User talk:70.186.172.75

RFC
Would you like some help on forming an RFC? If you write what you're interested in asking here I can help you form the question and file the RfC, or advise if it s already dealt with. It would help if you got an account too (which is actually more anonymous and has advantages). Verbal chat  17:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sure. We seem to have three for and three against. We need some impartial people to act as tiebreaker to see what we should do with the article. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Seth Material, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Seth Material
I just left this note for Gandalf61, and I thought I'd show it to you also:


 * I'm toying around with the idea of retiring from the fight. I don't have the energy for it.  I have owned the domain name Sethmaterial.org for a long time, and I'm just going to develop that.  This is not the first battle I've been in with atheists, skeptics, Christians, etc., on Wikipedia.  This is the first time, however, that they showed up in such a large gang.  Their tactic is to wear out other authors until the other authors give up.  It doesn't matter how many references we put into the article, it won't be enough.  Those two articles -- Jane Roberts and Seth Material -- are the only articles I edit, but it isn't worth the stress.  Most people, I believe, do not go to Wikipedia for their info but instead search the net, so my site will probably get more exposure.  There isn't, in fact, a site which simply explains who and what Seth was, so I'll be filling a void.  This decision isn't definite.  If I didn't feel that you needed backing up, I would definitely leave.  If you decide to stay and continue working on the site, maybe I'll also stay.  Tonight I'm just very tired.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured I'd answer here. Thanks for your reply.  As I said above, my site will be Sethmaterial.org, and I expect to have it up and running by January or February.  It will be an introductory article, but more essay-like than the Wikipedia article.  I tried so hard to make the Seth Material article neutral in tone.  I thought I had, but obviously not.  The only thing I did that was not entirely neutral was to include so many quotes -- I wanted people to get the flavor of Seth by reading his actual words.  I really did have this idea about Wikipedia that people expected it to be a little sloppy because everyone worked on it, and I had no idea that roving bands of editors could completely up-end an article, and seemingly do it all within the rules (although I believe this particular band was stretching the rules).  Take care.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For a short time it appeared that we were going to be able to edit the article in situ. But then they brought in a new person (SeminalPanic) who merged a bunch of sections and deleted some text.  When I restored the text, he undid it and accused me of vandalism (ha), and then someone came in and froze the article for three days.  I'm telling you, they aren't going to allow us to write this thing.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for helping to save the article. Your contribution was more valuable than mine.  Now that we've gone through this fight, it will be harder for people to try to delete it in the future.  The tongue-lashing that NoVomit got when he put the article in for deletion was a riot.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:Seth Material/to do
A tag has been placed on Talk:Seth Material/to do, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

subpage no longer needed

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NoVomit (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Persondata
Just letting you know that I've placed your name in the "Inactive participants" list over at WikiProject Persondata. Please feel free to move your name back if it was placed in the list in error, or if you return :). —Msmarmalade (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)