User talk:Vivaldi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

Request for Comments regarding 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 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While I do believe that many of Terryeo's edits are ill advised and against consensus, I'm not sure I support him being banned for a lengthy period of time. It seems like we are currently able to control his innappropiate behaviour through the standard means of reverting and reediting his bad edits. I believe that Terryeo has made at least a few edits that are worth keeping, and I have recently even reverted back to one of Terryeo's edits after a vandal hit a page. I think Terryeo is becoming more and more familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. If in the future his edits become too disruptive, I may change my mind and support a "lengthy ban", but for now I do not. Vivaldi 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary

States: " 09:26, 17 March 2006 Vivaldi (rv to last by Vivaldi. You removed cited information from Hubbard himself because it reveals information you don't like. See discussion page.)" but in looking at the discussion page, you have made no discussion. What portion of the discussion page were you refering to? I'm trying to be in good communication on these things and I understand you view the whole subject as an evil sort of subject but we are all constrained by the same policies here. Those policies include user collaberation and discussion. What discussion do you mean to point toward but not contribute to? Terryeo 19:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I did in fact make discussion. I contributed towards this discussion with my edits at (Vivaldi 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)) You removed a section of text in the main article that was properly cited and attributed to LRH and then claimed that your reason of doing so was because you were presenting "what Hubbard meant". So you removed cited text and replaced it with something that explains what you think that "Hubbard meant". You did this in the main article, and I believe that is original research on your part to remove certain Hubbard citations that are inconvenient to your POV, because you claim you don't think Hubbard meant what he wrote. Vivaldi 06:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about Tone Scale

It looks like my edit inadvertantly removed the Tone Scale from the series template. I'm still a little weak with Wikipedia's weird table markup. I'll probably move it back to beliefs, though, as the Tone Scale necessites belief for it to even have meaning in its definition. --Davidstrauss 12:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Belief, Doctrine, Practice....ugh....maybe we can just have a section: Scientology Things (that normal folks laugh about). Certainly we can all agree that the Tone Scale is a thing! Vivaldi 06:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Glen talking about "Mrs Rathbun" ;)

Jesus crazy ol' "Mrs Rathbun" (lol) has really got a bee in her bonnet with you on ars huh? It's really quite pathetic watching her attempts to 'dead agent' you! Laughable in fact. Keep up the great work mate File:Glenstollery.gif^POW! 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is sometimes amusing to see her in a tizzy. However, I admit there are some times that I feel sorry for her, since her life has been such a miserable and pathetic waste of time. She's done nothing for many years except be a huge drain on the people of Salt Lake City, the court system of Utah and the US Courts and her family in Germany that is forced to send her money to pay for her room and board.

Scientology is largely responsible for keeping Ms. Schwarz in a damaged condition, since it trained her to hate psychiatry with a passion. It is sad that now, as a person that is clearly suffering from a severe delusional disorder, that she is too scared to seek help from the only folks that have the skills to help her.

I pray that one day, Ms. Schwarz will receive the help she needs and make amends with the folks she has abused for so long. (but I'm not betting too much that my prayer will be answered) Vivaldi 06:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO's 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 Request for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you are doing to help improve Terryeo's behaviour. I hope it works. I do not support a lengthy ban of Terryeo myself, because I believe we are successfully curtailing his ill advised edits without such measures. Take care. Vivaldi 06:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Loudenvier writes about: Doublethinking...

(Please, the headline was meant only to be funny, because it was what brought me here). I do not like to have someone who I think aligns with me going against me! I don´t whant to discuss my posts on the Scientology article. I really think humanity to be a very big chunk of doublethinking "followers". It seems that people "need" to believe in something spectacular to be complete. I can´t differentiate Scientology from Christianity, Islamims, Judaism, Candonble, or even Atheism. I saw many of my friends or even some notorious authorities who are fervorous Christians going against Scientology very furiously. It makes me a litle mad! But I shouldn´t ever had brought it to wikipedia. I think it was a moment of weakness on my part! I´ve read the entire discussion on the Scientology article. I liked very much the things you said and the way you are working to make the truth about Scientology evident to all who really want to now the truth. When I said that the facts doesn´t matter, it was aimed at those people who still believe in "men" libe Hubbard and things like Scientology (or even greek Mythology for that matter). And please, apologize for my poor english because I´m not a native english speaker (actually I´m brazilian). Regards Loudenvier 01:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Vivaldi 04:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Glen's OSA article

You are I were adding sources at the same time it seems... I cited sources for all the {{fact}} claims and removed the unreferenced tag, hit save and you'd done it. I added the parts that you removed again (with sources) so let me know your thoughts. Glen ^GlenÛč 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Glen. Vivaldi 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(rv to last by Terryeo (I've always wanted to write that!))

You feeling okay? hehe. Just had an interview with a reporter for Wikinews re ScienTOMogy - you can see it here :) Would enjoy your thoughts...- Glen ^T _C 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Glen. Vivaldi 22:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I may have violated 3RR

I may have accidentally violated the 3RR policy at Sollog. I apologize for violating the policy and I will refrain from any further reverts there.

I was hoping that people would explain their reverts before they re-added the material to Wikipedia, especially since this is an article about a living person, for which guidelines have been introduced at WP:BLP, but instead I am reverted, for what seems to be spite than any particular quality reason. Vivaldi 21:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Input from Saxifrage re: Sollog

You said:

I will try to be more civil. However, you will note that you called me a bull, while I did not criticize you, but only the article. Vivaldi 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In response, thank you. As for the bull reference, I hope you recognise it as a common English metaphor for careless conduct. I applaud your standing up for policy, but keep in mind that policy is not a stick to enforce compliance, it is a reference for what we are working together toward as a collective editing community. (Emphasis for emphasis only, not shouting.) There's no room at Wikipedia for single editors to conduct the project as they see fit, even if they are in the right. I realise the Scientology articles that you're familiar with may have been contentious and bilious battlegrounds, but that breeds poor habits of cooperation when you find yourself in an environment with no enemies and only shades of grey.

I understand the "bull" reference and I wasn't offended. I just don't see why it was okay to be called a careless bull, but it was not okay for me to state that the ARTICLE itself a work of poop. Vivaldi 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And, I would like to point out that I am not a single editor conducting the project. After a few deletions and a few comments on the talk page I did receive the support of at least one other editor for my edits. So for quite some time I was laboring under the misguided notion that a teeming mob of like-minded individuals were about to spring to the article if necessary. Obviously this didn't happen, but I didn't receive an overwhelming number of dissenters. (and I still haven't for that matter). I think we have only 3 or 4 folks that have now weighed in the subject. Not to suggest that I could round up a couple of friends and begin an edit war, because I am not of the inclination to do that, but I want to point out that I initially I was labouring here with the understanding that other people have similar goals to follow WP:V and WP:BLP and other policies. Vivaldi 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And that last bit brings me to an answer to your question about not following guidelines. Guidelines will only get you so far, and that ends as soon as someone disagrees with you on what the guidelines mean. You're only one person, and we're all fallible. Thus, the only real way to get anything done at Wikipedia is by dialogue, discussion, consensus-building, and agreement on what we should do and how to apply the guidelines and policy to any given article. If you convert and convince rather than shout down from a perch on top of the policy, you will get more sympathetic ears for your message.

I certainly understand the point you are making. I was hoping that I had more support than I really did at the beginning. Before I do any massive reverts or blanking I will attempt to gain more of a consensus from the editors. Vivaldi 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And there's one more pitfall that can be avoided by this soft-power approach: you won't find yourself misquoting the policy. You have half the time logged and a fifth the edits I have, and I think I am still inexperienced. Be cautious when you think you understand policy clearly, because it's a large and tangled web of interacting policies and easily misinterpreted. I guess that means my advice amounts to "walk softly, and leave the stick at home". After all, you don't need a stick at Wikipedia—if you're in the right, you will find you are only one of many people championing your cause; and if you're in the wrong, then a stick is just going to get you in trouble anyway. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the policy is something that wavers around a bit and I certainly agree with you that I am inexperienced too. I am through making changes for today at Sollog, as I said, and I am willing to start the process of discussion about improving this article, and it appears as though we are going to have to do it line-by-line and even word-by-word in some cases. Like I said previously, my intention was to make this process as speedy as possible (and I was assuming, naively perhaps, that even more editors would climb on my back). The guidelines suggest that unsourced information from biographies be removed immediately because of the potential for harm if the information is wrong. Why can't the article leave out the information until it is properly cited from reliable and reputable sources? We should always err on the side of the subject when writing a biography of a living person. Also, we must weigh the potential benefit of announcing these titallating details about Mr. Ennis versus the potential harm if such information were untrue. And there are certainly privacy concerns to be considered here as well. Unnotables like Mr. Ennis don't deserve to have all of their court records put in a public forum like this. Vivaldi 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look deep enough at the archives you'll see that The Number proved he was in England and that he was not Sollog. nevertheless he was banned without any comeback - and Sollogfan likewise. --anonymous message left by 05:11, 15 April 2006 by 81.157.94.110 (talk · contribs · count)

Well, I'm not sure what to think of The Number or Sollogfan, and I'm really not sure it matters -- even if either or both of them can be "proven" to be not Sollog. Because I don't think you can "prove" these people weren't "supporting Sollog" as a means to troll other Wikipedia users, nor can you "prove" that aren't both insane fsckwits. Sollog is an insignificant troll that deserves his rightful place in history -- totally forgotten and ignored. Vivaldi 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism using sock puppets / dialup accounts across a specific IP range

Please see my requests here User talk:80.47.242.200 and User talk:80.47.184.178. Thank you. --12.192.160.2 (talk · contribs · count) 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a very petty request that you are making because I have criticized your ill-advised and undiscussed edits at Sollog. Vivaldi 20:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And just to prove how petty and ridiculous this Wikistalking was. Here is a list of other edits that demonstrate how my assessment was correct about this IP range:

80.47.*.* is responsible for a long series of very recent vandalism attempts at Scientology. See also:

• 80.47.159.223 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.47.115 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.33.220 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.79.246 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.142.199 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.159.111 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.254.166 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.90.54 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.50.137 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.243.96 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.85.169 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.54.237 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.148.222 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.191.42 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.157.14 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.248.99 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.242.200 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.184.178 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.238.94 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.41.97 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.59.251 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.130.161 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.88.67 (talk · contribs · count)
• 80.47.54.244 (talk · contribs · count)

Vivaldi 11:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Notice

Hi Vivaldi/Archive 1, please read Wikipedia:Civility if you have not already done so. --Amicable

LOL. A user is pissed off about getting his ill-advised and undiscussed edits reverted, and he chooses to stalk me on my other edits and make silly, petty, and unwarranted demands. Now, I get told to be civil? Go back and do your homework, O Sockpuppet of Friendship and Civility, because there is no way the edits by 12.192.160.2 (talk · contribs · count) were made in good faith. Vivaldi 09:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating a user's request is "petty" and saying their edits are "ill-advised" is uncivil. Telling a user to go back and do their homework is uncivil. Taunting is also uncivil. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility if you not already done so. Thanks. --Amicable 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you to read WP:Wikistalking and WP:CIVIL if you have not already done so. This user 12.192.160.2 (talk · contribs · count) deliberately followed me to two seperate articles that he previously had nothing to do with, in order to continue his harassment, abuse, stalking, and intimidation of me. According to the policy at WP:HA, this in not appropriate behaviour. Since I was being stalked, harassed, and intimidated just because I simply pointed out this user made edits without ever providing a reason in the edit summary or the discussion -- I felt justified in pointing it out that I was being wronged. I was actually quite WP:CIVIL about it, since I merely called him petty, when I could have easily pointed out that I didn't appreciate his stalking, harassment, and abuse. And I'm now of the opinion that the person behind Amicable is being deliberately obtuse, since its quite clear from the edit summaries what happened here. I wasn't angry before, but I'm getting more so now. Perhaps you can step out from behind the curtain, because I don't even think you are really Amicable at all. Vivaldi 10:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

Nikitchenko and I are now in Mediation based on his allegation of POV editing to the Office of Special Affairs article; See here. The Mediation is being held at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology. I notice there is a section, Comments by others so I thought given you have edited the article you may wish to comment when Mediation begins (I am unsure of the process at this stage). Look forward to hearing your opinion if you choose to offer it, and thanks in advance - Glen ^T _C 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attn. I've made my response to the ill-advised and against consensus edits of Nikitchenkno. I believe Nikitchenko is now acting in bad faith and attempting to disrupt the editing process itself rather than improve the quality of articles or Wikipedia. The evidence for this is his lack of willingness to specify the reasons for his disputes and his unwillingness to use talk pages to respond to his ill-advised edits and his refusal to follow the principles of Wikipedia which involve consensus. You can see my comments on the mediation page, the talk page for the article, on the Nikitchenko talk page, and on your talk page. Vivaldi 01:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, and to be honest I'm seeing some very similar editing styles, accusations of POV and civility attacks, an obvious attempt to harrass the same specific editors and obviously, fixation on the same types of articles of JimmyT and UNK. A red flag really jumped up at me when he started using the phrase "stop being uncivil" at yourself, wikipediatrix and myself. Plus, strickenly similiar grammatical/spelling errors, and, just to "throw us off", JimmyT claimed he was american, UNK Korean and Nikitchenko claims to be a Russian photographer on his user page. The odd thing? He has not edited a single russian nor photography based article. In fact, he HAS made edits to Korean based ones, and told me on my talk page that he and UNK were extremely close friends (Russia/Korea - close enough) - he's a sockpuppet if you ask me, his tone and methods are carbon copies of the other "two" What are your thoughts?Glen ^T _C 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the UNK and JimmyT fiasco. I only learned of it very recently, so I'm not prepared to comment on that. Vivaldi 14:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Glen says: "WTF is up with you and Sollog?"

Oh, and I'm curious, I noticed you take a lot of interest in the Sollog artcile - I know nada about him but it doesn't seem to fit with the genre you usually spend your time around. Is there a reason at all (if you don't mind my asking...) Thanks for your support on the mediation, really appreciated. - Glen ^T _C 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the Sollog article removed from Wikipedia. If it can't be removed my next choice is to have it moved to the bad jokes page. If that can't be done, then I want it to at least follow the policy of WP:V and the guidelines at WP:BLP. My interest in Sollog is related to my interest in all new religions, however in this case, Sollog is so unnotable that he is a non-entity. I believe Wikipedia itself looks terrible when defamation articles like this persist. They are a blight on Wikipedia. This kind of article is why Wikipedia is mocked by many mainstraim researchers and journalists. This type of article is very much like what Scientology would call a Dead Agent attack. Sollog came to Wikipedia and tried to get a vanity article inserted about himself noting that he was God and a psychic predictor of great import. Of course he failed to get that article to stay, but he did piss off enough people here to get them to write this article about him. They even have made a point to bring up nearly 20 year old crimes and misdemeanors in his past to defame his character, even though such things are not appropriate according to guidelines at WP:BLP. So now a complete non-entity is proven to be a charlatan and a fraud with a criminal past. WHO CARES? Well I gues we will see soon. Unfortunately about 20-30 seperate editors have now been involved in the article and it might be difficult to persuade them all to remove the article now that they have spent so much time defending it from Sollog and his sockpuppets. Vivaldi 14:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Xenu removed from featured articles ?

I might not have made any contributions for four months but that doesnt mean that i havent been browsing through wikipedia countless times.

I understand that. I just thought it was interesting. Vivaldi 20:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Xenu article I was merely making a judgment on the facts of the article as I saw them, many of which are farfetched to say the least, however on reading your comment I can see your point of view about the article not trying to assert the accuracy of the Xenu story. So maybe I came across in the wrong way with my questioning of its status as a feature article, this apart I still dont think it deserves a place among the best wikipedia articles, but its not my opinion that counts. -- comment left anonymously by JACurran (talk · contribs · count)

I guess its a question of what you mean by far-fetched. Is it farfetched that a religion might be started based on the testimony of people that claim a virginal woman was impregnated by God? Is is farfetched to believe that a man could turn water into wine instantly or multiply fish and loaves of bread? Many people would think so. The actual supernatural events described in the bible, the Torah, and the Koran are pretty far-fetched if you read them literally. However, it is not far-fetched to believe that some folks believe in supernatural events. There's a large segment of society that explicitly does. Vivaldi 20:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 21:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to do it if I have some time. Maybe in a few months. User:Vivaldi | (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

you should find the specific quote in APOBS

At Thetan you wrote the edit summar to me: "11:34, 18 April 2006 Vivaldi (The source for the claim is already referenced at the end of the paragraph. Perhaps you should find the specific quote in APOBS and replace the text here with it? Then you can say, Atack wrote, XYZ.)" Just so you can be perfectly clear, I am going to quote a piece of WP:V to you: 'If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun..."'[1] Further, the policy by which we edit states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain" WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. I know that source, the man can't string two peas in a row. ChrisO felt he is god's gift to understand Scientology or something and stuck that drivel into the article. I am not about to support it. I am actually going to revert it right out of the article until one of two things happen. * it is gone forever or * It is appropriately cited. I have talked for a week about it, I have tried to get it appropriately cited, I have even blockquoted the guy. You all insist such drivel must be included and you all insist that my methods of attributing it "don't read smoothly" and you all insist that "why don't you go get it appropriately cited". I'll just let you know. It violates WP:V. My patience with that particular piece of drivel is finished. Terryeo 23:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo- I don't insist on anything. I think the material is fine as it as, and it is sourced properly with a proper reference. I was only suggesting that if you wished to include Atack's name for the text, it would be better if you provided an actual quote, because every method you used to include his name has not looked good. Wikipedia doesn't require that we use actual quotes for every sentence in an article. All we need to do is have consensus that a statement is backed up by a verifiable source. Right now, I think the consensus is, that those words are properly sourced. I would encourage you to gain consensus for any deletions that you make to the article. Vivaldi (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Fair Game, section: ===Cancellation and controversy===

Please provide exact query on which grounds you wipe out my added information! Do you question the existence of HCO PL 21 July 1968? It is listed in the Policy Letter Index where it is cancelling the earlier 1967 issue (same title). Do you question the incorrectness of the correction about the GO pack? I supplied you with the reference supporting it (HCO PL 23 Dec 65 in OEC vols).

You wrote: "I find it highly suspicious that your very first edit to Wikipedia would be a highly technical edit replacing material that was reverted twice already. I would warn you that using sockpuppets to bolster your point-of-view is not appropriate. You can be blocked for doing it."

I object to being threatened on empty grounds. I have not replaced any information. I added information. The added information was carefully implemented without obstructing the existing text as a whole.

I am waiting for your arguments! Olberon 12:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"wipe out my added information"? I thought you just reinstated 87.227.20.229's edits. I think that it's clear from your language that you are both 87.227.20.229 and the author of that web page. AndroidCat 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I reinstated from the backup and implement changes in that. I also added referencing. Do you have any idea how many there are on this planet that do not have English as their first language. Your insinuating has no place here. It was by the way your post on the ARS about this that caught my attention. Olberon 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, you still haven't denied being 87.227.20.229. And Vivaldi calling this into question is not a threat in any language, so stop saying Vivaldi has threatened you. wikipediatrix 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi's revelations are based on personal opinion. He does not address the information itself. 87.227.20.229 bears no relevance to the issue in any way. This is supposed to be solely about data that can be verified for it's truthfulness. This is what Wiki is all about. Vivaldi has up to date failed to clarify himself. --Olberon 12:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just found out what is meant with sockpuppets on the Wiki. When I first edited I was not registered, now I am registered. I trust that this clarifies things. --Olberon 13:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a rule against reverting an edit 3 times in one day. Using a sockpuppet account to avoid the penalties for that rule is against the policy of Wikipedia. If you continue to violate the rules of Wikipedia, administrators will block you. Vivaldi (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a problem duplicating? You use the wrong and false reasons for trying to get me out of the way. Back up your assertions that my additions and editing are incorrect. I don't think the Wiki administrator will take too kindly of your approach. Quit trying to intimidate me. Use sanity and gentle communication. --Olberon 17:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Olberon- You are violating the policies of Wikipedia which prohibit sockpuppet accounts to bolster your point-of-view (or to avoid the rules against 3 reverts or for whatever other reason that someone would choose to have a sockpuppet). You are also ignoring the policy of verifiability and WP:Original Research which advises that you do not use your own personal published webpages as sources for articles on Wikipedia. A WARNING: If you continue to violate the policies of Wikipedia you will be blocked. (note: That isn't a threat, because I don't even have the power to block you if I wanted to).

An anonymous response from a person who is making unsubstantiated threats. This is duly noted. Any of the editing that I implemented is verifiable, referencing is supplied. Olberon 10:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As I told you, I have no power to make any threats. I cannot block you. However, I do know for a fact that if you continue to violate the policies of Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Vivaldi (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You are threatening me, is that allowed around here? Use reasoning. What policies do I violate? What's your support for that assertion? You don't tell. --Olberon 17:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not threatening you at all. I am advising you that if you continue to violate policies you will be blocked. That isn't a threat. It is a warning. I have not power to block you at all. I can only give you advice and warning. Vivaldi (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is duly noted that again you fail to support your assertion. Put up or shut up. --Olberon 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I advise you to please be civil. You have already admitted that you have violated Wikipedia policy against using sockpuppet accounts. You violated the 3 reverts in one day policy by using two different accounts to get around the rule. That is a blockable offense and its an offense that you have admitted to. I would also advise you not to attempt to violate the privacy of Wikipedia authors. Please do not attempt to use Fair Game intimidation tactics on me. This is also a blockable offense. I edit under the name of Vivaldi and I have never used any of my webpages or my own writings as a source for any of my own edits on Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From the start you have been intimidating me. In addition you have not forwarded any queries to my additions which are fully supported by officially printed reference material. What are you implying with "I have never used any of my webpages or my own writings as a source for any of my own edits on Wikipedia"? --Olberon 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Any of the editing that I implemented is verifiable, referencing is supplied. Olberon-- Wikipedia also has policies that require Verifiability and No Original Research. The website that you are using as a source for your claims does not meet the requirements of WP:V. If you would like to continue to discuss your claims on the talk page and garner consensus for your edits, then you would have a much better chance of making a difference here. Your confrontational and anti-consensus approach to editing is not appropriate. Vivaldi (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You say: "The website that you are using as a source for your claims". Where might I ask am I doing that? What data? What argument? Please provide EXACT data. For so far I know I have been referencing to printed publications available to all. --Olberon 17:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk about your additions and your sources on the discussion page for the article. Before you make large scale additions or deletions from a controversial subject you should try to make your case for it on the discussion page. Be prepared to demonstrate that your reference sources are verifiable and reliable. Vivaldi (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's just false information. The policy is "be bold", the policy isn't, "tweak and snivel and discuss every edit to full concensus before editing" Particularly when iserting additional information, particularly when inserting verifications of current publications, be bold. That's the policy. You mis-state both the policy for editing and the intent of Wikipedia toward encouraging editing, Vivaldi. That's just plain false. Terryeo 07:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right about that. I have however commodated to this 'proposal'. Because of that another argument of those who query the data that I forwarded has simply vanished, and can not be used as an argument to revert. --Olberon 10:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I make my case through supporting it through documentation and referencing. Thus making discussing it unnecessary. You have been given the opportunity. To date you have not offered any substance to your arguments and opinion. --Olberon 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you will discover that you will actually need to discuss your edits on the talk page. It is part of the process of consensus building which is how Wikipedia operates. The reliability and reputation of your sources has been challenged. Your edits are against consensus. You can continue to work against the process of consensus, but you will find your editing time here unproductive. If you wish to garner consensus for your controversial updates, you should seek to develop it on the talk page for the article rather than on my talk page. Vivaldi (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You wipe out fully verified reference sources. once again:

"Do you question the existence of HCO PL 21 July 1968? It is listed in the Policy Letter Index where it is cancelling the earlier 1967 issue (same title).

Do you question the incorrectness of the correction about the GO pack? I supplied you with the reference supporting it (HCO PL 23 Dec 65 in OEC vols)."

You fail to respond. You use a generality to get rid of it. In addition that website linked to is support with reference material which is fully verifiable with printed publications. --Olberon 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I question the reliability and reputation of "that website". If indeed the material is fully verifiable, as you claim, then there are certainly lots of other published sources that have published the information. Go back and make your changes and use verifiable sources. If your own personal website is the only source you can locate to verify your claims, then the material should not be in Wikipedia. Your continued insistence to insert your own original research is against the policies of Wikipedia. I would suggest that you please read these policies and familiarize yourself with them. You are certainly free to make edits and changes to these articles, but you need to follow policies and you need to develop consensus for your changes. You don't own these articles yourself. Lots of editors have an interest in them, and many of them want to make sure that only information that meets policy requirements is inserted. Vivaldi (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't know which is my site, or if I even have one. Please stop that line. I have not at any point insisted on using some site for sole source of reference. So quit that line also. If you talk about Church of scientology issues there may not exist "lots of other published sources that have published the information". I also point out to you that you don't own the articles either, I don't need your approval or wikipediatrix's or anyone else's. I also read in the Wiki policies that one is encouraged to improve the Wiki, not to revert whole entries. About every change I made since I have been here has been totally reverted, if I had valid referencing or not. It got wiped out either way. --Olberon 19:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very confident that you are indeed using your own webpages to source your edits here, which is not recommended. I specifically deny that I have ever used one of my own websites as a source for my claims. Can you specifically deny that you are using your own websites as sources? Vivaldi (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that I wrote and issued OEC volume 1, the HCO PL Subject Index, Scientology; Basic Staff Hat Book - Number 1, the ''Foster Report'', William J. Widder, M.A. - The Fiction of L. Ron Hubbard: A comprehensive bibliography & reference guide to published and selected unpublished works and any other reference that I quote. I am most definitely denying that I use any personal websites of anyone as source for edits! If you make the claim that I do use any personal or questionable site as actual source for any editing implemented, then you would have no problem at all to point out the exact places where and how I do so! --Olberon 17:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If there aren't any reliable and reputable sources for your claims than a personal website owned by Michel Snoeck, then I believe your information should be left out of Wikipedia. Please find other sources for your claims. If there don't exist any reputable or reliable sources except for those on personal webpages, then the material probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Of course, you can always try to garner consensus for your changes on the discussion page and perhaps argue why an exception to the guidelines is warranted. Vivaldi (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Again and for the very last time. MY ADDITIONS WERE FULLY VERIFIED AS PER PUBLISHED PRINTED (as in books) MATERIALS. Your insinuation has NO GROUND! Stop insinuating something else! In addition you have allowed the reference links to Gerry Armstrongs site which are higly biased as he makes a conclusion based on him ignoring HCO PL 21 July 1968 but you do not object to having that there! (It is violating NPOV wiki rule!) Link to Fair Game page Section Cancellation and controversy you see a [4], why is that there? Show good faith and remove it! You removed my [5] that was directly following it. --Olberon 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need your approval or wikipediatrix's or anyone else's. No, you do not. You can continue being confrontational and anti-consensus if you want. Your approach thus far hasn't been successful for you. Would you like some advice on how to make your editing experience on Wikipedia more fulfilling and useful, or do you want to continue making edits and deletions that are against consensus? Vivaldi (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My data got reverted in spite of the simple fact that my additions were supported by printed referenced materials! That tells something about the people doing the reverts! Nothing more to say is there! --Olberon 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely the sort of difficulty I had when I introduced current Church Policy into the Fair_Game_(Scientology) article. Other editors simply refused, as Vivaldi is refusing, refused to believe than any policy letter which did not appear on Xenu.net was a real policy letter. Feldspar, particularly said, "how can we believe you" when I quoted and cited current HCOPL. Vivaldi is likewise stating his disbelief of policy which does not appear on Xenu.net (or other anti-scientology source). Vivaldi is finding additional things to say which do not reply to the information being discussed. This is unfortunate, Vivaldi is making a personal issue rather than discussion of what information is to appear in the article and what information should not appear. Olberon is doing as Wikipedia policy and guidelines specify. Vivaldi is dispersing the issue and refusing to confront the issue. Terryeo 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

He nor anyone else can actually query the published documentation that I supplied about the existence of for example HCO PL 21 July 1968. It is also obvious why this policy letter is not found on xenu.net and the other critical sites. The Fair Game page still need some editing for example concerning the GO hatpack and few other things. Gerry Armstrong himself supplied the correct data on the title and the date of that policy letter on the ARS this last week. In the article it says: "Included there for study was the original 7 Mar 1965 HCOPL, "Fair Game."" that HCO PL with that title and that date does not exist! The correct title and date are HCO PL 1 March 65 Justice - Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law. When I corrected this Wikipediatrix reverted the whole thing! Please be with me on this! I will be monitoring these pages for a while to ensure that correct verified information will be supplied on these pages. I only got acquainted with the Wiki since April 26, but I think I got the hang of it now. I soon noticed that a battle between Scientologists and anti-Scientologists is fought here. --Olberon 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Scientology contr

You wrote on my talkpage:

You recently added a cleanup tag to the Scientology controversy article. I would appreciate it if you would outline the reasons for this on the article's talk page. There are many editors willing to help fix the article and clean it up, and we are willing to discuss the issue on the talk page. But if we aren't provided with the specific reasons for you insertion of the tag it makes it almost impossible that we will be able to fix the article and remove your tag in a reasonable time frame. Also, in the future you should use the {{cleanup-date|April 2006}} tag for any articles that need cleanup. The tag you used is not to be used anymore. Vivaldi (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is my answer

However I did argue at the talk page for why I thought it needed a cleanup tag , I wrote:

I think the intro needs to be cleaned up to follow the WP:MOS. I tried to wikify the first line so it looked like the template "This article is about....for other uses see...." What do you think? Snailwalker | talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The general problem with this article, is in my opinion, that it doesn't bold the name of the article which is required acording to WP:MOS. The quotes section is poorly formatted as well. I don't know why I didn't use the cleanup-tag tagged with the date, I usually do so. Have a nice day -- Snailwalker | talk 14:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Preying from the Pulpit

I feel that if you wish to delete this article, you should go through the WP:AFD process, not PROD. PROD is really only appropriate, for things that would likely go uncontested. This seems to be something worthy of an AFD discussion. So, you may wish to nominate the article instead. --Rob 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. I only tried prod first because there was nothing on the talk page to indicate that this would be a contested deletion. It seemed pretty clear cut case to me. I've already put up the AfD. I look forward to your comments about why the article is or isn't notable. Vivaldi (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information from Hyles-Anderson College cited by the Associated Press

Why did you remove cited information[2] involving a court case from Hyles-Anderson College, which two babysitters testified at trial about reporting suspected abuse of a teacher to the school president? You removed the entire segment and history of abuse which the teacher was convicted for "torturing" this girl for "nearly 20 years." Arbusto 05:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it appeared to me that the source given was sullivan-county.com. Sullivan-county.com is a personal website that is not reputable or reliable. If you have a source that is reputable or reliable that says Combs was convicted for torturing this girl for nearly 20 years, then go ahead and put the statement back in. Vivaldi (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The source was the Associated Press and it was reprinted by Sullivan-county.com. The section was noted as such and if you click on the Sullivan link you also saw the AP date, source, and author. The case made national television. Arbusto 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see it. On the link I clicked on sullivan-county.com there was no indication that it was from the AP. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the page wasn't an AP story. Would you please provide a proper citation for the article including the original published date, author, and source? I would like to WP:V verify that the original exists.

If you clicked on the link that means you clicked right beside the reference of "Esther Combs faces the woman she called mother and asks: Why?. The Associated Press. 25 April 2000" and "Experts say Combs child abuse case unusual," The Associated Press, April 7, 2000 by BECKY CAMPBELL" If you are going to remove something because you consider it bias then yopu should take the time and READ the reference. Arbusto 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The original article I read on Sullivan-County did not say anything about the AP Press on it. It appears to be the creation of Sullivan County. If in fact Sullivan-County is merely copying the words of the AP, for which it does not pay for, then perhaps they should at least take the time to write, "This information is copyrighted by the Associated Press" on the page. (It is bad enough that they are stealing the intellectual property of others, but the least they could do is acknowledge the source of their theft. Hypocrites.) Vivaldi (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to remove something because you consider it bias then yopu should take the time and READ the reference. I did read it. Maybe you can point out where the words "Associated Press" appear on this page? I can't see them. I am also removing the material because it is not relevant to an article about Hyles. I am also removing the material because it places undue weight on a small minority viewpoint. There are lots of reasons why an encyclopedia article about Hyles should not go into details about a court case involving Combs. It's just typically how things are done in encyclopedias. If you want to write an article about Combs, then it might be appropriate there. Vivaldi (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also why did you put [fact] tags for a section available right on their official website? These sources were also noted in the history of the page as well. Arbusto 06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because I wanted to see what the source for the claims made in the article was added to the article. I thought it was pretty clear. It says "CITATION NEEDED" right? The sources for claims made in the article ought to go in the article or in the reference section, People shouldn't have to read the edit histories or talk page to find out where in the world the information is coming from. Wikipedia requires verifiability which means that every claim that is made in the article must be attributed to a source (unless its undisputed common knowledge, e.g. 113+234=347 need not be attributed).

Well, a fundamentalist church being a King James Only church is common knowledge, but had you clicked on the page history to see when it was inserted or bother visiting the subject's official webpage you would have found that information. Arbusto 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that fundamentalism = KJ only. There are fundamentalist Catholic groups and fundamentalist Christian groups that do not use KJV. And like I said previously, the sources need to be added for the reader of Wikipedia, not for me. Readers of Wikipedia shouldn't have to travel to the edit history page or the talk pages or figure out own their own that the material is available at the "subject's official webpage". What is so difficult about providing a proper citation in the article? Why would you object to such a simple task? Vivaldi (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What is so difficult to source this stuff by clicking on the subject's official website if you wish to call it into question? Also STOP removing the cited books in the Hyles article. Arbusto 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What is so difficult to source this stuff by clicking on the subject's official website if you wish to call it into question? I didn't put the claims in the article to begin with. I am a reader of someone else's claims. I have no idea where they may or may not have generated the information from. It is not the reader of Wikipedia's job to go out and figure out where the claims came from. They need to be properly sourced and cited. Vivaldi (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also STOP removing the cited books in the Hyles article. You cannot use self-published books from Hyles opponents in an article about Hyles. They are only qualified to speak about themselves and only in articles about themselves. Please read the policy of Wikipedia on this topic at WP:V. I will continue to remove the parts of the article that improperly sourced to self-published books. Vivaldi (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't offered a source for your claims. If you do, we can keep them because "In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." The newspapers count as a credible, third party publication. Arbusto 08:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't offered a source for your claims. What are you talking about? What claims are you talking about? Are you trying to argue that Brevia Publishing is owned by someone other than Voyle A. Glover? Even after you have been shown his own webpage at http://www.brevia.com? Even after seeing his email address is vag@brevia.com? Glover owns Brevia Publishing Company. You CANNOT USE SELF PUBLISHED BOOKS IN WIKIPEDIA. It is a policy which you have been pointed to numerous times at WP:V. Glover is not a professional researcher, nor is he a professional journalist, so you may not and cannot source any claims in the Hyles article to Glovers self-published book. Vivaldi (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Arbustoo, you cannot use self-published books in an article about Hyles. It is Wikipedia policy. Read WP:V. Only in the case of professional researchers and journalists. These people were not. And getting a quote in a newspaper is not "being published" by a credible third party source. It is merely getting a quote in the paper. Also, newspapers are not all considered reliable and credible sources of information. Newspapers vary in their reputation and reliability. Some are like tabloids and should be avoided. Vivaldi (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not supposed to make personal attacks or modify other people's posts either. Obviously, you are just picking and choosing policies to suit your agenda. Arbusto 09:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not supposed to make personal attacks. I apologized for offending you, but your blatant intellectually dishonesty on the talk page for Jack Hyles was frustrating to me. You actually tried to argue that Voyle Glover perhaps didn't own Brevia Publishing company in 1990 and has henceforth purchased the company (as evidenced by his email address at vag@brevia.com and his current ownership of brevia.com and Brevia Publishing). Your argument was so stilted and so irrational that I could only assume that you were willfully being obtuse and willfully disregarding the policies of Wikipedia so that you could get your biased point-of-view put in the article about Hyles. Yes. I thought that was a bone-headed move on your part. I'm sorry if you took offense. I'll try keep your sensitivities in mind in the future. Vivaldi (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "If you are really are' stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry" was not an apology. Rather the grammatically incorrect claim that I am "stupid" was a poor attempt to get around the fact that you still have not offered a source for your claim. Arbusto 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry" was not an apology. I previously said, I was sorry if you are offended. Vivaldi (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo goes in circles again: you still have not offered a source for your claim. My respons: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHAT CLAIM HAVE I NOT OFFERED A SOURCE FOR? Please state what claim you are talking about. Vivaldi (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

or modify other people's posts either. Modify other people's posts? I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about editing an article? Refactoring a talk page? Can you explain yourself? Vivaldi (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You modified the title[3] to delink it without commentary or reason. Arbusto 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) It's my talk page and I'll remove your ill-advised graffiti from it whenever I feel like it. (2) It is inappropriate form to put links in the headers. I remove all links in the headlines in any article, not just my talk page. I will continue to do whenever I see you or anybody else make the same mistake. (3) What is wrong with you? Why do you care what I do with my talk page? That has to be one of the most petty complaints I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You will also note that EVEN IN THE CASE where there is a professional researcher (such a professor at a reputable university) AND credible 3rd party publication (such as a peer-reviewed journal), the policy says we "may" use such sources. It doesn't say that they must all be allowed. Vivaldi (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because a newspaper documents that someone in the fundamentalist community has made accusations against Hyles, doesn't mean you get to add every single claim the guy has made in his own self-published works. You may add what the paper says, if consensus opinion says it is important and notable (but see What Wikipedia Is Not. Just because something can go in Wikipedia doesn't mean that it should. Unproven allegations against individuals and spurious claims from dubious sources should be avoided, (especially in biographies). Vivaldi (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A few days later... you removed "an unaccredited institution" and replaced it with "a bible college," removed the section mentioned in the above paragraphs and didn't discuss it in the summary or the talk pages.[4] Arbusto 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please refrain from personal attacks such as "I thought I was argueing with someone with at least a little common sense." Arbusto 04:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended. After watching your amazing display at the discussion page of Jack Hyles, I just didn't think you were demonstrating any common sense. In fact, I thought you were being deliberately and intentionally obtuse in order to justify your edits that are clearly in violation of the policies of Wikipedia. If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry. If you are not really stupid and you do have common sense, then I wish you would please stop making ridiculous arguments in order to get around the policies of Wikipedia. Take care. Vivaldi (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not put links in the headlines on my talk page (or any page for that matter). It is bad form. I don't like it. If you do it again I will remove them again. Please don't be a dick. Vivaldi (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me?

When I put the four tildes to include my user name, it is putting me first name instead of my user name. But I don't know how to correct it, nor whom to ask. You appear knowledgeable about such things, perhaps you could help me? dcottle561. (not using the four tildes)

You need to go to Special:Preferences and change the part where it says nickname to read whatever you want it to say. So if you want it to show "dcottle561", then put that as your nickname. Vivaldi (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to remove cited quotes...

If you are going to remove cited quotes from newspapers give specific reasons for it on the talk page. Your general cries of "bias" are not adequate to remove someone else's hard work. Provide a detailed analysis of why you believe they should not be included. Arbusto 00:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't seem to mind removing hard work when the shoe was on the other foot Arbustoo. You are on a one-man mission to destroy the reputation of Jack Hyles based on the unproven allegations of a couple of do-nothings. It is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV to give such undue weight to such a minority viewpoint. Hyles was loved and respected by a community of tens of thousands of people. He spent 50 years in a leadership position. Over the course of that 50 year time frame, one of the men that he fired made some unproven allegations out of anger and spite. You cannot take up so much space about the life talking about such salicious unproven details. It is clearly unencylopedic. Vivaldi (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all your opinion. Why did you remove the Northwest Indiana Times article mentioning Glover's book? Why did you remove the sources surrounding Preying from the Pulpit? Why did you remove the fixed sources that properly attitbute the source to the obituary? Why did you remove the police officer's comments on the investigation? Why did you remove the cited case linked to Hyles of molestation(Preying from the Pulpit)? Why did you remove the correction of HYLES' ASSERTATION that one person (NOT PEOPLE-as you wrote) did not attend the college? Why did you remove the Preying from the Pulpit links? Why did you remove the mention that Glover was interviewed on TV about Hyles?

You personal feelings about this don't interest me. Back up your claims. You can't just throw up the "NPOV" and remove citations. Arbusto 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your personal feelings about this don't interest me either. You clearly are on a one man mission to smear the character of a man that was loved and respected by tens of thousands of people based on the unproven accusations of a couple of malcontents. This is not what an encyclopedia should do. Vivaldi (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I joined that article when I noticed a concentrated effort to keep criticism off it. Why did you remove the Northwest Indiana Times article mentioning Glover's book? Why did you remove the sources surrounding Preying from the Pulpit? Why did you remove the fixed sources that properly attitbute the source to the obituary? Why did you remove the police officer's comments on the investigation? Why did you remove the cited case linked to Hyles of molestation(Preying from the Pulpit)? Why did you remove the correction of HYLES' ASSERTATION that one person (NOT PEOPLE-as you wrote) did not attend the college? Why did you remove the Preying from the Pulpit links? Why did you remove the mention that Glover was interviewed on TV about Hyles? Among other changes reverted without commentary. Arbusto 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I commented that you are giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint. I certainly think that Wikipedia can mention that Hyles was a controversial figure and that he had a couple of detractors that made unproven allegations him. That section should not be the bulk of an article about Hyles. Since Hyles was never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted, it is beyond ridiculous that a church man with a 50 year career of leadership should have his reputation sullied by a couple of do-nothings, one of whom who was reacting to being fired by Hyles. Wikipedia requires that we evaluate our sources.

Not one single verifiable source has come out making the allegations that you wish to include in this article. There have been newspapers that commented that Glover and others have made unproven allegations...but not one paper has revealed through investigation or otherwise that Hyles has done anything wrong at all in the last 50 years. Vivaldi (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything cited was printed in the press. What you mean is he was never PERSONALLY found guilty. Yet, he did publicly defend a convicted child molestor and critics have published books criticizing Hyles.

Hyles didn't defend child molestation. He said that he didn't believe the man committed any crimes. That is completely different than suggesting that he thought child molestation was acceptable. Your edits have been made to suggest the latter and you are a despicable person for making such gross accusations. Hyles was against the behaviour of sexual abuse and he preached about such things regularly. Vivaldi (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Claiming the criticism section is too big is not a valid reason to remove parts. Arbusto 01:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Hyles. It is inappropriate for an article about Hyles to discuss the child molestation case of another person. You are trying to suggest that Hyles believes that child molestation is appropriate when you know that is untrue. Your edits are clearly biased in regards to Hyles. And it is certainly appropriate to require that points of view that are only held by a small amount of people receive the amount of attention in the article that they are due. You are giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint which is against the policy of WP:NPOV. Vivaldi (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1) The context of the molestation you are referring to was that the newsreport began by looking into the evidence referring to a Hyles graduate who ran was part of another church, but that the act occurred at an event sponsored by Hyles! 2) That is not an good enough reply for reverting various source corrections, grammar corrections, and additions of sources. Arbusto 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your additions and your assessments of the reasons for removal. Vivaldi (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith recruiting

Copied from the page you are recruiting people to go to:

More bad faith by Vivaldi. This user is contacting users who voted delete[5][6]. Note Vivaldi's comments are "you suggested that we delete the article ... can you please comment on the proposed merger of the article at..." Arbusto 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note my comments were made at 02:33 and Vivaldi's edits to recruit the delete votes was made at 02:22, 7 May 2006. Since my comments of 02:33 Vivaldi began contacting the rest of the voters at 02:37, 7 May 2006. Arbusto 02:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't bad faith recruiting. Eight out of ten of the people that commented on the AfD said that we should get rid of it. Since the admin changed the AfD to a proposed merger I felt it was appropriate to notify the people that were interested enough to vote on AfD to make their comments on the proposed merger. Vivaldi (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to push your POV on the Hyles-related articles. Arbusto 02:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Go ahead and read your additions and deletions. Arbustoo (talk · contribs · count) You have done nothing but add the unproven allegations of a couple of do-nothing malcontents to the article. Not a single newspaper has accused Hyles of any misdeeds. The police have said that Hyles was not the subject of any criminal probes. Hyles was never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. And yet every edit you have inserted into the article suggests that he is an advocate for molestation of children or worse. I'm willing to have the minor controversies regarding Hyles in the article, but I will make sure that these minority viewpoints receive the amount of attention they deserve, which is very little. Vivaldi (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Unproven allegations" cited in regional newspapers. Newspapers don't accuse people of things, newspapers report WHO says WHAT. Arbusto 03:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. What are you smoking? Vivaldi (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice rebuttal. 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good newspapers do their own investigations and make claims of their own. If you are suggesting that a newspaper should merely collect quotes and provide no analysis of the motives behind the people that make them, then you are clearly out of touch with how professional journalism works. Not a single reputable, reliable, or verifiable source has accused Jack Hyles of any misdeeds. Vivaldi (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good papers don't print lies by shady people. Arbusto 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You really must be joking. They report the silly lies that dubious sources spout out all the time. Good papers often report when a dubious person makes a claim. Go back to December 27, 2002, and just after, and read in almost every newspaper in the world the claims of Dr. Brigitte Boisselier, a Raelian bishop and CEO of Clonaid. She announced to the world press that Clonaid had successfully cloned a human being. Boisselier said that the mother delivered by Caesarean section somewhere outside the United States, and that both the mother and the little girl, Eve, are healthy. This ridiculous lie was printed in hundreds and hundreds of papers. Vivaldi (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL and there was a retraction printed to correct the story, which is why we know it is false. Provide a link of "retractions" of the article you are trying so badly to dispute. Arbusto 18:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you provide a link of retractions of the article you are trying to dispute? You said papers don't print unproven claims by shady people, yet there are numerous claims by Jack Hyles in the paper. Either Jack Hyles is telling the truth, or else the paper is printing the claims of shady people. Which is it? Or will you finally step out of your twisted maze of logic and admit that newspapers (and especially small-time newspapers like the NWI Times) often print words of third parties that are dubious ? Vivaldi (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good papers don't print lies by shady people. Arbusto 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC) So when the paper reported that Jack Hyles said no crime ever took place, then the paper was printing the truth? At least one of the individuals mentioned in the stories were lying. Either the paper printed the lies of Hyles or they printed the lies of his detractors. You can't pretend that the paper analyzed both statements and determined that both were true. Or is that how logic works on your planet? Vivaldi (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Crediblity is important. Glover, Nischik, and Sumner have never defended a convicted child molestor who was caught in the act at a Hyles' church. Hyles has and taunted the child's parents as well. He even let the convict continue with his job. Arbusto 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

#1) Hyles never believed that the man committed the crime and has said so numerous times. #2) Why would the paper print the words of Hyles if they believed he was not credible? #3) If Glover, Nischik, and Sumner are reputable and reliable sources, why aren't there any other reputable and reliable sources that have made the same accusations that they have? Not one single reputable and reliable source has ever accused Hyles of any misdeeds, let alone accused him of any crimes. Vivaldi (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So Hyles CHOOSE not to believe the church worker who witnessed Ballenger molesting a 7 year old girl. So Hyles CHOOSE not to acknowledge the jury conviction of this child molestor. So Hyles CHOOSE to tell the parents of the molested girl that the molestor "just likes little girls." Arbusto 00:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So Hyles CHOOSE not to believe the church worker who witnessed Ballenger molesting a 7 year old girl. Apparently he trusted Ballenger more than his other employee. Perhaps he knew the other worker had a history of being untrustworthy. Perhaps his friendship was Ballenger was so strong and for so long, that he trusted him completely and without question. There are many people in my life that I trust completely. And if these people were found guilty of abuse or even murder, and they told me that they didn't do it, I would trust them completely, knowing full well that the criminal justice system makes errors far too often. Here's a little experiment you can try. Find out how many people have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated. Now count the number of people that were convicted by a jury for murder, and sentenced to die, but then later released after DNA or other evidence proved conclusively that they were in fact innocent. I think you'll be sickened by what you discover.

Now I'm not discounting completely what the findings of a jury are, because if you can convince 12 people in America to agree on anything, even the weather outside or the color of the sky, you've done some pretty good convincing. But I do believe that anywhere from 2%-10% of people found guilty by a jury are in fact innocent of their crimes, so a jury conviction to me is not the be all and end all of a discussion. (And the jury probably gets it wrong the other way even more often, an example being the [O. J. Simpson murder case|O.J. Simpson case])

I haven't seen the testimony in the Ballenger case, nor read anything else about it except for a few small newspaper clippings, so I can't comment on the case too much (and really a full analysis would require at least video and audio of the people testifying and not just transcripts). Ballenger was convicted, and the pure probabilities indicate that people convicted by juries are probably guilty (at least 9 out of 10 times anyway), so he probabably was guilty. However, I don't know Ballenger, nor do I know the people who testified against him. Perhaps if Ballenger was my lifelong best friend and the person testifying against him was a person I felt could be lying, then I would have a different opinion. I think this is what happened to Jack Hyles. Perhaps his judgement was clouded. Perhaps his trust of Ballenger was misplaced.

I believe it is clear, from the lifelong teachings and preachings of Jack Hyles, that he felt sexual abuse and even sexual contact outside the bounds of marriage was a grave sin.

So Hyles CHOOSE to tell the parents of the molested girl that the molestor "just likes little girls."

I don't believe that you've demonstrated that Hyles stated that to be a fact. Did the parents of the girl win their million dollar lawsuit against Hyles? So far, it appears the only place that Hyles was accused of saying that was in that million dollar lawsuit. (A lawsuit which takes away at least some of the credibility of the parties involved in pressing it...$1 million is a lot of money and people have told viscious lies for far less). Vivaldi (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ballenger discounted three young women who testified Thursday that he also had fondled them years ago and again emphasized his innocence."[7] Arbusto 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Ballenger ever charged, tried, or convicted for the previous molestations? If not, do you know why? Vivaldi (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article from the Northwest Indiana Times written by Voyle A. Glover from June 10, 1993 Jack Hyles: Above the law. Glover has never defended Ballanger, a man who had four girls say he molested them. Hyles has. Arbusto 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1) You are mischaracterizing a guest column as an article from the NWI Times. Glover did not work for the NWI Times. He was not a reporter, nor a journalist, nor an editor. He was given space to print his own editorial opinion. 2) Defending people you trust implicitly is not always (or necessarily) a bad trait. I know at least 4 people that would defend me to my grave if I was ever found guilty of a crime that I said I didn't commit. And thankfully so. How perverse would it be to automatically stop trusting someone just because a jury of 12 believed one person's word against anothers? Implicit trust is not always bad. Perhaps Hyles made an error in judgement in the Ballenger case, but Hyles did not do anything morally wrong. And he certainly didn't commit any crimes himself. Vivaldi (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1) The article says nothing about him being a "guest columnist" (and for the record- it is certainly not a letter to the editor) that's just you assuming stuff again.

Do you think that Voyle Glover was working as a reporter? Are you high on drugs, seriously? Vivaldi (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

2) "Implicit trust is not alway bad"... are you kidding. You want to defend a defender of a convicted child molestor fine. But four girls (including the 7 year old), a church worker, and a Hyles security guard either witnessed or were personally sexually abused. That includes the man's niece and a girl molested on a Hyles bus. During this molestor's many appeals (funded by Hyles) he was on bail and HYLES LET THIS MAN WORK THIS CHILDREN!

Not just be around kids as a bus driver or a Sunday school teacher but Police are concerned that a convicted child molester is distributing candy to youths boarding buses at the First Baptist Church. Did you read that? A CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTER hands out CANDY to CHILDREN and Hyles approves! Arbusto 09:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Implicit trust is not alway bad"... are you kidding. You want to defend a defender of a convicted child molestor fine. No I'm not kidding. I do want to defend anybody. I want both sides of the issue to be explained so your single-minded point of view does not dominate the article. Hyles' view on the matter is important because he stated numerous times that he didn't think A.V. was guilty. Now you can certainly suggest that he had bad judgement in this case, but you are trying to imply that Hyles' was actively encouraging the molestations or that he approved of them, when that is certainly no the case. Vivaldi (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read that? A CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTER hands out CANDY to CHILDREN and Hyles approves! Maybe you should bold "convicted child molester"? I know at least 4 people in my life that would trust me implicitly, even if I was a CONVICTED AXE MURDERER. Court and juries make mistakes and this has been documented. Vivaldi (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But four girls (including the 7 year old), a church worker, and a Hyles security guard either witnessed or were personally sexually abused. That includes the man's niece and a girl molested on a Hyles bus. A.V. was charged with (and convicted of) molesting 1 girl, not 4. Do you know why he was not charged with molesting the other 3 girls? Vivaldi (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyles Anderson

You will note that I am mainly not interfering with your changes to the various articles in the Hyles Anderson walled garden, but changing "unaccredited college" to "bible college" is not on. The college is unaccredited, and that is probably the single most significant fact about it from an educational standpoint. Call it an (unaccredited) bible college if you prefer,. brackets acceptable, but please do not remove the status. Just zis Guy you know? 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the most significant aspect of Hyles-Anderson is its inclusion in a list of unaccredited schools. I believe its status as a seminary and bible college is by the far the most important descriptor. However, I willing to have it pointed out that Hyles-Anderson is unaccredited as long as the position of Hyles-Anderson on the matter of accreditation is left in the article. It is biased to only include the information that it is unaccredited and to not explain that the college has specific doctrinal reasons for rejecting accreditation. Vivaldi (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion in the list is irrelevant, lack of accreditation is not. It is the single most iportant part of a college's academic credibility. Special pleading is irrelevant: every degree mill in the country pretends to have good reasons for not being accredited. There are no valid doctrinal reasons for rejecting accreditation, TRACS will accredit just about anybody. Just zis Guy you know? 07:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyles-Anderson is a seminary and Bible College college with 1700 on campus students that has demonstrated that its graduates can use their educations to become preachers, ministers, and church musicians. It is not a "degree mill". They have very strict rules that would prevent most "normal" folks from graduating. They don't hand out their diplomas to just anyone that comes in with a fistful of money. This is why listing them with the same tag you would give a degree mill is misleading. There are no valid doctrinal reasons for rejecting accreditation, TRACS will accredit just about anybody. How can you tell someone that their doctrinal reasons are not valid? It is THEIR religion. It is THEIR church. If they say their religious doctrines are against the idea of accreditation of bible schools and seminaries, then it is a valid reason for them. You are in no position to judge the applicability of their doctrine, nor can you say whether it is valid. Religious beliefs cannot be judged in an encyclopedia to be valid or invalid. Vivaldi (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever their doctorinal reasons are it is unaccredited and needs to be noted as such. You are the only one who made the connection between unaccredited and diploma mill, that alone tells me about your reason for wanting it off. There are good schools that are unaccredited and there are bad institutions. Both need to be labelled as lacking accreditation since accreditation is the core of academic accountablity between institutions.

Since it is unaccredited, a BS from Hyles in "marriage and motherhood" is not going to accepted by any public agency no matter what the institution's doctorinal reasons are. Arbusto 09:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever their doctorinal reasons are it is unaccredited and needs to be noted as such. That is why I noted it in the sentence immediately following it. Vivaldi (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are the only one who made the connection between unaccredited and diploma mill, that alone tells me about your reason for wanting it off. No I am not. The words "diploma mill" were used by JzG when he said that all diploma mills have the same excuse for non-accreditation. Hyles-Anderson isn't a diploma mill. They are a bible college and seminary that doesn't want accreditation and has specific reasons for not seeking it. Vivaldi (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it is unaccredited, a BS from Hyles in "marriage and motherhood" is not going to accepted by any public agency no matter what the institution's doctorinal reasons are. Why would someone with a degree in "marriage and motherhood" need the approval of a "public agency" to validate the knowledge they learned? Does Hyles-Anderson suggest that a "marriage and motherhood" degree is useful for receiving acceptance from public agencies? Vivaldi (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it should be mentioned that Hyles is unaccredited, I just believe that both points-of-view about accreditation should be explained. At least 10% of bible colleges don't have accreditation and I suspect that most of them have stated reasons similar to Hyles. Their reasons for not seeking accreditation are important to the discussion of their accreditation. Vivaldi (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)