User talk:WeniWidiWiki/Archive1

Archiving Asatru

I think you did it correctly; you just copy-paste stuff to a subpage, and leave behind a link to it. It is just that you are very quick to archive, usually, we archive long after the page generates length warnings, at or above 50k, otherwise you'll just end up with a confusingly large number of archive pages. I merged your Archive2 into Archive1 now. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. The main reason I wanted to archive the discussion, is to head off hit & run anonymous editors. By making a clear and concise explanation of what the page encompasses, I was hoping that some of the silliness like rehashing heathensim vs. paganism, racists links, references to irrelevant subjects, etc. could be circumvented before it starts. -- HroptR 21:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Contact information?

I have some information that might be useful to you re: Talk:Ásatrú, but would rather send it via e-mail. If this is agreeable, you can find me at- heithinn_bokavorthur (at) northvegr (dot) org or heithinn.bokavorthur (at) gmail (dot) com. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello - You can contact me via the Wiki Emailer and I also emailed my addy to your gmail account. --HroptR 03:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Any suggestions on the reference side? Dan-O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omisson (talk • contribs)

I think an explanation of exactly *where* in the literary record certain practices and belief are derived from as a segue into their modern Theodish reconstructions would be helpful. For example the codified thews, arrungs, etc. You could cite Steve Pollington or Stephen Evans, Beowulf, etc. and create a literary works reference section with a small list of books particularly relevant to Theodish belief. If practices are not attested for, then some kind of explanation would be helpful as to why modern practices are not cognate with eldritch ones and why the entire belief systrem is relevant in the modern age. This seems to be lacking in many of the Germanic reconstructionist entries on Wikipedia: Yes, we know the beliefs are being reconstructed and a long list of groups and names are trotted out, but *why*? What do modern adherents derive from these beliefs, and how do they reconcile the disparity between a romanticized past and the modern world? With no context as to *why* the religion and cultural practices are being resurrected, they could easily be confused with re-enactors or the SCA (and often are). The importance of an emphasis on historical authenticity, and *why* it is so relevant as opposed to just making it up as one goes along. I know there are not a lot of Theodish books in print, but even citing back issues of Theod, Idunna or linking to websites with an extensive history is a better practice than waxing poetic and making sure every name gets their word fame at Wikipedia. ite chapters and page numbers in the books that are published, so the information can be verified by researchers. I guess what I think is lacking in the article, is some kind of reference point for the mundane reader. I realize a lot of the history is oral, but surely you can see why that has been a negative practice in the past. Documentation - no matter how sparse - is better than hearsay, rumour and revisionism. BTW, what happened to the website for the Rice? Did it move, or did it get taken down? -- HroptR 21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gamall-Stein is still up and running, though very rarely updated. The demise of the Winland Rice website is something that has made more than a few of us rather curious recently.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks for the welcome! == ~~BjornP

Me

Hi, I am an active Asatruer, and I asume you are as well active in one of the traditions. I am original from the Netherlands, and was active (and to a degree still am) in the Asatru community there. Nowadays, I reside in the USA, and I have gotten involved in the community here. --KimvdLinde 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Community" is such a disparate term - especially amongst Heathens - I just wondered. Nice to meet you! HroptR 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

On behalf of the Wiki community, WeniWidiWiki is hereby awarded the Wiki Wiffle Bat Award in recognition of your meritorious efforts to combat proliferation of irrational content, and in particular for your noble efforts to belay the blatant bias bedeviling the Anti-vaccinationists article. Show it with pride! Ombudsman 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Vaccinationists

I recommend caution with this page. This edit [[1]] lasted 3 hours 11 minutes before annihilation.

There are other hazards also. The Invisible Anon 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

You may want to look at this [Talk:Anti-vaccination]

The Invisible Anon 08:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Midgley - Time for a Block?

Thought you should take a look at this [[2]] which is referring to Dr Adrian Midgley's contributions here [[3]].

If you agree something should be done, perhaps you could contact User:Leifern, User:Pansophia, john and User:Ombudsman.

I will be similarly bringing this to the attention of others also.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively you may care to run your eye up the unregistered user 86.10.231.219's contribs[4] which started with a controversy, moved immediately to attacking me, and include almost but not quite completely nothing in the way of contributions to article space. I suspect him of being a troll from the rapid response columns of the BMJ, on subjects including anti-vacciantion, and a curious argument that science cannot prove anything while law can. A highlight I'd pick out is a response to an admin at [5]. It is almost flattering to be followed from the BMJ to WP by someone, but it isn't adding to an encyclopaedia. My impression is that Essjay is well-regarded in WP, so this[6] string of comments may also interest anyone considering whether he is actually a WP:DICK or a disruptive user - I'd vote both. CDN99's comment at [7] on his choice of fake username was apposite - it annoys people, successfully, and has been maintained. Midgley 19:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at [[8]] ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Odinist Fellowship

Thanks for your response re the OF. Please see my reply in the Odinist Fellowship discussion Hengest 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I did - looking forward to further info. WeniWidiWiki 15:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Motto

Hi, first of - you have got a very cool username. Said that, I would like to ask your permission to list your username on WP:MOTTO (not active at the moment, but I am hopeful to revive it). There is a similar motto in English (I came, I saw, I edited), but I think half-Latin is cooler. Also, it could be put down as "Weni, Widi, Wiki." Let me know what you think and happy editting! Renata 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure - go for it :D WeniWidiWiki 02:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I put ir down as Weni, Widi, Wiki. Thanks! Renata 03:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

New name

As far as I know, Weni Widi Wiki is the form in which Julius Caesar would have made his famous comment, the V's being pronounced as W (don't know about the hard C). Is that why you chose the name, or are you from Connemara, womiting wodka in the back of your Wolkswagon wan?--shtove 20:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct about the Classical Latin pronunciation, and my motives for choosing the name. I was actually surprised it wasn't in use (although someone has registered a domain with my user name, so who knows). WeniWidiWiki 21:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you're not a Gaelic speaker from Connemara? Using rough phonetics, I recall the pronunciation as, Weeni Weedi Weechi - wheech (to an English ear) robs the man of a crucial part of his dignity. Excellent Wiki-tag.--shtove 00:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

AFA

For the time being, I think you're probably right to take that section out (also, I am stupid for being unable to remember the word "folkish", which is definitely what I meant, before morphology failed me). In general I think it's good to have some information about a group's goals, but the debate between the two viewpoints can be covered elsewhere and perhaps by someone more knowledgeable than myself.

In the long term, I'd like to see the description of the folkish stance that you mentioned writing, as well as a look at the group's history, in the article. But even the last few edits have added such a lot to what was there this time yesterday, and I thank you for your help. --Cantara 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Killer - I'm glad you agreed with the edits. If you feel like dredging up any further information, it would of course be helpful. Another editor has made a list of some things that need to be expanded upon in the talk page. Nice meeting you! WeniWidiWiki 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

wikithanks

keep up the good work on the neopaganry articles. regards, dab (ᛏ) 22:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wotanism

Hi! I'm Asatru, but I don't know much about Wotanism. I just saw it redirected to David Lane as a person and not to the article's subsection. If a new article is needed and if it's according to the policies; why shouldn't we start a new one? The whole Asatru etc. things are getting quite complicated one Wikipedia IMO. Greetings, Levthanatos

References

Please don't remove reference listings from articles. They are there because someone used them as a source of information for the article and they should not be removed. If something is a online reference, it should NOT be moved to External links. That section is for links to ADDITIONAL information. References must remain cited. Thanks. -Adityanath 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, please note that references to other GFDL sources from which material was copied are REQUIRED by the GFDL. By removing the direct reference to the article, you are placing Wikipedia in violation of the GFDL with respect to that source. In general, references should NEVER be removed as you may be exposing other Wikipedians unfairly to claims of GFDL violation and plagiarism, when they actually properly documented their sources only to have you remove them. I refer specifically to your changes to the references section in Ordo Templi Orientis, which I have fixed. If you have removed references from any other articles, please go back and restore them -Adityanath 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you as well. I have read the Manual of Style. Perhaps you should specifically state what you are referring to in the manual. I usually use the standard as put forth in WP:CITE. I would also like you to point out which Direct References I removed. You'll note that the standard is to have inline citations or footnotes to clarify the references, because at the moment only the person who placed that content knows what uncited references (presumably you) are referring to. Which style are you adhering to here? Also, the reasons the URL Last Accessed dates were placed there, is because many of the links were non-functional when I came upon the entry.

I was not aware you owned the entry. If you are going to be so fanatically protective of this entry you are apparently stewarding, you need to at least review what I did before you bite my head off. I did nothing in bad faith, and there are several styles which are currently acceptable on wikipedia. Since nothing was inline or footnoted, I obviously assumed that the content was not sourced. Please footnote your Direct References between <ref> and </ref>, and I'll promise to never touch your entry again. WeniWidiWiki 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since nothing was inline or footnoted, I obviously assumed that the content was not sourced.

This is not a valid reason for removing references. Wikipedia policies have and will change over time. You'll note that one that you reference states that part of it was implemented in December of 2005. You can't expect material added before that time to adhere to it. In fact, because of the length of time articles have existed and continually changing policies, you can't assume much of anything.

The bulk of the article was sourced from Thelemapedia and cited. Thelemapedia is also GFDL so that is a valid and required reference. You removed that GFDL required reference. Infomation based on an article from the Free Encyclopedia of Thelema was also referenced in the article (and has an inline reference which you didn't notice). I don't own the article. I do own one of the referenced sites and have the right to enforce GFDL requirements with respect to sourced material if used on Wikipedia. Thanks for caring! (Please note the multiple uses of the word please in my original post. I was asking you to think about the implications of removing references and giving you reasons why, not jumping down your throat as you choose to interpret it). -Adityanath 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to gently point out that not all references refer to quoted text. References listed on Wikipedia may fall into at least 3 classes.

• Quoted text from books or other sites: must be cited in references.
• GFDL material from other GFDL sites. Sometimes the whole article originates on another site. GFDL requires a reference to the source article for any GFDL material integrated into the article. Both the references you deleted were of this sort.
• Research sources. Many Wikipedians digest a research source and then rewrite the subject matter in their own words. As they did not do the original research, their source must be cited. There is not necessarily any directly quoted or otherwise delineable section of the article to which this reference applies, and thus no inline references.

There are probably several other categories of references that I haven't thought of or described. Hope this helps. -Adityanath 01:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Obviously, the lack of a standard reference criteria has put us at cross-purposes. I still feel that it would be much more effective to use footnotes, but it is your call. I did not intentionally remove any references - again: footnotes would have clarified this. For example the blind link to Confessions, has no identifying information ISBN, etc., and no explanation as to what it is even linking to. (I had to go up the hierarchy to even discover what it was, because there isn't a title on the linked page.) Therefore, I (incorrectly) assumed the link to Confessions under references was incomplete or vague (hence hunting down a proper ISBN number). In many of the namespaces I have edited, the subject matter and other editors have required a higher burden of verifiability than what the OTO entry currently has. Ditto, with the dead links. You may want to proactively clean up the referencing before other problems arise as a result, but again, that is your call. WeniWidiWiki 04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Religious & mythological motifs

You should probably go back and mark the Ark of the Covenant, the True Cross and the Holy Grail with [[artifact (fantasy)|magical artifact]]. I primarily edit religious entries, and without getting into a protracted argument about it, there are adherents of the Finnish indigenous religion who would take just as much issue with your assertion as Jews or Christians would take with the aforementioned entries being labeled "fantasy". Sampo is a historically attested religious motif derived from the Kalevala, not an artifact from "role-playing games and fantasy literature" as portrayed in the inadequate link you are insisting upon.[9] --WeniWidiWiki 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I must confess that I made a mistake in not examining the two articles in question, Artifact (archaeology) and Artifact (fantasy), before reverting your edit to Sampo. I hadn't realized that the "fantasy" article has nothing to do with mythology and is completely inappropriate for all four of the articles mentioned. On the other hand, not one of these supposed artifacts has ever been proven to exist. I might be tempted to create a third article, Artifact (religious-mythological) (or something like that; it's hard to come up with a simple title that won't raise hackles), that would include legendary but undiscovered artifacts. There is still the matter that the archaeology version is supposed to be human-crafted, and Ilmarinen is an immortal, but I won't argue the point without a more specific article to point to. I apologize for my too-bold action. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. There definitely should be a category or something for such objects, as they are pretty much universal and the inherent symbolism is often integral to the religions from whence they derive. For example, the True Cross is obviously represented by the Crucifix and Mjolnir was historically used as a symbol of the indigenous Norse religion. If you create a new entry, let me know and I'll add to it. Thanks for not being territorial :D - many editors flip out if you question their edits. --WeniWidiWiki 05:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to be pretty hypocritical to flip out — I recently suggested to another user that editors are "responsible for whatever edits they make, and should be prepared to justify their actions should they be challenged". I try to avoid such egregious mistakes as not reviewing a disputed link (even one I didn't create). This was a disappointing but necessary reminder that I'm quite fallible. [sheepish grin] ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Archiving help?

Looks like everything is fine. If it isn't, I need some clarification. Jkelly 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

name

your name is sooooo cool

-Ilikefood

Theodism census

Not worth putting up on the talk page, I think, but I'm curious as to why you think Wikipedia "isn't the place for this".

I certainly don't have a problem with taking that section out of the Theodism page, 'cause I seem to have inadvertently trod on some politics and all I want to do is make the page more informative, but was just wondering why it was taken down, since the numbers come from publically posted web pages. I could add footnotes...

Because the content was unencyclopedic. Merely citing "publicly posted web pages" does not infer a basis in fact - especially since it appears only one faction is orchestrating and participating in the "census". WeniWidiWiki 21:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Odinism Nazism

Hi, your comments herE [10] PLEAS CAN YOU HELP ME AS i DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS - YOUR INPUT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. FK0071a 07:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC) -sorry for the caps.

What exactly are you asking about? WeniWidiWiki 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

rENAMING TH EPROJECT TO SOMETHING LIKE "Germanic Mysticism, Revivalism & It's Perceived Connection to Nazism". Thanks! FK0071a 15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea - maybe ask Dab for some input on the project. WeniWidiWiki 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mirabello

Ummm, I know him personally. Indeed, a few moments ago he was in the same library! Anyway, I am just helping to archive text. It is annoying to have dozens of people work on an article for months, and then watch it disappear!--Blackhood 22:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you should probably have him log in and edit his namespace if that his wish. Also, FYI: when you deleted my contribution, you deleted all documentation to the previous purging of his entries. I also think he's gotten a raw deal, but I think that what you are doing is rather pointless. You can create another page in your own namespace and just cut & paste the intact article and work on it until it can withstand scrutiny. You can also complain about the undocumented speedy deletion. -WeniWidiWiki 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Odin Brotherhood

Since you seem to be an Odinist, you may interested that the material has been saved at an alternative wiki site. You may view it http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Odin_Brotherhood

--Blackhood 22:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

German neopaganism

Why are you restoring unsuitable links? Frater Xyzzy 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for using popups instead of manually entering the reason. I will be discussing it on the talk page. - WeniWidiWiki 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning: removing templates without fixing issues is vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Germanic neopaganism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Frater Xyzzy 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that all you know how to do is be uncivil and tag articles rather than actually contribute "Frater". I was fully justified in removing said template because you were too lazy to complete the process. - WeniWidiWiki 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar!--Berig 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agent Provocateur?

Hmmm. Just curious. Why do you keep targeting pagan articles? I am not a racist Odinist like McVan, but his movement does exist so it should not be ignored by "editing."--Tsmollet 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hropt

If you are hropt, please blank that user page. It is filled with errors (your citations from the book are not citations at all). I would not object to the your mistakes if they stayed within wikipedia (studies show that one out of every "facts" in wikipedia is false), but GOOLGE dumps them into the universe. You see, a search of "Odin Brotherhood" on google pops up your page. So, please erase it. Thanks! --Tsmollet 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid much? Apparently, unlike you, I have real world experience and documentation in the subject matter. I own this book as well as the Odin Brotherhood. Ron McVan is inactive and is merely a blip on the screen of history compared to others. The Temple of Wotan and Wotansvolk are both defunct groups - I think their (brief) temporal history can best be preserved in their respective entries like Wotanism. Furthermore, McVan freely admits he plagiarized most of his content from the Book of Blotar. I have seen documentation with my own eyes affirming this. If there was enough meritorius and verifiable material, I would not assume the stance I am taking about it. Furthermore, the page you keep tampering with is a snapshot of the article as it existed when it was deleted, and not a starry-eyed advertisement or fankruft. I did not write it, I merely attempted to save the entry before it was deleted. I also did the same with Mark Mirabello. I'm sorry you don't feel the need to put forth genuine effort in this matter, but instead want to slander me or create conspiracies where none exist. - WeniWidiWiki 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you are right. I did come across too severely.

Regarding the McVan book, I just think wikis should be as comprehensive as possible. I also become frustrated when "pagans" fight each other. Reminds me how the catholics insisted on quartering the body of Zwingli and burning it on a pile of feces--even though he also was a Christian.

Regarding that entry on the hropt page, I am still puzzeled. Is there a reason you want to preserv it? I actually like the bottom part, and I have thought about uasing it elsewhere.... (not wikipedia)--Tsmollet 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating the purging of Ron McVan and the Temple of Wotan - but right now there is not enough material to warrant an entry. Ideally, they would both redirect to Wotanism - which needs reworking as well to encompass Weimar era use of the term (for which I have no reliable sources) as well as the variant promulgated by Lane & McVan. If down the road, the parent articles become strong enough to stand on their own merit, then and only then would expansion of the section be appropriate.

As far as "pagan unity", I can see you must be rather new to this. There isn't a common goal and therefore there can be no unity. Some neopagans are syncretic and eclectic and some are reconstructionist or traditionalist. Their goals and motives seldom intersect, and there are editors on wikipedia representing many streams of thought and pushing their own agendas. Articles and books with far more notoriety than any of these have been deleted by eager deletionists. In case you haven't noticed, it is mob rule at wikipedia. Merit and expertise count for nothing. A published expert on a subject holding a PhD holds just as much sway as a toothless crack-head with access to the internet at the library.

As for the preservation of the Odin Brotherhood snapshot - you'd have no way of knowing this, but Mr.Mirabello himself added the portion you are contesting. Look through the deletion discussions - it was used against him, resulting in the Mark Mirabello entry being deleted as well. I added the criticism section with a slightly different goal in mind: the Odin Brotherhood has been deleted 4+ times. Every time it is because zealous new editors come along and change the direction of the entry from Odin Brotherhood (Book) to Odin Brotherhood (Secret society). An entry on the book itself could stand on it's own merits. However, an entry on the Brotherhood itself cannot because Mirabello is the only source and it is thus unverifiable. Look through my edit history. Read through the previous deletion discussions. Get some context. Lurk a bit, and take note of the currents which are occuring. Don't just jump in the fray expecting everyone to conform to your superficial and immediate perceptions of events. Things are not always what they seem. - WeniWidiWiki 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I intially jumped in because of the way the Odinist Fellowship article was being handled. The whole thing seemed inappropriate....see my discussions on the talk page there. I have read the Odin Brotherhood debates. The article has been deleted TWICE--the first time while it was being written! I think your most valid point regards "mob rule." When wikipedia started, it was probably an exciting place--filled with pioneer solidarity. But it has indeed become mob rule....--Tsmollet 20:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Odin Brotherhood had been deleted twice by prod, which didn't require an AfD discussion. There was also a deletion review. I don't even know if records are kept for prod deletions. I am aware of a certain deletionist admin who seems to have a hard-on for Mr. Mirabello, and has instigated the purging both times. (Of which I can find absolutely no record of the last purging - proving that there is indeed a memory hole at wikipedia.) The OF thing did get ridiculous, and I'm not involved either way - people were definitely grinding axes, but the problem comes when both parties are pretty much telling the truth. This just isn't the place to argue over such petty BS. Man up and call one another on the phone or meet in person - but don't snipe each other on wikipedia. If you want to win deletion debates: work on the article in your own namespace. Make it rock solid. Cite as many sources as you can. Use logic and critical thinking rather than emotion and hyperbole. Stick to the letter of the law. I have brought several articles back from deletion and un-merged a few. It is possible - but being melodramatic and using sock puppets isn't going to accomplish anything. - WeniWidiWiki 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have no intention of personally restarting the article. I think the deletionist guy would simply "crash and burn it again." On the original Hropt article, however, I should not the following objection. The article reads"

The terminology and thematic content is similar to New Age and early Wiccan writings. The Anglicized term Odin and Odinist are very recent neologisms which are unattested for until recently, when they have been used by groups like the Odinist Fellowship and the Odinic Rite for their particular denomination of Germanic neopaganism.

Just to clarify: finding "neologisms" to expose frauds is a reliable technique (Lorenzo Valla used it to discredit the so-called Donation of Constantine), but it in NO WAY applies here. If Mirabello claimed to be publishing a text from the 16th century, the presence of "Odinist" would discredit the alleged text. But he states clearly in the introduction that HE wrote the book--and that he used HIS words to express THEIR beliefs. So the appearance of the term proves nothing--except that a twentieth-century man wrote the book he claimed he wrote!

Also, I can find nothing New Age or Wiccan in the text. Neobarbarian, yes!

Anyway, thanks for your time and insight....--Tsmollet 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam, not-so-wonderful spam

I caught your comment over on Kathryn NicDhàna's talk page and thought I'd give you a few other tidbits to think about. Because of my concern over what I perceive as an overwhelming blanket of linkspam on this matter, I have the majority of these pages with Starwood/Winterstar/ACE et al. links on my watchlist so I'm fairly familiar with these articles. When going through Rosencomet's user contributions, I find only five pages out of his approx. 850 total edits since August 2006 not connected to these links. Of course, not every edit included inserting these links; he did do other edits on these articles. But his edit universe remains very focused on the ACE/Starwood, et al. performers. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a specific group of pages you are particularly interested in; many Wikipedians have pages or groups of pages they keep an eye on. Not proprietary exactly, just interested in what happens on them. Since he used the phrase "as executive director of ACE", his conflict of interest seems blindingly obvious to me. This means he is either Jeff Rosenbaum ("Jeff Rosenbaum is the executive director and a founder of the Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE).") or possibly Joseph Rothenberg, who is co-director of ACE. My vote is mainly on Jeff Rosenbaum, mostly because, after Starwood Festival, that was the second article Rosencomet worked on (he started it actually). Take a look at his early edit history.

Sorry to rant on your talk page. My frustration with the mediation process is making me rather testy with the whole thing. I've put some of this into the Starwood mediation but people either don't agree that this is a very serious problem or are not actually following the links I put in. You're my only hope, Obi Wan. Wait, wrong speech, wrong sentiment, wrong person. Sorry, got lost in my head for a moment. I'm a little unsure whether this is something to stress in the mediation anyway. I want to but then it becomes a personality conflict rather than the spam and conflict of interest issues which I think are at the heart of the matter. I don't have a link for it but Rosencomet even asked once about how to protect "his" pages from being changed by other editors. He's even called other people's edits he disagrees with "vandalism" in his reverting edit summary. That says so much to me. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs to be brought up as a totally separate issue, since the futility of attempting to get a word in edge-wise is starting to irritate more than just myself at this point... I recall that another "notable wikipedian" got accused of writing his own auto-biography and promoting his own book, in a lot less abrasive manner than the aforementioned individual btw, and it went up for some kind of review and his auto-biography and promotional links were all deleted. So there is definitely a precedent set. You know anything about this process? I am speedily losing confidence in the mediation. - WeniWidiWiki 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know little about taking further steps. Since the mediation has been going on, I've been concerned that escalating it up the food chain would be considered a bad faith action against the mediation process. However, since the principle in this matter seems willing and able to engage in rather extensive and verbose dialectic, effectively burying other's replies and redirecting the conversation, I'm beginning to think such action is necessary. I'm investigating other options at the moment. I note the person hasn't made any edits since the 14th, essentially since the question of his identity and connection to ACE was asked repeatedly and firmly by several people. I'm wondering if he's decided to desist or leave entirely. I've considered a Request for Comment on Rosencomet but I wonder if it will be considered a personal attack. Then again, I feel his edit history speaks for itself. Loudly. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming at the very least we need to start an RfC on Rosencomet's conflict of interest and proceed from there. This seems to be a totally separate issue than the current mediation which apparently has become hopelessly bogged down debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I have not been involved with this issue as long as you and some of the other parties, and have intentionally not gotten involved in removing link-spam and gratuitous promotional materials, but I think that this needs to be addressed. - WeniWidiWiki 06:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the step of opening an RFAR on this situation. You can see it here. A copy of the form I used in my submission is here. A short essay on how to present a case for arbitration is here. I've invited BostonMA to add a second statement but I'm also asking you. I'm not asking everyone to do this, just the two of you. I don't think a request for arbitration needs massive supporting statements, just evidence that the arbitration is needed. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Arbitration

Thanks for your statement in the arbitration request. I agree that the conflict of interest is central to the issue. I apologized to CheNuevara for sort of blindsiding him on the mediation. The decision to submit the RFAR was a little sudden on my part but not impulsive by any means. Assuming ArbCom accepts the request, I think I'll be satisfied with the outcome. It probably won't be exactly what I want but I think/hope it will be fair and based in the policies. That's mostly what I want or I wouldn't have taken this step. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Rosenbaum

I have to dispute your claim of non-notability on this AfD. Number one, there are outside sources listed under references. In particular, he was one of the subjects of RE/Search magazine special edition on Modern Pagans: an Investigation of Contemporary Ritual (Re/Search) by V. Vale & John Sulak. This is a litmus test for notablity in the neopagan community. Most of the other interviewees have articles on Wikipedia. Notability is not an issue, regardless of what other issues there may be. This is not to belittle the problem of his posting the article himself, but if someone else had written it, there would be no question in my mind that it should be kept. Pagan typically avoid usual local newpaper and other media coverage, as it can lead to harassment in primarily Christian neighborhoods, especially if they have children in school. But RE/Search doesn't write articles on people they don't think are notable in some way. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to the AfD) I'd have to disagree. Modern Pagans is representative of "pop-paganism" and the commercialization and co-opting of neopaganism by profiteers and people with political agendas. Comparing Rosenbaum along side the lives and works of other interviews in the book like Isaac Bonewits, Ronald Hutton or Margot Adler I'd still have to conclude that he is not notable. He holds a BA and his claim to fame is being a venue promoter - as per his own autobiographical entry. - WeniWidiWiki 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have friends and acquaintances who were very involved in producing the Re/Search book and it can by no means be called any sort of "Litmus Test of notability". While I have enjoyed many Re/Search projects, this one has some flaws and errors in it. There were some staff disagreements about how the book was too focused on West Coast people. There were a handful of East Coast people lined up for interviews, literally waiting by the phone and for the photographers to arrive, when at the last minute Vale decided to go with what they had instead of expanding the scope. Ironically enough, the book also focused over-much on Starwood, and people who are not really known outside of that festival. For instance, a page of photographs actually taken at a number of different Pagan events over the years appeared in the book as being a photo-feature about Starwood. This was done without the knowledge or permission of the photographer, who had been told it would be a feature piece on her work as a photographer. Also, releases were not signed for the photos (I know, because I'm in one of them), and some of the photos were changed at the last minute without photographer permission or releases. I'd say the Re/Search book is a selection of interviews of the particular people Vale and John met at a few events, and they focused on the particular people that were most interesting to them - usually those with shared interests. While interesting for what it is, I never received the impression that the book was ever intended to be an all-encompassing or broad-based survey of Paganism. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism cleanup

Sigh. Thanks. Jkelly 06:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Formal Declarations

Thanks for the formal request to/for Rosencomet to withdraw per WP:COI. This and RfC are obvious steps to take. I feel a bit sheepish for the RFAR in this light but I still contend it might be a worthwhile endeavour. I think the amazing volume of ill-focused verbiage and attempts at misdirection has addled my pate. That, and the apparent blindness and deafness to points being made by numerous independent editors. Thanks again. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest questiion

Thanks for the warning. It's really touching to see how you look out for your friends. Now for the question:

Are you one of the owners of paganachd.com? Are you one of the authors of the CR FAQ? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 01:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Nice try though. - WeniWidiWiki 01:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't think you did, but wanted to tie up all the loose ends. Cheers! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Prior personal attack from Ekajati, for the record: [11] --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Hereby awarded to WeniWidiWiki, for hard work, attention to detail, and taking a stand against harassment on the Wiki. Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Clarification - Starwood Festival

Thank you for an actual attempt to improve the article.

"Several other communities" includes magical practitioners who are neither Neo-Pagan nor New Age, Paleo- and Meso-Pagans (to use Isaac Bonewits' terminology), free-thinkers & agnostics, the consciousness exploration/psychedelic/entheogenic movement, environmentalists (NOT strictly New Age by any means), conspiracy buffs, science fiction & fantasy fans, Society for Creative Anachronism members, multi-culturalists, naturists, those interested in Celtic spirituality & culture (even if they are not Pagan), Voudon, Santerian, Yoruban, Church of the SubGenius members, Discordians, non-mainstream and heretical non-Pagans (most mainstream Jews, Christians and Muslims are not interested in Starwood because of the nudity and the policy against proselytizing, but they are not unwelcome as they are at some events), the alternative sexuality community, the polyamory community, and people into healing paths not necessarily associated with either Neo-Paganism or the New Age. There may be others I've missed; this is off the top of my head.

"Consciousness-altering devices" includes technologies that are designed to induce altered states of consciousness or to allow one to control their own passage from one state to another. This includes bio-feedback equipment (when used for this purpose), lucid dreaming devices, sensory-isolation tanks (and other non-immersion devices, including more ancient techniques using the sweat lodge, witch's cradle, etc), subliminal and other trance-inducing recordings, films and instruments, and especially those devices often called "mind-machines". Mind-Machines like the Pulstar, NeuroPep, I.Q., and the classic Whole Brain Wave Synchro-Energizer use controlled sensory stimulation to induce specific brain-wave states on demand. (In a way, they are, in the words of Joseph Rothenberg, exactly the opposite of sensory isolation tanks.) Robert Anton Wilson was a major proponent of such technology, as Timothy Leary was of virtual reality.

Mind/body sciences includes techniques and systems that deal with the synchronization between and the study & utilization of the relationship between the body and the mind. (Obviously, there is some overlap between these studies and those which gave birth to the devices mentioned above.) This can include physical meditation techniques like sutras, ritual theatre, ecstatic dance & trance drumming, breathwork, Rolfing, the Feldenkrais method, Reiki, polarity, bio-feedback (when used to control so-called "involuntary metabolic functions"), faith healing, creative visualization, and many other techniques and systems, some of which are part of more complete diciplines such as Yoga, Tai Chi, Chi Gung, Ceremonial Magick, and Shamanism.

I tried to find blanket terms to include these studies, all a BIG part of ACE and Starwood, without including long explanatory text in the article. If you wish to expand on anything for clarity's sake, please feel free, but I think it would be a big mistake to assume that "New Age" covers it. Rosencomet 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Teutoburg forest

I'd like it very much if you'd discuss the matter at the battle of Teutoburg forest. Rex 10:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Festival & RasputinJSvengali

First of all, Happy New Year to you.

I have just left this note on User:CheNuevara's talk page:

I have just seen an action taken by User: RasputinJSvengali during this arbitration (and, as far as I know, an ongoing mediation) which not only rewrites the text of the article and deletes the entire "Featured Speakers" and "Featured Entertainers" sections, but adds "Satanists" and "the Illuminates_of_Thanateros" to the list of people attending. I am afraid that this has been done to bait me into a revert war during the arbitration. As an objective party who has offered to help with my efforts to rectify the problems caused by the disagreements between myself and other editors, I would like to ask you to reverse this action and request that User: RasputinJSvengali refrain from such actions. For several weeks I have only reduced the number of links and added 3rd party citations, all of which were requested by editors during the mediation, and have engaged in civil discussion on issues related to the article on the discussion page without actually doing the editing (except for one grammatical edit). Thank you. Rosencomet 17:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Decline of the Roman Empire

Hello WeniWidiWiki, you may be interested in the conversation taking place at Talk:Decline of the Roman Empire. Particularly such statements as: "Indeed calling them "germanic peoples" is, according to the most recent research, a continuation of nationalistic and racist 19th German historiography." :bloodofox: 08:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Troll Patrol

Thanks for your AIV work. The crazy dude is blocked now. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear WeniWidiWiki. Thanks for helping out with Runestone U 29. Anyone who takes the time to read the translation provided by the scholars via Rundata will see that it is a dramatic Norse family story handed down to posterity.--Berig 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - maybe you should design a "runic inscription" template or cat to clarify what the entries are, in case other unknowledgeable editors stumble across the entries. Do you have any usable photos? Excellent and very interesting subject. Thanks for bringing it to wikipedia.

PS: Shouldn't the word "Interpret!" be removed from the English & ON Translation? It doesn't say that on the inscription. - WeniWidiWiki 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it says Rað þu!, which means roughly "say what you think on this matter!". The translation is not too farfetched.--Berig 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, although I have always taken it to mean "advise me" since it is a common formulaic combination in the Eddas. The exclamation point made me think it was some code spit out by the interpreter. However I bow to the expertise of others. :-D - WeniWidiWiki 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am hardly an expert on Old Norse :-). I have the benefit of speaking a language where the derived form of ráða has not changed its meaning. The central meaning of Rað þu! is indeed "you advise!", but it is also "you decide!". The word ráða is very context dependent, and native speakers are used to understanding it differently depending on context. If a real core meaning can be derived from rað þu!, it is "say what you think on the matter, because I will take it seriously".--Berig 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

Concensus does not override policy

Please see Jossi's comment on the talk page. As an admin, he states that the self-published sources used in the article are not acceptable. Are you intending to start a revert war? Jefferson Anderson 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dab and Jkelly are also admins, and Dab has much more extensive experience editing Neopagan and Reconstructionist entries. discuss it on the talk page. - WeniWidiWiki 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Experience has nothing to do with it: the source is either self-published or it isn't. There isn't room for discussion other than to provide credentials for the authors: i.e pertinent academic degrees and publication in books and peer-reviewed journals. Jefferson Anderson 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

I realize that. I've opened a mediation request with the mediation cabal (yes, I've read WP:DR): Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. Jefferson Anderson 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note that I have discussed on the talk page. In fact, I'm the only one today who has posted to the talk page about the topic. So I repeat to YOU: please discuss on the talk page. You are the one who is not doing so. Jefferson Anderson 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request duly noted. These and the other articles you have stripped sources from today are advanced articles and the addition or removal of sources needs discussion. Quit being hysterical. Admins Jkelly and dab both commented at the RFC - your statement here is false. You are editing without consensus. - WeniWidiWiki 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Same to you :-) At least I posted on the talk page today, you haven't

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Jefferson Anderson 19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A Norse saga told on runestones

If you are interested in a dramatic Norse saga on two women in 11th century Sweden, there is something as unusual as a completely historic one told on a series of runestones: Ekerö Runestone, Färentuna Runestones, Snåttsta Runestones, Broby bro Runestones, Harg Runestones and Uppland Rune Inscriptions 101, 143 and 147. The story has a continuation in the famous Jarlabanke Runestones, but I have not written that article yet ;).--Berig 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - very interesting. Do you have any photos or images of these stones? I'd love to see them. - WeniWidiWiki 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Memory Hole

Do you know what a "memory hole" is? Please read Orwell....--146.85.127.143 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC) See Memory hole The operative word is "destroyed."

I saved that material from the chute. As it states, it was purged from several other places. We've had this discussion before. If you want to continue this discussion, log-in or email me. Editing my archived user namespace will just result in your IP being blocked and the page being locked from editing. - WeniWidiWiki 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, WeniWidiWiki! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. froth^{T C} 03:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Deserved

		The Original Barnstar
		For your diligence and dedication to the article on Ásatrú. Keep up the fine work... HammerHeadHuman 04:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Paddy

Why do you insist in putting silly pov into the article. The term is only used by the odd journalist, and you know what they are like. I have never heard the term used once here in Ireland, and the article does not reflect that truth. I have a dynamic IP address, so am not at all concerned about being blocked. 86.42.159.149 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR

Well, I looked that the edit history, and you clearly broke 3RR. I made a report here. I'd report the other guy too, but I assume from your accusations of sockpuppetry, etc., that you will take care of following the proper processes for filing reports of sockpuppetry and 3RR for whomever you think is involved. Jefferson Anderson 18:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting of vandalism and restoring the removal of large blocks of text and refs does not violate 3RR. Thanks for lookin' out though. - WeniWidiWiki 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not vandalism, in my opinion, but a simple content dispute. You labelled it as such (pov edits) in all but your last revert, although the change was the same. Jefferson Anderson 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be taken personally, but have you notice that when you do drive-by edits and primarily attack and remove other editors efforts rather than contribute to entries, that you don't really get a firm grasp on the issue at hand? Why not tweak references or edit articles to actually be more NPOV rather than just serial tag or delete things you disagree with? I'm being serious. This is the second or third time I've seen you do hit & run edits or give your opinion on situations of which you are not fully informed. You are a good editor - perhaps balance the negativity with some actual positive contributions and cooperation? - WeniWidiWiki 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I haven't edited the article at all. I read the deletion page, the talk page, and reviewed the edit history. Really, I don't think the page should exist as a simple dicdef should suffice. Thus I find edit warring over it to be simply silly. Jefferson Anderson 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about this article. But if you want to constrain it to those terms, I think discussion and not being emotive is much more productive than the wholesale removal of articles, material and refs. Again, I don't think you are fully aware of the situation. - WeniWidiWiki 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'd recommend reverting yourself to undo the WP:3RR violation. Your editing was both improving the article which was being damaged, and was very likely in reponse to sockpuppetry, but it is nevertheless possible for you to get blocked for the technical violation -- I wouldn't, but it is easy for me to imagine that someone would. Jkelly 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey JKelly - I don't understand how I could revert myself because another editor has since made numerous edits... Any advice? WeniWidiWiki 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just hit "Undo" on your fourth revert, or manually remove the same information that you reinstated, with an edit summary explaining why. I'm sure someone else will repair the article. Jkelly 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do an "undo"... I appreciate your advice, but I think it would probably be better for me to just take a block than ruin other sincere editors contributions. I acted in good faith by restoring huge swathes of text and references which were removed by an anonymous user with little to no explanation and no consensus on an article that is in AfD. It seems reverting the 10 edits by other editors after this occurred would be destructive to the article just to save my own hide. - WeniWidiWiki 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusiation

I think you are really out of order for accusing me of having a sockpuppet. I made reasonable edits on the article page. I hope you do not want ot drag this into an edit war! If you make an apologu I will consider not reporting you for this.--Vintagekits 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I disagree with the characterization of your edits, and the sudden appearance of the IP editor simultaneously looked very strange. If you like, I will strike through or remove my accusation on the talk page. I will retract my statement, but if you feel "reporting me" is in your best interest, you should most definitely do so.

As far as the Plastic Paddy entry, I think it would be better for all involved if drastic edits are explained on the talk page. I know you find the term offensive - it is. But try to remain neutral and unemotional. The main issue I have with these edits is the comments left in the diffs as well as the removal of large blocks of text with no specific reason being stated. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'd never even heard of the term except in music prior to seeing the AfD. - WeniWidiWiki 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unicode runes

using {{runic}}, how about this, ᚠ ᚢ ᚦ ᚬ ᚱ ᚴ ᚼ ᚾ ᛁ ᛅ ᛋ ᛏ ᛒ ᛘ ᛚ ᛦ? try installing either Code2001 or Junicode -- the template should enforce these fonts. If it works, we might consider suggesting it for inclusion in MediaWiki:Common.css to avoid naming the fonts in the templates itself (which is a hack). I think this is a MSIE issue specifically. If you have Code2000 installed, {{IPA}} might also work, ᚠ ᚢ ᚦ ᚬ ᚱ ᚴ ᚼ ᚾ ᛁ ᛅ ᛋ ᛏ ᛒ ᛘ ᛚ ᛦ. dab (𒁳) 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dab! Good to see you back. I installed Junicode and all the staves appear correctly. Did you actually use the {{runic}} code there to write those? Are you pulling the staves from character map? This issue is persistent across platforms and browsers - I checked the page under OSX, and the problem still exists in FF and Safari. However installation of junicode properly renders the staves even if it is set to UTF-8. - WeniWidiWiki 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

aha -- I'm not sure I understand -- are you saying the characters appear here:

ᚠ ᚢ ᚦ ᚬ ᚱ ᚴ ᚼ ᚾ ᛁ ᛅ ᛋ ᛏ ᛒ ᛘ ᛚ ᛦ

as well as here:

ᚠ ᚢ ᚦ ᚬ ᚱ ᚴ ᚼ ᚾ ᛁ ᛅ ᛋ ᛏ ᛒ ᛘ ᛚ ᛦ

and here:

ᚠ ᚢ ᚦ ᚬ ᚱ ᚴ ᚼ ᚾ ᛁ ᛅ ᛋ ᛏ ᛒ ᛘ ᛚ ᛦ

after you install Junicode? There is not really a problem, then. It stands to reason you need a font featuring the runic range if you want to see runic characters, doesn't it. I thought the problem was that in some cases you couldn't see the characters even after installing such a font? dab (𒁳) 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I had (several) runic fonts installed and could not see the staves. Correct. Upon installing junicode both the {{runic}} and the other staves appear properly. I think if we make a note on all of the runic articles that states If characters are not rendering properly on this page, please install the Junicode font that should probably suffice. (However, I've only tested it on IE7, FF2 and Safari - I am not certain about other browsers.) Sorry for the confusion. - WeniWidiWiki 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on an XP box with Junicode installed right now, and I can see the characters when using {{runic}}, but not otherwise. It might be wise to use that template always. Note {{RunicChars}} intended as a variant of {{SpecialChars}} customized for runes. regards, dab (𒁳) 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for sorting this out. Do you have a note you want put on the runic entries? - WeniWidiWiki 21:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no great friend of these warning templates, I do think they are patronizing: maybe the reader doesn't care about jumping to install fonts just so that some blocks render properly; I just created {{RunicChars}} to replace existing {{SpecialChars}} ones with a more specific one. But yes, I do suggest using {{runic}} every time runic Unicode characters are used, sort of analogous to {{IPA}}. dab (𒁳) 08:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about dropping the box and just making it a line of text? Relatively unobtrusive as contrasted to the way it appears with giant question marks or squares when rendered improperly :-D I don't think the average AOL user knows why things don't appear properly on their "intarnet screen" and just attribute it to wikipedia or careless editors. - WeniWidiWiki 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits sockpuppet

Hi, Vintagekits is removing the sockpuppet label from his user page, even though it says:

"If an account has been shown to be a sock puppet used for policy violations, then it may be identified as such, by adding SockpuppetProven to the user page and sockblock to the talk page of the sock puppet account." Note that SockpuppetProven and sockblock should have double "{" marks around them, but I can't add them to your page as it blocks you! (As I just found out! Sorry!).

Clearly this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits) is proof. Yet because I tried to revert negative content he removed from his talk page, he has "banned me" from his pages (I have reported him for reverting this material). I don't think this is legitimate, but the case has been reported, so should get some feedback. It is my understanding that any user can place the tag. He has nor eason to delete your edits, so could you add the label to his talk page? This informs users of his previous actions in case he tries something like this again (I understand you have your suspisions). He can't expect to get away with this kind of thing. Logoistic 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably should grab the attention of an admin or post about it on WP:ANI. "The lady doth protest too much methinks." Also look through my contribs for today. - WeniWidiWiki 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, ok. Have posted a message at WP:ANI. Logoistic

Puppetmaster tag

Saw your note about the puppetmaster tag on Logoistic's talk page. You are not correct about the tag's usage. Please see this archived AN/I discussion about the puppetmaster tag. Jefferson Anderson 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that. All of the socks in that case were tagged and blocked I believe. Also, I don't think in that instance they where making policy, but dealing with it on a case-by-case basis. If the policy had been changed by this precedent, I think an admin would at least update the policy page. The talk page for WP:SOCK is pretty clear about it, as is the official policy on reporting a suspected sock. Note the absence of the word "admin". Evidently we have some arbitrary policies going on here. IMO, *all* multiple acounts should be prohibited and edits from IP's should be severely curtailed. - WeniWidiWiki 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering WeniWidiWiki , why have you changed your name from HroptR to WeniWidiWiki. I see you were into the pagan pages like some of the other editors on the pp page. BTW, what country are you from? Are you an Irish Wikipedian, or a Scottish Wikipedian. I'm just interested to know. 86.42.159.149 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I don't like to give out information to anonymous people on the internet. Seriously, why don't you edit with an account? - WeniWidiWiki 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case: Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

I am presently contacting all parties to confirm voluntary participating in the MedCab Case. If you wish to participate in this voluntary, informal mediation please return to the mediation page, edit the discussion section, state that you wish to proceed with my mediation and sign your name. Alan.ca 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

What's it going to take to get some sources to support the position that mainstream medieval historians use the term barbarian out of "laziness"? At some point, if you can't provide a source, there is no reason for the POV tag. There is no reason for a RfC if you can't even provide a single source. Without a source, it is not even a question of debate, the Wikipedia policy on WP:OR and WP:RS is very clear. -- Stbalbach 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with falling back on the fallacious Appeal to tradition. A conclusion should be able to be drawn solely based on empirical common sense that referring to "outside" groups with a pejorative is inherently POV. - WeniWidiWiki 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started an RfC on the usage of the term "barbarian" at wikipedia HERE. - WeniWidiWiki 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood

I'm working away on a difficult prior case. This will have to wait its turn. Fred Bauder 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I assumed as much. Thanks for letting me know. - WeniWidiWiki 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Norse paganism

I thought I tagged it with the Religion banner. Sorry for the mistake. Badbilltucker 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaving Neopaganism WikiProject

I'm sorry to see that you have withdrawn your participation in the Neopaganism WikiProject. I think that the project is a very valuable one that works to provide substantive information on a number of subjects which would not otherwise receive the attention that they are due. I hope that you will remain an active contributor to wikipedia, and even the articles of the Neopaganism project. Should you have any specific concerns regarding the project, or the conduct of any editors, please feel free to let me know. Badbilltucker 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I will continue to contribute. I just feel that there is a general lack of direction and a total lack of participation & dialogue with the project which is probably more indicative of the neopagan milieu in general. "The door is too wide" as they say, and the umbrella term is too all-encompassing for my tastes. I have no ill will or anything, I just felt membership in the project was redundant. - WeniWidiWiki 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Working on Neopaganism

I'm ready to do some work on the article, but don't want to run into edit conflicts. If you could drop me a message letting me know when you're ready for a break, I'd appreciate it :-)

Also, do you think we should have some sort of RfC on whether to use "Neo-Pagan" or "Neopagan"? We need to standardize it. Now I'm leaning towards Neo-Pagan, as that's the form used by Adler. When we decide, we could have someone with AWB go through and fix them without too much trouble, but I'm reluctant to do that global a change without broader consensus. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I could care less either way - but yeah, we should probably have a time sensitive RfC on usage - I don't want us to have to wait around twiddling our thumbs waiting for consensus for another year. You might want to look at the archived discussions at WikiProject Neopaganism for past discussions pertinent to the Neopaganism entry. Go ahead and start editing - I'll take a break. :-D - WeniWidiWiki 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Paddy

Strange indeed. I left a WP:3RR warning for the anon who is removing the category from the article. Incidentally, I'd be really surprised if Plastic Leprechaun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had anything to do with User:999, but it is clearly an account created by an experienced user to harass. Jkelly 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll see, I guess. It could be a few different people. The coincidence of User:999 being blocked for harassing Mattisse and then Plastic Leprechaun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making out of context references to Mattisse didn't set off any bells & whistles? Thanks for your help. - WeniWidiWiki 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

With all the bad blood and the sockpuppetry around the Starwood imbroglio, it's probably a mistake to guess at all, but, nevertheless, I'd bet half an hour referencing Neopaganism articles that the account has probably been created by someone else. Jkelly 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my jumping in :-) My first thought was that User:Plastic Leprechaun was our edit-warring IP editor. But I see no reason for that user to even know about Matisse, let alone see a reason to harass her. Another parallel is that Jefferson Anderson/Frater Xyzzy used the Jefferson Anderson user page to attack Matisse in a very similar way, out of the blue creating first the "rude editors" list and then the "I am not a sockpuppet of Matisse" userbox. Hmmm... ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well with 999 all of a sudden professing knowledge of MAC addresses and proxies, it could appear to be anyone. Better to just document it since there seems to be an epidemic of this crap lately. - WeniWidiWiki 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Speak of the devil, someone modified the request for checkuser from an open-proxy. Jkelly, do you have any idea why this IP 218.102.23.117 (which is marked as an open-proxy in the history) has been unblocked? - WeniWidiWiki 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP is owned by Netvigator out of Hong Kong, and is an allocated portable address. You'll have to ask User:Sasquatch why he or she thought it was an open proxy, changed his or her mind about, and then blocked anyway. Jkelly 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I only just saw the request to semiprotect the CU page, which I assume is now unnecessary. Jkelly 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there's lots of possibilities. At least three people have been blocked recently... and that's only if all the sockpuppet identifications are true. Could be that seven people have been blocked. And y'know, it could be Mattisse... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.124.164.11 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Starwood arbitration update

The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [12] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as the sock /meat puppetry at the Jeff Rosenbaum /Thelemapedia and Plastic Paddy AfD's aren't swept under the rug, I think this is probably a very expedient measure. - WeniWidiWiki 02:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Any sockpuppetry by Ekajat, Hanuman and Mattisse will be dealt with in this case, I expect. Conduct by Jefferson and Frater will have to be addressed separately, either by RFC or a new RFAR application. At the present time, Frater is indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet account. Thatcher131 13:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The message on your userpage

I cannot say I am that impressed with message 2 on your userpage - it seems to go against the spirit of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and also the honking big "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" message we have on the frontpage rather than the "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit if they are not too lazy to get an account". --Fredrick day 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I support Fredrick's comment. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well last I checked, editors were still permitted to hold personal opinions and edit their userpages as they see fit. Thanks for sharing your opinions. Myself and many others who are bogged down reverting and warning the constant vandalism of wikipedia by IP editors do not agree. - WeniWidiWiki 01:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am actually against IP editors myself but it's not policy at the moment, so I work within policy. If you feel that strongly you should try and get it changed, I'd certainly support such a move - I cannot however support the message that is on your userpage. --Fredrick day 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the statement. One of the ways to work towards changing the policy is for users to express their opinions and userpages are one of the appropriate places for doing this. I'd encourage expanding it into an essay that could then be posted on a subpage so those of us who agree can easily link to it. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So far, four people have stated that the message is innapropriate. Why do you want it so much? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Because censorship of opinions you disagree with is totalitarian and despicable. Only a very new or uninformed editor would think my comments or opinions are unilateral. This is an ongoing debate, and I am fully within my right to express my opinion about the matter, just as any user of a controversial userbox is. - WeniWidiWiki 06:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could modify the words to be less biting? I'm not out to censor your opinion, just to prevent you from being downright rude. You are aware that IP's actually do, most of our actually writing. There is research on it somewhere, but I forget. I'll try and look it up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Trust me I'm very aware of the debate. I also am aware that 99% of vandals are IP editors. This is not a policy page it is a userpage. Some people seem to have very thin skins. - WeniWidiWiki 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have removed the message and protected your user page because it is definitely violating Wikipedia policies. There is no censorship here, but upholding policies such as WP:NOT, WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and several other policies and guidelines. WP:USER is also an issue here, as it does say you can put content relating to Wikipedia, it certainly does not state that you should state "Wikipedia should be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so long as they sign up for an account." Wikipedia has several long-standing editors who have never registered for an account, and they would certainly find your statement offensive. What Theresa, Yuser, and myself have done is not vandalism nor censorship, but removing a statement that is against the idea of this project that you are free to feel, but it is offensive to state.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that your actions are unwarranted. Advocating the revision of policies on my user page and expressing my personal opinions are not harming any new users or wikipedia as a whole. I am free to disagree about a policy, but not voice my opinion about it? Justify your actions however you like, you are engaging in censorship and abusing your authority to squelch dissenting opinion. - WeniWidiWiki 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the objection was not with the opinion, but with the method of expression? Certainly, your opinion is not unique; I also do not think that it is a good idea that Wikipedia accepts IP editors. However, as it stands Wikipedia does accept totally IP editors; they are accepted as part of the editing community; and the userpage text in question deliberately insults what is considered a valuable and intrinsic part of the Wikipedia project. There's a difference between contesting a policy and insulting people, and those who took this action believe you fell on the wrong side of the line there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have recently been harassed by someone using a Tor open-proxy and have reverted countless pages of vandalism and insertions of spam by IP editors. I also think it is disingenuous to state Wikipedia welcomes IP editors with open arms - the fact that they cannot create new articles, upload images, etc. seems to denote them to second-class editors anyway. What specifically is objectionable - and actionable - in the passage that has been removed? I don't believe I've ever interacted with you before, but thanks for attempting to discuss the issue rather than immediately bludgeoning me into compliance. - WeniWidiWiki 08:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also reverted countless such pages (as has, I'd venture, everyone involved in this episode), and I've blocked lots of open proxies. You're right about the second-class editor status; it's a regrettable reaction to the problems you describe. If you are too lazy or incompetent to take 30 seconds to create an account, you are probably too lazy to contribute anything worthwhile except spam or vandalism is, I would guess, considered an attack upon every such editor; do you think it not so? A personal attack doesn't become less of one because many people are attacked rather than an individual. You're at work? I think it is the solemn duty of all Wikipedians to inform employers that their employees are milking the clock and wasting valuable company time. Log in and I won't know where you work might be construed by more sensitive readers as a not very lightly veiled threat. What is incisive sarcasm to one person might be a really nasty insult to another, and I think that's what's happening here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't translate very well in this medium, but I guess I did not realize how thin-skinned many people are. Perhaps it is cultural. Nothing I wrote was meant as an attack. AGF and all, my intention was to goad IP editors into editing with an account, as well as voicing my displeasure at what I view as unrealistic and Utopian policies, that *will* have to be overhauled sooner or later for the project to succeed rather than go down in flames like Usenet. - WeniWidiWiki 08:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm translates fine, but some people don't get as far as doing the translation; they feel the hurt first. Online can be a nasty place; there are plenty of sites where people can express stuff as strongly as they want. We're just kinda strict about WP:CIVIL here. And goading isn't nice. It's also never in the least bit effective. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not for wheel-warring, but I think this protection is entirely unwarranted. If people cannot express their opinion on aspects of the project on their userpage, where are we going? Www expresses a view wrt "anonymous" editing with which I do not necessarily agree, but he doesn't state anything that hasn't been repeated many times in similar discussions all over WP, and he does so smartly, if somewhat outspoken, but without attacking anyone in particular. It would be different if he harassed anonymous editors on their own talkpages, but to clamp down on this as policy violation is just surreal. I have blanked userpages for blatant hate speech or obscenity, but this censoring of a bona fide opinion is going too far. Denouncing the problem of crap added by anon IPs isn't in any way treason to the fundamental idea of the wiki. The particulars of anon editing are perfectly open to debate. Jimbo himself recognized this as he blocked anons from creating new articles. We have to face the realities. It would be a mistake to disallow anon editing altogether. A mistake, since they are still useful to the project, not a fundamental crime in and of itself. Further restricting the possibilities of anons (no article creation, semi-protection... there are other possibilities) is perfectly open to debate, and should be implemented as soon as it will benefit the project. Per WP:NOT itself, WP isn't for the anons, the anons (like everyone else) are for WP, and we'll do just whatever optimizes the benefit to the project. Censoring bona fide opinions, even sarcastically expressed, of productive users on their own userpage will lead to resentment. resentment will lead to frustration. frustration will lead to decreased attachment to the project. decreased attachment will lead to lesser effort invested, amounting to damage to Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 10:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

of course, Www could recognize the irritation his paragraph has caused, and attempt, even if he thinks it silly, to rephrase it slightly to appease the concerns, either making the sarcasm explicit, or inserting conditional qualifiers so that no-one not absolutely looking to be offended need be. Always be prepared to compromise. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Requiring WP contributors to register an account

This essay has some good points, and touches on some of the myths around IP editors: User:Bluemoose/Thoughts ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably should report him for thought-crimes - maybe we can get his page blanked. - WeniWidiWiki 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that Bluemoose does not state "IP [users]s are lazy" or insults people who edit at work or tell users in "totalitarian regimes" that it would be better if "picked up a rifle." You are completely free to think and say that IP editors cause a bit more harm to the project than help, but the way you stated it on your user page was the issue. One of the precepts of Wikipedia is assuming good faith, and your statement threw that out of the window and dove directly into incivility.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I can see your objection to me generalizing IP editors as lazy. The comment about editing from work was tongue in cheek, and not meant to be taken seriously, although I don't think that enabling people to rip off their employer is necessarily a policy that should be embraced. However, advocating the overthrow of totalitarian regimes who oppress their citizenry and practice censorship is not illegal in my country, nor is it against any particular policy that I am aware of. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)- WeniWidiWiki 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

the mind boggles -- WWW is simply making a concise case that not signing up gives away more information (is in fact less anonymous) than registring an account. Accounts give you an on-wiki identity, while at the same time protecting your real-life one (even for editors like me, editing under their real name, using an account allows me to hide whether I'm editing at work, at home, or somewhere on the road). The "pick up a rifle" bit may be slighly insensitive, but wth, it isn't policy violation. It is one thing to argue with WWW because you think his opinion is flawed. It is another thing to protect his userpage because you happen to feel slightly uncomfortable with his chosen wording, this is not what admin buttons are for, sorry. dab (𒁳) 11:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the wording. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would much rather discuss the issue than trade templates or wheel war. I'm assuming you are the "former arbitrator" whom I offended, but I feel that your actions were inappropriate, and I'd like an explanation for them and some insight into your motivations. The statements were not directed at any one individual, and I think it was very obvious that it is one of thousands of user pages and in no way representative of current official wikipedia policy or thought. Despite this, I think that discussing policy and feelings is more effective than bludgeoning those whose views you find distasteful with template threats to block me, 3RR templates and not affording me AGF as to my intentions. Editors and admins - yourself included - just immediately made demands and then proceeded to bully me into submission. Believe it or not, I actually am pretty well-read on the issue of IP editors, both on and off Wikipedia, and I think that the article you linked to actually proves my point to an extent when you strip away the POV. I think what you did amounted to censorship, but I suspect that the intended sarcasm was lost on some of the involved editors because of cultural variances. At least I hope so. AGF is a two way street, and should apply moreso to established editors than the feelings of some abstract editor who *might* be offended. I formally state that I think you violated policy by reverting and censoring my userpage. - WeniWidiWiki 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

and you shouldn't make more of a case of it than it is; you weren't chastised by teh cabal but by one or two admins. We have how many admins these days, a thousand? We shouldn't be surprised at a wide range of tastes and opinions. The only thing absolutely demanded of them is common sense, good faith, and being prepared to let their own judgement be tempered by that of the community. So an admin or two thought the bit on your talkpage was out of line. I happen to think that this is laughable, and the compromise course is to kindly ask you to take a step back to accomodate the more sensitive position. regards, dab (𒁳) 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

More than 1200, I think, and, yes Dab's right. If people are looking for things to use admin tools for, there's a huge image backlog at CAT:CSD. Jkelly 19:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

On refelction I think I should have shown a bit more sense ard argued the point rather than revert warred with you over it, so firstly let me apologise for being a twat. I'm sorry. Secondly, although 'tis true I used to be an arbitrator, I hate the way people think that means my opinion is more important than anyone elses and have already spoken to Ryulong about doing that. I don't think protection was appropriate here and would have removed it myself but I was beaten to it Grrrrrrrr. I also hate the use of templates and I did remove those and talk to the user who added them. Also I was not, in any way offended, I edit using an account after all.

Having said all that I'll finally answer you question. I was not trying to censor you. It wasn't what you said but the way you said it that bothered me so much. You are right abouut culteral variances, people read things different ways, and although I did realise that you were being sarcastic, I still read your statement as a veiled threat. Also rudeness breads rudeness, even if no IP ever reads your userpage, others will. Anyway thanks again for rewording it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is opposed to the Wiki-Police State.

Sorry you got bitten. Jeffpw 06:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your username...

....is pure awesomeness! Felt like you could do with a postive word about now with the mess going on. Cheerio! Mathmo ^Talk 11:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, brilliant username :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality not quantity?

When I said most of the wikipedia is written by IPs I mean just that. I'm not talking edit counts. I am talking words on the page. I.e. if you take a page and look at each word in a stable version then go back through the page history and see who originally wrote it, you will find that IP's wrote most of those words. See here for an interesting read. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by this. A lot of fancruft articles get written by anons, yes. The uncounted pages full of unwikified rambling spouts of nonsense were added by anons, yes. I doubt you'd get the same result if you polled the FAs, GAs and/or "WP 0.5" articles. I say again that I think it is very easy to under-estimate the positive effect of anon edits, and maybe Jimbo did somewhat under-estimate them, but I do think that it is a reasonable estimate that 75% of encyclopedic ("cleaned-up") content was written by maybe 5-10% of users. 'But anon edits still have important sublte effects, even apart from their net contribution, they often work as catalysers, goading a prolific editor into a cleanup round they would not otherwise have done, things like that. I think we'll have to keep looking into ways of restricting anon damage (along the lines of semiprotection), but that we should not in the forseeable future think of disabling anon edits. dab (𒁳) 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, your reference article above is interesting in it's examination of contributions. I did a short non-statistical look at several articles and their histories generated by the random article button and (not including redirects and disambigs or less than a para long) found several articles with no IP editors at all. I didn't check the name accounts history of contribs. My personal anti-vandalism experience might be expressed "Not all IP edits are vandalism but the vast majority of vandalism I've found is done by IPs." This is not a damnation of IPs, just an acknowledgment of my experience. As dab says above, many anon edits have subtle, often positive, effects as well which are not always easily quantifiable. However, my anti-vandalism work also leads me to a dim view of the IP edits I see because I often see only the worst of them and their immediate effects. And, to bring this back to the subject at hand, I think WWW's expression on his userpage of his opinion is certainly acceptable. I've had a similar item on my userpage for a while now. Yes, I expressed it a bit more diplomatically because that's the kind of guy I am. But I read his harsh sarcasm as satiric, not merely as insulting. I read it as a challenge to improvement of the Wikipedia project. And that's a flaw with such written humor: interpretation isn't always universal. My agreement with the sentiment may predispose me to allowing harsher expression than I might otherwise. Nonetheless, I think it a bad precedent to force compliance on a userpage. He's not urging concentration camps for IP editors. And if the work comment seems extreme, I might gently remind you that using work computers for Wikipedia would probably be considered a dismissal/firing offense in most companies. Is this wrong? Perhaps but it's still true. Is it a threat? Only if you are already violating your company's policies. Just a thought. --Pigman^talk 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My own, pretty extensive, experience of vandalism is this - The vast majority of vandalism is of the childish type, inserting swear words or page blanking, done by schoolkids. This type of vandalism is really easy to deal with and doesn't really pose much of a problem for wikipedia. We may be able to reduce it by requiring a log in, but is it worth it? There are also much more serious types of vandalism which I won't state explicity because of WP:BEANS (you never know who might read this) but we all know the kind of thing I am talking about. Serious vandalism takes a lot more work to rectify, never the less it can be reverted, and is sorted by countless admins and users, myself included. This sort of vandalism is usually done by either complete nutters, or diisgruntled users, (who are so angry thay are in effect nutters) , and they certainly wouldn't stop because we required logging in. Finally we get spammers, scum of the earth, who I personally block on site without warning. Again they don't care about having to create an account first. Brion has had to turn nofollow back on in the article space, which will hopefully deter them.

So the only type of vandalism that requiring logging in will deter, is the first type. The type that takes literally seconds to deal with. It's not worth putting off potential contributors in order to stop a bunch of kids playing about. As for people editing at work, it's none of our business. If they want to do it, that's fine by me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Conjugation problems

What vandalization? Prove to me that was "vandalization". I think you're just a neofolkite who can't stand seeing his scene questioned.

personal attack removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.151.86 (talk • contribs)

COI in Obligations in Freemasonry

I'm glad someone else noted the intent of the 204.122.16.13 account as it relates to Frater Xyzzy, but it seems that nothing much happened as a result. I also didn't realize quite how much Jefferson Anderson was editing that article until now. My concern at the beginning was that the original author (Xyzzy) is openly hostile to Masonry (while apparently being a member of OTO). The only interest the article generates is from those who claim the obligations are a secret - it is stated clearly in the main Freemasonry article that they are not; TBH, most of the "secrecy" is to keep from ruining the experience of new members. In any case, I firmly believe that this article is nothing but an attempt at a childish exposé by a hostile editor and his sock. The mannerisms and focus of Xyzzy and this IP editor are too conveniently similar to be an accident. Is there a recourse available? As it stands the AfD is either going to be keep or no consensus, but the voters aren't even focusing on what my stated issue was, which was that what wasn't cut and pasted was already in the main article. MSJapan 01:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Hi WeniWidiWiki. Can you please notify me next time you discuss my actions on WP:ANI? Doing so is only considered courtesy.

If I were you, I'd suggest ending this dispute. You have got a compromise, and this debate should have ended ages ago. Continuing it is only creating bad feelings between editors, arguing over my actions, which were probably correct, and generally making the entire place stressful.

Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is the only way things are resolved. This isn't personal. Can you envision every editor behaving as you did in this instance? The entire project would grind to a screeching halt. You also basically stated on your userpage that this was not resolved and if I edited my userpage with statements which you personally found distasteful you would begin your actions anew. That is not compromise! - WeniWidiWiki 07:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WeniWidiWiki, I want to drop this right now. No further discussion or interaction at the present. We are not getting anywhere, and the only editor whose actions have been frowned on by other editors are your own. Please let's be happy with the compromise. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, I am one of the people who disagreed with your actions in this case, as I thought was clear from the discussion above and my posts to your talk page. I am concerned that you are being dismissive and not listening to the concerns being raised about your actions, and that you are misrepresenting what happened. I am especially troubled that you thought it was your place to "archive" an ANI discussion about your actions shortly after it opened. I don't believe it was your place to do that. I am seeing a pattern here of you wanting to take abrupt, intense actions and then not be particularly accountable for them. This is troubling in someone who is talking about wanting to be an admin. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are on edit review and you want to be an admin, and yet you refuse to engage in dispute resolution or discussion? Now you have unilaterally removed my comments off ANI. diff. *Niiiice* - WeniWidiWiki 07:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

When did I refuse to engage in dispute resolution? ANI is not the complaints department. There is a notice at the top of that page which states specifically that. And I did not remove your comments off ANI, merely archive them. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

From Dispute resolution:

• Avoidance. Do not bludgeon other users with inappropriate templates or remove material on their userpage without discussing it. You made one comment and then removed the material and threw inappropriate warning templates on my page.

Yes, I did discuss it. At least four other users disagreed with you, and furthermore I doubt you would have removed the message, considering your current attitude. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Look through the diffs! Did you and I discuss this?diff You basically stated "me too" after another editor and then removed material and put a level 4 WP:ATTACK template on my page. Furthermore because four users out of thousands agree with you that does not equal a consensus on policy.Voting is not a substitute for discussion. Again, and I know you may disagree, specifically going through the material and citing your objections rather than just using acronym policy jargon, would have gotten you a lot further with me. Furthermore, your assertion "I doubt you would have removed the message, considering your current attitude" was an a priori assumption and a rejection of AGF. Hit & run comments are one thing, but stating - in detail - your objections would be more productive. I discuss policy and content disputes all the time and have no problem working to a resolution - but being bullied I cannot abide. - WeniWidiWiki 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Talk to the other parties involved. You don't seem to want to talk, you are dismissive - I'm wrong and you are right. Period. You are so sure that you can do no wrong that you took it upon yourself to remove material posted at ANI.

You seem to be attacking me, or frowning on my actions, rather than politely discussing this between the two of us. Seriously, if you want to talk with me, I'll all go . Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'm open for discussion. Please refrain from generalities, and please at least consider how I could perceive your actions as uncalled for and heavy handed. - WeniWidiWiki 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disengage for awhile. 24 hours + have passed.

I still want to stay disengaged, unless you are willing to implement step 2. If so, I'm quite happy to discuss. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have let this drop, but you would not even admit *any* level of wrongness. An admin pulled the templates you put on my page and advised this was improper usage, and you still take the stance your actions were justified - the ends do not always justify the means. - WeniWidiWiki 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Discuss with third parties. We can presumably do that here, on your user page and at ANI. - WeniWidiWiki 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not the right place for such a discussion, as I noted. Please let's do it between the two of us at the moment. This is something that should not require major third-party intervention. Anyway, I'm going to do some studying now (it's about 9 o'clock in New Zealand, where I live) so I'll talk with you tomorrow. Cheers, , and I hope you can help me with some things, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. You mentioned ANI as a means of dispute resolution on your talk page, so... Seriously, I would like to resolve this. I don't think your actions were appropriate. I'm not even talking about the content of my userpage and whether it was objectionable or not - I'm talking about your aggressive actions to bully another user into acquiescing to your demands. - WeniWidiWiki 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Our interaction

I in turn apologize if I said anything out of line. It's been a .. hard couple of months for me, and my tongue runs faster than my comportment sometimes. Hopefully, we can work together on something in the future to create :) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. - WeniWidiWiki 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus and German Christmas traditions

Thank you for your assistance. Rex Germanus has repeatedly deleted very relevant sections on both the German Christmas traditions and the American Christmas traditions pages (in the latter article, it was on traditions derived from Germany). As I stated on the talk page, (he deleted it once), he has been put on parole for these types of actions in the past. --The Argonaut 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why he's so aggressive, but I take the message on his userpage at face value. He has done the same thing at Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (look at the talk page.) Even after an unequivocal consensus against removal of German terms, he surreptitiously went and removed them from the lead. - WeniWidiWiki 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me watch the page. He continues to make nonsensical statements on talk and I have no doubt he will vandalize the page again. --The Argonaut 17:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been on my watch list ever since the POV edit-warring over at Yule. - WeniWidiWiki 18:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One more request, would you also add American Christmas traditions to your watch list since he has vandalized that site too? --The Argonaut 18:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I like your user name, which I believe translates as 'I came, I saw, I wikied.' LOL --The Argonaut 18:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)