User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 08

Please don't bite the newbies
Hi, Antaeus. I'm sorry you felt you had to talk to the guy like that. He didn't act very sensibly, but surely there's room for thinking he was trying to help? For that matter, it's better not to shower even the vandals with sarcasm. I've found that modelling the kind of tone that you'd like to hear from them is often the most effective way of handling newbies. I aspire to it, I don't always accomplish it, needless to say. Best wishes, Bishonen|talk 02:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

From Cooleyez229
Hello. Thanks for helping me out a bit with that anon who keeps adding stuff to the articles Christian televangelist scandals and Melissa Scott (televangelist). I am not sure what his/her agenda is, but it seems that he/she keeps ignoring my hints at dropping all of it into the article for Melissa Scott. And when he/she does, he/she seems hell-bent on putting stuff up without references, and putting it in as many places as possible. Check out the article for Eugene Scott and see what I mean. I understand she is saying this stuff on TV, but I'd feel a bit better if the anon provides hard links to this, or if possible, PVR it and upload it to a website. --Cooleyez229 07:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't do much.  There's always someone around willing to slam you across the head with a stick if you've failed to show enough WikiLove but surprisingly few people seem to care about blatant open repeated POV-pushing.  It's up to individual people who care and when they fall ill or run out of energy, what happens?  The problem is that Assume good faith is too often interpreted as "As long as the person who has blatantly thumbed their nose at all Wikipedia's goals and standards maintains a straight face, nothing can be done about them." -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Userfication for The Swiss Knight
Userfying this seems like an obvious way to go to me.. did you see a problem with that? Normally I'd just do it but I see there's already been some disagreement over it. I dont' see that it's harmful as a user page, and it's obviously not an article. Is there some reason to continue dragging it through Afd? Friday (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem is that userfication is a process that has crept. When someone with the user name "JohnDoakes" creates a page titled John Doakes and uses it to tell the world "John Doakes is happily married with two kids and is a systems administrator in Dallas, TX" there's little to object to in userfying it; the user probably just made a user page, for the reason user pages exist, and simply didn't know that we have a specific namespace for those pages.


 * But policy states that user pages are not for everything and anything, just because they're out of the article namespace. I suspect that many people choose to vote "userfy" because it seems like a way that they can affirm "no, this doesn't belong in the article namespace" without being labelled as the bad guy, the EVOL MEEN deletionist who wants to KILL ALL FUN IN WIKIPEDIA.  The problem is that this seldom results in the obvious question being asked:  is this appropriate for userspace either?  It's a judgement call in each case, and unfortunately there is not a lot of set-in-stone policy.  I was already leaning against userfication because the story of "The Swiss Knight" really has nothing to do with the purpose of user pages; we don't even know if The Swiss Knight is AshJW or merely someone who AshJW used to work with.  Then the behavior of the various supporters in the AfD just put the cap on things; seeing lots of obvious meatpuppets puts my hackles up, having my "humanity" questioned because I don't think Wikipedia should host random fiction doesn't give me warm fuzzies, and having that same someone declare the discussion moot because he already took the decision out of people's hands makes me unhappy indeed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

your "contribution" to depression article
You added "although two persons of undetermined credentials claim that this is a marketing technique rather than a scientific portrayal of how the drugs actually work."

You're a wiki-vandal, destroying the integrity of this article. Many respected researchers question the serotonin theory of depression and rightfully so. Please at least try to give the appearance of being NPOV. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 08:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a rather large distinction -- at least any person with any shred of objectivity would concede that there is -- between "question the serotonin theory of depression" and "claim [the serotonin theory] is a marketing technique." If you think that it is in keeping with Wikipedia standards to put that second claim into the mouths of "respected researchers", under the misguided notion that anyone who "questions the serotonin theory" must of course also share the belief that the serotonin theory is a marketing technique created by the drug industry, then it is you who threatens the integrity of the article, by substituting your prejudices for actual facts.


 * I see that, like your fellow POV-pusher Ombudsman, you are quick to accuse but slow to actually check your facts -- even when simple fact-checking would be easy and show good faith. You were already notified that your hysteric complaints about "vandalism" were completely unfounded under the Wikipedian definition of vandalism.  But yet here you are again, screeching an accusation that you would know was false, if you had even bothered to check what someone else was telling you.  You could have determined in a single minute that my warning about your misuse of terminology was in fact correct, but clearly, since you are still making the very same mistake, I can only assume you said "Oh, he's one of those stooges of the drug industry!" (as your compadre Ombudsman so civilly dismisses me) and thus decided to completely ignore the warning, because I was someone of a different POV who was telling you things you didn't want to hear.


 * Now, tell me again why I should be putting faith in the word of a person doing that, on what would "give the appearance of NPOV"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

E. Fuller Torrey RFC
The Fuller Torrey page has been protected at Ms. Allan's request. Would you consider adding your comments on the discussion page?--24.55.228.56 12:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the alert. I really have nothing to add to that discussion except that clearly, accusations against Torrey need to be supported by more than just claims from MindFreedom and similar organizations.  I suspect someone else will make that point, if they haven't already. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Brainwashing and Mind Control
Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control --Irmgard 16:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikifiddler
I note that checking What Links Here that an article called Wiki-fiddler was deleted back in May. It is a similar article to the current one albeit not as deleted. I would be grateful to see if you could have a look at it to see if the current Wikifiddler article is sufficiently similar to warrant a speedy deletion as recreation of recreated content. Capitalistroadster 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell me if he does it again
Provide me with the diff and I'll look into blocking him for a short period of time. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting my stupid edits to Captain Scarlet vs the Mysterons this morning. It was my own fault: I can't multitask, yet I was busy helping a friend set up his Wiki system, editing a typo in Scarlet and talking to my mother on the phone.

The net result was I managed to completely b-gger up the article... then not notice I hadn't put it right. The moral of the story is either "do less at once" or "concentrate, you fool" ;)

Thanks again! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 15:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * =D Hey, no problem...  thanks for the kind words! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery
You have in the past edited William-Adolphe Bouguereau. A related article, the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion for violating WP:NOT (AfD here). A proposal to modify WP:NOT is here. Please join either or both conversations and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on Neuro-linguistic programming
Antaeus, I found you via your edits on Neologism, and found that you have made various NPOV adjustments on Scientology so I think you would be a expert in this situation. There is an open arbitration request open on this page. There is a group of users who are using sources that have no citations on citeseer or google scholar. It seems that these users are trying to have "engrams" included as a fundamental concepts of NLP. I'm arguing that it should be restricted to one or two sentences, or even remove it altogether. It is not used by any of the original developers of NLP nor any mainstream NLP trainers or publications. The group headed by DaveRight, and now Camridge (who appeared after a arbitration request was made against a similar editor HeadleyDown) is using very flakey evidence to connect NLP to dianetics or Scientology -- and claiming that their view is scientific and any sources which provide counter-examples are pseudoscience -- it seems to be a mixture of original research and selective research. I'm requesting your comment on how best to calculate weight. For an academic field it is easy, you can demand references from peer-reviewed journals ONLY, otherwise it would be considered original research. However NLP is a mixed field with some academics, and non-academics. Some practitioners and trainers have no interest in academic, scholarship. Many authors and trainers make exagerated claims in training and marketing. So the question to you is party directed at wikipedia policy for subject of this nature. --Comaze 09:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments would be welcome at Treatment Advocacy Center
The Treatment Advocacy Center page is now protected. Your comments would be welcome.--24.55.228.56 14:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Redirect of Bleach anime
I copied the material to Talk:Bleach (manga) that you obliterated when you made it a redirect. I think it is best to be more careful when redirecting. Hu 00:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I viewed it as extremely unlikely that there was any material at Bleach anime worth merging to Bleach (manga). YMMV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't read it. I left it up to the Bleach (anime and manga) experts.  If you are a Bleach expert, I defer to your judgement. Hu 03:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Black List
I think that you should be informed that you are on the [Black List]. I wouldn't worry or anything if I were you, just conceal any personal information he doesn't have about you. No need to make things easy for banned users. Izehar (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello John Doe#14, what are your personal views on the Brandt website? John Doe #16 23:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly? Not impressed at all.  His listing of what I did, and what he in his paranoia thought it was intended to imply, shows that he does not have the understanding that a normal, rational person has of the effects of his own actions.  He lacks the ability to empathize; he can't understand his actions except from his perspective.  And I couldn't have asked for anything better than for him to prove in this way, to every visitor of this page, that he is not a man acting from idealism but from an inability to process the world as normal adults have the obligation to do.  He's his own biggest public relations disaster. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it is hypocritical. I would be interested to hear your argument. I don't think its obvious at all that it's hypocritical. It's completely in line with his exposing Oliver North et al on his namebase page. He isn't giving any personal information - he is just saying what people said and who said it. While I personally think screen names is good enough, I don't really see why you can say that its hypocritical for him to do that. Its what he's been doing for the past 40 years. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oliver North is a public figure, and it is a principle explicitly codified in American law that public figures have less expectation of privacy than ordinary citizen; that's a difference to start with. Second, what he collected on Oliver North was already public information; he merely collated that information, which was primarily public statements North had made.  That's a far cry from what Brandt is doing, saying and proving "Hey, I already know what public statements these people have made, but that's not enough; I want their personal information and I'm willing to take it from anonymous sources who openly admit they are going along with this specifically to hurt those people.  Not that that's why I'm doing it, of course.  No, no, of course not.  It's because, uh....  oh!  Yeah, I'm gonna bring a lawsuit against them, so of course that means I have to collect their real names (and of course, reveal them to the entire Internet the minute I get them, because that's part of the normal procedure of a lawsuit, after all, trust me on this.)  What am I suing them for?  Uh...  uhmmm...  well, see, this guy here?  He called me a 'kook', so of course I added him to the lawsuit!  I mean, it's not legal for one person to call another a kook, right, so of course I'll be suing him!  I'm certainly not scraping up these people's personal information in order to intimidate and harass them; a noted privacy advocate would never do anything like that."


 * So, in summary, the fact that Brandt has been collecting public information about public figures since the 1960s doesn't make him not a hypocrite for collecting private information on private individuals; even if he'd been doing that since the 1960s, he is still demanding that he, a public figure (go look at Daniel Brandt and ask how many private individuals get that many articles written about them in national venues) get an exemption from having public information about him revealed. And by the way, I expect to receive your apology for your unforgivably scurrilous and knowingly false allegations about me.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Outing
I'd just point out that, whilst I understand that you are trying to say that it's not pointing out he is gay, and your intention is to point out that he is a hypocrite, that is still POV. At best, you can write in the article perhaps under a section "criticisms of Wikipedia watch" why some people think that his outing of people is hypocritical, given that he is a privacy advocate. Mind you, if doing that, you would need to also include why he is doing that, and his own justification for it, as well as other reasons why it is not hypocritical and not at all inconsistent with what he is doing. But it shouldn't be included in some subtle little link thing at the bottom. The problem is that it's not neutral. Saying "this guy is a hypocrite" can never be neutral. At least, not unless you are writing about hippocrates (I hope that I got his spelling right). You can say why some people think that, but you also should find references to support that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're still laboring under some pretty heavy misconceptions. Chief among them seems to be "the article must be NPOV; therefore, it cannot describe any POVs or the reasonings behind them."  The truth is of course that the goal of NPOV is to describe POVs and the reasonings behind them without endorsing those POVs.  I believe you might be acting in good faith when you say "we can't make any reference to outing because people might read it and say, 'Gee, I never approved of the practice of outing, even though the unwilling sacrifices made of the privacy of individuals are supposedly done for the greater good; Brandt may claim he's invading people's privacy for the greater good but that doesn't explain why the only people he's trying to expose personal information are those who have criticized him, personally'.  if the reader forms a POV on an issue because of what they read on Wikipedia, it must mean whatever they read is POV and has to be removed."  I believe you may be arguing that in good faith -- but it's still completely mistaken.  Providing people with information and perspectives so that they can come to their conclusions is what we're supposed to do.


 * As for "Saying "this guy is a hypocrite" can never be neutral", yes, yes, you're completely right on that, but it's utterly irrelevant; YOU were the one who made your own comparison of Brandt's actions and your perception of the practice of 'outing' (which some people still approve, mind you) and decided that in your opinion Brandt's actions made him look like a hypocrite, doing to his neighbor exactly that which he makes clear is hateful to himself. IF the article were to say "Daniel Brandt is a hypocrite" then THAT would be unacceptably non-neutral.  But extending that to "the article must not say that some people might consider Brandt's actions hypocritical"?  Extending it even further to "the article must not include any references to points of comparison by which a reader might decide for themselves that Brandt's actions are hypocritical"?  Entirely wrong-headed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:MSH
I didn't remove that comment and I don't know who did. As far as I can remember, there was some text on the MSH article about some other person, Hal Bringman. I don't know who that is, and I can't find it in the old versions of the article now. I'm confused... I can't remember being drunk that day... (Entheta 23:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC))


 * If you can't remember, that's the worst sign. =D  But seriously -- I couldn't find any reference to Hal Bringman on the page or in the page's history, so I debated leaving it be, but decided that no anon should get the idea that it's okay to delete other people's talk page comments. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm really confused. I could've sworn I remember there was something else in that article as well and that's why I posted that comment. And I'm confused about who deleted it.. Someone with only a few edits... How could I just come up with a name like that and believe I saw it in the article? (Easier for me to see your response if you write on my talk page) (Entheta 01:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

RuneScape Quests

 * Please dont redirect, as the page you are re directing to is up for deletion because it acts as a game guide - which is what Wikipedia is not. This reason was used for Members RuneScape Quests, so it was applied to the free version. The new page i created summarises both free and members quests and doesnt act as a game guide. - Bourbons3 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Zordrac
He's definitely a problem editor, it turns out. After my initial rather polite request to his talk page, he decided to post nonsense accusations about me all over a bunch of user talk pages, and on various administrative pages. Unfortunately, that's still not really joint RfC material. An RfC needs to be about some specific issue, and specific attempts to resolve it. The problems I've had with Zordrac are more-or-less disjoint from those you've had... even if they indicate something similar dispositionally about him. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD
If you're that intent on making personal attacks I may as well withdraw my vote, if it means avoiding this smark sullied nonsense, it's not like the vote has a chance in smark of passing anyway--Ytrewqt 04:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not a personal attack to note that an individual has not achieved Wikipedia's "voting age" or to note anomalous circumstances about their editing patterns that may indicate that they have not attained the experience with Wikipedia that the voting age is hoped to represent. It is a well-established part of the way AfDs are conducted; if you fail to recognize it as such and describe it as a "personal attack" it only serves to reinforce the impression that you're simply not ready for AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Biffeche
Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  16:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

re:verifiability
The Wikpedia policy Verifiability states the truth of an information is less important than its verifiability. I posted cited sources of information with ISBN (linkable) page number, title as per Citing_sources and in a Harvard sort of easily readable format. You deleted by reversion all of the cited, verifiable information I had posted. You used the reason:

"Antaeus Feldspar (Talk) (rv to last by Fplay. Terryeo is once again trying to slip in POV about how Dianetics "was accepted broadly by the public at large" and "a feat unparalleled in publishing history" and the like)."

Dianetics is a POV and is not Scientology, though the second controls the distribution of the first. The article I mention to you is about Dianetics. The statements you deleted by reverting were verified statements. The reversion you substituted has very little verified information in it. I point out, Wikipedia is largly about verified information. I point out to you, I am not attempting create a POV article, but a verified, cited article. Feel free to place any verified information within that article of any POV. But do not feel free to delete verified information. Have a nice day :) Terryeo 22:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I will point out to you, WP:NPOV is not a negotiable policy, and judging from your words and your actions, it's one that you either do not comprehend or are trying to assert that you understand to mean something different than what it does. Good day to you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV is the single policy which is non-negotiable, and justly so. The arguement you frequently pose seems to be:  "If a point of view exists, it should be minimized to comply with NPOV" while my reactions have been: "If it is a POV, then it is citeable, therefore an article should have that citation in it."  As an example, a history of Dianetics development is not real long, it is 13 books long.  This is not too much,  I believe, to be included in a Wiki article.  I present the information exactly as stated in my source of information.  I state my source of information with all of the appropriate, Harvard sort of referenceing with footnotes.  You revert the article.  I do it again and you delete it all.  Deleting uncited information is one thing, but deleting cited information which the public can look up in a library or purchase is creating disinformation.  I am writing here to attempt to resolve this dispute. Good day here :) Terryeo 19:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If the information you posted in the Dianetics article is verified and cited, then please verify and cite it. Provide an external source that backs up your claim that "tens of thousands of copies" were distributed worldwide.  The Scientology home page is not verification, because it is unquestionably biased in favor of LRH and thus is not NPOV.  Have a nice day.  :)  --Modemac 20:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The verification I provide, that Antaeus Feldspar has reverted and deleted is, published books with ISBN numbers, publication dates and publisher. In this instance of "Abnormal Dianetics," (tens of thousands of copies) which preceeded "Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health" I took a brief quote from a more modern volume (again cited with ISBN number and page number) which talks about the early history of Dianetic publications. I did this with an eye toward any person being able to obtain and read the information cited.  Sometimes at public libraries, some of the citing documentation would require visitng a CoS and asking to see a specific Bulletin.  Can't we at least have one of the POVs of this Dianetics accurately presented? Terryeo 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One more thing Antaeus Feldspar, because we seem to have a head to head going and I appriciate the communication you have given to me. By the way, you're a hard man to stand up against I think. :)  You state on your user page:  "NPOV means honestly conveying not only what each side believes, but why a reasonable person might believe it to be true. ."  Well, I believe your stated position on NPOV to be wrong and here is why I think it is wrong and why the two of us seem to be going toenail to toenail.  NPOV at section "A Vital Component:good research" states:  Facts (cited, etc.) are not POV (in the sense of being opposite to NPOV). That section goes on to describe how to present NPOV by providing equally reputable facts of both sides.  And then section "Undue weight" says: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.."


 * I'm all about knowledge and knowing. I want to present cited information. Wiki's policy represent my attitude, or I thiers in this area.  Present the information, let a man figure out how to scratch his own back.


 * The section "Lack of Neutrality as an Excuse to Delete" of that article says, regards to deleting validated information, "If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly."


 * I'm trying to say, Antaeus Feldspar, a belief is fine if presented as a cited piece of information. Myself, I separate the information within the citation, consider its source and use the information accordingly.  Knowledge is fine too, if presented as a cited piece of information. I believe it is namby-pamby to so water down Scientology articles that no cited fact can appear within them.  Wiki's point of view in this area is stated at NPOV, section "Undue weight" and implies; that side which can be most clearly verified will probably be the prominent side.


 * As for Scientology and belief, I would say this. I believe there is only one belief that Mr. Hubbard ever built on and that it the belief that man (in the sense of mankind) can know. All 25,000,000,000 words after that were built on that singular datum, for use or for dismissal as a person chose to do. I hope this communicates. Terryeo 14:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like david miscavige's pr entourage is at work distorting the biographical article on him. I doing some re-editing and reversion.--Fahrenheit451 04:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * while unrelated to the conflict dispute I have opened here, Fahrenheit451, I have never met nor communicated with Mr. Miscaviage. Is he someone I would like to meet?  Have a nice day. Terryeo 19:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

re: deletion
so i am not sure i understand.

i am obviously and inevetiably going to be deleted, but why has it not happened. and when i tried to delete the article it was put back up. i'm not quite sure of the process.

and on another note - as you seem to be the more civil and mature person that i've come across (i'm beginning to wonder the age range of wikipedia editors is generally from 15-25) - who moderates immature and insensitive bevahior? speaking in regards of Hedley. Does anyone really follow the wikiquette? just curious.

The Way
I noted this in passing in an article on Saint Stephen; I'd be indebted to anybody who could add additional information. DiogenesNY 01:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)