User talk:Zerschmettert die Schändliche

I have serious doubts about your new category, Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship, and wonder how both Siad Barre and Gerald Ford could belong to it. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed Edwin Meese from it. There is nothing in the article that corroborates this information  GB fan  talk 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I will follow your lead, though I will use rollback, after checking the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See the sources below and the list of prominent members of the Family listed in WP:CITE sources available at The Fellowship (Christian organization), e.g., for Ed Meese, see Jeff Sharlet, The Family (Harper, 2008), p.27-29, and for Gerald Ford, ibid., p.230. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you need any support for your edits, contact me. I think that you have a legit point and that the information should not be reverted unless their is good reason for discussion. Your point on Richard Lugar adequetely accredits who says this and why they say it.SADADS (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David Bahati, you will be blocked from editing. This is clearly vandalism--claiming a Ugandan MP as a member of an American Christian politicial organization. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All my edits clearly satisfy WP:CITE. Sources:
 * Google news search for david bahati family jeff sharlet reveals dozens of articles
 * Therefore, According to the standards of WP:CITE, David Bahiti can be said to be a member of the Family. I will post these citations on the various discussions arising from Wikipedia edits about David Bahati and other Family members. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Google news search for david bahati family jeff sharlet reveals dozens of articles
 * Therefore, According to the standards of WP:CITE, David Bahiti can be said to be a member of the Family. I will post these citations on the various discussions arising from Wikipedia edits about David Bahati and other Family members. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Therefore, According to the standards of WP:CITE, David Bahiti can be said to be a member of the Family. I will post these citations on the various discussions arising from Wikipedia edits about David Bahati and other Family members. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The membership of the politicians included in the Category as been widely reported in the media -- see the citations provided in The Fellowship (Christian organization). Several of these politicians have resided at the Family's C Street residence for years, so denying their membership in this organization is absurd. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I have initiated a discussion about your edits at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. You are invited to join. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've joined in. Also see Category talk:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

PLease stop with teh massive conspiracy and UNDUE campaign  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 08:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? These are not "undos" -- these are all sourced. Sources:
 * Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that no one has made a credible explanation of why one's membership in the group shouldn't noted, but you have got to stop this self-defeating edit war. Stop, discuss, and accept the result. -Rrius (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stopped, and I've been attempting to discuss. I'll try to do more. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk)
 * Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that no one has made a credible explanation of why one's membership in the group shouldn't noted, but you have got to stop this self-defeating edit war. Stop, discuss, and accept the result. -Rrius (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stopped, and I've been attempting to discuss. I'll try to do more. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk)

Please stop
Please wait for consensus before adding material to articles on living people. Let me know if you need help. --John (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop, or I will block you. --John (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. , (This message refers to these edits. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. My request for input is completely neutral. Here it is in full.
 * Please Express Your Views on Mention of Membership in the Family on WIkipedia
 * It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please back up you claims explaining how this promotes any particular outcome. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What's going on here? Do you genuinely not understand what you wrote, or are you just trying to bluster?
 * Look at that word "valid": you wrote "the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category". The validity of the category is precisely what's being debated, so that's not a neutral message -- it's an invitation to people to support the retention of the category.  (A neutral message would not convey any view either way on the merits of the proposed deletion)
 * Also, I haven't cross-checked all the contributions at CFD from those whom you canvassed, but of those editors who you personally canvassed, those who I have noticed so far at CFD have all broadly supported your POV. Doesn't look very neutral to me. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your abilities to grasp the logic of an argument—even your own, or even to assume good faith, have not been overwhelmingly impressive, so I will make your cross checking v e  r  y    e  a  s  y    f  o  r    y  o  u. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to claim a lack of good faith, then it's a good idea to actually read WP:AGF, which says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence" ... and the contrary evidence is the fact that your canvassing message advocated a particular view on the discussion.
 * As to logic, you think that a link to a discussion elsewhere on the reliability of particular source is some sort of of evidence as to the neutrality of the list of people you canavassed, then I'm delighted to say that I completely fail your definition of logic. And I hope i continue to do so. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Brown HairedGirl, just because you make some accusation and repeat it doesn't make it so. Back up your charges or WP:STFU. When you made these charges here, it fell flat, with Gamaliel noting of my invitation for others' input,
 * "it appears he notified recent editors at the article The Family on all sides of various disputes there. This seems completely fair."Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you just ignored that comment. My invitation to comment is completely neutral—I didn't request support for any side. I did honestly express that in my opinion, the category is valid, but it's not like that's a big surprise as I created it and have been arguing against its deletion. Then when I point you to a discussion that supports completely Gamaliel's observation above, you ignore that too, but carry on with your baseless and unsupported charges while at the same time admitting that you haven't really checked anything out yet. Come back if you have anything real to say. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ZAS, if you don't understand that a notification which expresses support for a particular outcome is not a neutral notification, then there's nothing I can do to improve your comprehension skills.
 * And it's great comedy that you cite in your defence the fact that one of the partisan people on the selective list you canvassed defends your canvassing: well he would, wouldn't he? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a dispute about public edits and comments on Wikipedia, visible to the entire world, including you. That you confuse this with a private sexual affair tempts me to call your case bankrupt, but as there was never any merit to your assertions from the beginning, that would not be quite accurate, would it? Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, ZAS, you are still having a comprehension problem. My references to Mandy Rice-Davies's famous quote related to the reliability of testimony about your canvassing from someone who supports you enthusiasm for a BLP-violating category, and the unlikelihood of that person opposing your canvassing.
 * At the CFD, you are busy setting out at great length your misrepresentation of sources, and your use of synthesis to justify drawing firm conclusions which none of the sources actually makes themselves. Little wonder then that you are unable to bdistnguish between a neutral notification and partisan canvassing. But then you have found the truth on this subject, haven't you? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)