User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 14

You have been nominated for adminship :)
 Glen Stollery is excited to inform you that he has nominated you to be an administrator. Please visit WP:RfA to see what this process entails, and then contact Glen to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Antaeus_Feldspar. If you accept the nomination, please formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or your nominator is happy to do so for you. Congrats! - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  04:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you going to accept at all? - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood, I thought I'd nominate you after I saw your name on the Esperanza Administrator Coaching page. You may want to delete the post above so no one is aware and tries to pressure you (your call). But there's no rush as the page will just sit there until you're ready (AFAIK) as it hasn't been linked to off the main WP:RfA page. At the end of the day however I don't believe you'd have to change much over and above what you're already doing as you do a great job! Thanks for getting back to me anyway :), - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * harasssment from removed


 * Antaeus, I bet you'd rise to it as admin--you'd be able to restrain yourself from abusing the cloak of authority (you'd want to recuse yourself from scientology-related decisions, I'd guess, for starters). Anyway, I'd endorse Glen's nomination--you've shown yourself to be clear-headed and articulate, valuable attributes around here.  And by the way, a personal kudo for your recent witticism--"DevTpedia" caused me to burst out laughing.  BTfromLA 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Antaeus, I've reverted the votes in your RfA, as it isn't in progress yet. --Pjacobi 22:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's moot now, as I've declined the nomination, but I doubt very much that there is anything in policy which supports removing all votes that have been cast, including that of the nominator, if the RfA is not "in progress yet". You'd think that if Wikipedia had policy dictating "the nominator may not cast a vote until the candidate has accepted the nomination" -- and took this policy seriously enough to authorize removing all votes that were cast outside that period -- that the policy would instead entirely prohibit initiating an RfA before the candidate has accepted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for causing any troubles. Besides my impression (I can't vouch for it being policy), that no votes outside the actual candidacy period are valid, I've acted primarily because any votes tend to attract more votes. I'd very much doubt, that you'd have lost your nominator's vote. If he hadn't noticed himself, someone (e.g. me) would have notfied him. --Pjacobi 01:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

your comment is requested (NLP)
I read your comments on Helen Wu and completely agree. On the Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming page, we have a similar style of writing. I'd really appreciate your comments on the page to help direct the page towards wikipedia standards. --Comaze&sup2; 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientology mediation case
Greetings Antaeus: I'm currently mediating the Scientology case down at the Mediation Cabal, which focuses on the argument surrounding the Office of Special Affairs article over whether particular quotes by Tory Christman are acceptable for inclusion. User:Nikitchenko has recently requested your involvement in the mediation case, which is located here:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

I would like to invite you to participate in this particular mediation case, if you feel it is relevant and that you are indeed involved in this case. However, it seems unclear to me whether you are involved in this particular dispute or not, so I would be most grateful for your input. Of course, the Mediation Cabal is entirely informal, and if you don't want to get involved, that's fine. It might, perhaps, help to bring this dispute to some sort of amicable resolution if you did enter as a party to the case, since I should expect you would have greatly valuable input to the proceedings. Thank you very much. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nicholas. I do feel that it is very relevant -- after all, if Nikitchenko is going to make trumped-up reports to WP:AN/I about me based on that article, then he's pretty much ensured that I'm "involved", eh?  I very much appreciate the heads-up (and on a personal note, I'm glad to see that you're back in Mediation work, which I gathered was a major stressor for you before...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My response:
Take a look bud: User_talk:Nikitchenko, thanks mate Glen StolleryT C 16:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies
Antaeus, I've just read some of your recent contribs, specifically those involving your RfA. I just want you to know that I truly meant it as a mark of respect on my behalf towards you: I've never nominated anyone for adminship before (truth is I rarely even vote) and I honestly meant it to be a badge of honor for you. If I had known for a second that it would cause you undue stress or even that you weren't interested please know I never, ever would have lodged it. As I said I saw your post for adminship training at Esperanza and presumed (ignorantly) that you were interested. I apologise once again, and truly regret having filed it. In you hope you know the intent which I had, apologies once again, - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  17:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No apologies needed, Glen. I did take it as a mark of respect and as an honor that you thought I should become an admin.  I never thought you were being careless of my feelings and if someone had suggested that I would have set them straight.  I'm only sorry that at this time in my life and health, it's not a challenge that's best for me to take up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a relief, I was panicking a bit when I saw your comments to User:Pjacobi - the thought that it had actually in some way affected you negatively was upsetting to say the least. Please let me know if your situation changes and I will first out of the gate nominating you. :) I don't know anything specific about your health (obviously) but I sincerely hope it improves (perhaps auditing would help? - lol!). God bless matey, - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  17:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Moody Blues
You're right; it needed work. See what you think now. –Steve Summit (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Very nice; a lot of subtle but effective improvements. I touched up one or two other points. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

R2-45
Hey bud, re the category for the above; do you think it's best in its current or Category:Scientology beliefs and practices? - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  07:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this one, actually. I could make arguments for "beliefs and practices", "controversy", or both. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa I am totally confused
Hello. Aparently I have offended you? On my (former) article Child Protective Services; After sepnding hours writing and editing it, (and alas yes also using other sources, AND noting them AND referencing them as well as I read how in the user guide) I see that you have totally deleted my entire article - not just marked it or any one part, where I may have made a mistake knowing HOW to use material in an article! I did a LOT of research and work on that article, and I work in the field (hence my username) and while I AM new at wiki, working at trying to learn and do things right, the articles I DID use were written by my MOTHER (her research at Princeton for this very article WE are very proud of) and I very much have her permission. How do I show that any more than with a direct reference in the article? While SHE is not UP on what a wiki is, she was delighted in having SOME of her work featured here last time I asked her. She would tell you the same, and that was only SOME of the article as well so why is it ALL deleted? MOST of that article I either wrote on my own, using many sources and my own knowledge, and assimilated that way. WHY delete the ENTIRE article and not just mark or work with the parts that you felt were not right or tell me? How is someone supposed to contrib if they are just wholeheartedly deleted when they try?? NOt even a NOTE on the talk page! Geez. I was out of town for the Memorial Day and I get back to this. Help! Please advise/explain. I NEVER meant to do anything wrong HERE! I love wiki and spent HOURS working on that and hardly ALL of it was a copyright issue even IF you didn't know that or I didn't reference it right. How am I to learn?? I am totally lost on this one. I await your respose eagerly. cpswarrior 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, please calm down.


 * Second, please note that "your" article (please consult WP:OWN if you don't know why I put the possessive in quotes) was not "deleted". Deletion is a different procedure, and if the article had been deleted, you would not be able to go back into the edit history and see the complete text of what was in the article after every edit.  The procedure that was followed was Wikipedia's established procedure for dealing with possible copyright violations; if you had read the notice that was placed on the page as part of the procedure, you would note that it shows you the steps you should take if you hold the copyright to the material or have permission to use the material.  You have not taken those steps.


 * Thirdly, and importantly, please realize that "does the contributor have copyright to the material or permission to use it otherwise" is not the sole question at issue. There is also the question of whether material that was written for some other venue will be appropriate without modification for Wikipedia, and it may surprise you to learn that for the average academic paper the answer is NO.  Why?  Because the purpose of an academic paper is to put forward and support with evidence a thesis -- a hypothesis or opinion such as "Child Protective Services is good" or "Child Protective Services is bad" or "Child Protective Services started from the best motives but has lost sight of its original purpose" or the like.  Wikipedia articles, by contrast, must be written from the Neutral Point of View (NPOV), which means that it may describe hypotheses or opinions on the subject but should not be trying to convince the reader of the rightness of any thesis -- neither by coming out and directly advocating that thesis nor by giving undue space and attention to that thesis.


 * This means that just having permission from the American Family Rights Association to use their highly opinionated essay "Problem Statement" nearly word-for-word -- and even if that essay was a peer-reviewed work, which I can find no evidence that it is -- doesn't mean that you should be including it nearly word-for-word on Wikipedia. As for your statement that you wrote the majority of the article on your own, merely assimilating observations from others, I must respectfully question whether you took as much care with adapting the work for Wikipedia as you claim you did, seeing as there are not one but two places in the text of the article where you neglected to remove a parenthetical note to "(See the article by Courtney in this journal issue.)" -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. My talk page is always open. I didn't even find a note or entry from you on the discussion page, just your name in the history led me here. I am not saying you worked against me, but I would have liked the chance to know. I feel with your answer you are working with me now, but it was a shock. cpswarrior 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand, agree. I can go back and work slowly to try and clear up the copyright and rewirte the parts of the article to make sure it is nutral and not POV. I do understand what you mean. I am used to others editing and then speedy deleting things before I even get past the first edit. I can't see the need to write EVERYTHING in the sandbox simply because of speedy deleting editors. I feel they are as hasty as anonymous contributors sometimes in viewing deletes, talks and edits over the years. I have contributed other articles for scientific matters without the issues at hand. I understand this is a highly charged and opinionated issue.  As for the parenthetical notes, I HAD editied, re-written and corrected most of them, but worked until too tired one night and reverted to an earlier edit in clipboard, and missed those at that time. In so doing I lost a lot of work and edits, but I see what you mean and how it looks the way it was left. Note: My collegues in the field agree with it (the articles) and they have reviewed them. How is that to be stated if it is fact and still can be considered POV? In my work, most agree that 'cps' has become (is becoming/always was) a big governmental industry, and I felt that readers should know the truth and not what some government pamphlet would have you believe that they are "there to help families" as they state it. It is sickning. How do I write this kind of information without avoiding the truth and still satisfy NPOV rules? I can see that writing "Big oil is a monopoly and makes huge profits at the expense of consumers" would be POV, but if it is TRUE that oil companies are monopolies, are making huge profits, and that it IS at the expense of consumers, where do you state that without the nutrality replacing truth, without simply sounding like Sean Hanity stating another guised opinion? "Some poeple feel that big oil companies are making huge profits" sounds so weak and right-leaning. I do appreciate your answer. I will continue to read and edit this and I will try my best to correct it in a way that meets all the rules. I would like there to be a CPS article that explains more than what the GOV wants you to read/think. I hope you will review it and agree at some stage. Thanks for taking time to answer so thoroughly. I will do better.  On one last note, in reading what you suggested I do, I understand I do not "own" my work here. I will share one from WP:OWN that struck me about this edit though:


 * Well, the problem is that an NPOV article on the subject must include what "some government pamphlet would have you believe" -- correctly attributed to its proponents, of course, and not just "some government pamphlet". If you think the facts of the matter would convince anyone otherwise, then what you want to do is to show the reader those facts, and make sure they're well-sourced so that the reader knows why they should believe that those facts are factually true.  To give an example, if you found reliable sources for two of the figures mentioned in the "Problem Statement" essay, that "Federal statistics say that there are approximately 3 million reports of suspected child abuse and neglect each year" but "The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services documents 900,000 as 'substantiated'", readers can see why those who believe CPS oversteps its bounds believe that.  Another source is the 2000 Time article mentioned:  what facts does that article provide?  That's the direction I'd encourage you to look in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I owe you a sincere thanks for being so helpful and patient taking time to explain all of that so well. I am going to attempt a total re-write (and properly sourced) version of the article this weekend, time permitting. I will be asking for your approval/advice before I resubmit it again or change the page-holder. I appreciate your calm manor with me. I have been very flamed and scorned in the past by people and wanted to just throw in the towel after trying. I feel inspired by your suggestions Antaeus. In my opinion you are a very good editor and an asset to Wikipedia. I would nominate you as an editor if you weren't. cpswarrior 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Way work, Thanks
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your comment and for the work you have done to make The Way International page NPOV. I was just going to send a quick email but could only find this place to reply to. Delete this after you read it if you want, but again thanks! :) Lsjzl 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Television Puppetry
I removed Category:Television Puppetry because the category didn't exist, that's all. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Hi, I was alerted about a possible abuse of personal attack parole by Terryeo but I cannot help noticing that your own comments lack civility:


 * ""Janet" is a former Scientologist? Flunk, go back and clear your M/Us"

That's not really a nice thing to say to a scientologist, is it? I'm familiar with the jargon, sadly.

I realise that is a pretty old comment, but I'd just like to ask you to please resist the urge to goad Terryeo, whose own comment was pretty civil. I'm not taking action against Terryeo because I feel that he was deliberately goaded in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at Terryeo's comments of "Those people whom you refuse to address are observing you, too", which I am just seeing now, it seems what you really mean is "I feel that you deliberately goaded him in this instance." Don't you think there's a bit of victim-blaming in that?  I mean, do you realize that Terryeo has never stopped his own incivility of declaring that other editors are deliberately trying to keep Dianetics and Scientology from being presented in an NPOV fashion?  He has even dedicated a page to such accusations; it's only recently (and at the prompting of NicholasTurnbull, who also made it clear to Terryeo that it would be done for him if he didn't do it himself) that Terryeo stopped calling us suppressive persons.    Are you saying that Terryeo treating us with that incivility for months is not enough goading to explain ""Janet" is a former Scientologist? Flunk, go back and clear your M/Us", but ""Janet" is a former Scientologist? Flunk, go back and clear your M/Us" is enough goading to excuse him making more comments of a "people are keeping tabs on you" nature? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Watch out for 126.86.47.11
The guy's making innacurate edits and claiming they are correct. He changed "Suzuka Ohgo" to "Ohga" on the Suzuka Ohgo page claiming that "Ohga" is her name (when it isn't.) WhisperToMe 17:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo falsely describes truthful accounts of his actions as "personal attacks"
Please stop your personal attacks, User Antaeus Feldspar.User_talk:Terryeo Terryeo 06:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the statements I made, which you falsely claim are "personal attacks", are fully accurate, Terryeo. Are you really going to claim that you did none of those things when the diffs showing in black and white that you did are there for everyone to see at []?  Your claim that it is a "personal attack" to reveal completely true information about your wiki editing is unfounded. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Antaeus Feldspar invited himself into a discussion on my user page. He gave his opinion which included Terryeo lied about other editors and . . .made false accusations with nothing to back them up.  When I moved the discussion to my discussion page, User Talk:Terryeo I asked him to stop his personal attacks.  He and I replied to each other and might have worked it out.  But his most recent statement denys good faith by threatening what he is going to do at my next RfAr. Full Discussion
 * That is the situation. tells me to notify you directly, I am doing so. Please stop your personal attacks, User:Antaeus Feldspar Terryeo 03:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, I realize you would like it if the definition of "personal attack" was stretchable, such that you get to call other editors "black hats" and make the assumption of bad faith about them that "they do not wish to have the subject presented in a neutral sort of way", but if anyone points out (say, in response to the claim that you got "banned" due to the psychs) that in fact what happened to you was due to your own actions -- why, somehow that is a personal attack, in a way that labelling your fellow editors "black hats" purportedly isn't. I know this would be convenient for you.  Sadly for you, it isn't so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Skeptics society
Hi Antaeus. I have noticed some strange and odd things on the NLP article. Most of the HKU skeptics society has been banned from editing on the basis of they are suspected sockpuppetry. I am a member, and I am worried about myself being banned if I make any objection to the NLP advocates removing verified information. I know at least some of them are not sockpuppets. I met Alice, Headley (Wei Qing), Hans, and Bookmain (Jim) a few months back, and Camridge (Liz) is also really nice. They are all therapists and academics. Do you think they will ban the whole of Hong Kong and China from editing that article? Also, I notice you have a grounding in editing pseudoscience subjects. I can send you some soft copy papers on NLP that the group gave me if you like. The article at presently seems to be going under some kind of censorship campaign. Some of it refers to scientology and other pseudosciences so I thought it may be helpful and "synergetic" for you. Helen Wu helenkitlingwu@yahoo.com 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Reason for bans:


 * Hi to both User:Antaeus Feldspar and User:Helen Wu. I doubt much I say will make any difference. However, here to clarify is why the HK sockfarm / sceptics place was banned:


 * Wikipedia has rules and policies. Those rules govern, inter alia all personal conduct, and approaches to articles. Because of the nature of the internet, they also govern when and how a user may be removed for suspected accounts, or for multiple editors working together in a manner that blocks proper functioning of Wikipedia, even if by chance they are different individuals sharing computers. You may not like this, but each place has its rules, and those were spelled out over a very long period of time, and at many levels. They were spelled out by numerous individuals, personally and on the article, by mediation, by arbitration, by mentorship, and ultimately, by removal.


 * The users named have been blocked not because of a sudden desire by a number of editors and mediators (most of whom had no prior interest in NLP) to take a side. In fact they were not formally removed until the mediators tired of their knowing improper conduct, after many months of work by 3rd parties who feel their time was wasted. That's how life goes: - in a communal work, no individual is indispensible, and those who do not learn, tend to ultimately discover this. I'm told it's a bit of a shock. They were removed because, simply put, they did not learn how to write in accordance with an encyclopedic style. they were removed for "warfare", vandalism, invention of false facts, deletion of valid sourced material, persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards, breaches of sockpuppet policy first notified to them over 8 months ago and not rectified in that time, running of one of the largest sockpuppet/meatpuppet groups of 2005 (WP:SOCK refers), and virulent personal attacks. Most of these things had little to do with the content they were writing.


 * (Incidentally, several of them were the same individual, not just the same computer. That's been confirmed a number of ways. No I don't plan to clarify, just to say, "do you think this is the first time it's happened here"? Again, ask Headley)


 * Anyhow, it's done. This is written, on the off chance there are genuine individuals who wonder why the bans happened. Now you know. FT2 (Talk) 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my position on this: I have experience and interest in some fields that may be similar to NLP or may in some way relate to it; however, I don't have any real grounding in the debates over NLP.  I've only edited NLP articles occasionally, and only to the extent where I felt that knowledge of Wikipedia policy, or subjects that I am more familiar with than NLP, pointed clearly to a particular change.  Accordingly, I've declined requests/suggestions that I get more involved with the debates over the NLP articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Invisible university
Re your AfD recommendation - I have since added references, including one to Ronald Gross's book Peak Learning ( ISBN 087477957X ), in which I first encountered the term.

Additional references can be seen in the article's "References" section, on the relevant AfD page, and by using this Google search.

These references should satisfy the no-delete criteria. If they don't, or if you have any other questions regarding the article in question, feel free to leave me a message or to email me at fitzCOFFEEkreiner@aol.com (minus the source of caffeine, naturally - that's just a bit of anti-spambot foobaring on my part).

--SpecOp Macavity 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestion; it might take me a while, though, as the subject of "peak learning" is rather more extensive. However, I'll do my best - and until the article is fully compiled, would it be permissible to leave the Invisible university article up? --SpecOp Macavity 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Righto, will do. Note has been left on the appropriate AfD page. --SpecOp Macavity 14:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why have an invisible university when we already have an Unseen University? :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)