User talk:Brownwn

Regarding change to 4GW page, I see that my edit reverts the meaning of the paragraph to that of the very first version of this page. I believe "unlike in" is the correct version. Brownwn (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Our recent discussion re the ACIM article
Dear Brownwn, To the best of my knowledge, I have now done everything that you required. The claims of demonic origin of the CRI article are now clearly in the criticism section. I hope this is enough for you. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP does not require noting the same criticism twice in the ACIM article
(This discussion moved from the ACIM article's Talk Page, and as this is a personal talk page, the page owner is free to delete it, should they choose to do so.)

I have removed the second mention of the claim that ACIM is 'occult' from the criticism section. Inserting it twice there seems to me to detract from the quality of that section. Unless you could please clarify which Wikipedia policy you are referring to that it must be included twice, please don't re-insert it. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In academic writing it is generally considered deceptive and an abuse of a reference to pull out a phrase that contradicts the general meaning of that reference. You are using the CRI reference so you can get the "glowing endorsement" phrase in, whereas the CRI reference stands as anything BUT a glowing endorsement.


 * You say that WP does not require noting the same criticism twice. Does WP forbid noting the same criticism twice? As I said in a comment on one of my edits, you must disclose the true nature of the reference, or else its use is deceptive. "Generally negative" does not come close. You don't like the word "occult" so for now I am putting in another phrase from the authors concluding paragraphs. I realize that "demonic" is already used, but that is in the context of another reference. It's just silly to suggest that different references cannot be described using the same word, if it's appropriate (and used in the reference itself).


 * You must either live with the true nature (accept a concluding quote) of the CRI reference in order to use the "glowing endorsement" phrase, or remove the reference entirely. You cannot cherry pick and maintain academic/WP integrity. Brownwn (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I must say, being called a "clumsy liar/ falsifier" by you in the article's editorial comments is not exactly "warming my heart", though for some strange reason I have a sneaking suspicion that such a "warming" may not be one of your "top priorities" in life. Even though I don't entirely agree with the manner or logic of your demands, I can still see how one such as yourself might feel as you seem to feel about this. Therefor I guess you could say that I partly agree with your logic, but I do not really agree with you that I am a "clumsy liar/ falsifier". Generally speaking, in Wikipedia we try to be a little bit more civil with one another than that, but your unusual "tone" definitely catches my attention. I have now "complied" with your demands. I truly hope you will find my last edit to have met with your demands. I hope you might also consider in the future being a little less derisive, and demanding of other editors in Wikipedia. Usually in Wikipedia one editor does not make such an outright editorial "demand" of another editor. Honey is always a better means of attaining success with flies than vinegar.

Regarding the reason I don't entirely agree with your logic, if you were to tell me that you believe that the devil did X, and that so and so said Y, I am not automatically required to repeat your belief that the devil did X every time I repeat your claim that so and so said Y, and not repeating your belief that the devil did X each time does not automatically make me a liar/ falsifier. If CRI said that some theologians gave glowing endorsements, but that they think that the devil is the true author of ACIM, I do not have to report that they believe that the devil is the true author of ACIM each time I repeat their claim of glowing endorsements. They "reported on glowing endorsements", whether or not they believe that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are in league with the devil, and that the sky will most certainly fall tomorrow.

Obviously you and I do not agree on whether demons as portrayed in the Bible are real. Generally most encyclopedia articles are written from a somewhat more scientific perspective that usually does not include the assumption that demons are real. I suspect that you may take offense at such a perspective, and thus perhaps, some of the basis of our disagreements.

If you might happen to subscribe to Biblical literalism and want to find a web-editing-environment where Biblical literalism is encouraged, perhaps you might try looking into joining Conservapedia.com for any of your religion related edits, at least until you can accept that not all reports of "demon belief" as it might pertain to a given article necessarily must be reported on in Wikipedia. (Personally, I prefer reporting on God-beliefs over beliefs in that other fellow.) :-) Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked from editing
You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for edit warring, as you did at International Law and the Gaza War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc (talk Sir, can you tell me why Sean.hoyland  - talk''' complaint against me did not appear on my talk page, but only in the history section of my talk page? I believe my entries can be restated in a manner that satisfies his objections, my mistakes are perhaps not "astonishing" when viewed in relation to the amount of editing I've done.


 * This version of your talkpage clearly shows that it was visible on your talkpage. Some IP address dropped by and rem'd it out claiming "soapboxing".  You were appropriately warned.  the panda ɛˢˡ”  16:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree it was visible on history page. Not arguing notice. I failed to grasp that random ip did/could rem an important notice. Seems ip's intent was to obscure notification to me, unsuccessful tho' it was. Thanks for your help, the panda ɛˢˡ”  Brownwn (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)