User talk:Modemac

For previously archived talk page comments, see:

• User talk:Modemac/Archive 1

Re: your Dianetics article edits

Modemac, you are not following Wikipolicy. Specifically you are not following Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is necessary and mandatory to do follow Wiki policy and I'm going to insist it be followed with regards to the Dianetics article. Yes, NPOV, yes, but an information put into the article such as "Quakery" (or any other information of any kind whatsoever) requires a verification, a citation. A source of information. Rather than say, "Dianetics is widely regarded as quackery" the article must cite a source. Such as, (this is an example but not a real source) "The Atlanta Daily, Jan 3, 1980 Quackery Exposed! stated that so-and-so is a pseudoscience" I do hope you understand because it is the whole of the idea of multiple edits by multiple people. In this way we can all express the substance we individually know to be true. And you too, so cite a source on it. BTW, as you well know, the introduction and flow of the article is being worked by myself and a few others who know this subject. Your statements always fall into the controversial (maybe even anti-dianetics) area so by all means, post your article sources. We can then arrive at an article we all agree on as being a balanced view which would give a reader enough information to understand the situation for themselves. Have a nice day. Terryeo 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The TIME article

For the last time, a.r.s. was not created in response to the Time article. Please do not reinstate this falsehood. --Kelly Martin 04:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Talk:Scientology vs. the Internet. --Modemac 13:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Origins of Scientology

While Pietzsche does not seem to have a full grasp of NPOV yet (nor of who's who -- I couldn't stop laughing when he accused me of being a True Believer Scientologist doing PR for the cult, in the circumstances) he may have a point that some mention should be made in Scientology#Origins of Scientology of the numerous accounts of Hubbard saying starting a religion was the way to make money.

It seems the natural place to include that accusation would be in this sentence: "Hubbard was repeatedly accused of adopting a religious facade for Scientology in order for the organization to maintain tax-exempt status and avoid prosecution for false medical claims; these accusations have dogged the Church of Scientology to the present day." However, I can't immediately see a way that doesn't make the sentence unwieldy, or a way to split it smoothly into two sentences. Ideas? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "starting a religion" quote is pretty well established by Don Lindsay's FAQ on the subject [1]. That's a solid reference that he definitely said it, and more than once - David Gerard 21:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I, too, believe that the weight of the evidence does solidly establish that Hubbard said it on multiple occasions. But the question of whether he said it or not is being covered in depth in Scientology controversy. Scientology#Controversy and criticism already mentions that Scientology controversy is where the question is covered in depth. My problem with what Pietzsche wants to do is that he wants to add it again to Scientology, and he wants to add it as an established fact. And much as I wish it was otherwise -- I wish we had written evidence, like the written evidence we have that falsify Ron's war hero claims, like the written evidence that shows just how many criminal acts the Church justified to itself to persecute Paulette Cooper -- it's not an established fact. The word of Jittlov and Moskowitz and Sturgeon and Eshbach against the word of the proven liar L. Ron Hubbard certainly convinces me... but I just can't say "This proves it; this eliminates any doubt; there is no longer any dispute." Everything else in the Scientology#Origins of Scientology is provable fact, and I am extremely leery of breaking with that to include something less concrete, even if there is not a doubt in my mind about its truth. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Origins of Scientology, part two. Once again Pietzsche brings up a subject that probably should receive coverage while insisting on a very partisan form of coverage that will only encourage both sides to be more partisan. This time it's the connections between Dianetics and Aleister Crowley. I wouldn't object to those connections being drawn -- also those between Dianetics and Freud (Did Hubbard, who admitted he got the basics of Dianetics from Freud, ever decide whether Freud was an evil reincarnated Marcab psych?) -- but again, Pietzsche wants the focus to be on Hubbard instead of Scientology and will likely scream "cult PR agent!" again if any editing is done to restore a focus on Scientology to the Scientology article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm an evil Zionst Jew!

Just letting you know that your actions are being noticed. I'm not sure yet if you're trolling or if you're another one of the Zionist crowd, but be aware that malicious vandalism and edits on Wikipedia are not tolerated. --User:STP 11:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cool! I've been noticed!  :) --Modemac 12:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts#April 4 [2] and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP [3] and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism [4]. UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted" [5] ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." [6], and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others" [7] ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 12:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults

The sources that we are adding to List of purported cults are those that use the specific words "cult" or "sect" to describe a group. Then we're just adding them as minimal citations, avoiding descriptions or value judgements. The sources you added for Scientology did not entirely meet those goals- I couldn't find where the "60 Minutes" reporters called CoS a "cult" (though I did not read every transcript), and the Boston Herald link is no longer active. I commented out the four you added, then added back the two that fit the criteria. If you can find the Boston Herald article and the "60 Minutes" (or other newsmagazine) references, then it'd be great to add those too. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Boston Herald link is most certainly active; I checked it today before posting it. --Modemac 02:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see my mistake. I followed http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s04a01.html, which appeared to just be a link to the Boston Herald's home page. I didn't scroll down to see that they'd reprinted the series. And in the first article of that series, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s04a02.html, they quote a number of experts who call the CoS a cult. That's good enough for me. Thanks. -Willmcw 03:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous deletion of external link

Sorry about deleting the Hassan link at Unification Church. I was over at a friend's office, demonstrating how Wikipedia works. I wanted him to see how quickly a questionable edit would be reverted. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:23, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perverted-Justice.com

Modemac, I'm taking a look at the above as a result of the RfC. I noticed you protected the page even though you're involved in editing it, and that your link is one of the issues being disputed. Would you mind unprotecting it please, and then listing it on Requests for Protection, so that an uninvolved admin can make the decision? I'd do it myself, but I may want to edit the page too, so I'd prefer that someone else take a look at it. If we edit this page entirely above board, sticking to policy, it should be possible to sort the disputes out, fingers crossed. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. I protected the page because I got the impression from the ongoing reverts and the talk page that no one else was interested in doing so. --Modemac 09:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting, Modemac. By the way, I also meant to say: when I said on the talk page that we could only use reputable sources, and that your link probably had to go because it was a personal website, I didn't mean to imply that you're a disreputable source. ;-) I just worded what I wrote badly, and I'm going to make that clear on the talk page when I next post to it. If there's a way for you to bypass the filter without the comments page, that would be great. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've already replaced the link with a Google link. I'd already put in a Google link before, but that link was apparently lost in the repeated reversions of the page. --Modemac 13:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Counter?

Hi! You left a comment on the Playboy page about how many times it had been accessed. Me being an idiot, I still haven't figured out how to read this. Is there some sort of counter on the pages, and can you tell me how to find it? Thanks! Eixo 12:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to have a counter to measure the hits on all of its pages, but that was removed at least two years ago. Sorry.  :) --Modemac 13:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Psychiatry Activities

Hello, Modemac, please help having a look on the activities of user AI - he is concentrating on inserting negative psychiatry articles. Uses expressions like "does not confront his past" and reacts pretty strong, as soon as critiziced). Irmgard

Modemac, do not remove my posts from talk pages.--AI 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

(Sarcasm) Thanks for helping out with the "anti-psychiatry activies" --AI 01:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Your assistance on Armenian Genocide is requested

I have made several comments on that article (see Talk:Armenian Genocide#Suggestions from an uninvolved party). Most of my comments involve a lack of sources for various statements. Would you be able to assist in this matter? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keith Henson

In the very first verion of the Keith Henson article,[8] you write an "obscure California law" but you do not cite the law or quote it. Is it really obscure? In who's opinion is it obscure? Why aren't the readers allowed to decide? --AI 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Flunk, get your TRs in. --Modemac 09:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that the law is obscure? Why didn't you let readers decide? Are you an anti-scientology propagandist? It is interesting that you wikilink California, but not the law. Zappaz was intelligent enough to link to the actual law and word things neutrally. --AI 20:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Flunk, again. File a K/R. --Modemac 05:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

What is the purpose of your restoring personal attacks? Personal comments to another contributor in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Personal attacks in discussion I am involved in will be removed. Do not revert my removals. --AI 12:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, you went past an M/U again. You can edit your own comments all you like, but not other users' comments. Confront that. --Modemac 12:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not create or restore personal comments. This is your second warning. --AI 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I meant personal comments on article talk pages. --AI 10:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Talk:David_S._Touretzky

A Request for Mediation has been made to resolve the ongoing dispute on this page. The actual request can be seen directly at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Talk:David_S._Touretzky. --Modemac 11:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

My removing personal attacks and comments is your basis for a dispute? You need to educate yourself on Wikipedia policy. Don't lie about me EVER AGAIN. You're use of the word "ANY" makes your statement into a lie. --AI 12:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, you've sure done a great job educating me on Wikipedia policy. I don't see how I've been able to get along here for the past three years without your suggestions. --Modemac 09:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Quick question: what's the status of this RFM now? Judging from Ed Poor's comment, it looks like it's not been going very well. Just checking because I've meanwhile filed an RFAr, which might get put on hold while mediation is pending. --MarkSweep 18:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If the problem continues, I guess they'll be going forward with the RFA. Apparently an RFC (commentary) comes before an RFM (mediation). Regardless, the situation has come to the attention to several Wikipedia admins, so it certainly won't go unnoticed. --Modemac 19:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your test on Talk:David S. Touretzky

I saw your test – in fact I had the same problem before. It appears that the chronology of the recent edits is messed up. Look at the database IDs of the most recent spate of reverts and you'll see that there are edits with higher IDs but older timestamps. I had mentioned this to a developer when it first happened, but I'm not sure if it has been fixed (or if it ever needed fixing). --MarkSweep 18:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be okay now, though. --Modemac 19:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of purported cults/2

Hi, Modemac -- I thought you'd be interested in this VfD. It was initiated by Pjacobi, the one who initiated Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat, and just as with that VfD, a lot of people seem (IMHO) to be having trouble with the difference between "a POV article" and "an article about whose subject people have strong POVs." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

American comic book

As a contributor to the above article, would you mind looking through it and seeing if you can provide any references? The reason I ask is that at WPT:CMC we are trying to get more comics articles given Featured Article status. Thanks for any help you could provide. Hiding talk 15:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Visual Basic Classic Wikibook

I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 09:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Messed-up talk page archiving

Modemac, hi... I'd solve this problem myself but I don't have admin powers. Hall Monitor archived Talk:Barbara Schwarz by moving it to Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 2 instead of by the procedure at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Someone needs to zorch the current Talk:Barbara Schwarz so that Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 2 can be moved back there and the archiving can be done properly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. --Modemac 16:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing on the HD topic

Please see my point. I want to discuss about changes.. need help...

sincerly

Ya

It sucks. But personally, I want to stay out of the whole thing. If you find the culprits, do let me know however (I know that's contradicting myself, but I'm still interested!) Ta bu shi da yu 22:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia sucks wiki already exists

It seems that the name "Wikipedia sucks" is already the name of a wiki. See here [9]. You may wish to change the name of your wiki to avoid confusion. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of concern; however, my site came first (and there's no trademark on the term "Wikipedia sucks"), so neener neener to them.  :) Besides, I want my site to show up in Web searches for that phrase. --Modemac 13:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiprawda.net ist still free.

• Hi! I happened to discover your wiki page criticizing the critics, and, although I do respect your right to an opinion, take offense to being considered a "kook". I am, as you may be aware, a member of the Wikipedia Review internet forum, and, quite frankly, am offended by the blatent misrepresentation of the community. I do respect your viewpoint and your right to an opinion, but request that you attempt to keep an open mind, just as I and several other members (albiet not all of them) of the aforementioned community attempt to keep an open mind. Anyway, with kind regard, Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not criticizing Wikipedia's critics; I'm making fun of whiners who insist they're somehow being censored because they can't have their own way here on Wikipedia. I've stated on that on my own wiki, the entries are intentionally biased and opinionated. Also, what I've seen of the Wikipedia Review certainly suggests that it has its own biases and it wallows gleefully in them, as the folks there like to jump on every possible flaw with Wikipedia and turn it into a scandal, if possible. A community that founds its own anti-Wikipedia wiki entitled Why Wikipedia Sucks isn't exactly following NPOV, either. There's even been a suggestion that the people there contact the former Wikipedia user AI in order to get "his side of the story," I.E. to see if his justified ban from Wikipedia was in fact "another" case of Wikipedia bias. Second of all, my own site is a wiki and it is also open for edits and contributions from all visitors. If you don't like what you see there, then please feel free to make your own updates to make it more accurate.--Modemac 14:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Good to see you back!

I hadn't seen your signature anywhere on WP for a long time; it was great to see your responses to Terryeo -- especially since you state things so much better than I can. =D -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if it's individually notable enough...

Not sure whether it's individually notable enough to be worth mentioning on your wiki, but this is a pretty impressive "Wikipedia sucks" rant. Interestingly, one of his cited reasons is "why is that anyone can vote for deletion? Especially when they have no background knowledge and anyone could just vote delete without a good enough reason, yet the mighty Wikipedian rules seem to overlook this slightly big mistake?" and yet the same user nominated the established genre term Splatterpunk for deletion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, though I think that's just a guy who let a few flame wars get the best of him. :) --Modemac 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dianetics and Scientology articles run amok

I asked the following of Antaeus Feldspar on his talk page, but he's consumed by a personal harrassment issue, so I'm turning to you as someone who is more experienced that I at handling problems of this nature, plus I see where you've recently dropped in to the Dianetics article: It seems to me that the two editors who have been deleting stuff willy-nilly from many Scientology-related articles on grounds that statements are "uncitable" have turned the Dianetics article into a mish-mosh of run-on sentences, non-sequiters, and unabashed pro-Scientology POV. On the talk page, they're congratulating each other on how readable and useful they article has become. I don't have the time and energy to hash things out point-by-point with these guys, nor do I want to engage in an edit war. It seems like a good thing to have some Scientologists among the editorial mix for articles on those topics, but they're really making a mess of it. Any suggestions of how to proceed? BTfromLA 19:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Any chance of a meeting of the minds on these issues? I know Dianetics. A neutral point of view means everyone gets to present their point of view from verified sources. Might we possibly find some agreement of how to create an article that while no one might fully agree, at least we can all tolerate not chopping up each other's edits? How about alternating "pro" and "con" sections or something? What say you, BTfromLA and you, Modemac? Do either of you have such vested interest that no progess can be made? Terryeo 07:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

List of purported cults

I saw you'd reverted on of my edits on List of purported cults, aka List of groups referred to as cults in the media, but didn't provide an explanation. The future of the article is being discussed on its talk page. If you have some opinion on the matter it'd be good to express it. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored exactly one link on that page -- the link to Elan Vital. Nearly two years after the intial controversy and their attempt to label their critics as a "hate group," they're still trying to re-write the article so that it doesn't include them on the list of cults. --Modemac 20:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is one way of viewing the problem. And that is why I'm asking if you'd like to participate in the talk page, over a proposal that would categorically remove that group and several others. -Willmcw 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

About your request for a particular name

Modemac posted this paragraph to the Dianetics Talk page, in response to my illistration of how policies changed as the Church of Scientology grew: So you are claiming that someone else wrote these "long dead" Policy and Technical Bulletins, not LRH? What was this person's name? Surely this person's name would have been exposed on the Internet by now due to the long research into Scientology's history that has been performed over the years. Please provide this person's name, thank you. --Modemac 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is my response. NO. Terryeo 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics

I've completely rewritten Dianetics and I must have set some sort of Wikipedia record for the use of footnotes - there are now 72 in the article (!). I've posted the new article; I'd like to get it up to FA status, so could you take a look at it and let me know what you think? I suspect that our resident Scientologists may have some issues with it, so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out... -- ChrisO 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And it really really sucks ChrisO. Not only does it not communicate the least bean of good sense about Dianetics but it disperses a persons attention so they are not likely to understand even what Dianetics is about. For propaganda (similar to your Space Opera article) it is a biggy. But for good sense it is a big lose. In addition you directly violated wiki policy by removing wholesale many people's work and agreements. And you directly violated Wiki Policy by removing large portions of cited text to replace it with a long yard (well footnoted) of only 2 publications, one of those an article briefly appearing in an elite club's publication, many years ago. When will people be able to work together and produce an article that is safe from your off policy intervention, ChrisO ? Terryeo 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hail bob, hail Eris, and greets!

I've just tagged a ton (well, less than that, depending on the mass value assigned to an electron) of scientology articles with a new template, and I'm fishing about for feedback. I know it's a difficult "series" to work on, which is why I chose to work on it. Any and all feedback is welcome. fnord. Ronabop 14:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your off policy Diantic edit

Surely you see the introduction of the Dianetics article has a good deal of editing going on? Well, what should be done when a large number of people are constantly editing, re-editing, reverting edits and re-reverting edits? Don't you think it might be wise to apply the Wikipedia style guideline, Wikipedia:Introductions? I surely do. It states, define the term. That would be: Define the word Dianetics. Then is says to define the topic. That would be, "why is Dianetics a topic, what is the subject matter of Dianetics about?" I do understand some people thing Dianetics is about one subject, "Evil Controversy" but it is up to use to aquaint the reader with what the term, topic and then the context are. This will not be achieved by people placing their "pseudoscience!" and their "alternative to psychoanalysis" in there before the subject of Dianetics is introduced. When you have doubt, go with WikiPolicy. Term. Topic. Context. What part of this does not make sense to you, Modemac? Terryeo 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you really shouldn't go lecturing other people on adhering to Wikipedia policy when by "Wikipedia policy" you mean things that you made up yourself. Here is what Wikipedia:Introductions says:

1. The introduction defines the term and topic and context, and
2. The introduction prepares the reader for further detail.

Hmmm, does that say "FIRST define the term; THEN define the topic; THEN define the context"? Why, no. No, it does not. You will search the whole of Wikipedia:Introductions in vain looking for somewhere where it says that; in fact, if you had actually read the policy as carefully as you should have before presuming to lecture someone else on it, you would have realized that it recommends defining the context, when context needs defining, BEFORE defining the term. Don't believe me? Second-to-last paragraph.

Kind of pleasing that you understand why I said what I did. No, it does not provide a rigid structure which every introduction must follow. No, no, not at all. But, in general it is a pretty good guideline to follow. Many article follow that guideline in exactly that order. No, its not ironplated. But in an area like we have, where people are doing various edits, why, its not a bad template to fit informations into. Do you have a better idea or are you just objecting to the stated idea? Terryeo 10:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, Terryeo, you gain a little more respect if you were able to actually acknowledge when you are wrong. Two days ago your position was "Why is it necessary with you people to point out that simple, straightforeward statemetns like: "Term, Topic, Context" mean 1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context."[10] Now you're claiming "in general it is a pretty good guideline to follow ... No, its not ironplated ..." Let's face the fact, the "1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context." idea was never anything but the result of your misreading, because a full and careful reading of the article clearly demonstrates context, when context needs to be introduced, being placed in the very beginning of the very first sentence. So the question is not "why is no one except Terryeo following Terryeo's idea of how the information should be structured based on Terryeo's misreading?" but "why is Terryeo insisting that everyone else should have to justify not following his idea based on a misreading?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You also might have figured out that the page should really say "defines the term or topic, and the context", because not all articles will have both a term and a topic. Oh, you could argue for any article subject that it's actually a term, a term that must be defined. You could, if you're sufficiently stubborn, try to argue that you have to "define" the "term" 'Foreign relations of Finland' before you can discuss the topic of "Foreign relations of Finland", but does Wikipedia reap any benefits from rigid adherence to that one rigid interpretation of that one sentence? (which, you may be interested to know, appears to have been added by Hyacinth (talk · contribs) on 4 December 2005; it doesn't appear in the text of Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Introductory material, which is where most of the rest of Wikipedia:Introductions seems to have come from.) I know that when I look at the introduction which starts "Dianetics is a method of mental therapy codified by L. Ron Hubbard..." and compare it with the introduction which starts "Dianetics is a word which is formed from two greek words and mean, [sic] "through soul."" there's no question in my mind which introduces the subject better.

Its good to understand your certainty. Unfortunately not every person has your broad background in languages. A common dictionary will usually give the derivation of a word after its definitions. I fully agree the whole point is to introduce the reader to the subject. Terryeo 10:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Now if you still would like to talk about how very rigidly all good people must adhere to (particular interpretations of) Wikipedia:Introductions, including the parts which seem to have been created by a single user rather than by a process of consensus, then let us look at that second quoted sentence. "The introduction prepares the reader for further detail." Hmmm, I would guess that that means that if an article is going to tell the reader about why the subject was convicted on Federal charges in the largest incident of domestic espionage in the history of the United States, then it should be mentioned in the introduction, shouldn't it? Asserting that the conviction should not get any mention in the introduction and editing out any mention in the introduction because "the conviction is mentioned a second time later in the article" is therefore directly contrary to Wikipedia:Introductions -- far more so than violating a rule of 'first term, then topic, then context' which does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia:Introductions and is in fact contradicted by it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the two of us dance around each other Antaeus. I'm not against your exemplary behaviour. Terryeo 10:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrative/problem editor question

Is there some sort of established procedure for dealing with an editor who is very active and contentious but seems to lack fundamental editing skills and shows little grasp of the principals of encyclopedic writing? Assume that several experienced editors have attempted to educate the problem editor toward developing the ability to present information clearly, and this problem editor has been unresponsive to such efforts. BTfromLA 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning no names, of course.  :) I'm not an expert on Wikipedia administrative policy, alas; but I would suspect it would best to go the same route that we took with AI. Start a Request For Discussion and see what happens. --Modemac 18:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean a Request for Comment, or is an RfD something different? -- ChrisO 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's it, yes. I forgot the exact name, because I've never started one myself. The last one I was involved with was the one involving AI. --Modemac 23:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be kept informed of the progress of this and if I can participate or otherwise be of assistance. The evidence is accumulating that at least some of this editor's poor behavior is not simply ignorance of Wikipedia rules or misunderstanding of them but rather a willingness to deliberately lie and deceive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation re Dianetics

I think we need to expose the editing dispute over Dianetics to a wider audience. Terryeo clearly has no intention of following basic editing standards, whether it's because he doesn't agree with them or just doesn't understand them. We should, however, give him the chance to get the views of people who haven't been involved in this dispute and whom he might see as less partial sources of advice than us. I propose to submit a Request for Mediation concerning the Dianetics article. If that fails, an Request for Comment on Terryeo's conduct may be necessary, though I'd prefer that to be only a last resort. Would you be willing to be a party in the initial Request for Mediation? -- ChrisO 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, though of course my involvement with this affair makes me party to it and not a neutral observer. I'll get to it later tonight when I have time. --Modemac 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll write up the RfM and let you know so you can add your comments. Thanks! -- ChrisO 20:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The mediation request is up now at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Dianetics. -- ChrisO 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I hope you do not use this against me as I'm attempint to make humor (even if badly and at your expense, Muahahaha) for the sake of lightening things so that we can become civil again so here goes: Were you ever a neutral observer towards Dianetics because I think you should have told Chris "makes me a party to it and not just an observer" (-neutral). I maybe be terribly mistaken but I am thinking sarcasm might be a type of humor you might appreciate. If not, then go ahead complain about me and I will cease. :) Cya! --JimmyT 05:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

From the Dianetics mediation to here

Any chance of getting into communication with you regarding: "It should be noted that Terryeo has taken to quoting and interpreting Wikipedia policy very broadly to support his arguments. Consequently he is accusing the four editors listed above (including myself, and including ChrisO) of egregious violations of policy, at least when it suits him"? As for my comment to you about the missing 9 minutes, and your apology (I'm not even sure it was needed at all) and my suggestion we just move on, what is missing? Terryeo 02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you seem to have changed from your comment up above on this very talk page: "Here is my response. NO. Terryeo 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)" --Modemac 12:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Jacobsen's "Hubbard is Bare: Science and Dianetics"

Modemac, I see you have added a link to Jeff Jacobsen's excellent essay, hosted on Karin Spaink's web site. However, her version of the essay seems different than the one I'm hosting at Science and Dianetics (taken from Google groups). Karin's version seem to contain less footnotes -- 9 vs 13, so I wonder which one is most recent, I would think the version I'm hosting is more recent (I understand Jeff Jacobsen has revised his essay over time.) Raymond Hill 15:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

True enough, I'll change it. --Modemac 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO

Request for comment: Please discuss ChrisO's introduction of apparently stolen documents as verifiable and his subsequent (but reverted) action of modifying policy to support his act. Yo'll find my mentions if you look down my contributions page. Please enter your comment on the Dianetics talk page and or the mediation page. Just a request of course. Cheers!! --JimmyT 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Flunk. Your T/Rs are showing. --Modemac 09:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

?????? !!!!!!! I didn't say look at my T/Rs, I said look down my contributions page :) Have fun. --JimmyT 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on User talk:Al-Kadafi

I take it you were referring to this rather uncivil user, rather then me (as the indent seems to indicate). Incidentally, great stuff on the Modemac site. I just tried to check out your "Why Wikipedia Sucks" page, but I get this:

"Could not get visitors lock: Check whether the web server can create the directory..."

Looks like its the same on all your pages which have active content :( —Leflyman^Talk 03:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is fixed, sorry for the delay. --Modemac 10:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Rev. Magdalen

I've undeleted her article on wikinews, it shouldn't have been deleted so quickly. JeffBurdges 08:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to finish the article at wikinews at some point. I do not need proof of the judges statments, but I do need "proof" that a case exists. Do you have suggestions? Or should I just try to phone the count myself to verify that the case exists. Thank you, JeffBurdges 13:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A partial transcript of the court proceedings (including the judge's remarks) is being made available. It was expected to be delivered by Friday, March 3rd, but it's been delayed by paperwork and red tape (no surprise there), but it should be available at any time, hopefully by tomorrow or Tuesday. If you want to call the Orleans County court house (feel free to do so), the case in question is Jeffrey L. Jary vs. Rachel Knight Bevilacqua. --Modemac 15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, the court house refuses to answer any questions about the case. I offered to fax them a copy of the order for verification, but they said they could not answer even that simpe question. I've also looked for a copy of the judge's signature on other documents from the courthouse, but their search engine sucks ass. JeffBurdges 15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not good news. Alas, the wheels of justice are turning slowly. I can assure you that I will be examining the transcript as soon as it becomes available, in order to recreate the Wikinews article. --Modemac 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb - quick query...

Hi Modemac, would you mind answering this for me when you have a spare sec? In the RFAs, can anyone vote or can only admins vote? Thanks in advance, and congrats on all the great work you do re the Co$ articles. You're probably not familiar with me as I'm only new to wikipedia but the cult certainly know who I am. Anyway, thanks again, Glen (info@scientomogy.info on ARS) (Glen Stollery ^{(My contribs) (talk)} 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Request for Arbitration - Terryeo

Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Requests for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 19:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo selectively editing posts

I've just discovered Terryeo selectively editing a post to him from on his user talk page. [11] While my post to him was not, I admit, perfectly CIVIL (I have not yet found the secret to keeping perfectly calm while someone pretends I'm simple-minded and completely gullible) what he edited out was not merely my rhetorical excesses but my explanation to him of why he could not treat a source that was also available on a "personal website" as if that was the only place it was available. You might want to check and see if he has similarly edited any of your own posts to him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To spell it out for Modemac's enlightenment, Feldspar used language far less than civil. I didn't wish to have it appear on my discussion page and I deleted those portions of it which did not satisfy my criteria of civil. I would much rather follow this procedure than go off to WP:PAIN and carp and complain about a user's temporary, hot under the collar attitude. Feldspar and I have talked a number of times on a number of issues and I don't expect our communication to cease because either he or I are temporarily 'hotted up' about an issue. I have failed in my civility to him before, too so I certainly don't hold it against him. He has posted again and it stands on my discussion page. However, discussion pages may be edited freely with a single exception which I won't clarify for you at this time, but which doesn't apply in the situation Feldspar mentions.

But speaking of incivility. At At: [12] I find: The beginner's page by Modemac Which states: "This wiki uses Oddmuse Wiki, which is based upon Usemod Wiki." Do you know anything about that anti-scientology site, Modemac, or is it just a cooincidence that both that site and your edits follow similar patterns? Oh, by the way, did ChrisO thank you for the statement you made on my discussion page, warning him from continuing to post information like: Xenu.net is not a personal website. Many people have contributed to it, including myself. ? I think he should, by revealing that he edits at Xenu.net and then comes here to Wikipedia and quotes Xenu.net and cites Xenu.net is surprising indeed ! Terryeo 19:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice job attempting to expose my hidden crimes, Terryeo. The beginner's page listed above is, of course, my own: I wrote it from scratch and I host it. Feel free to try to delete links to it based on your absurd claim that "personal pages" are not allowed, and see how far you get. --Modemac 20:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a civil answer and I am happy to learn of your point of view becuase it will make working with you easier. I have always attempted to communicate and work together with other editors toward good articles. I've seen some of your posts sooth tempers and encourage unity of effort. No, I've no interest in challenging your personal opinion, your personal wiki website nor, really, anything about you or your statements, Modemac. What I have interest in is presenting good information to the reading public. I don't oppose controversy and especially, consider that if a person isn't at skeptical, a person isn't sensible. Since you brought this issue of my motives up on the Talk:Dianetics page, I'll give you the stright of it here. No one suggested to me that I edit Wikipedia. I use Yahoo chat sometimes and Wikipedia was referenced in discussions there, that is how I came to learn of Wikipedia. When I had a few spare moments I begin to read around (million plus articles now) and of course read articles which I have knowledge and experience with. I believe the driving force for the difficulties in the Dianetics and Scientology articles has little to do with personal beliefs, instead I beleive it has to do with what various editors consider "reliable information'. "Reliable information" has always been a problem for people. Before the internet, there were newspapers on paper and those were the subject of "is that reliable". Before that were books, before that, bards sang and transported news from one area to another. People have always had the same difficulties we face in these articles. If we were talking about "how many apples come from an average apple tree" we would still have the problem of what information was reliable, but by designing experiments carefully, we could agree about how to find out and state the information. This same concept of examining the source of information holds true in any field. I believe the Islamic religion is still argueing, 1000 years after the prophet's death, arguing whether his blood relatives are better representitives of him, or if those who worked closely with him are better representitives of him. We don't need to come to swordplay and bullets over which informational source is reliable, we can talk about it. Modemac, I'm not sent here to Wikipedia by anyone. I edit from my own, personal computer and I edit toward the articles being introduced. Presently the issue has arisen whether Wikipedia standards allow personal websites in these articles. Xenu.net is one name brandied about, [13], [14] and [15] are others that will boil up, too. The internet is in its infancy, you can contribute, I can contribute and many people will. We will establish standards of information and inform people, as best we can, of information. You will always have a point of view, but so will I. But there's no need to personally attack other editors, Modemac. Terryeo 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial failed FACs

Hi! I was going through the past failed FACs of Holocaust denial. The notable objection was regarding "Why some people deny Holocaust?" has not been addressed. Are you still working on the article? If you can adress the aforesaid objection, there is a good chance that this article would make an FA. However, I have a few more observations that can make this article more appropriate as an FA.

First, the length of the article is large, often people are not interested in reading so big an article. Have you thought about making some daughter articles and summarising certain sections of the main article? For example, the section "History of Holocaust denial" can well be summarised with a link to a new article (a daughter one) called History of Holocaust denial.

Again, despite the large length, the article does not present all the facers, like, as objected in the failed FACs, the reason behind the denial. The section "Other genocide denials" does not have much to do with the Holocaust denial, this section be shortened.

I myself could have gone on to summarise the article. However, I do not have much knowledge on the subject and can inadvertantly leave out important topics. IMO, you should again try. Summarise, adress the major objections, and, most importantly, have a peer review. After the article goes through a peer review, I believe it has got enough merit to deserve to be an FA. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you're willing to discuss your POV

And since you're willing for it to be understood that your stance is against a particular group, and since you are willing to contribute toward an understanding of the actual situation, would it be possible to get into communication with you about that? You left a note on my user page, rather than my discussion page, which is the more commonly used place to put messages. Did you mean to sneak a communication in that no one else was aware of, or did you wish to get into communication about the situation ? Terryeo 14:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You may have to go back and check again, Terryeo. The edit history of your user page doesn't show Modemac ever editing it. It does show him leaving a note on your discussion page, which as you note is the more commonly used place to put messages. Is it possible you looked too quickly and made a mistake? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, he's actually referring to his newly created enemies list page, and my own little comment on his enemies list. Evidently my "purpose" in the great SP attack against Scientology on Wikipedia is to goad him into making personal responses that will then be used against him -- you know, exactly like Scientology does with its "bullbaiting" TRs. --Modemac 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. Neither of you could conceive of any aspect other than "enemy". There are those who think as you do, there are enemies. It is only natural that those who do not think as you do would themselves think of you as enemies. I understand your reasoning perfectly. Which is precisely why I am able to honestly state that I know you are editing in good faith. Were you able to understand this reasoning, or even ask for a fuller unfolding of it, the possiblility of working together would still be present. Disappoint me and don't understand what I have stated, okay? Terryeo 03:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you already label me a suppressive person on your page, Terryeo, I am curious about one thing. Isn't it a high crime to associate with SPs? --Modemac 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You make a false statement. You say that I have labeled you on my page. I have not labeled you on my page. If you are willing to continue to communiate, based on the understanding that I have not labeled you on my page, I am perfectly willing to respond more fully to the question you pose which was based on that false and misleading, baiting statement. You probably notice I'm a little defensive with you about this issue. Heh. Terryeo 03:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You mention me promimently in your section on suppressive person editors. And I repeat this question to you: Is it a high crime in Scientology to associate with SPs? --Modemac 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD Bob Dobbs

Hi, you messed up the AFD for the above article a little. I fixed it for you but for future reference you might like to read WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion which explains the process. Basically on the nominationsub page you are meant to use {{afd2|pg=Pagename|test=Reason}} ~~~~ which formats it correctly.... Hope this helps you --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 11:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. After four years on Wikipedia, I still haven't gotten used to the deletion process. --Modemac 11:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe no problems! It is a little complex. You also forgot to sign the deletion nom *Doh* I added an unsigned template to it I hope you don't mind. Catch you around --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 11:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, but I actually had absolutely nothing to do with the AfD. Errant's the one who fixed all the formatting, I never knew anything about the article or the AfD untill I got your message. --Daduzi ^talk 12:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where I got Duduzi's name from. All changed now --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)\

BitTorrent

• I saw your trouble on the The Bridge (film) page and I created a section on the talk page. Why don't y'all try to discuss the torrent issue on the discussion page instead of those long edit summaries? Just trying to smooth things out between you guys. Yours, Joe1141 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

Yet another refusal to discuss important and extensive edits

Modemac, when you extensively modified the Scientology article's opening did you read the amount of work (on the discussion page) that went into creating it as it was before you [boldly] modified it? [16] In simple terms you made extensive modifications to suit your personal POV (substantiated by your personal wiki of course) while not discussing the least bit of your modifications to the article. Did you at least read the compromises that had been worked through to get the article into the condition it was before you extensively modified it? It was a lot of work and a lot of back and forth by a lot of people, Modemac. Terryeo 10:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever enslaved a population? --Modemac 19:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reply isn't meant to respond to the issue, do I understand what you mean to communicate? Terryeo 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Slightlyright

Too early for a CheckUser at this time, but User:Slightlyright is the latest Scientology gallery duck to pop up. Apparently originally posting as 24.18.239.151, starting about 4 hours after Terryeo's final post. May have nothing to do with Terryeo at all, but this brand-new user has jumped in swinging, well-versed in Wikipedia terminology and on the major attack towards me. See this. wikipediatrix 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Superman

Superman has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" from featured status. The instructions for the FAR process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Examination of Holocaust denial

I saw from your message on the Mfd page that you are a regular contributer to this article. Perhaps you noticed my posting that I was happy to spend several days wikifying it for citations and what not. If it survives the deletion motion (which I believe it will) I will be more than happy to assist you in any way I can. Yours, Jeffpw 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do whatever you think will make the article more NPOV. I'm not an expert on the subject, and I don't consider the article to be "mine" in any way. --Modemac 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Alanmoore.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alanmoore.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pontius Ethics

Modemac, in response to your personal threats on my page regarding my update on the fact about stang's death:

I was certainly under that impression. Please refrain from further harrassment of my being or I will have no choice but pursue civil action. That being said, please send me your legal info in case I am left with no choice in the future.

If it's the case that Stang was merely faking his death, please let me know, and as that would be unverifiable until his alleged faked death is exposed, my words are not slanderous, as no fiscal or emotional damage has resulted from my exposing this information.

Please hurry with that legal contact information, as I feel you lack the ability to control yourself, and am really quite afraid. I'm sure a restraining order is the way to go, but I can't do that without the information required to bring one about.

Chris Punches -Pontius Ethics.

P.S. I'm not 'Gammamute', I just happen to work for them.

Uh-huh. "Wahhh, you threatened to block me on Wikipedia. I'm gonna sue!!!" Good luck with that -- if you were serious about it, you would have sued Ankara and the IRC Taphouse Cabal a long time ago. --Modemac 10:09, 11 January 2007(UTC)

ref: Special:Contributions/208.233.32.44 and Special:Contributions/Ktulu_Kuppa

Also, regarding "I am not Gammamute:" http://hashphp.org/user/Gammamute and http://www.myspace.com/gammamute and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56TbxIpGplA . Now please stop trolling. Thank you. --Modemac 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your reference is. But I can say that I was responding by your continued harrassment of my being when I contacted you here, Modemac. Please send me your legal contact information.

Starwood

Praise "Bob"! I just saw your addition to the Starwood Festival article. Hope you don't mind; I moved it from between the "Featured speakers" and "Featured entertainers" sections to after the two lists.

I've been getting a lot of flack from editors who don't want me to edit this thing because I am a director of ACE, the group that puts Starwood on. I'd love to have someone who might make edits I suggest if he agrees with them. For now, let me suggest a couple of changes regarding your entry:

1. Starwood is the biggest Neo-Pagan festival in the U.S.A., not just the East coast. (Actually, it's the biggest in this hemisphere, but USA is sufficient.)

2. If you add Brushwood Folklore Center to the first paragraph so the line reads "However, since 1990 it has taken place at Brushwood Folklore Center, a private campground near Sherman, New York." it would make your entry saying X-Day was ALSO held there a bit better. (Actually, I'd say "in" Sherman, NY, since it is.)

Contact me if you need any help with SubGenius stuff, too. I'm a Reverend and a Pope, and live blocks away from Rev. Ivan Stang. I'm a comic fan, too, and have edited Avengers, Rick Jones and Adam Warlock among others.Rosencomet 18:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing to BabyDweezil?

Hi. How in the world can you say that BD violated 3RR. That takes 4 reverts!! He had one edit and two reverts. Please reverse your block post haste. Thank you! --Justanother 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and I have requested an unblock for this user. It's been a long time since I've blocked anyone, so I'd forgotten the exact details of Wikipedia:3RR. --Modemac 15:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. And may I please ask you to be extremely cautious about using administative sanctions in the controversial articles where you are invested personally and as an editor. That has the flavor of "conflict of interest". It would actually be most appropriate if, rather than blocking him directly, you had posted it on a board and allowed a more neutral admin to do so, if warranted. Thanks. --Justanother 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

regarding your over-hasty block

Please be a little less trigger happy in the future, and you could easily discern a concerted group effort on a number of pages Barbara Schwarz, Hate Group etc by POV pushing editors who auto-revert edits I make without discussion or explanation, attempting to bait 3RR blocks against me. Smeelgova, if you check his history, has been systematically Wikistalking my edits and reverting them. On Barbara Schwarz, at least one— Tilman (and no doubt many) of the editors have serious WP:COI issues, editing a page about a woman they are engaged in a nasty, heated (and disturbingly sexist) internet war with. On that talk page, I get abused for even bringing this up, and I continually seem to be the one who receives reprimands, (see my Talk page for my "criminal" history!) despite my consistent explanations for edits that I make. This is getting silly! I made the effort to successfully request an unblock for myself, because it seems the request you say you made wasnt hep'nin. cheers. BabyDweezil 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is my experience that the blocking editor can as easily unblock; no "request" needed. Correct me if I am wrong. --Justanother 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And, according to the logs, it was indeed Modemac that unblocked you soon after I alerted him to the error. It was likely an autoblock function that he might have made a request on (I don't know about that or how it works (I imagine it blocks your IP) but you can check his contribs if you are curious). --Justanother 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Festival

If you get a chance, I'd appreciate it if you would weigh in on the RFC on the Starwood Festival article concerning merging it, WinterStar Symposium, and Association for Consciousness Exploration into one. You may also want to comment on the issue of whether lists such as the ones on Starwood and WinterStar are encyclopedic and/or match the definition of "listcruft". You can see my arguements on the issues on the talk page of the Starwood Festival article. Thanks, Rosencomet 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've put in my two cents' worth. I hope I didn't sound too harsh in my commment on you there; it's simply that your focus on the Starwood article and Starwood-related articles could indeed give people the impression that you're only here to promote Starwood. That is not meant as a personal snipe. When arguments of that sort happen here on Wikipedia, I've found that the best thing to do is to take a break from the subject at hand, and go find some "fun" articles to edit, instead. Look for something not so controversial, probably related to a hobby or something that you enjoy, and see what you can do over there. I'm not asking you to leave the Starwood articles alone; rather, I'm suggesting that you show the folks at Wikipedia that you're not only here to push Starwoood. --Modemac 16:22, 26

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

WikiProject updates

• I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

RFC on Starwood Festival

An RFC on the mention of child care and youth programming in the Starwood Festival article has been opened[17]. If you are interested, please read the information there and the discussion that led to it immediately above it[18] on the Starwood Festival discussion page. Your input would be appreciated. Rosencomet 19:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dobbs Icon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dobbsicon.svg

Is this the one I designed? --IMBJR 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

no personal attacks warning

With regards to your comments on User talk:Reverend Zapanaz: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. See this edit. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, let me make it more clear. Your idiotic behavior at Wikipedia is not endearing you to many users here, and you are likely to get yourself into a lot more trouble if you keep acting this way. Have a nice day. --Modemac 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Modemac. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you've sure taught me to behave myself on Wikipedia. Thank you so much for the lesson. --Modemac 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you registered this same account at Wikisource?

Just want to make sure this is you.--BirgitteSB 20:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my account on Wikisource. I had to re-register it, presumably it had been deleted due to inactivity. --Modemac 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually you have another account here at wikisource.org from before the language split. The one you just registered is for the English Wikisource.--BirgitteSB 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that the English Wikisource (en.wikisource.org) was separate from "generic" Wikisource (wikisource.org). My apologies for the confusion. --Modemac 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions at Wikisource, this edit is killing me. I can't help but become very suspicious. I have requested a checkuser investigation. I apologize in advance if this causes you unwarranted troubles, but it really needs to investigated.--BirgitteSB 21:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And that was also me, posting by mistake. Feel free to investigate, it's my own account. I've registered my email address at Wikisource as well, just to be sure. --Modemac 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It came back clear. I put the material in question up for regular deletion, since I didn't think it qualified for speedy. I am confident that it will be deleted unless someone shows up with some groundbreaking information. en.WS is pretty predictable most of the time.--BirgitteSB 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

not

you are invited to comment on the talk page. Arrogant edits without comment like this one are rude. Misou 07:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bobdobbs.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bobdobbs.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Note: that this image is also orphaned. Image was removed from Church of the SubGenius and J. R. "Bob" Dobbs. Please note that a valid fair use rationale must be written for every article it is included on for fair use to qualify. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 11:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...what part of "Used With Permission" is unclear here? The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. has known about this image and has given permission for it to be used at Wikipedia. --Modemac 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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 {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Groupthink (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

An article that you have been involved in editing, Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Thank you. Groupthink (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Frostythesnowman dvdcover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Frostythesnowman dvdcover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Calculation of the Qibla

s:Calculation of the Qibla is up for deletion. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up on SubGenius

You're probably already watching, but I don't know what to do about the edits by Deconstructhis on Church of the SubGenius, and don't have the time to help right now, due to some stalking and possible harasssment I'm dealing with.Rosencomet (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WinterStar Symposium Deletion

I was hoping you could take a look at the nomination for deletion on the WinterStar Symposium article here [19] and some related issues, like the deletion proposal for Jeff Rosenbaum and what I can only call a campaign over the past two weeks to delete any mention of ACE events from articles, delete material in the articles supporting the notability of the mentions, and deletion of large amounts of the articles themselves preliminary to claiming they have no references or citations. Since you weighed in on this when it was proposed in February, and the articles have actually been improved since then IMO (look at versions from before this campaign began), I hoped you'd take a look at what's going on now. Rosencomet (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)