User talk:GoCubs88

I've decided that after years of reading Wikipedia that I should start participating.

I'm a retired, union carpenter, who lives in the Chicago-area with my two dogs. Leave me a message if you want.

Just a quick bit of info
Hiya, just so you know, that info you put up about you, normally that'd go on you user page. But it's fine on your talk page, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorlack36 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip.GoCubs88 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zvi Zeitlin


A tag has been placed on Zvi Zeitlin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello GoCubs88
Hello GoCubs, and thank you for your interest in improving the articles Keith Raniere and NXIVM. Just so you know we have collected WP:RS materials on which these articles may be based on the "discussion" page behind the article. Are you familiar with the the Forbes Article? What about the Gazette and Times Union collections, which are on the bottom of the page. There's an excellent article from the Village Voice, but that one relies heavily on the New York Observer article, which is very interesting. And then there's the Buffalo News, and if your familiar with the famous Canadian financial magazine, the Mcleans article is quite informative. I'm not saying you should read everything, there's a lot there, but please at least give some of it the once-over. That's the first step, familiarizing oneself with the source material, wouldn't you agree? And it's so interesting. I like the way they write in New York Magazine, personally. Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * GoCub88, these pages, prior consensus, must reflect the well-established fact that NXIVM is a cult.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And don't think you're fooling anyone about being a new editor. But its good for laughs.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry guy, but I am a new user. I just clicked on the random article button. I had a look at those sources and I think it's still rather pejorative to call it a "cult."GoCubs88 (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy you've had a look at them, but while you are correct to say that it's pejoritive, it's what they call it. Do you feel well informed about him and it? Chrisrus (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if a guy says he's not a cult member.GoCubs88 (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "A guy"? Who?  This is a depentant clause.  If...member, ....what? Chrisrus (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this: | http://www.timesunion.com/default/media/NXIVM-Becca-Friedman-4173.php? Chrisrus (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saw it. I'm not sure what you mean to claim there. A disgruntled ex-member of an organization calls it a cult? So what? "Cult" is a loaded word, no? GoCubs88 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ITS A CULT. Tell us your connection to Raniere, because I'd never heard of the guy before I saw his lackeys editing his wikipedia pages.  99.999% of the world cares not a whit about the guy.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a connection to him at all. I think he's kind of interesting, if any of that stuff is true. You're right. He's a small fry all considered, but doesn't that mean he should be treated with respect? If I called your business group a cult, you'd be rightly ticked off.--GoCubs88 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if every news report ever written about him says its a cult. We're talking major national publications like Forbes not just regional leading newspapers.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I went through them all and they are all just parrotting the same line from the New York Post which isn't exactly a reliable source, especially as MacIntosh is an opinion columnist. The Forbes one goes back and forth and says: "Is it a cult"? "Is it not a cult?"GoCubs88 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to claim to be familiar with the articles in the New York Post about him and it. I've not bothered to look at those, as it is a tabloid, but please, as you are familiar with the Post's stories, what are the dates?  When were he and it first written about there, and do the Posts' articles predate or postdate sources such as the Forbes article and others?  What makes you think all those articles are derived from the post?  In your last edit, you've linked to the article about the post as opposed to removing it.  Please look at the citation for the sentence you have last edited.  Please note where in that citation is the Post and that collumnist mentioned.  Please see that the sentence in the article contains claims of fact not mentioned in the article it cites.  This is wrong, is it not?  I would like to correct that sentence with another telling the readers the truth about what that and many more articles say.  We should not menion the post in the article as it's not a WP:RS, and the only way to cite that statement that I can think of would be to cite the post.  Will you please remove that statement?  Chrisrus (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please disclose your connection to Raniere/Nvixm, GoCubs88, this is my last request.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Milowent, I don't really appreciate being threatened. I have no connection to NXIVM or Keith Raniere other than an academic interest in coaching programs. What's your connection to trying to smear them? I'd be happy to take this up with an administrator, if necessary. It is well poisoning to GoCubs88 (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "an academic interest in coaching programs"? Which ones?  You can take up my beefs with whomever you please.--Milowent • talkblp-r  20:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent edits


Hello, GoCubs88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Introduction to Wikipedia | Tutorial
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out Questions, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Hidden|style=width: 50%;|contentstyle=text-align: left;|1=How do I create citations?|2=#Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for. 
 * 1) Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
 * 2) In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
 * 3) Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
 * 4) Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like, copy the whole thing).
 * 5) In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
 * 6) If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

Email me?
I'm milo_went AT yahoo dot com. Would like to discuss with you offline. cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm a private person. I'd like to have any emails or messages public as I don't appreciate your attacks on me. If you were a little nicer, I might be so inclined.--GoCubs88 (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem being public about it. And I am not going to be "nicer," when your definition of nicer means possibly enabling a cult to prey on innocents.  I am disturbed that you would so blithely defend an organization that extensive news reporting has described as a cult, including examples of people's lives seriously harmed by it.--Milowent • talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm disturbed that you would sully an organization's name by calling it a "cult" and by injecting your own obvious POV into an article. I see no interest on your part of looking at real cults and don't appreciate being attacked by you when I have made constructive edits and merely want to follow the Wikipedia rules of BLP.--GoCubs88 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no point of view other than what the sources say, I never heard of NXIVM or Raniere before I stumbled on the disputes over their articles. Your edits have been clearly done to sanitize the articles, and you only care about these articles, not withstanding some other window dressing edits you have done, like this.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  03:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly you haven't bothered to read my talk page. I've been complimented on my other edits and will continue to edit seriously when I'm finally moved in. I really do wish you would follow the BLP rules, but alas, I'm sorry to say you don't seem interested. --GoCubs88 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Feyd is a nice guy, likes to welcome new editors, he isn't watching to see your reign of error regarding Raniere and NXIVM. He isn't checking your cult-bona-fides.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  13:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vincent M. Holt


A tag has been placed on Vincent M. Holt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. aηsuмaη  ༽Ϟ  07:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Noritoshi Kanai
Good idea for an article, you can do so much more with these one sentence stubs trying to mask your Ranierelove.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 14:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at my edits. Not even ten percent of them have to do with NXIVM. In other words, stop harassing me. --GoCubs88 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NXIVM
Hi again, just got your message. I probably cant be much help with this particular query, especially as the difference between the current lede and the previous version by Milowent seems quite subtle. Without taking sides, some general observations might help...

If multiple quality reliable sources are calling an org a cult, its not a BLP violation for us to say so in the lede, especially if we qualify with "according to..". In clear cut cases Id agree with Milowent that we'd be at fault if we white washed the lede as we'd effectively be helping cultists prey on the innocent.

On the other hand, I know some Americans use the term rather loosely. I've been called a cult member more than once just for believing in universal salvation, even though Im a member of the CoE, where the view that unbelievers face eternal torment is fringe. CoE is the lede Church of the Anglican body, the 3rd biggest community of Christians after Catholics and the Orthodox church, about the most un cult like Church there is. So Id agree we ought not to use the term lightly. In this case through the Forbes and Times Union sources seem to justify either of the recent ledes, at least in my non expert view.

On Wikipedia, unlike in real life, first impressions are often unreliable – at least Ive misjudged fellow editors several times from first contact. But Ive encountered Milowent many times over the last year or so and they seem a thoroughly good egg. Hopefully you'll find this too if you continue to have dealings with them. Maybe you could have a break from this particular article for a couple of weeks, and if / when you return the time delay will allow relations to naturally start afresh?

Id rather not have any further involvement with this article, but youre welcome to message me again if you think I can help with anything else. If things don't get resolved amicably with the editors already on the talk page, Dispute resolution noticeboard might be a good place to ask for outside help.

PS - sorry for going on a bit. As its your own talk page its fine for you to delete messages once you've read them if you want to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lexicon Branding
Thank you Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your contribution to the article Rin Tin Tin!Chrisrus (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)