User talk:Abb3w

Red links are annoying.

Old dreck from a twit
Who are you?  Erwin 
 * Come now. I hang around with too many professional philosophers to be able to address that question at face value, and with too many professional educators to be inclined to answer a question where even minimal effort on your part in investigating would be enlightening. Would you care to give a more directed and specific query? Abb3w
 * Evidently not. Abb3w 16:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Melissa Ashley
Please do not try to add very personal information on the article. Zach (Sound Off) 06:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would dispute whether in this instance a legal name (even for someone using a nom d'étape) qualifies as "very personal information". A fact so trivial to research after being published in a major international newspaper hardly seems to fit that description. Her non-published home address (as opposed to her business address) or unlisted phone number might indeed be "very personal information"... but glancing at that 2257 statement business address should show how open a secret that "very personal" fact of her real name is. I'd also note comparable information is also given for some similar stars; the only reason I didn't list it as her birth name (as that example does) was because quick research is unable to determine if she is married... which detail might also better qualify as VPI. However, I won't add it back. Abb3w 20:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This policy proposal will no doubt interest you. Karwynn (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mildly. The policy sounded sensible overall. In this particular case, she would fall under "Pseudonymous individuals who have themselves deliberately disclosed their true name at some point, such as in a press release or interview with a member of the press" (avoiding "Wikipedia's policy of no original research prohibits us from being the first publisher of such information"), but also under "Articles about living individuals of marginal notability" (since porn stars are mostly of interest only to porn stars, porn fans, and porn foes), "Situations where the true name is not already well known by the public" (hardly possible, as the stage name isn't either), and "Cases where a safety concern is plausible", since she works "in the sex industry, which considers disclosure of a model or actor's true identity to be a safety problem". With three to one against, the balance would seem to be for non-publication.
 * In any case, barring expression of either indifference or preference in favor from Melissa personally, I plan no further action at this time. Abb3w 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Got a question
Hi, I made a query for you, and wanted to let you know. Happy editing, Karwynn (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

sexual objectification
I submitted a sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

SP
Hi. I see that you self-identified as an "SP". Are you an actual declared SP or did you just figure that you should be (laff). I need to know so that, as a Scientology in good standing, I will know how to treat you (grin). Also, if declared, are you famous or just a garden-variety SP? --Justanother 07:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC), J&D


 * I was called an SP back on alt.religion.scientology some years back, before the CoS heirarchy effectively banned their members from posting. As near as I can tell, I don't actually fit the profile listed on Wikipedia; I've just decided to accept the label. (Similarly, I've been called an asshole; without admitting it, I also no longer argue about that.)


 * I believe that Hubbard was a mediocre science fiction writer and an unindicted criminal con artist, but that this does not irredemably impeach the creed he (or anyone similar) has put forth. I suspect that the bulk of CoS membership exhibit a moral spectrum much the same as the membership of any other church (Catholic, Mormon, Jewish Reform, what have you), and the belief system not that much more deluded. I believe Tom Cruise is definitely whacko, but I think that tracing cause-and-effect with his membership in the CoS is doubtful.
 * I believe that a dominant contingent in the current CoS heirarchy are possibly self-deluded but definitely money-and-power motivated con artists. I believe this faction in the CoS leadership exhibit a collective tendency to vexatious litigation; that their use of Trade Secret and Copyright law to try and prevent disemination and discussion of their primary religious texts is intrinsically immoral; that many of the practices of the church amount to less-than-subtle brainwashing; and that the morality of this faction is unaltered from that which allegedly led to and attempted to cover up the deaths of several members of the CoS. I believe that the CoS is in dire need of a major internal Protestant Reformation, to "audit" the financial and organizational records and drive those currently running the show out. I believe that Henson's trial was a travesty of justice, possibly subverted by aid of CoS litigants, that the man is as threatening as a microwaved Marshmellow Peep, and that anyone with more brainpower than said Peep should be able to figure that out in about thirty seconds.


 * I attended the University of Virginia; I thus quote Thomas Jefferson: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Based on present evidence, I judge that while the CoS may perhaps not be inherently so, in its present form it presently is one. This is why I have been called an SP, and the primary reason why I signed that way: because the sociopaths at the top of the CoS heirarchy would never label themselves so (howsovermuch they deserve it) and I do not wish anyone to possibly confuse me with one of them. Abb3w 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the Peep, I think we see a bit of the same thing. I had seen reference to him over the years on the net but never bothered to find out what his story was. Now that I see a bit of it, I have to admit that he looks like a bit of a "dupe" to me. Egged on and applauded. Then gets in a spot of trouble and just has to serve a few months to put paid to it instead he flees his own country and wastes years over fears implanted in him by whom? Scientologists? I don't think so. At least not solely. But that is just a feeling that I am getting. Things are not always as they seem and anyone can make an anonymous "death threat". --Justanother 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Re Hubbard, as I said elsewhere, I have a viewpoint that I have never heard expressed by another Scientologist (due, no doubt, to the mostly self-inflicted social control that permeates the CoS) that Hubbard, like most "prophets" I imagine, is an imperfect tool in the hands of the divine (call it what you will). And, like most religions, Scientology has a hard time with the imperfections of its "prophet" and Hubbard's flaws, unlike others, are recent and documented. But Scientologists are, by and large, intelligent people and they see the imperfections but understand that concentrating on imperfections in your leader is as potentially disasterous as concentrating on imperfections in your spouse. What is really important in the CoS (or in a marriage) is agreement on what you are seeking to accomplish. Personally, I have studied enough Scientology, other religions, science, and philosophy to consider Hubbard's work an incredible creation that overarches and encompasses them all. It may have flaws (and it may have traded its possible protoscience status for dogma as I mention on my user page) but it is an incredible effort. --Justanother 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish you good fortune. Having been raised Catholic, I can see the value of a Reformation, and people such as yourself within the CoS are the best hope for such. Unfortunately, I believe the CoS has stamped heavily on the various groups that tried and failed at reform-from-within and schismed over this; beware of being branded a heretic. Abb3w 16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind wish. Though I wonder what kind of guy Martin Luther's dad was (or his Mum)? Thanks for your help on the articles. --Justanother 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Can you comment on the recent incarnation of the Hacker's article? Take a look at this post here. Thanks. -- User: (talk • contribs • count) 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Philip Nelson
A tag has been placed on Philip Nelson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

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 article 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Elenseel 20:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted. Abb3w

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Abb3w! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Frederick Clarkson -


 * Sigh. That was a random stub I threw in four years ago, and the damn thing HAD a reference at the start that someone simply moved to "External Links". Perhaps they just don't think the source is sufficiently reliable? Feh. Bad bot; no cookie. Abb3w (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edits
Hey Abb3w, I was editing Rob Portman's page and saw some of your edits were marked as minor. Minor edits are reserved for purely superficial edits; anything that includes a content change is no longer minor, even if it is just revision of the section to agree with its referenced sources. Cheers. Clearlyfakeusername (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. Abb3w (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Philip Nelson (professor) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philip Nelson (professor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Philip Nelson (professor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jcmcc450 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Countess O
Abb3w, I had to remove that message from ANI. It's a violation of WP:OUTING to speculate on anyone's real-life identity on Wikipedia. If you really believe that the individual you mentioned is the subject as you claim, feel free to follow the steps given in this page  as a guide, but please don't speculate on anyone's real life identity. I've asked for that post to be Rev Del'ed also. Thanks  KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined  16:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Abb3w, The message you put up in the talk page you told me about still violates WP:OUTING. You cannot speculate anywhere on wikipedia as to an editor's real-life identity. You need to stop, please reading Outing, Wikipedia's really strict about that. Please re-read WP:COI for more information about how to raise a COI request, which is what you are attempting to do. I will request you entry be Rev'deled as well.  KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined 19:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll note, I put that up prior to posting a comment to ANI, edited it to attempt to make clear that I was more intending to speculate on agency than identity, and deliberately drew it to your attention. I'll also note candidly that from the vantage a non-regular, the policies you point to seem insufficiently clear to convey both that this qualifies as Outing and on how to get a COI request pushed to the attention of the active. I will raise that defect to the talk pages of those policies. Abb3w (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roddie Edmonds


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Roddie Edmonds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Council for National Policy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SPLC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Adams (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PAC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)