User talk:Bostongirl70

In these edits, you changed a ref from this:

"William Schnoebelen, who claims to have been an Old Order Catholic priest, a Wiccan High Priest, a Satanist High Priest, a Master Mason, and a Temple Mormon, has (not surprisingly) been accused of simply inventing a past to gain countercult credibility"

to this:

"William Schnoebelen, an Old Order Catholic priest, a Wiccan High Priest, a Satanist High Priest, a Master Mason, and a Temple Mormon."

As Google makes clear, the former is a verbatim quote from the source cited, and the latter is a clumsy attempt to reverse its meaning. I try to assume good faith, but it's hard to see your edits as anything but a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources. --GenericBob (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/HarpLady01 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GenericBob (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim is not relevant to sock puppetry
I'm not sure how to respond to the wrongful allegation. I hope writing response here is acceptable. The claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. I do not know who or what HarpLady is.

It was late and I do apologize that I didn't notice the quotation marks in that sentence when editing the page. But this has nothing to do with this puppetry thing that was mentioned.

It truly was not a a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources. I edited other portions of the page and didn't encounter quotations elsewhere. I do not feel this editor used good faith but made many assumptions. But then again, this has no relevance to sock puppetry issue. I have never used a different account or user name on Wikipedia.

bostongirlBostongirl70 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The apparent sockpuppetry is a separate issue from the citation issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I didn't notice the quotation marks". What you did was to change a citation by removing exactly the right words to change its meaning. It's hard to see how that could happen by accident. --GenericBob (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to William Schnoebelen, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: William Schnoebelen was changed by Bostongirl70 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.918575 on 2011-07-20T15:33:54+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to William Schnoebelen with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So now that you were called on misrepresenting sources you move on to wholesale deletion of the cited material you dislike? Final warning...will be immediately blocked from editing if you continue this pattern. DMacks (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I tried deleting what is untrue in the article but that was rejected as well. So PLEASE explain editing. It seems that only editors who are higher up in Wikipedia can edit and have the final say, not someone who comes in with information on the subject. Please help. I have a lot of experiences and information on important issues/articles. But I'm not being allowed to edit or erase bogus material. Why does it have to be approved and how do I have it approved? Certainly it's not going to be approved by an editor who has been editing a long time, if they have an opposing view, even if that view isn't accurate.

Please help.

Thank you. And apologies for assuming I could erase bogus text. Gee never been in here before...

Bostongirl70 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)bostongirl


 * Wikipedia does not exist to glorify William Schnoebelen, it simply documents what reliable sources state. All outside investigation of Bill's claims show that he has no evidence for his stories, and that his stories are contradictory or even based on errors.  Just because you do not like that does not make the article "bogus."  His stories are only reliable sources to document what he claims, they do not prove anything in themselves.  At no point did you provide any evidence that Bill's claims are reliable, or that the critical sources are unreliable.
 * It is not an issue of "higher" editors, there is no such thing. The article has reliable sources, and other editors are citing them (click the blue links to see the policies on identifying and citing reliable sources).
 * Just because Schnoebelen says he did something is not enough to say it's a fact (it's only enough to say that he claimed to have done something). When evidence is provided that his stories are not true, we should not idly assume that the outside source is lying but examine how different Schnoebelen's story is from objective reality.  Just because he is a Christian does not make him exempt from this: we as Christians should hold him to a higher standard because those speaking for Christ should not lie to scare people into the pews.  Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world - 1 John 4:1  The neutral point of view policies are not against Christianity, but actually they complement each other quite well.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for one caring response in this thread. You are over-looking the bad faith assumption that I was sock/meat-puppeting, which was untrue. I'm not here to right wrongs for William and don't know him personally. I do see a lot of "opinions" in wikipedia that are not facts or simply a person stating that they were "catholic" or this or that on their home page. And it is not normally disputed.


 * Normally, someone claiming to have followed a religion is not disputed, but Bill's claim to having been Catholic is questionable since he demonstrates in one of his books that he can't tell the difference between the Thelemite Ecclesia Gnostica and the Roman Catholic church. He also states in his books that he swore allegiance to a Voodoo god instead of the Pope, not especially Catholic.  Bill confusing the Roman Catholic Church with the Ecclesia Gnostica is absolutely ridiculous and shows that Schnoebelen is either too ignorant of the Catholic church to have ever been a member, or is being dishonest about ever having been a member.  Claiming that he was consecrated as a Roman Catholic bishop through Ecclesia Gnostica credentials, as you did [here is likewise either ignorant or dishonest.  [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Mormonism
Also, there are other statements that are simply untrue about the Mormon faith discouraging freemasonry. I own a home in Utah and lived there for YEARS and know for a fact that almost all men in leadership in their Wards are freemasons and do wear the "magic undergarments". The women even do. There is a lot going on behind the scenes on Wikipedia to keep the truth from coming out about the current connections between freemasonry and Mormonism. You almost can't separate the two when it comes to a Utahn Mormon. In the SLC area, there is not a great "hiding" of who's in it. It's actually a bragging right there and talked about more freely in public.


 * Then it should be easy to find a reliable source that you can cite in support of this claim. --GenericBob (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has a source concerning how the LDS church duscourages its members from becoming Masons. The individuals you see appear to be exceptions.
 * Wait, the women are freemasons? I think you're refering to how Mormonism ripped off some rituals from Freemasonry, because regular lodges don't let women join.
 * There is nothing going on "behind the scenes" on Wikipedia, talk pages like this are as "behind the scenes" as it can get here, and the requirement to stick to sources, and give the sources due weight prevent "hiding" stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July sockpuppetry case cont'd
It is simply untrue that everyone is welcome to make contributions to Wikipedia. I had heard this to be true and just wanted to see for myself. Bob is certainly a member of the masons or wouldn't have such a vengeance. You are sadly misinformed if you think most of the information on Wikipedia is true just because it has notations from terribly inaccurate sources. Wikipedia is not useful as a factual site at this point. Hoping that may change in the future.

Bostongirl70 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone is welcome to make contributions, within the policies and guidelines (such as those for citing reliable sources with due weight in a neutral fashion, and not censoring established information just because it makes a subject look bad). Everyone is welcome to contribute by undoing contributions that do not meet those guidelines.  Removing reliably sourced information that does not favor the article's subject, as you did here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here is NOT acceptable, it is censorship.  You were the one who has been attempting to hide stuff.  You have no evidence to claim that GenericBob is a Freemason, and you are not assuming good faith by claiming he is or that that has anything to do with him undoing your attempts to hide and censor information that happens to expose William Schnoebelen as a liar.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)