User talk:Arbustoo

I protected the page. Please work toward a consensus on the talk page; afterwards, any edits that contravene that consensus should allow you and the other agreeing editors to make judicious use of reporting any 3RR's. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added it to my watchlist and will be interjecting ... er, guidance ... when needed ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help again. Arbustoo 03:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo, please do not remove the Disputed Tags from the Jack Hyles or First Baptist Church Wikis. As noted in the talk section of the Jack Hyles wiki, these articles are in dispute, hence the tag. Removing them is considered to be vandalism. --Teeja 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even an Admin. removed the tag after you reinserted it. It will be removed if you cannot argue the grounds you put it in. See the talk pages for my response. Arbusto 19:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arbustoo, I hate to seem overly critical, but I think you need to look at your use of the 'minor edit' function. Minor edits are only for typo fixes & formatting. Don't mark it as minor if you have added or deleted any info, and especially don't use it is you've done a revert. See Minor edit & WP:REVERT. Otherwise, keep up the good work! Ashmoo 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Arbusto 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, a great deal. I look forward to Arbusto/o giving this better attention. Don't know why JzG and JoshuaZ never noticed. They can be such sticklers for rules! PSRuckman

Simple: once somebody has established a reputation as a reasonably neutral editor with a good grip of the ruiles you tend not to watch their every move. Nobody is above scrutiny, but neither is anybody required to critique every action by every editor. As far as I'm aware Arbustoo has never "corrected" perfectly correct British English spelling - people living in glass houses should not throw stones. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, different people have different issues they put emphasis on. In Ashmoo's case, he apparently cares about the rules for marking minor edits. (Actually, until I saw this I didn't know that reverts shouldn't be marked minor either for that matter). Don't assume bad faith just because you disagree with people. JoshuaZ 18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on University of the Nations (U of N) accreditation. No I am not trying to mislead anybody about the school's accreditation, but rather trying to follow the normal paradigm for university entries. You have been stating that the U of N is unaccredited in the first descriptive line for the Wiki entry. If you continue to do this, it will continually be deleted. If you would like to comment on a university's accreditation, I suggest that you do this in the section titled "accreditation", following the example of countless university entries throughout Wikipedia.

Secondly, your statement that the U of N is not accredited in the United States is true. However, as it is an international university offering courses around the world (and as its international provost office is in Switzerland, its transcripts and records office is in the UK), a far more relevant statement would of an international nature. I have updated it with a full and internationalized explanation.

Lastly, I have once again added the link for U of N Kona as this is the most important branch of the U of N. Please stop removing it as it is highly relevant information. Thank you. 82.33.116.35 (talk • contribs)

No, you are misleading people about the accreditation both in relation to the school in the US (Kona) that lacks accreditation and the international body schools. There is CHEA (North American accreditation) and UNESCO (international database) neither of which list the school. Your comments are POV and misrepresent what accreditation is.

Lastly, the two articles are merged so it does no good to link the page to itself. Arbusto 11:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: UofN Kona is a redirect, which is why it was unlinked. Circular redirects are Bad. Note also: accreditation details per Arbustoo are factually correct. If the anons and drive-bys can link to a document showing recognition by UNESCO as accredited, please do so. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this of some interest to you? I became curious about Indiana Christian University when looking at the CV of Ulf Ekman[1][2], a Swedish minister and leader of the controversial U.S.-influenced Swedish charismatic congregation Livets Ord ("Word of Life"). Ekman has a legitimate theology degree from Uppsala (and started out as a minister in the former Swedish state church, the Church of Sweden) but also claims honorary doctorates from Indiana Christian University in South Bend, Indiana, and Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is also president of Livets Ord University, which is unaccredited in Sweden (where accreditation – or whatever it should best be called – is not private, as in the U.S., but conferred directly by the government) but awards American degrees through an agreement with Oral Roberts University. ORU is accredited. Indiana Christian University seems more obscure, but real. It is not in the CHEA database, as far as I can see. It is mentioned here (on talkorigins.org), referencing a different, now unavailable, web page, and here (in the bio for the president of Summit Theological Seminary. Here is a discussion, where somebody links to this PDF file about ICU, apparently an official catalog. ("ICU offers a Certificate of Charismatic Studies".) In their not very extensive presentation of faculty, it appears that almost everyone has only got a degree from ICU (which seems remarkable, considering the number of people in the U.S. who go to at least some kind of college). There is probably more, but that is what I could find looking through the first few Google hits. u p p l a n d 06:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research, that should be an article.Arbusto 18:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newsflash! an anon, 172.130.180.94, is making multiple, good edits to Peter Ruckman. JoshuaZ 05:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its time for an admin. to show some tough love. The sock puppets and civil attacks are tiresome and its not even a controversial or heavily visited article. Arbusto 06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Arbustoo, I did say "good" in that sentence and I really meant it.

Sorry, I was confused on the IP. I thought you meant this one[3]. Arbusto 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wikipedia email is once again not on it seems, so I emailed you using the address that you sent from last time. It concerns the socks. JoshuaZ 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the email ASAP. JoshuaZ 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't have access to that one today. Please contact the new one via wiki. Arbusto 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of nominating you for adminship soon. Would you a) mind if I did b) have any relevant issues that I should consider when drafting the nomination? JoshuaZ 15:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't nominate me. I have no interest at all. Thanks anyway. Arbusto 19:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for other opinons on Kennedy-Western University, which is called a "diploma mill" in many places but has apparently come to some agreement with the Oregon degree office that it shouldn't been called thus. They still say that it is unaccredited and that its "Degrees do not meet requirements for employment by State of Oregon or for work in any profession licensed by the State of Oregon for which a degree is required".[4] Somebody who presents himself as a current student there has been editing the article and tried to purge a mention of KWU as a diploma mill in an old comment of mine from an old Votes for Deletion page. See User talk:Uppland#Incorrect_statement (and following section), Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Knightsbridge University, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Dispute regarding a "dead" page. u p p l a n d 16:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it and keep my eye on it. Thanks for pointing it out. Arbusto 09:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your evenhandedness in this matter.

I will avoid editing the article but if you do not mind, I would like to contact you if I see any attempts by any parties to try to sabotage this article. That way a completely neutral party, which is what I presume you are, can determine if the change is worthy of edit.

At the very least I would like to insert criticisms in the discussion page.

I understand your points that you made. I do have couple of criticisms though. First, the statement The Seattle Times noted in article that included Kennedy-Western that some believe Wyoming has "become a haven for diploma mills." is in the seceond paragraph. Wouldn't it be better to put this under the section "Controversy and criticism"? And the second, mention that KWU is unaccredited in the opening sentence. Should this not also go under "Controversy and criticism?" Just my own, admittedly biased opinion.

On final thing to mention. I believe there should be more civility in this discussion. So that this does not become a mud slinging fest I will not mention names but if you read through the comments you will know what I am talking about. This discussion should be about the article and noting else.

And contrary to what that individual said I do edit and create other articles on other subjects, from such subjects as German Industrial Music to history, though the KWU article has taken up the bulk of my posts here.

Oh yea this also: I do not know that Honest Joe character. He is not a friend of mine and is doing nothing to help with that article.

PeacePiercetp 16:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem contact me if you need me and if you see vandalism on that page feel free to revert it and contribute. I just wanted you to be aware of the policy and becareful. Arbusto 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken you to the arbitration committee. You can find the request in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbustoo, Arbusto, Just zis Guy you know?, David D.. Pooua 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a gross misuse of arb. Arbusto

I'm guessing Arb Com rejects it by this time next week. JoshuaZ 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much wrong with that filed referral I don't know where to begin. You can't just take someone to Arcom because they put in sources from the AP that criticize someone you personally knew. Arbusto 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, you can't write an authoritative, reliable encyclopedic biography just by quoting scandalous statements you found in a newspaper, either, but you are trying. Pooua 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either add sources to it or not. Verfiable sources stay. Arbusto 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article will grow to be more balanced if you start editing it. David D. (Talk) 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got rejected fairly fast. Yet, the criticism keeps getting removed from the article. Arbusto 08:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material that is written using sources that are self-published and unreliable can be removed. Material that is written in a biased tone can be rewritten. An ArbCom rejection of Pooua's initial referral doesn't mean that ArbCom has voted in favor of keeping your edits. If you want to see how it works, try to nominate Pooua for ArbCom right now. I'd guess that you would be rejected nearly just as quickly. Vivaldi (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it did. Why would I want to go to Arbcom for this? Imrpove the article then. Arbusto 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got rejected fairly fast. Yet, the criticism keeps getting removed from the article. What was the purpose for that statement? You link ArbCom rejection with your edits getting removed as if one event meant the other should stop. Vivaldi (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imrpove the article then. I have been improving many of the articles that you have inserted your personal bias into, including the Jack Hyles article which you wish to have be 80% criticism, even though not a single reputable source has even accused Hyles of a misdeed, let along a crime. Vivaldi (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review your "improvements." Here[5] you removed "an unaccredited institution" and replaced it with "a bible college." Considering the article is about a church its clear it's a bible college. It is unaccredited and should be mentioned in the article. Your edit summary didn't even label that you made such a POV change. Arbusto 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You DO realize that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article, right? And therefore has to go through WP:DRV? --Calton | Talk 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice, but I just added it to review after you mentioned it. Arbusto 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on an article offline on the history of diploma mills, but it appears that some relevant American publications are unavailable to me here in Sweden. Are you interested in collaborating on the article? u p p l a n d 11:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, *Robert H Reid, American degree mills, a study of their operations and of existing and potential ways to control them, Washington, American Council on Education [1959], seems to be a standard work on this topic but unavailable around here (although it may be in one of the old dead-tree catalogues but missing from the electronic catalogues, if nobody has borrowed it in the last 20 years - I'll need to check that). u p p l a n d 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email me about it and as to what you said about consolidating the mills check out University Degree Program. Arbusto 03:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Anyway, I started the History article in my userspace: User:Uppland/Dipmillhist. I will add what I can find there, but will need help eventually from people with access to possibly good references I can't locate here. I miss anything that gives an overview of the topic, rather than the snapshots I get from the various articles I have used so far. u p p l a n d 09:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification at Riek Machar. I had done a brief look around the wiki trying to figure out what article to link to and was incredulous that one didn't already exist. In 2006, a diploma mill is much more likely that Wikipedia missing an article on a British university. Also, I read through some of the above sections. Very interesting. Good luck and thanks again, BanyanTree 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One indictaor it was fake was he does not have a Bachelor's degree. While some programs will let you skip a MA it is not possible to have a doctorate (graduate degree) without have an uundergraduate degree. No problem. Arbusto 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article states he went to University of Khartoum, where I assume that he got a degree. Cheers, - BanyanTree 18:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I read it differently. "Went to" probably means never graduated because it never stated what degree, what year, or if he graduated. Like I said that's how I read it after reading the diploma mill website from the ODA. Arbusto 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found your additions to the Smith Wigglesworth article to be pov. I reverted your edits. You also inserted a piece of information in the article as a category, that was false; his death was 1947 not 1949. If you have meaningful things to add to the article, then do so, or we can discuss your and my, edits on the relevant Smith Wigglesworth talk page. Thanks. Эйрон Кинни (t) 09:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed[6] a citation where he claimed to "raise the dead" and heal the sick. He had a daughter with a "serious hearing loss" he did not cure. Either he did not care for his daughter or he couldn't faith heal. So you either he was incompassionate or a fraud.

Do not remove cited sources and call that POV. That is called white washing and its vandalism. Arbusto 21:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I emailed the maintainer of that webpage asking for his source, and he provided none; he didn't even reply. So until you get a better source (your source had no source) I will continue reverting your vandalism. Do you have any other sources for your claims? Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established he claimed he could raise the dead [7][8] [9] [10][11][12][13], and here it puts the claim as "raising fourteen dead peopl"[14], and here it claims he raised he wife from the dead[15]. Wiggelsworth also wrote books about raising the dead.

He had a daughter named Alice with a hearing loss [16]. He it claims he "frequently" prayed for his daughter's hearing loss.[17] Healing his daughter never occured.[18] That hearing not healed[19] and here[20].

Stop removing cited sources. Arbusto 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also please don't remove vandalism warnings[21]. Arbusto 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it with the V word in edit summaries, in content disputes it's not vandalism, it's just contentious. Just zis Guy you know? 09:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always sign your comments as Arbusto? When your username is Arbustoo?

Kalmia 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Arbusto" is Portuguese for "Bush", but it's pronounced with like a "too" on the end. Only the Portuguese know why they don't pronounce their own language properly. Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you posted my edit summary even though you have been told not to? User:Arbustoo 09:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Told not to by whom? One of your sock puppets? What are you hiding from? Kalmia 10:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other users of running sockpuppets without evidence is a personal attack. Cite evidence, with diffs, and preferably CheckUser reports. Just zis Guy you know? 12:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to American_Council_of_Private_Colleges_and_Universities. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Scott Grayban 11:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could answer my questions on your talk. Arbusto 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You don't listen. Read the talk page about that article. --Scott Grayban 11:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[22] Arbusto 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied to talk page --Scott Grayban 12:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your changes in article Bob Cornuke because they reduced the neutrality of the article, which is already in question. T. J. Day 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you give reasons on the talk instead of just reverting changes. Arbusto 23:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article from the most recent change to the previous change; I did not explicitly remove any links. A quick Google search did not find any evidence on the Internet of this chap being labelled a "con artist" so I feel that your changes were not appropriately impartial. T. J. Day 00:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) They aren't my "additions." I reverted the removal because there is no consensus on the talk to remove them. One person can't just up and decide to removal links when more disagree. 2) A "quick google search" of "cornuke con artist" brings up [23]. If you want to remove this discuss it on the talk. Don't remove it until people agree one way or the other. Arbusto 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article got redirected. Arbusto 08:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Patriotuniversity.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbusto, part of Wikipedia is the free discussion of articles. You, apparently, are afraid of people making a fair presentation of Jack Hyles. You have no right to remove discussion of this subject in relevant forums. Jack Hyles is part of Fundamentalism, and so it is reasonable to ask about him in the page for Christian fundamentalism.

If you were so careful about following Wikipedia editorial guides, you should have noticed that WP:ISNOT specifically states, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." Yet, you have cared no more about the Jack Hyles article than to scavenge a few snippets from newspapers and dump them on the Jack Hyles page. Pooua 17:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sure does specifically state that one should not offer first-hand and/or breaking news. The articles you want removed are neither. As for "censorship," you do not use wikipedia article talk pages for "further reading posts" or to recruit people to other articles. Arbusto 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk 06:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please identify socks to me or at WP:AN/I. But please keep a cool head - remember that wrestling pigs is foolish since you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not much of a fan of someone that swindles people out of money in the name of mythology...but you should cool it at Bob Cornuke, okay? Or the very least, try to change what you're saying rather than inflict bias into the statement. The fact is, one does not need to explain that a Ph.D. from an unaccredited university means that he hasn't earned a degree from an accredited one and does not require you to hit the reader over the head with it, whether it be archaeology or brain surgery.

Please do not revert this again. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell I am not the only one who wants it left in. The reason it was put in is he has an unaccredited "graduate degree" but has no undergraduate degree(s). As you probably know, in real academia this is not possible; not at all. So if you would like to avoid a revert war please find evidence of a bachlor's degree (I couldn't find anything) or make mention of this inconsistency. As it stands, it looks as if the education part is incomplete due to this inconsistenecy. The reader should know that this is Cornuke's education flaw and not the article. Arbusto 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies (ICAATS) seems to be used by some dodgy places (e.g. [24]); appears to be approved by the Indian govt., but I'm not sure how real that is. The ICAATS article appears to be largely a monograph and needs some cleanup. Just zis Guy you know? 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. That article is all garbage. Indian's Ministry of Education has never heard of it and it is not listed as an accreditor.[25]

A quick look at John Bear's webpage shows "Whole thing is an enigma. This seems to be run by Kenny Rhodes who at one time was a student at ACCS and set up their on line library. With everything that happened at ACCS, he did not finish his doctorate (looks like in his bio he only got through a couple of courses). He appears to be doing his PhD through Calvin (one in India accredited by the same entity that accredits Scofield). His bio lists him as a candidate."[26]

Rhodes runs Scofield Graduate School which is also ran by Johnson C. Philip (you posted on that talk the other day). As you know Philips is located in Kerala, India. That happens to be where Scofield claims their "accreditor" International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies- ICAATS is from. At least according to their webpage[27].

On a side note, this is also tied to a Louisiana Baptist University "graduate"/degree buyer-Mal Couch. Arbusto 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly 61.17.226.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted on the Philips article and 61.1.28.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 61.1.28.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted on the ICAATS range. A quick IP check shows they are from the same carrier in India. 61.17.0.0 - 61.17.255.255 Arbusto 09:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more interesting is the person who started the ICAATS article [28] signs his name at the top. Well so does the editor at the Philips article[29]. Check user? Arbusto 09:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbed as such. Let's see what else we can dig up. Might be worth an email to the Indian department of education, I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 10:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in keeping an eye on Talk:Canbourne University, where an anononymous poster claims to have first-hand knowledge of that English diploma mill. u p p l a n d 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its now getting hit with vandalism. Arbusto 05:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not the first time, but it has been left alone surprisingly long before now. u p p l a n d 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your threat of blocking: Please note this policy states "Calling for bans and blocks" is *serious* example of unacceptable behaviour. I ask you to *never* again suggest that you will have a user blocked in such circumanstances. You are well aware of the fact the user that you threatened, had not literally made a legal threat. Please do not engage in this behaviour. The statement "I do not have time to fight in a court where there is no arbitrator and where might is right", isn't a reference to an actual court, its a reference to the system at Wikipedia. You're smart, so must have known what he meant. --Rob 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the link I listed in the context of what I refered to "A legal threat may lead to you being blocked from editing (on a case by case basis), so as not to exacerbate the problem through other than legal channels." I did not make a literal threat. Arbusto 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try and wiki-lawyer a technical excuse. Your actions may well have discouraged a new Wikipedian from further contributions. You aught to think how your words will be taken by a new contributor, and show more sensitivity. You have been repeatedly uncivil to the same new user, and that's not acceptable. --Rob 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I summarized that section nothing techincal about it. I don't appreciate having the first edit on that talk page referring that I was "systematically mutiliating" it, committing "vandalism," and AFTER he said "I do not have time to fight in a court where there is no arbitrator" you bet I became more direct. Arbusto 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring the obvious fact there was no legal threat. Basically, he said Wikipedia was a kangaroo court. That's not nice. But, it's not a legal threat. If he said "I will take this to a court where there is an arbitrator" *that* would be a legal threat. He didn't say that. Basically, he said, he was so, fed up, he was giving up. Giving up, is unfortunate, but not a legal threat. Essentially, he was saying you would get your way. Hardly, a "threat". More of a surrender. --Rob 02:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I perceived the writing to be hinting at something; I said if you do X then Y happens. If my post was "uncivil" then you ignored the other user who was just as, if not more, uncivil. Arbusto 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like a legal threat was not made. However, the other editor was being far more uncivil than Arbustoo. To condemn Arbusto for this is uncalled for. JoshuaZ 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He, Rob, admitted his real problem isn't so much the article. Rather, its on my interest in labeling unaccredited institutions as "unaccredited." [30] Arbusto 05:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility isn't for everyone[31]. Arbusto 08:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We both have thick skins, and we probably both have been uncivil (and I will try to be more civil in the future). But, neither of us is going to quit the project over what the other said. However, the newbie in question, may well just do that, and that would be sad loss, of signficance. We should welcome new contributors. I do think the spirt of WP:BITE, is we should not expect newbies to understand all our rules and systems (like we do established users), and try to be welcoming. Telling a newbie that they could be blocked, is chilling, as a newbie may not realize such threats are empty, and then just leave. --Rob 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never got personal with you or that new user. Using court jokes or analogies in a debate enviroment after one has spewed forth insults is not a good idea. When the mention of court came across I explained WP:LEGAL. If the mention of wikipedia "legal" in that context could be considered a threat then surely the mention of court after insulting and reverting occured could be a hint at a deeper claim--ie legal action. Hence, my explanation. Arbusto 08:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for giving me a hard time with the article on Johnson C. Philip. It was based upon solid research conducted by 3 theology students in 3 subsequent years in the Asian Christian Academy, where Philip studied for some time in 1978. Though I would have gradually added many more documentary evidence, Arbustoo was more interested in arbitrarily mutiliating the article. Whenever I gave a reply, he took the attitude of a prying wolf and, instead of addressing the issue I raised, he kept sidetracking the issues. Now you have anyway deleted the article. Meanwhile I did examine articles on people and found that many of the creiteria stipulated by Arbustoo was not followed in articles that have been on Wikipedia far longer than the Philip article. As a newbie I came to Wikipedia with great expectation. I wished to expand many more articles the way I did with the Philip article. But I have been bitten, stung, and humiliated by Arbustoo. I repeat, he dealt unfairly with me, the way the proverbial wolf told the lamb "if it was not you then it might be your father" and killed him. I came a last time to this forum to bid goodbye to all of you. I will not be coming back to Wiki to contribute any article. What is more, I would be spreading a word about this treatment to as many as possible so that they might not be stupid enough to join and then bitten by the more senior ones on the Wiki. I also know many Indians who contributed funds to the Wiki fund raising drive in recent times. I would be sharing my experience with them also. Good Bye. Nonikay2K —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonikay2k (talk • contribs)

The schools were unaccredited and should be treated accordingly. Had you cited the information and decided to not attack people with name calling it would have turned out better. However, since this person is linked to an accreditation mill, three unaccredited schools, and has no google hits outside of his personal webpages I suspect that the article was vanity to promote himself and the "schools" it runs. Arbusto 08:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this[32]. It seems a "new user" created the unaccredited "school" ran by Johnson C. Philip. Clearly, "someone" isn't quite done trying to make a name for an person of marginal notablity and the questionable schools he offers degrees for via the internet. Arbusto 01:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think it might be benificial to have the Kennedy-Western University article mention that the University is a member of the Better Business Bureau.

Please see http://data.fortcollins.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=11000363

Also I did do some checking and I asked someone about Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and I got this response:

To the best of my knowledge, the "rule" against editing topics about which you are personally involved could only be found at WP:NPOV, under the Bias section here. There is no longer any mention of that rule; it must have been edited out some time ago. The WP:NPOV page is really dynamic, averaging several edits per day by a wide variety of users, and I don't have the time to search through the edit history to find it -- sorry, but I'm really busy right now.

In my opinion, that "rule" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I think it originated from WP:AFD where counter-vandalism hawks were trying to curb endless non-notable articles written about bands/websites/individuals by their lead singers/webmasters/autobiographers.

For more on this please see my talk page.

Piercetp 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think it would be helpful to add that. Arbusto 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. If you can do that it would do a lot to give both sides of the issue. I don't want to sound like I am busting your chops or anything. I just think that readers of the article should be able to get the whole picture and judge for themselves.

Shalom Piercetp 06:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it in yourself and contribute; I just wanted to bring the conflict of interest to your attention. You have a good grasp on the policies. Arbusto 06:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbusto: Thanks for editing the Wikipedia, Kennedy Western, article to include that Kennedy Western University is a Privately Licensed School in Wyoming, and for indicating they are a member of the Better Business Bereau. Also, let me thank you for all the other editing work you have done on the article.

Taylor W. 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving you this notice because you originally created Preying from the Pulpit. I proposed deleting Preying from the Pulpit, and when my proposal was removed from the top of the article, I went ahead and nominated it for deletion. If you would like to add your vote and thoughts on the subject you may do so HERE. If you have comments about what others have written in the AfD then you are encouraged to put your comments in the talk section TALK PAGE.

I believe that an article about a TV News Series that happened at least 13 years ago is not notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Secondly, the details about this TV news series are so sketchy that the article can't even provide the name of the station, the date it aired, the time it aired, the reporters that worked on the story, who the reporters used for sources, or any of the other pertinent details. Vivaldi (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the TV station, month and time was not entered into the article, but a transcript from lexisnexis was posted by someone. Secondly, the program discusses 7 locations around the US. It doesn't matter much now.Arbusto 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you don't like the topic. But please be aware that there are actually noted sources on that page and therefore it does not qualify as "original research." Jesus_Christ_as_source_of_"A_Course_In_Miracles"#Notes Andrew Parodi 11:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a POV fork YOU created for A Course In Miracles. Out of 22 votes (so far) there are two keeps, one of which is YOU, the author. This discussion should be continued on the article page. Arbusto 01:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you "voted" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Barnham. I made a complete rewrite of the article, and wonder if you could look at it again and see if you now think it should stay. AnonEMouse 15:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I changed my vote accordingly. Arbusto 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in this field, but is this guy notable? He seems similar to some of the Gastrich-cruft that was deleted in January/Frebruary. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into and get back to you. Arbusto 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough, some vanity press books through online sellers, but seems rather known for his small community. The President of a well-known private school. He made national headlines for expelling a student because that student was gay. Arbusto 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, to further my anti-vandal activity, where can I find the popular whitewash targets for diploma mills, etc? Hopefully I can block them myself this time next week. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It really depends, but recently Breyer State University, Buxton University, Weston Reserve University, Warnborough University, National Distance Learning Accreditation Council, and International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies have been getting hit. Arbusto 08:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is Warnborough University (Ireland) does not exist anymore. It is now Warnborough College (Ireland) and a candidate for accreditation in the Republic of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warnborough (talk • contribs)

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello Arbustoo. Thank you for your support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need any admin assistance, feel free to ask me, and naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future -please keep me up to date with the diploma mills. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watchlist talk:Brett Kavanaugh. There is a dispute over the murder v. suicide of Foster there. Thanks. 205.188.116.196 10:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi's shown no interest in acknowledging that his efforts on certain pages lack consensus, preferring instead an unfortunate sort of response. Considering his response and my failing to get him to reconsider his method, I've reinstated your user conduct RFC against him, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi, and certified the basis for the dispute. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Can we move to close the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)", I'm OK with that, but if he's still being a problem, and the RFC has had no effect, I guess we're ready for the next step? •Jim62sch• 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to close the RfC before we move to the next step. Arbusto 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would suggest adding whatever sources are in the articles (if any) to the list page. Perhaps those entries could be unlinked, but we could keep a list with red links somewhere in project space or as a subpage of Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning to be able to have an easy way to check for "related changes".

You may be interested in the "history of diploma mills" I started working on in userspace. I gave up on it and haven't moved it out into mainspace yet, as I have no access (without costly international interlibrary loans) to some probably important American publications on the subject, such as Robert H. Reid, American degree mills, a study of their operations and of existing and potential ways to control them, Washington, American Council on Education [1959]. At least it seems that I have managed to find earlier evidence for the term "diploma mill" than the one from OED cited here. u p p l a n d 10:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Why not put it up as an article and see some people contribute? Arbusto 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies (second nomination). I would appreciate it if you would also address my concerns about POV Fork. --Blue Tie 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It already addressed by Glen S (talk · contribs). The O'Reilly article is long, and so is this one. It would be a mess to merge them both. To delete this well-sourced article would be strictly POV.

You keep throwing up quotes, but read WP:FORK[33]: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique." Arbusto 19:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am sorry that I (evidently) annoyed you. I do not really see how your response meets with my request, since this article was apparently not split off for size but to keep the main page "clean", but I appreciate the effort you gave. Thanks again.--Blue Tie 19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to know User:Cyde (who you may already know either from here or elsewhere) has a script/bot thing he wrote which converts pages to refs in a semi-automated fashion which makes the conversions much faster. JoshuaZ 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to link to it, too. --Cyde Weys 02:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that'll save me some time on a few articles. Arbusto 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I moved the tag down to the Tipper Sticker section - everything else is referenced by the links which are now in the reference section.

I'll convert them into proper ref format when I get a chance. Λυδαcιτγ 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, I reverted the edit where you applied a strikethrough on a vote by another editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock. That is considered very inappropriate. Alternatively, you can add a comment why you disagree with that vote, as you already did. In addition, on most AfDs, one vote will not make the difference. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One vote doesn't make a difference. It anon. user votes aren't usually counted. 205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) voted on only four AfD the last AfD votes 205.157.110.11 made that were not Gastrich-my AfDs on August 30, 2006 (five days before). These articles created by

Gastrich 1 anon Gastrch 2user who made 5 edits. Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) was caught pushing POV and is banned from wikipedia.

The previous day my AfDs also go hit my a Use_Your_Naugin (talk · contribs) who first edits were on my AfDs and were Gastrich related(note user's edits on Lousiana Baptist University). This was brought to an admisntrators attention [34] and those votes were lined out my me.

With that in mind from the previous day and that banned Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) watches some of his articles still I warned an adminst. to expect[35] puppets before this anon appeared. Arbusto 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did take note of your opinion on the anonymous editors history. Regardless of his history, you should have just made a statement rather than striking votes that were not yours. I can understand your concerns and see your point, but by removing and striking votes of the anonymous editor, you are in fact diverting attention that should have gone to investigating your claims to an investigation of your own edits, which naturally was not your intention. I hope the issue gets resolved quickly. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Best, Arbusto 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, I again removed a strikethrough you applied on someone else's vote in an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock). I explained you why last time. Again, I understand your issues with these type of votes, but please leave it a comment and let the other voters and closing admin decide on the value of each vote. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many others do it, but as you wish I will refrain. Is this a policy or recommendation? Is there somewhere I can read the guidelines on it? Arbusto 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less if the articles are kept.

205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) voted on only four AfD the last AfD votes 205.157.110.11 made that were not Gastrich-my AfDs on August 30, 2006 (five days before). These articles created by Gastrich 1 anon Gastrch 2user who made 5 edits. Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) was caught pushing POV and is banned from wikipedia.

The previous day my AfDs also go hit my a Use_Your_Naugin (talk · contribs) who first edits were on my AfDs and were Gastrich related(note user's edits on Lousiana Baptist University). This was brought to an admisntrators attention [36] and those votes were lined out my me.

With that in mind from the previous day and that banned Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) watches some of his articles still I warned an adminst. to expect[37] puppets before this anon appeared. This anon. user directly came to four AfDs, and being anon. I removed the material with a edit summary explaining. Arbusto 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that User:Jason_Gastrich and User:205.157.110.11 are one and the same, I suggest you file a Checkuser request. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are obviously not the same after you explained it; my comments/explanation was regarding what you said about me at the end of your post on AN/I. This, you said: "solely because you don't like their opinion in your AFD"[38], and also regarding the "ad hom" attacks you posted on the IP's talk.Arbusto 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 205.157.110.11 and the removal of people's comments from pages, is this acceptable?[39] Arbusto 19:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most administrators including myself would permit that because your comment was irrelevant to whether the article for deletion's subject was notable or not. The most you can ever do in an AFD is tag a single purpose account with a spa tag and let the closing administrator decide whether to count that comment or not. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "most" I can do is "tag," I am not allowed to comment on my suspicions and the voting habits of other people? So people are allowed to remove other's comments if they deem it irrelevant? Arbusto 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard policy on this, just convention. If it's not about the article at hand, then you shouldn't. Not without a Checkuser to back you up. I wouldn't worry about this too much, because administrators don't do head counts on AFDs anyway. If it a comment doesn't refer back to policy or clearly a WP:SPA, administrators don't count them as a general rule of thumb anyway. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the AfD being kept or not. I didn't see it as notable, and if people show it is then fine. 've editting on wikipedia for a long time, and have never seen that practiced or read it in the rules. I've seen sock puppets and vandalism reverted, but not an established user's remarks being removed by an anon. Arbusto 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it deeply troubling that would allow my intial comments to be removed an IP, and then allow that IP to accuse me of wrong doing on that very page without readers being able to even reference my comments. You claim its not policy, and with good reason it isn't policy. Arbusto 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've misinterpreted me. All I'm saying is that most administrators will permit the removal of ad hominem arguments in an AFD because they detract from the discussion at hand and border on being personal attack because such arguments imply that you think that person does not deserve a voice. As long as your argument for the deletion or retention of an article based upon its merits is untouched, it's not vandalism. --  Netsnipe  ►  22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite policy or provide reason that "Most administrators including myself would permit that because your comment was irrelevant to whether the article for deletion's subject was notable or not."

For you to claim that this "borders" an ad hom[40] surprises me. It was the explanation of why I crossed out the vote. Without that explanation it simply looks as if I wondered into the AfD crossing off votes I didn't agree with.

Now this these on other hand, are an ad hom. and breaks WP:CIVIL and is not based on a "argument for the deletion or retention of an article based upon its merits" . Yet, you seem to have missed that one. You also missed this [41][42], which was not based upon its merits of the vote (emphasis yours). Your failure to actually look at the matters before commenting is disappointing.Arbusto 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth noting on your arbitration with Vivaldi but what you're intrepreting as removing your comment was my reverting of the vandalism that you did to my comment, which happened to include your commenting on the vandalism. You don't explain away vandalism and there was no rational justification for you to vandalize my comment. You did this on all 4 AfD. On the David Jeremiah AfD, since that is were the bulk of the discussion was taking place, I left you comments in as a placemat for discussion and I replied to you there. It would have been spammy to have the same discussion on each and every AfD.
As for being uncivil, I was borderline and for that I do apologize. However your vandalism and accusations of sockpuppetry against me were, in my observation, a direct correlation of your lack of research into my contribution history. You saw that I was an anon and went from there. It was an easy springboard to the assumption that your lack of research into the notability of the subjects of the AfDs. You saw their author and went from there. 205.157.110.11 11:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a warning on your page and you only voted on my AfDs all connected to a banned user. If you wish to avoid such problems in the future you can sign up for a wikipedia account. Had you taken the time to research who created the articles, why I was expecting sock puppets, the long history of that banned user, voted on any other AfDs, got a wikipedia account, etc it could have ended better. Arbusto 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you took my comments on this AFD personally; I was just pointing out that you seemed to be targetting this group of articles, your aim seemed to be a bit indiscriminate, and that therefore people should look carefully at other similar AFDs by you. The John D. Hannah one may succede; however, he has enough notability that I probably wouldn't have bothered trying to rid of the article.Brianyoumans (talk · contribs)

Indeed, frustrated. I explained that type of linking is unusual, and even gave you a friendly reason your talk. You could have gone to MOS:BIO to read the formatting, but instead you posted in at least four different areas that you thought what I did wasn't acceptable. You tried to make it out like I was removing a source of some important fact, when I ALREADY explained and provided an outside format to help you. After being told you were wrong, you still haven't apoligized or explained that you were wrong in the different areas you left insinutations about me. Arbusto 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC) See below[reply]

I am confused. I am not aware of having posted in at least four different areas that you thought what I did wasn't acceptable. I posted in the John D. Hannah AFD, but I didn't say what you did was unacceptable, I just said you should be more careful. Some of the articles you are trying to delete are articles that needed to be deleted, and that is a good thing. In the other AFDs, I was simply researching the subjects of the articles and voting on them as I saw fit. --Brianyoumans 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize. I thought you were Bagginator (talk · contribs)[43]; you didn't sign your first edit above. I am not annoyed, and I don't take it personally. I don't care if the articles are deleted or kept. They should assert notablity; they should be kept on the subjects merits. This AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scofield Graduate School was nominated by me, and I created it. I don't feel it meets notablity standards. Arbusto 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I should probably nominate one of my first articles for deletion, myself. Good luck getting rid of your youthful transgressions!  :-) --Brianyoumans 01:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently added a link to American here. American is a disambiguation page as the phrase has many uses including a person from the Americas or the United States. In the future, could you link the term to one of the articles listed on the American disambiguation term, that would be great. As an example, if you're linking to something related to the United States, you would input [[United States|American]]. Thanks! --Bobblehead 07:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got an email from somebody claiming to be you (and probably is you) last week but unfortunately I only just noticed it amongst all the spam etc. I take it you have your password now and there's no problem? Drop me a note if not. --kingboyk 10:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was me, and everything with the account is fine. Arbusto 16:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK good stuff. Sorry about that, I thought it was a troll :) --kingboyk 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Good to see others taking the unaccredited troll problem seriously. Arbusto 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arbustoo.

Thanks for the good work on St. Clements University. I've added some links, and think the University is a notable diploma mill -- can you take a look at the current version and tell me what you think? Thanks again, TheronJ 17:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I'll withdraw the afd nom. Arbusto 00:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I started adding links. Arbusto 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biography is meant to be factual and verifiable. The content on David Cunningham's page does not lead to verifiable facts when the links go to blogger's opinion pages. The controvery about the path to 9/11 should be on it's own separate page. This IS a biography and the information about blogger opinions can be left on the 9/11 page(a separate Wiki entry). Incorrect facts don't need to be recycled again on David's wikipedia page.

These are the statements that refute what Lariginga has written.

Subject: Statement from Youth With A Mission

Youth With A Mission (YWAM) is a non profit, international and interdenominational Christian organization. We are responsible for hundreds of health clinics, orphanages and schools around the world. We have a special emphasis on the developing world and are completely staffed by unpaid volunteers from 150 nations.

We are not affiliated with any American political party and have no political agenda in that or any nation. We had no part in any funding of the ABC mini series THE PATH TO 9/11.

John Dawson, President of Youth With A Mission International Auckland, New Zealand

Subject: University of the Nations Statement

Keiko234 22:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keiko234 22:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not removed cited material and copy and paste uncited press releases. What you did was white wash an enitre section, and moreover those press releases deny things that aren't address. Nowhere in that article does it claim the group is connected to Republicans or funded by the church. However, there is an inherent bias offered though. Arbusto 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content as two other editors have also told you. Arbusto 02:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link that talks about who hired David Cunningham. This directly refutes Max B's article that states David brought Cyrus Nowrasteh in to write the script. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/arts/television/12path.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I submit that the articles contained with this information be deleted from David Cunningham's biography. I will continue to find more references to fill in the gaps. I've also found new references and inserted them already. When the references lead to balanced and truthful material, it is worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiko234 (talk • contribs)

A NY Times article is worthy of inclusion. However, you simply removed material dispite warnings not to do that. Discuss the changes on the talk page of the article, and bring this new citation there too. Arbusto 05:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware that some sections of that article don't refute certain claims you want removed. Platt is quoted, but others disagree citing the institute and statements made. Example:

Mr. Nowrasteh drew subsequent attention for his political remarks about the 9/11 film however. He told the conservative Internet site Front Page Magazine that the mini-series shows how the Clinton administration lacked the will to stop Mr. bin Laden. The mini-series “dramatizes the frequent opportunities the administration had in the 90’s to stop bin Laden in his tracks but lacked the will to do so,” he said, according to an interview posted Aug. 16 at frontpagemag.com.[44]

Arbusto 05:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to sign my earlier note. First test, isn't the article about David? Second test, is it authentic? Discussion about Cyrus and ABC belongs on their own pages.

````

Keiko234 07:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "Also I take offense, as the other voters probably do, here to Bagginator's statement "I urge those who do not have a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity to look into this further and reconsider their positions". This claim violates" How could anyone be offended by this? If you do not have a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity, then simply reconsider your position. That is what the above says. It doesn't accuse anyone of having a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity. I'm puzzled by your offense, is there something else going on here that I need to know about? Is your real offense coming from my siding with Vivaldi? Just because we do not agree over who and what should be included in Wikipedia doesn't mean we can't be friends. If you start to feel offended in the future by something ive written in an AfD, feel free to bring it to my talk page so we can work it out. I'd hate for you to feel offended in the future due to misunderstandings like this one. Bagginator 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know exactly what I mean. Arbusto 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as to my understanding, those who have voted appear to be legitimate and long-standing editors (except a few newcomers), equally split on the matter, henceforth no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to send you an email but your Wikipedia email isn't enabled. JoshuaZ 00:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please quickly activate your Wikipedia email so I can send you a note? (If you are worried about compromising your email account the system doesn't let me see where I'm sending it to). JoshuaZ 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email set up. Arbusto 02:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, still showing an error here. Did you confirm the email set up? It should have sent a confirmation email to the account and then you need to click on the confirmation link. JoshuaZ 02:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email. Arbusto 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to remove the tag, as this guy is clearly notable. He was a member of two NCAA Championship teams, he was an ABA Rookie of the Year, and he was a solid NBA player (averaged a double-double, in fact). If you want to discuss this, leave me a message. Zagalejo 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, add some sources to WP:V too. Arbusto 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your issue with these two articles? Please try to make constructive contributions rather than just being a nuisance. Thank you. Masalai 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are of a group of articles that assert no WP:notability tagged by me. If any of the articles that I tagged remain without indications of notability they will be put up for AfD. Arbusto 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who, precisely, are you? And who are you to be tagging issues of "notablity"? Why aren't you tagging clearly foolish articles such as those on television shows and tiny hamlets in places like Iowa and Saskatchewan? Masalai 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to them and I will. Arbusto 02:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely are your personal issues with the Anglican Cathedral of Hamilton, Ontario, and the organist/conductor Donald M. Kendrick? Such issues are not appropriate criteria in editing Wikipedia articles. Please desist; I shall report you to the appropriate Wikipedia mentors if you continue. Thank you. Masalai 02:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was it doesn't look notable so I added the notablity tag. You removed it claiming it does assert notablity. Now we'll let the community decide. Arbusto 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, mate, I think that Christ's Church Cathedral is simply a title issue - Google for Christ Church Cathedral instead, you get many more hits. Guy 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother reverting Gastrich when he blanks his talk page, it looks too close to harassement even if it isn't. Also, don't bug Aphaia about the matter, she's under a lot of stress right now. JoshuaZ 21:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I basically replied to Gastrich on her talk. She could clarify or correct her statements regarding all parties. Arbusto 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What she should do and what she will do are different issues. As long as she stays uninvolved and doesn't block anyone or make any more uninformed remarks we shouldn't bug her. If she gets involved again then replying may be necessary but it isn't necessary to rebut Jason's comments on her talk page at this moment. JoshuaZ 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was it necessary for her to block you. Arbusto 01:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't but that doesn't mean we have to therefore engage in unnecessary responses (incidentally, Jason just blanked his talk page again, I suggest you don't revert it since they seem to take a much dimmer view on Meta of reverting others talk pages than here). JoshuaZ 01:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowing my AfD participation is not very nice. [45], [46]., [47], [48]. Taking it to the next level by entering an edit war on an article you have never edited based on my participation is out of line [49] and serves just to inflame the situation. Stalking is not very becoming. Please tone down the insults as well. [50]. --JJay 23:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wikistalking you, LOL? If anyone is getting wikistalked its you following my edits.[51] I've been actively involved in voting afds of primary[52] and high schools[53][54] for weeks, and colleges for months. How long have you been involved in voting in Norwegian ski jumpers and choral conductor afds? Here I voted before you.[55][56] As for a insult, I simply agreed with another user at the Norwegian ski jumpers because your comment showed either you are confused about the policy or didn't look at the article. If its the latter, why did you vote in the afd the way you did-- my vote maybe? As for your edit warring, this edit summary says it all-[57]- your egging on users. If you don't want your edit warring to be watched[58] you should be more careful on how you behave (see your talk page for evidence). Arbusto 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arbustoo, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove a reliable source cite, and replace it with a fact tag? That seems to be counter-productive to improving the article. Crockspot 03:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link. It is dead. That is to say its not a source for the claims. Arbusto 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC) The link in there now works, but it doesn't support the claim. Clean up the article and intro to that section so both sides are represented. Arbusto 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't insert the claim or the source, just trying to format it to comply with the rest of the cites. If the count of people is off in the statement, then go ahead and correct it. No problem there from me. I just don't want to see reliable sources removed from the article. Things are moving a little too fast there to keep up at this hour of the night. Crockspot 04:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits such as [59] are removals of Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning which seems to make sense since that is (or should be) a supercategory of Category:Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges which in fact he made it in the edit you showed me. So whatever the problem is with these edits I'm not seeing it. If you can explain in more detail what is problematic I'd appreciate it. On a separate topic, I sent you an email to the yahoo email you used earlier. JoshuaZ 02:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Diploma mills" like Hamilton University said the were religious only to get around laws. They should be under one category for unaccreditation. I agree supercategories are bad, but they are all under the school category. I replied to your email as well. Arbusto 03:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is a complicated issue. I'm going to need to think about it. There should be a better procedure than supercat (possibly a cat of unaccredited schools which allege but don't have a religious element to distinguish them from the actually religious ones)? JoshuaZ 03:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without the unaccredited religious schools there are very few articles on secular unaccredited schools. Afterall, religious schools get latitude with not having accreditation, and thus there is more of them. These is less than 15 unaccredited articles that aren't religious. Arbusto 03:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I say something here? I just wanted to let it be known that I was not vandalizing the unaccredited articles. I saw that there were three unaccredited categories, and it seemed to me that "unaccredited institutions of higher learning" would make a good super-category and the others would make good sub-categories of that (well the other two could probably be combined into one). I did that, and then set to put all the articles in the appropriate category. I was not trying to offend you or undo your hard work, but simply help you make wikipedia the best it can be. It didn't seem right to have the three seperate categories that served much the same purpose and I was merely trying to put a more logical order to it. That said your solution, of combining them into one category, is equally good and I will support it. Mgroop 16:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Arbusto 18:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also about Hamilton University, I read the article before I removed the category. But it is not a seminary or theological college. It was a business college that was using a defunct church as a way around the laws. I went to its website as well as looked up Richardson University, they don't give Bible degrees, they give business degrees. That means it is not a seminary, even if they are using a church to cheat the system. Mgroop 16:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be disputed that is was a theological college, as was its intent to fool the government. Arbusto 18:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific -- which discussion are you referring to? I'm happy to explain when I have the time, though you may want to just take your issues to deletion review if you're not satisfied with my answers. Luna Santin 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thought that might be it, but better to be sure. So. As you're probably aware, consensus isn't about vote-counting, but a weighing of arguments; while a strict vote count would have led me to delete the article, many of the delete votes didn't look to be very thought out. The subject appears to be a borderline notability case. The article isn't cruft, and has some verifiable sources. I was leaning toward "delete" and "no consensus" results, which leads me to close as "no consensus" -- if I can't decide which way consensus was headed, it indicates to me that consensus isn't settled. You're welcome to take the matter to WP:DRV if you like. Luna Santin 07:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never asserted my argument based on votes. Please explain what part of WP:BIO he meets. The main keep argument comes from a user who is following my afds[60] and removes my comments from his talk[61]. (I will be dealing with that matter through other channels. _

Note JJay claims, and three people vote based on his comments, he played Caregnie Hall as meeting notability. However, the promoter who booked this subject will lease out the building and let people play for a fee. As discussed by another user who voted delete. Arbusto 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opening statement, "I'm just curious how you considered the vote 'no consensus' with a 12 delete and 7 keep" implies a counting of votes, is why I mentioned that; but, fair enough, you weren't. Beyond that, please do consider DRV. While I am interested in seeing your concerns addressed, I'd prefer to allow for more community input. Luna Santin 07:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point was nearly twice as many voted for delete. However, the second line is important as well: "Does a 11 year old article that called the subject not disguished really pass the notability test?" Is that what you are basing your "borderline notability case"? Is that what you are using to judge WP:BIO? Arbusto 07:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That reeeeally sounds like vote counting. News, tours, appearances -- these are the sorts of things I look for. He's at least more notable than some huge number of the pages I run across in deletion discussions. Anyway, please, DRV. Luna Santin 07:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of keep votes were based on an article this person played Carengie Hall 11 years ago. The paper claimed he was hired because he was "inexpensive not distinguished." Moreover, as another user noted on the deletion that the promoter who hired Kendrick specializes in bringing out-of-town choirs to NY to sing there " - for a fee". Are the tours notable? Or did he simply hire a tour agent and spent his two week vacation in Europe? I opened the DRV, but am still curious as to what WP:V and BIO policies used. Oh well. --Arbusto 07:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the DRV was closed endorsing the AfD result. Either way, I think you had some good points; I figured DRV would give us both some closure, where duking it out just between us would drive us both up the wall, annoyed at each other. But, you're more than free to start a second AfD ({{afdx}} is a handy template for that) if you like. I'm not aware of any requirement that you wait, although giving the article some time (a week or two, I guess?) should avoid inclusionists accusing you of malicious intent. Good luck. Regards, Luna Santin 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]