing my understanding of the entire fiasco, so I don't think my input will be helpful (especially since Wasbeer and I have had a few heated exchanges). However I will keep an eye and weigh in if I am requested to do so, or if I feel something should be added. I am sure you are watching this page Wasbeer, along with everyone else. Feel free to comment, but play nice.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

as a humorous aside, in Texas I was taught the phrase "are you pissing on my foot and telling me it is raining?" Seems somehow apropos in this situation.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Henry P. H. Bromwell

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Communication Theory as a Field

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Communication Theory as a Field, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. The tables in this article appear to contain material copied from journal articles (http://docs.thinkfree.com/docs/view.php?dsn=854758 and http://www.pdfport.com/view/821812-pragmatism-in-the-field-of-communication-theory.html), and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Communication Theory as a Field and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Communication Theory as a Field, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Communication Theory as a Field with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Communication Theory as a Field. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Communication Theory as a Field saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Jojalozzo 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I am currently talking with Robert T. Craig to obtain the proper licences.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nestle

Hi, Coffeepusher. I haven't been paying much attention lately... I'm not sure I understand the reason for your complaint; did Nestle do something particularly egregious? I'm generally aligned with you in editorial matters, but if all you are saying is that Nestle is an admitted Scientologist, I can't agree to that as grounds for censure. Please fill me in. -- BTfromLA (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Question BT, I don't think that Nestle did anything particularly egregious rather I have become increasingly uncomfortable editing Scientology pages with a "single purpose account with an agenda" editing alongside. We have sanctions against this, and it is spelled out well in the Arbcom decision on Scientology pages. It is not that he is an admitted scientologist, I have no problems with that. It is that I feel he is pushing a scientology agenda into the pages. Now I mentioned it to you because you have had interaction with Nestle and if I am off base you can speak to their defense, and if I am correct you can account for that as well.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Private Sphere

Hi, I'm curious about your decision to reverse my edit of the private sphere page. You say that Papacharissi is 'not impactful in private sphere circles', and I don't know enough about the subject to question that, I just happen to be reading her book at the moment. If you have more knowledge of the subject would you be able to add anything else to the article? I'd like to learn more. Lawsonstu (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. It isn't that she doesn't have good stuff to say or that I am criticizing her in any way. it comes down to a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Right now we have a small stub of an article that references Habermas and that is about it. The literature itself is actually really big, but if we insert Papacharissi into the article at this time it will appear that she is a lot more impactful than she actually is. If the article gets expanded to include multiple perspectives then it may be good to add her, but at this time let's try and add some other authors first... also it is kinda a big jump to go from 17th century private sphere to the digital age with no conversation in between.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for your answer. Lawsonstu (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nestle again

Coffeepusher, I don't really know what the Wikipedia policies are about posting under multiple names, but you may be interested to check out the "Notable countries that don't grant..." section on the [Talk:Scientology] page. Nestle appears to have let slip that he is also posting as "SciFiLover." -- BTfromLA (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw that this morning. This is actually a very blatent violation of WP:SOCK. I read it and tried to assume good faith...perhaps they misstyped, perhaps they were responding to a different post or a different section...and I could not find any reasonable explanation other than they are using multiple accounts. I can go ahead and report this. I haven't as of yet because I was worried that it would appear that I have some personal vendetta against Nestle since I have already reported him on three separate occasions to administrator boards and I was less than happy at the reception at the last incident where I was accused of trying to purge Scientology from wikipedia. But if we both are seeing the same thing then I will report it shortly.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well. it sure looks like he's using two names, though I don't see that it has been a disruptive factor at this point. I left a note there asking Nestle to clarify what was going on... perhaps we should offer him a bit of time to respond before making an issue of it? I do understand your disappointment with the last administrative go-round. While I weighed in there because I didn't see grounds for censure, I certainly didn't think you deserved that "boomerang" treatment, and I tried to make that clear at the time. -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: This is purely speculative and certainly does not merit official mention at this point, but with some of the recent posts, it seems that Nestle's vocabulary and grammer have improved a bit, leading me to wonder whether there might be more than one user posting under that account. (For example, look at the "Corporation" entry on the CoS talk page.) Have you noticed that as well? -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick history of User:Shutterbug. Shutterbug is a disruptive, banned sockmaster who is actually not one single person. Shutterbug was a Scientology account which we believe the church of Scientology allowed multiple individuals to use mostly for vandalism. Many of the shutterbug socks were simply people posting disruptively with a official Scinetology agenda from COS computers. The COS finally realized that this type of editing was fruitless, because I have not seen anything like the disruption we had in the past, although many of the items Nestle and Scifilover are pushing for in discussion were areas specifically targeted by shutterbug.

thank you for the good faith. I agree that we should give him/her time to respond. While a sock investigation will not be fruitful due to the lack of blatant disruption at this point, it is a violation of the arbitration committee sanctions against Scientology pages. I will say that if A)they admit to the use of multiple accounts, B)voluntarily close one account, and C) Don't open any other WP:SPA then we won't need to go to Arbitration which will either result in banning Nestle, or having someone accusing me of an anti-scientology agenda again :p. Ill give them a few days to respond before I take official action.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you saw that Nestle says it was just a typo. You think this merits any further followup, or shall we just wait and watch? -- BTfromLA (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

At this time we don't have enough for either a WP:SPI or a WP:ARBCOM. But I am sure he is pissing on our feet and telling us it is raining. As long as there is no actual disruption or interaction between the two "users" I don't think there will be a problem, but if Nestle starts collaborating with sci...well I already have enough to prove some socking going on and am just waiting for the disruption.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Re

Sorry for the delay, you got me in the middle of cleaning up after a couple ban-evading sockpuppets (see Special:Log/delete) for Upan atom and Daer55). I've got to go to bed, but I'll see if I can administrate the SPI when I wake up (I've got to be at work at 7, so it'll be sometime early in the morning). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

no worries, I am just greatfull he got blocked. I do see the backlog, and am genuinely thankful for any administrator who does the messy cleanup that the SPI's require, it just get's frustrating when something is sooooo obvious and the backlog allows for the disruption to continue. Thank you for the block.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A new user has just popped up and restored the "Loyal Fascist" edit of David Miscavige. I reverted it, but somehow I doubt that's the last of this... -- BTfromLA (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I notified the last blocking editor and am putting together the formal WP:SPI right now.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

formal SPI not necessary, User has been blockedCoffeepusher (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill Hammons

Hi Coffeepusher, I have removed the PROD template from Bill Hammons, as it was subject to a deletion discussion already. I don't know how close the current version is to the previously deleted version, to determine if it is eligible for {{db-repost}}. If it is significantly different, it will have to go through the AfD process. Regards, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

no worries. To avoid the trouble I will just do the AFD.

The same goes for Unity Party of America, although it was kept as no consensus. If you do nominate UPA, you may wish to provide a link to Bill Hammons in the discussion, and visa versa.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was actually wondering why you didn't delete the Unity party prod as well. I will probably send it to AFD in a bit.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going through the list, saw something shiny, and looked at something else, that's why I didn't remove the other prod :D --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha! ok, you made me giggle out loud in a coffeeshop. I totally relate.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi - you erroneously reverted some edits by my bot that's just been recently approved (here and here). Please be careful! Thanks. SD5 02:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry about that, I will keep a better eye out in the future.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

STiki: A new version and a thank you!

Greetings coffeepusher. As the developer of the STiki anti-vandal tool, I would like to thank you for recent and non-trivial use of my software. Whether you just tried out the tool briefly or have been a long-term participant, I appreciate your efforts (as I am sure does the entire Wikipedia community)!

I write to inform you of a new version of the software (link goes to list of new features). This version addresses multiple long-term issues that I am happy to put behind us. Try it out! Provide some feedback!

The STiki project is also always seeking collaborators. In particular, we are seeking non-technical colleagues. Tasks like publicity, talk-page maintenance, advertisement, and barn-star distribution are a burden to technical development. If you are interested, write me at my talk page or STiki's talk page.

As STiki approaches two significant thresholds: (1) 100,000 revert actions and (2) 400 unique users -- I hope to have your support in continuing the efficient fight against unconstructive editing. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Heideggar and Nazism

Hi, you removed my edit on Heidegger and Nazism because of non neutrality, but I actually just translated some informations from the german and french pages. If I may, the present english page is absolutely not neutral. Thank you, filinthe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filinthe (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

you changed "Victor Farias, who had access to many documents" to "Victor Farias who claimed he had access to many documents", you also added the statement"Francois Fedier which clearly refuted Farias false allegations." Your edit clearly is being used to discredit Farias and support Fedier's book, not to offer a encyclopedic contribution.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agreed and changed it. But what about the student testimonies? They are available on the french and german wikipages. I could perhaps find testimonies against Heidegger, but it's hard. May be Anders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filinthe (talk • contribs) 13:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's bordering on original research and it doesn't matter what the other language wikipedia's do. It looks like you are trying to turn this into an original essay which exonerates Heidegger of his Nazi ties. Now I would be just as critical of someone who started quoting stuff from his Nietzsche lectures or from Being and Time and compared it to Nazi propaganda of the time. Read WP:SYNTH and the origonal research stuff and take it to the talk page and figure out what the community says. Several people have a problem with your edits and you are only going to get somewhere if you take it to the talk page and let us do this together.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of Flinthe's contributions are valuable. My problem is the kind of slanting of the entire article that is occurring. I've suggested on talk that Flinthe add a new section on criticism of the majority view regarding Heidegger's collaboration with the Nazis. Mfhiller (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I agree entirely. My biggest problem is the reliance upon primary sources which didn't actually feature inside the debate. I consider that entire student section WP:SYNTH unless they were referenced and analyzed by a third party source. Now I do think that these are sources coming from the other language wikipedia's, but the English wikipedia is known for its scrutiny while other wikipedias are more likely to become sources for original essays.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

denazification

Of course you're right. However, the denazification hearings (or so-called denazification hearings) were problematic for many different reasons. :) Mfhiller (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I defiantly agree, especially in the fact that they were a public face used for a private cover-up on real Nazi policies continued or ignored by the hearings... Thank you for understanding my edit, I think we are on the same page with this issue.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Care to take a pass at the Charles B. Towns article?

I've always gotten something out of your edits to recovery pages. You should take a pass at Charles B. Towns - it definitely needs attention... Hipgnostic (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorta on a wiki break right now, but I will look at it.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Drg55 "legal threat"

Hi

I have put a reply to the discussion on the administrative noticeboards which mentions you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_by_User:Drg55

I have also done another edit on OT VIII, hope thats ok with you now.

Drg55 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Phil

Thanks for your comments on Phil's talk page. He was a very, very good guy. I spent more than a few meals with him over nearly 20 years; Herhold's comments on him and his purported reclusiveness are completely clueless. Phil just had friends (both locally and globally) other than the people who lived on his street, but Herhold was not a good enough reporter to discover this, or an honest enough reporter to acknowledge it once it was pointed out. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad Phil had friends like you. The two of us were both editing the AA page at a time when the discussion had become so polarized that it more resembled a warzone than a wikipedia page. Phil jumped into the heat of it in some of his first edits, was treated with hostility, and stuck around figuring out the community and editing with what I consider a very even tone. I'm one of the few from that time that is still around, and I was sorry to hear that Phil's exit from the community wasn't due to a personal choice.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Baclofenuk

Baclofen

I am a semi retired criminal solicitor with a long standing interest in substance abuse and alcoholism both as a defence lawyer and prosecutor. I became involved in the use of Baclofen via an NHS website from which I was directed to Osea Clinic in England and then on to Dr. Jonathan Chick, the editor of the Oxford Journal of Alcohol and Alcoholism. I was looking for help in getting baclofen for someone close to me who suffered form an horrendous alcohol addiction and I feared for their life. I had seen Dr. Olivier Ameisen on television talking about his book, The End of My Addiction in which he recounts his own recovery from alcoholism using baclofen. I was able, with the help of Dr. Chick to get a prescription for a patient well before anyone I had heard of, back in 2009 but the protocols for prescribing were not understood due to lack of experience. The road was rough but it seemed to work. We were never given enough of the drug and decided not to get it over the internet. Eventually, we went to Dr. Mathis Heydtmann who is a senior gastroenterologist who is using this drug to help cirrhosis patient, many of whom were terminal. We became involved in a trial which he was conducting and involved high doses which actually had the effect of causing a condition of delirium from the complete cessation of drinking which results from taking the drug. After that process the drug worked and is now prescribed for this patient who is fully recovered from alcoholism. There are several internet sites, including Mywayout which support users of this drug and a look at the site will show that this drug has taken over the site from other drugs. Dr. Fred Levin prescribes baclofen in the US. Dr Renaud de Beaurepair and his colleagues in France and Switzerland have now published a prescribing guide for baclofen and it is being supported by the NIH in the US and now is being looked into more closely by NICE in England. There are a number of published papers on baclofen in addiction.

I started up a site because I was concerned that, while there were doctors setting up supportive organizations in France, there was nothing else to help alcoholics in the English speaking world and the information that people were posting on Mywayout was getting lost like so many needles in a haystack. I was eventually approached by a pharmacy which offered to pay a small fee to advertise on the site. The site is a non profit site and the fees received are about $100 in the three years the site has operated, which pays to keep the .com address current. I am not involved in this in any other way. My concern is with my own family and with the furtherance of understanding of this medication and the treatment of alcoholism and addiction.

I noticed that the wiki site does not mention baclofen although it does mention several other drugs such as Campral, topirimate and the like.

I personally know many people who are using baclofen and the press in France is full of stories about its use. It has been recommended for use by doctors in France by the alcohol association there prior to the results of a double blind trial.

I can provide a wealth of information about this treatment. Whether it is a "cure" or not and whether I have a conflict or not is really not the point. The article is deficient because it does not mention this drug which is proving far more effective than any other and is mentioned on other pages of Wiki.

I have never edited before. I know other people who have. I am not keen on getting involved in some sort of argument over whether or not I have a conflict and I don't understand how to edit. I cannot even find the button to click to allow me to edit a page. Nor do I want to argue with anyone about the efficacy of this drug. I simply wish to update the page so that it mentions in a perfectly factual way the present state of play with respect to the developing interst and tests of this medication.

Perhaps you could have a think about this and let me know what is best, in some way which does not involve me in some dispute over conflicts etc.

Thanks

Baclofenuk (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Edits of yours were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Return to David Hedlund. I did not mention you by name, and the diff is just two copyvio notifications you posted, but felt it appropriate to inform you.Novangelis (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I was thinking about filing a similar complaint. I have actually already read your complaint. I'll see how the conversation goes and if I think my input will be welcomed then I will be glad to offer it.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You can read a new respons from me at the ANI noticeboard. Thanks for the notification Coffeepusher! --David Hedlund (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your defense at the ANI noticeboard Coffeepusher. Everyone should have right to a defender, is that on some Wikipedia policy? I strongly recommend that you set one else and make a clear statment about it when one is invited for the ANI noticeboard. --David Hedlund (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

the policy is assume good faith, and while I could school the other members of the board why don't we start by applying it to them :). What you are unaware of is your editing habits are usually charicteristic of someone who is not willing to work with the community to improve the project, and unfortunately, as you saw, that can bring in a heap of questions on how to deal with these editors. I noticed that your edits were inconstant with edits by these people which caused me to move to your defense. I had also just seen another editor burn his last chance when it comes to copyright violations and he is permabanned, and I knew you were in much more serious stuff than you probably knew. I'm glad you are looking for help and I look forward to working with you in the future. Just do me a favor and prove us right by learning wikipedia's policies, working with not against other editors ESPECIALLY if there is a disagreement, and to work to improve wikipedia within wikipedia's policies. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I had no clue about that. Anyway, what I mean is that the ANI noticeboard always should have a DEFENDER in the same way that there are ADMINISTRATORS. But there are no such roles, right? --David Hedlund (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I also wonder why you undid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anxiolytic&oldid=540022396#Commonly_abused_drugs If unquoted citation was problem was the problem, why didn't you just put the text in quotes? Eg: "People typically drink alcohol to induce euphoria or reduce anxiety. The acute pharmacological rewarding and anxiolytic effects of alcohol can be measured with fMRI."
2. How do I use the REFLINKS bot for an article?
3. I want to import the list found at http://www.who.int/selection_medicines/committees/expert/19/applications/Fomepizole_4_2_AC_Ad.pdf page 10 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_epidemic_poisonings

Is that possible and how do I do that without copyright violation?

Most countries mentioned in the Methanol epidemic poisonings article are low epidemics in the PDF file. So what do you suggest? Show the recent mass outbreaks or the biggest outbreaks (eg 100+ deaths)? --David Hedlund (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so first off the reason the ANI doesn't have a "defender" is because it isn't a trial, it is a community investigation and a last resort. Every notification someone receives on their talk page is considered an attempt to correct problems we are having with editors. The warnings not only give information about what the problem is, but also link to the proper pages to give detailed information. In most cases they are placed in an escalating manner. So the first one starts off with "I see you made X edit, just so you know that edit was undone because of Y policy" next "please stop doing X because of Y" then finally "if you don't stop doing X you will be banned because of Y." Now some things, such as copyright violation, are so severe that they start with a severe warning because wikipedia can't afford to be a place where mass copyright infringement is going on. We assume that these warnings give the information required, and if an individual continues to cause problems then either A: they are not reading the material placed on their talk page, which shows that they either don't want to learn about the encyclopedia or they don't have the proper skill set to edit, or B: they ignore the information in which case they aren't going to be good members

once you hit ANI or any of the other administrator notice boards, it is up to the reporting editor to prove that that the editor who the complaint is about has been given ample opportunity to learn what is wrong and correct the problem. At that point the community checks to see if this is the case. Your personal talk page had more warnings than I have ever seen on an active account. It is through grace alone that you are still editing. Now here is the thing, the community doesn't need to hear from the person involved. By this point in time the question is "have they been given ample opportunity to correct the problem, and if so what further action can be taken to correct the problem." Now they are invited to participate, but I have seen people never respond to notifications and have the ANI rule in their favor. In your case an editor wanted to hear from you, so I notified you of that fact. Usually the initial notification is the only one given.

Now for your other questions:

1. Honestly I was more interested in clearing away copyright violations than I was in incorporating the new information. As I have already said, wikipedia can get in a lot of trouble if the site becomes a place where copyright infringement goes unchecked (see Seizure of Megaupload for perspective).
2. You don't, it is a Bot. Bots on wikipedia work behind the scenes and are always active. Now there is some way to create and program bots, but I have never looked that hard into it.
3. Lists and charts are very very tricky. I recreated an entire list for one page once (it took me about 3 hours), I had the original author helping me out with the page, and the list got deleted because the copyright holder was the journal that published the article. I could import the information, but the second I placed it on a chart it took the "form" of the original publication. So re-creating the chart is right out. You can use it for reference, but you can't recreate it.

hope this helps.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure it helped me out! Thank you for all good answers. Now, most countries mentioned in the Methanol epidemic poisonings article are low epidemics in the PDF file. What would YOU do? Show the recent mass outbreaks or the biggest outbreaks (eg 100+ deaths)? --David Hedlund (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, What is a good title for Methanol epidemic poisonings, please look through the history log, I have renamed it several times.

Hi Coffeepusher, I just wanted to say that I've moved forward and become a little bit better editor (please have a look at my history). I decided to clean up after myself long time ago so that is what I'm going to focus on right now which I will add in edit summary. If there is anything special I should keep in mind just tell me. Cheers!

Wikipedia was not...

...aimed at boring burocrats.--Kim for sure (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy Kim, I'm assuming that this puzzle was sparked by my reversion of your edits. Ill reply on your talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

substance abuse prevention

Thanks for catching the reinserted material. considering that this occurred immediately after my warning, I blocked the user as a promotional only account. If you see the same material reinserted by another editor, please let me know on my talk page--it will presumably be a sockpuppet.

I also removed two sections inserted a little while ago by another editor, which are similarly promotional. I see you have an interest in this general area, and whatever you can do to improve the article would be helpful. Possibly some of the material deleted might be usable, if properly sourced and abbreviated and rewritten to remove the probable copyvio. I would be reluctant to semi-protectthe article, but if more promotion is added, it may be necessary. Let me know if there are any related problems. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad I was able to help out. I saw the sections you deleted and was glad you decided to stick around to clean it up a bit. I'll keep a sharper eye on this page for promotional material and see if I can vamp it up a bit closer to standard.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Re

Erm, that was the version which you yourself mostly proposed. --Scientiom (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

please address the concerns on the talk page. That version was created with the understanding that you were trying to improve the encyclopedia, your recent edit made it clear that you were not interested in improving the encyclopedia or follow the rules but rather to push an extreme WP:POV.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That allegation doesn't hold water considering that the version that was posted was mostly what you proposed yourself, and I've already briefed you on WP:PSCI, WP:WEIGHT, WP:VALID, and WP:FRINGE. --Scientiom (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You were briefed on what was supposed to be in the lede, we both went over the policy that the lede can only contain information contained within the article, you had the exact same conversation on another page for the exact same reason, and then you went back to the ex gay movement page and inserted effectively the same edit that you and I had talked about when it didn't reference anything within the article. It's not an allegation.

I'm reposing this conversation on Talk:Ex-gay movement#Lede problems.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Philip gale scientology listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Philip gale scientology. Since you had some involvement with the Philip gale scientology redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Ngoesseringer Sock warning

I read your message. And I have no idea where you get off making such an accusation. I am not doing anything of the sort. I am connected to the subject of the article, but I am trying my best to correct any mistakes that were made. I wish all of you weren't acting as if you were ganging up. Btw, do you know the other editors? re they friends of yours?Ngoesseringer (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I do understand that this is really frustrating for you. Please understand that the reason actually "having" a wikipedia article is a sign that an artist has some notability is because of what you are going through right now. Wikipedia actually has an evaluative process that determines what is noteworthy, so if an artist has an article it is because the article has survived this process. So we are not "ganging up" on you and the article, it has just come to our attention that an article, written by the PR agent of an artist, has come to the encyclopedia and that its inclusion is questionable. You aren't the first PR agent we have encountered, every PR firm has at one time or another tried to create a wikipedia article about someone who isn't notable. This is what separates a wikipedia article from a myspace or facebook account.

secondly, the reason why I "get off making such an accusation" is because there are several accounts making really suspicious edits. I have seen many people use multiple accounts and there are some tell tale signs that you wouldn't have thought of when editing. For example this is not an edit that a first time account would make. It is actually written in your voice (check the sentence structure, word choice etc.. Now perhaps I am being a little too suspicious except there are many more examples of suspicious edits that started once you were informed that more people needed to be writing the article for it to avoid scrutiny. I am assuming good faith in that if you did use multiple accounts you were unaware of the policy, but now you know. We know they were at least meatpuppet accounts, possibly sock accounts because we have seen many many people try to sway consensus over the years and they all make the same types of mistakes in hiding their identity. I'm going to place a copy of this discussion on your page. Good luck on the AFD.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

so right now you aren't in any actual trouble, but if it appears that you are abusively using multiple accounts in an attempt to sway consensus we do have ways to check to see if accounts were used from the same set of computers. If you aren't doing anything then there is nothing to fear, if you are then all your access will be banned.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a full time job coffeepush, and I really don't have the time to do what you're talking about. You can spend your time in what ever way you wish, but I'm through wasting mine. What's left on the article are facts and and are backed up by sources, I understand that the afd deletion process takes a week so lets see it through. But I will no longer be involved in ANY way, period. Ngoesseringer (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

this edit

Please consider removing your recent edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lOUubkE8Sk

The Performance was broadcast LIVE to a US audience on NBC. I will contact admin on this issue because you are being ignorant. (the youTube video is not a citation, its just to ask you politely to recognize that you are WRONG) Ngoesseringer (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Ill bite. Please show me the citation that said that 23 million viewers saw the pre-game show. That is what that edit implies, but myself and another user seem to recall that pre-game shows are not typically broadcast. perhaps you can show us how this was the exception, otherwise the edit is not just misleading but frankly false. Glad you came back after your job.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

also just a quick FYI, since you seem to be appealing to various authority figures when you are upset, please remember wikipedia has a WP:NLT policy that it takes really seriously. You haven't made any legal threats, and I'm not accusing you of making legal threats, but once someone starts down the path of "I will contact (insert authority figure)" it is a small step over the line and I just want to make sure you know the line is there.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm most definitely not a PR rep. More importantly here's the live footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lOUubkE8Sk Just watch the footage, the NBC announcer saying his name, the response in the stadium, the fact that its an NBC national broadcast on Sunday night. Selmaflora294 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

that isn't a reliable source, and doesn't make your claim for national attention.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You clearly have an agenda dude, your blind and ignorant. Here's and even clearer picture: https://vimeo.com/56063290 (Full disclosure this is the subjects vimeo page, but you can't expect him not to want to share a performance like this! It's major thing!) Selmaflora294 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

seriously, you are looking hard but you can't find a SINGLE reliable source to back up your claim. that in of itself is significant.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Just do me a favor and watch this: (this was recorded from NBC and uploaded) I know that you're right, that its not applicable based on wiki rules, but please watch it. Just tell me that you can see its a live broadcast with no commercials. I know I represent this person, and you hate me for it, but this truly happened and I'm not exaggerating anything it truly did:

https://vimeo.com/56063290

Ngoesseringer (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't hate you, I'm just maintaining policies. You have read the talk page, you have read the comments, and you already know the policies of WP:SYNTH AND WP:OR. What you are showing me is a video. It doesn't specify if it was a CC, Local, National, recorded from the autotron, private footage, etc. so in truth it doesn't tell me what you want it to. This is why we need a single source that gives all the information in one sitting. I count 6 editors, across 3 pages who have all raised the exact same concern with this edit of yours. So please, if you want the edit to go into the page, give me one single source that says both that he sang the national anthem AND that the national anthem was broadcast on national television to an audience of X amount.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've got to say, after seeing you say to one very nice user "are you man enough to admit you are wrong", I certainly think less of you than I do of most people.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

aaaannd this one doesn't look to good either. Is this how you persuade people to work with you IRL?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

aaaaannnd you are blocked. I seem to remember you reassuring everyone that you weren't socking, that you had a real job and didn't have time to sock. (random insult about PR agents).Coffeepusher (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Helm

I looked into your statement about a total lack of WP:RS, and I must say I have to agree, after much searching. So I took it to AfD [10]. Qworty (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was hoping I was wrong and just couldn't find them.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's working

Every time I see your name around I make myself a coffee. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

HAHAHA always a pleasure to be of service.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Erica Andrews

You have clearly decided to engage in an edit war without civil discussion about sources.It is customary on Wikipedia to leave any content that you may desire to have additional sources by tagging the particular data point. I can see on your page that you frequently engage in edit wars with people. Stop it. I am not interested in engagement of an edit war with you. Lightspeedx (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia CLEARLY states here that while self-published sources are not the best sources, they can be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

Read the bullet point about there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity. The fact that Erica Andrews DID host a Thursday show named Thirsty Thursdays Trashy Trannies with Erica Andrews is a FACT. I have BEEN to that show as have thousands of people to the Heat and later the Pegasus club in San Antonio. This show is not some made up fictional claim.

   * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Given such, citing the MySpace article as well as the Montrose Star's event listing is a source and their authenticity is not in doubt given that THOUSANDS of people have been to the actual shows to see Erica Andrews in performance. You obviously need to read Wikipedia's rules about sources in this matter. The information about Erica Andrews show needs to be replaced back into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightspeedx (talk • contribs) 06:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

no one is saying that it didn't happen, but two editors feel that it doesn't belong in the article without second party sources. you are welcome to bring these points up on the talk page. I didn't feel the need to engage you on the talk page because I can see that all of these points have been brought up to you by the previous editorCoffeepusher (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No intention to fight with you further but it's obvious that the both of you did not realize that Wikipedia DOES allow for the usage of social media and Web sites as a source. You and the other editor immediately insisted that MySpace was not allowed without realizing that Wikipedia clearly spells out that it is an allowable source. Given that it is allowable, there is no need for a 2nd party source. You may say that the information isn't as strong as it were to be if from a 2nd party source. I agree with you and I would prefer to cite a 2nd party source. However, this does not mean that it isn't allowable and that is the key point here. The immediate deletion of the information by the other editor and you was based on that you insisted the MySpace was not a source to be used. We should not muddle the dispute here. The original dispute was that MySpace was not allowable. I proved to you that Wikipedia allows usage of social media and Web sites as long as they fall into the rules as noted by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves). The particular information on Erica Andrews should be returned and when and if further 2nd party sources can be found to greater substantiate the information, that would be great. But that does not mean it's false or should not be included as noted by Wikipedia's citation rules. Lightspeedx (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

have you struck through your personal attack yet? You see, trying to undercut my credibility on a talk page for personal gain is little low, especially when it was based on you seeing one single template and not understanding what it means. So unless you retract your attack on me personally I don't think you really want to collaborate and thus I don't feel any need to talk to you about anything else. That was a low attack. So have you struck through your comment?Coffeepusher (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have struck through my comments out of a polite gesture but do not appreciate you stating that I am doing this for personal gain. Disputes are resolved typically out of an amicable agreement between 2 people. You demanded that I performed a strike through and when I did not immediately do it, you demanded repeatedly and then accused me of undercutting your credibility. I will request that you strike through this comment of yours that I am doing this for personal gain as it is a personal attack on me and I take it as that. You have no idea what my motivations are as I have no idea what yours are. Therefore, please do not project your thoughts of me erroneously. I saw on your page and whether true or not are previous comments by other people who have stated past incidents of edit wars with you. Maybe others have blatantly lied or flamed you and if you do not want others to misunderstand when they are on your Talk page, then archive those old comments and note that any disputes with those other authors have been settled amicably with them. In the spirit of following point #6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot), I apologized to you but yet you still continued to write that I am undercutting you, insisted that I was attacking you, and you said I wasn't interested in collaborating, etc. I consider that very ungraceful action. I would hope that you can follow point #6 and apologize to me as you assumed the worst of me when you don't even know me or my intentions.

It is customary for Wikipedia authors to not immediately delete information on any page unless the information posted were blatantly a lie, blasphemous, fictional, vandalism, etc. In such cases, yes of course immediate deletion is justified since the information is so harmful. Typically if information is unsourced, authors tag the information and request for sources and when the author writes in a source, the tag is removed. Or in the case that the author can prove that Wikipedia allows for that particular type of source, then the dispute is over. Your dispute of the information I published was about the type of source (social media site such as MySpace and including a playbill such as the event page from the Montrose Star). You immediately deleted the information without much as even contacting me and discussed first. (see point #7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot) I could have replied and shared with you Wikipedia's citation rules governing the usage of social media sites. Just because the other author might not have completely known all of Wikipedia's many citation rules and deleted the information does not mean s/he was correct in their action or understanding. Also just because the other author disagrees with the type of sources allowed by Wikipedia does not make their understanding correct either. There are forums for disputes of such nature and it is not on the article itself as the issue is not about the article or content but type of sources allowed. Raise it in the correct context with the team responsible for making up the rules. Even if you did not want to contact me beforehand, you could have researched Wikipedia's own citation rules before immediate deletion of the content. If after you researched Wikipedia's rules and you disagree with usage of social media sites as a source, then raise it as an argument with Wikipedia's team but do not dispute the type of source on the article itself. I did not make up Wikipedia's source/citation rules. Others did. If you have concerns or disputes about types of sources, you should raise your concerns with the Wikipedia team as a holistic topic about type of sources. The information published by the Montrose Star is usable as it can be considered 2nd source. Had the information been a blatant lie or completely erroneous, the Montrose Star would not have published it. I realize that many people immediately assume that social media and regular Web sites are not allowed but fact is Wikipedia does allow it under certain conditions. The live performance information on Erica Andrews met these conditions particularly about that there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The information helped formed background data points to an important event that she participated in. As I have repeatedly said, I have no desire to engage you or anyone in an argument or edit war over information that Wikipedia's own rules state that the type of source can be used. I would rather focus my time and effort on researching for sources and information for that Andrews article and other articles. Wikipedia is a hobby and not an obligation or commitment. Not a paid assignment for any of us. Point #10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot) Lightspeedx (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Good. Now I am going to bed. See you tomorrow.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Fair enough, ill strike through. We can continue this conversation on the talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

News Limited is a clearly reliable and unbiased news source, in fact one of the most famous in the world.

.... despite the view of their founder and his dodgy operations in the UK. News Limited was simply reporting the fact, and many other reliable sources also have stated that Miscavige followed Holmes and Cruise on their Honeymoon, which caused friction between the couple. If you think I have been "arguementative", then EDIT what I said, instead of just deleting the whole thing carte-blanche when it was reported in MAAAANNNYYYY reliable news outlets, including "The Sun" in the UK and pretty much every other News LTD website and newspaper, and probably every other reliable news source you could possibly think of as well(as well as all the cheezy gossip magazines also). If you think I worded it incorrectly, then by all means CORRECT it. Just deleting stuff carte-blanche is why you are currently ending up in so many edit-wars you could easily have avoided by respecting the efforts of other editors. Colliric (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice I didn't revert back. I'm fine to discuss this with you if you like, but personally I already said everything that I felt needed to be said WP:WEIGHT (please read the edit summaries from now on before you post). I never said it wasn't a reliable source Colliric, I actually agree with the sourcing. And what edit wars are you referring to, or are you just trying to prod me like the guy above? This isn't a battlefield and prodding people is no bueno on wikipedia. Perhaps you could provide differences on these supposed edit wars you speak of cuz i'm calling bullshit. CheersCoffeepusher (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

ps, there is a discussion on both the david miscavidge page and the BLP noticeboard.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I will look at it. And here is a more contemporary 2006 source: http://www.crushable.com/2006/11/20/entertainment/tom-cruises-best-man-comes-on-honeymoon/ Not sure it should be refed because it looks a blog, etc, but clearly this did in fact occur. Colliric (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now looked into it, and I am satified that the discussion has been had on the talk page. It needs to be reconsidered at a later date, considering there is a wealth of reputable sources, and also having been published in the book by Lawrence Wright, so is the accusation that he auditioned his wife(at least from the "It was reported in the book "going clear" by Lawrence Wright, that Tom auditioned his wife with David's help" style) likewise valid to be put into the article. And the obvious "they denied it" defense to your edit, is clearly in this case, shaky at best and potentially invalid. Now if Katie denied it, you might have something, but the fact is they both also deny the Xenu doctrine, so their record isn't exactly perfect. Colliric (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, thanks for the reply at Talk:Homosexuality. You do realise that one of your userpage userboxes in the Books section is broken right? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

no problem, honestly haven't looked at those boxes in years so no, thanks for letting me know.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No problemo. Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanad Rashed

Simply tag with {{db-g4}} if an article is identical to one previously deleted at AfD. GiantSnowman 17:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you, I'll remember that in the future. It is already in AfD so I'll just let this one play out. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Erica Andrews article". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Erica Andrews". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 May 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nestle/Scifilover

Thanks for the update on this. Glad you pursued it. As you know, the revelation of duplicity comes as no surprise. -- BTfromLA (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Have a great day/evening/sleep depending on your timezone. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)