User talk:GoodDamon/Archives/2008/December

Zero Down, Zero Interest at the Oregon COTW
Hello to all the WikiProject Oregon folks, time once again for yet another bone chilling edition of the Collaboration Of The Week. I thank yee who helped make improvements to Fort Stevens and Upper Klamath Lake. For this first week of December, we have by request Mike Bellotti and his archrival Mike Riley, both in honor of that great tradition we call the Civil War (AKA the battle for the platypus). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents is strictly prohibited. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Acorn/ Claim/ Weasel
Claimed is not a weasel word if it is attributed to who makes the claim, which in this case is properly attributed and therefore good style.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's not a claim, it's an official finding by the Inspector General. And WP:WEASEL specifically mentions the formulation of so-and-so "claimed" as an example of a weasel word. I won't revert you again, but I urge you to, and I'll argue for it on the article talk page. I agreed with your removal of the other weasel words, but this is adding one in. -- Good Damon 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll reread it and see if it is. If so, I will revert. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * [] might be a better source for edifification. I think argues would avoid the problem nicely without the authority that "reports "lends (see reference)Die4Dixie (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's not an argument. It is a finding at the end of a long investigation. It may not be accurate, but that's not for any of us to judge one way or the other. Right now it's all we've got, without any findings to the contrary, and we really shouldn't be trying to spin it. "Claim" weakens it for no good reason, lending the illusion that there is credible opposition to it. "Argues" is inaccurate, and frames it inappropriately. What's wrong with using the most accurate descriptive word for something that is neither a claim nor an argument? -- Good Damon 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. When ever you make a case, you argue it. The arguments are the proof that you offer to sustantiate your conclusions. Any paper that i write I argue. If the word is troubling to you, think "argumentative essay",
 * A better analogy would be a legal finding of facts. After all the arguments are in, judges sometimes issue a finding of facts (see the Microsoft monopoly trial for a famous example of one). As far as the judge is concerned, those are the facts of the case, and they aren't open for further argument. A higher judge may reverse those findings, but they're still the lower judge's findings after all the facts and arguments have been sorted out, and it takes a higher judge to turn it back into an argument. In this instance, the Inspector General wasn't making a case; he assembled all the facts and arguments, and issued a finding. If no one of equal or higher standing is disputing it, I'd say the argument is over. -- Good Damon 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * please see if my latest edit meets with your approval. Cheer.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mon
Hey, please put your nose back in place (grin) and help out with the Scientology articles. I, for one, miss ya. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ayers
his admission of having planted the haymarket bomb is an admission of criminality, meeting the third prog for inclusion in the category, no? Lyle Mendez says he didn't kill his parents, but that doesn't really matter much now, does it?Die4Dixie (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 18:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.....but
I'm not sure this edit was really vandalism. Boris is a long-term editor, whose doppelgaenger is an admin. However, just to make sure someone didn't hijack his account, I did ask him what was up with the edit. Kind of odd. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 05:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after I reverted that, I almost template'd him, then saw his talk and user page and thought better of it. It's one of those Things That Make You Go Hmmm. -- Good Damon 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Scientology
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Devon Monk
A tag has been placed on Devon Monk 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Devon Monk
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Devon Monk, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Author of two books, subject of one small bio, thus fails WP:BIO

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Chicago
Bali Ultimate had acused me several times of being a sock of Brian from Palatine, who operated out of Chicago, so that is where Chicago came from at ANI.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's all clear, now. BryanFromPalatine is a puppeteer and long-term abuser who operates out of Chicago, and a bunch of editors had to put up with his socks for months before the admins put two and two together and finally got rid of the lot of them. It's unfortunate that he happened to hold many of the same perspectives as you, because I think that's why bali was concerned about that. For the record, I don't think you're a sock of anyone. I disagree with you on a lot, and I probably disagree with you politically in real life, but unless BFP is the single most skilled puppeteer I've ever seen, you're not him. Totally different style, totally different mannerisms, no sudden appearance of sockpuppets to defend your POV, etc. As far as I'm concerned, that matter is long closed, and bali needs to just accept that you're someone he's going to disagree with a lot. -- Good Damon 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I said this at the time when this user emerged to defend the Bfp socks. I retracted it shortly thereafter and never repeated it. It's unfortunate that Dixie so often sides with problem users. But that does not, by itself, make him a problem user, and I didn't say that in regards to chicago, syntacticus, the milkman and bigus dickus. So there's nothing i need to accept.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, on re-reading that I came off as a bit of a dickus myself. I didn't mean to insult you about it, I was under the (mis)apprehension that you were still concerned about D4D, and I retract that. -- Good Damon 20:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No apology required; didn't feel slighted, but i appreciate the gesture.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology
Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

On your statement you mention sockpuppetry and single purpose role account usage.

I was wondering if you could tell me which users became who (sockpuppetry) so that I have a better map of the accounts involved. If you could post them in the following format it would be of great help. Please also put a * after the connections that are offical (backed by a SSP or RFCU). Feel free to identify which ones are role accounts.



I intend to draw a graph like User:White Cat/RFAR/graph to document individual users activity.

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

-- Cat chi? 17:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to tell which accounts specifically became who or how they're associated with each other, because there are quite a few, and they have all edited concurrently. User:Cirt put together a very helpful chart of the accounts and their specific IP address associations here on the ArbCom evidence page.


 * I am heavily involved in part of the dispute, although I regard it as a very simple matter of accounts inappropriately editing from Church of Scientology IP addresses. I am not that involved in their counter-complaints and the complaints of otherwise unassociated editors against User:Cirt himself, although I consider them to be largely without merit. -- Good Damon 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Very cold, must type about the Oregon COTW to stay warm
Hello again from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week HQ. Since there was no notice last time, thanks to those who helped improve Mike Riley and Mike Bellotti at the begging of the month and to those who helped create Oregon Department of Justice and Lindsay Applegate last week. Those last two were the red links with lots of links to them from other articles (DOJ was #1). For this week, in honor of Arctic Blast/Winter Storm/Damn its Freakin’ Cold Outside 2008/Storm of the Century/Is there ANYTHING else going on in the world?/We Might Actually Have a White Christmas, we have Snow Bunny. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have state senator Margaret Carter, which could easily be turned into a nice DYK entry once expanded 5X. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Have a Holly Jolly Christmas/Hanukah/ Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and Dianetics
Hello Gooddeamon, with regards to your last mail the following questions remained: in the wiki article on dianetics, why isn't the latest 2007 edition of the Original Thesis mentioned, instead of an outdated and unreliable edition?

Regarding the scholars I mentioned (Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor Phylosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty Rome (Scientology a True Religion), James A. Beckford. Ph.D, Prof Sociology (Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion), Per-Arne Berglie, Prof History and Religion (Scientology, Comparison with Religions of the East and West), Allan W Black, Associate Prof of Sociology (Is Scientology a Religion?), M Darrol Bryant Ph.D, Prof Religion and Culture (Scientology, a New Religion), Régis Dericquebourg, Prof Sociology and Religion (Scientology), Frank K Flinn Ph.D, Associate Prof Sociology (Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences), Harri Heino, Prof Theology (Scientology, its True Nature), Dean M Kelley, Counsellor on Religious Liberty (Is Scientology a Religion?), Lonnie D Kliever, Dr.Phil, Prof Religious Studies (The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements), G C Oosthuizen, Th.D, Prof (retired) Dept of Science and Religion (Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church), Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D, Prof Emeritus (The Religious Nature of Scientology), Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D (Apostates and New Religious Movements and Social Change and New Religious Movements), Dario Sabbattuci, Prof of History and Religion (Scientology, its Historical and Morphological Frame), Christiaan Vonck, Ph.D, Rector Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions (Scientology and Religion), Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D, Associate Prof Sociology (Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences), J Pentikainen, Ph.D (The Church of Scientology), Michael A Sivertsev, Expert advisor International Matters to Committee Russian Federation (Scientology, A Way of Spiritual Self-Identification), Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets (The Relationship between Scientology and other Religions), I can only see that Michael Sivertsev is a member of the Church. Who else do you mean then? Taodeptus (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Taodeptus
 * This is a substantially larger list than you provided before, and certainly does include some notable scholars who are not Scientologists, which is good. But you didn't mention any of them previously, and you certainly didn't cite them in your edits to the Scientology and Dianetics articles. Please understand that statements of fact have to be cited to a reliable source, or they may be reverted. Also, if at all possible, avoid use of Hubbardisms in your edits. For example, I may understand what an "overt" is, when the word is used as a noun, but most non-Scientologists would not.
 * I note, by the way, that it has been a while since you wrote. I enjoy discussion, but would prefer it if your answers came more quickly, because to be honest I've entirely lost the thread of this conversation. -- Good Damon 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rush/ Obama/ Drug abuse
You are absolutely correct about junkies, but was mystified about your reference to Limbaugh. You will note I have no userboxes relating to him or his buffoonery. He is amusing the same way Chris Rock is. Yes, a junkie is always a junkie, no matter what the self serving play the victim rationalizations they offer up are or what side of the spectrum they fall on. Hope I answered your question ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I see from context that was a little confusing. What I was (clumsily) trying to say is that what you said applied to junkies left, right, and center. I saw too much defense of Rush for his drug addiction from the same people who are generally of the "throw-'em-all-in-jail" bent, and guess I was making a sort of off-handed, undirected comment about hypocrisy. Sorry for the confusion, and it's obvious I need more sleep/coffee. -- Good Damon 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured that's what you were saying, but I wanted you to know I call them like I see 'em, whoever they are :)Die4Dixie (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)