User talk:WiccaWeb

Welcome!

Hello, WiccaWeb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  GreenJoe 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to revision 141516263 by WiccaWeb; rm more linkspam. using TW. In other words, I reverted edits by other people and the resulting version was your edit. I have no control over the "Reverted to version number by XXX" part of the edit summary - WP:TWINKLE adds that. --BigΔT 04:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, saw that. My mistake... WiccaWeb 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. you will get into a lot of troyuble doing this. Please desist and stop wasting everyone's time, SqueakBox 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the nominator reverted your opinion. They are correct, we are not supposed to add comments to closed discussions. But wikipedians are entitled to request undeletion -- if there was something wrong with the procedures followd during the original {{afd}}.

User:PelleSmith's reversion of your comment got me to re-read the discussion over again. I had forgotten how shocking I found PelleSmith apparent bad faith in both nominating the article for dleetion, and then vandalizing efforts to improve it.

I find myself surprised that the closing admin didn't consider the apparent vandalism and bad-faith on the part of the nominator, when he closed the {{afd}}. I regret that they didn't see fit to respond to my question as to whether the apparent bad-faith on the part of the nominator made the idea of relisting worth merit.

I am considering initiating the steps for undeletion. Will you join me in this effort?

Cheers! Geo Swan 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, stating that PelleSmith gave the appearance of bad-faith is not the same as accusing them of bad-faith. The policy of WP:AGF obliges us to do our best and consider that appearances of bad-faith may be due to a misunderstanding. I don't know why the nominator thought they were entitled to both give up on the article, and nominate it for deletion, and then proceed to remove new references from the article, when one of their original beefs with the article was a concern over its original references. I am perfectly willing to assume that this was a mistake made by a well-meaning person, who didn't know any better. Geo Swan 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

The subject in question, Religious Conversion and Terrorism, is in my mind clearly something that happens. It's become a little divisive given current World Politics, but has undoubtedly occurred through the ages. It's going to be difficult to write a neutral article, but I think it's worth a try. The first sentence in the Deletion Discussion:

The topic of this entry is not notable in the least.

is clearly not so. The author of the proposal goes on to suggest that the article was nothing more that an anti-Islamic tirade, and that may be so, but that's not a good reason for deletion. Rather it's a good reason to work on the article. For example, perhaps the subject could be extended to include (off the top of my head) events in Northern Ireland? And I think people are afraid of this subject because of perceived (real or not) abuse of the term "terrorist" and what constitutes one. I also think that there exists some "liberal bias" against the suggestion that a connection exists (it's not "terrorism", it's "freedom fighting".)

My view is that there is a connection between Religious conversion and terrorism, and that it's an appropriate subject for an article. It seems just as biased to, as User:PelleSmith did, deny a connection exists or that it's trivial or non-noteworthy.

I'd certainly join you in suggesting undeletion. I think I need to give this more thought to be able to coherently support the idea in discussions. How do you propose to frame it? WiccaWeb 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline: wikipedia:undeletion.

I've participated in just a couple. The first one I initiated was a very clearcut case. I'll get to that in a second.

In theory the discussion in the undeletion fora is supposed to revolve around aspects of the original {{afd}} that did not comply with WP:DEL or some other wikipolicy. In practice I found even experienced wikipedia administrators end up discussing the merits of the article, and whether it really deserved deletion, not how the original {{afd}} had failed to follow procedure.

FWIW, violations of policy are fairly routine in {{afd}} nominations and discussions too.

The first undeletion I requested was over Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism.

• It was nominated for speedy deletion within minutes of my creation of the first draft. This did not comply with the recommendation in WP:CSD that nominators not nominate articles for deletion mere minutes after they had been created -- to accommodate those who create articles in stages.
• I placed a {{hangon}}, and started drafting my explanation of why the article shouldn't be deleted.
• An administrator came along, ignored the {{hangon}}.

Another administrator closed undeletion discussion. They re-instated the article, but also immediately nominated it for deletion. I think among their choices was to exercise a measure of common senses, and reinstate the article, without nominating it for deletion. But, it seems that a strictly interpretation of the rules has the next step be an {{afd}} -- based on the idea that even if the procedure followed during the first {{afd}} was flawed, the article might still merit deletion.

IMO if the flaw lay in the original nominations, then the article should not be immediately nominated for deletion once it is re-instated.

The very first step is supposed to be contact the closing administrator. I guess the reasoning behind this is

1. as a courtesy, so they know questions are being asked about their judgment;
2. give them an opportunity to reconsider.

IMO the justifications for undeletion include:

1. Flawed nomination -- Nominator nominated the article for deletion based on concerns that are not proper criteria for deletions that complied with policy.
2. Contra-policy justifications -- Half or more of the justifications for deletion offered by those who favored deletion were not criteria that complied with policy.
3. Nominator's post nomination edits -- Gave the appearance of bad faith. Nominator claimed he only removed "bad references". I know I spent hours working on the new references I supplied. I recall feeling confidence that the new references I supplied were good references, and I think nominators refusal to discuss his excision of my contribution gives further appearance of bad faith.
4. Closing admin's closing summary was contra-policy -- The closing admin's summary cited POV as their first reason for deletion. As an administrator they should know that a perceived POV is not a criteria for deletion.
5. Closing admin did not address policy concerns -- I was not the only respondent who raised concerns about policy violations. I think, even if the closing admin thought our concerns were not valid, they had an obligation to address them.

IIUC, in theory the undeletion discussion should not include any discussion of the pros and cons of the article. IIUC, the discussion is supposed to be confined to whether the procedure followed was flawed. But, if the discussion runs true to form, many participants will want to return to a discussion of the pros and cons of the article.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the closing admin's talk page. And when they didn't reply, I left a request over on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review.

I'll let you know if and when the contents are temporarily restored, or there are any further developments.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See edit summary in talk page. See thread above. See the link. See your comments are totally redundant and don't appear to serve any purpose other than to say "hey! look at me! I found a link and can add it to a talk page - not that I actually READ talk pages." I would have thought that you might have taken the time to read my edit summary and verify that what I noted was in fact the case. Your attempt to start a new thread was entirely redundant - right down to the link - to the thread immediately above yours. If you actually have a point to make, then add it to that thread. Rklawton 04:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my "talk" page are mean spirited and arrogant. YOU don't get to edit OTHER PEOPLES comments, though you can add your own if you wish. It's NOT for YOU to edit OTHER PEOPLES discussion comments. Keep your fingers off my discussion comments. Your actions are VANDALISM. If I have to make a complaint, so be it. WiccaWeb 06:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:CIVIL. If you wish to insist on starting redundant threads and adding duplicate links on article talk pages along with making pointless comments, you might be seen as "disrupting" the editing of this encyclopedia. And that's not a particularly good thing. You don't have to take my word for it, but you are asked to not start calling admins names on their own talk pages. Rklawton 14:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate description of my Discussion Post. Whay do you insi8st on making such a minor hill into a mountain? WiccaWeb 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more information about appropriate editing of article talk pages. Rklawton 14:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your world is so wrapped up in nit-picking other peolles Discussion, yours is truely a sad life. WiccaWeb 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Disregard that, I suck cocks.[reply]

WiccaWeb, that was hilarious. Thank you, sir!

Did you just VANDALIZE my Talk page Rklawton? Yes you did! How dare you VANDALIZE my own comments on my own Talk page. This has gone too far. You're out of line. WiccaWeb 16:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can both of you just cut it out ? Enough words have been said, it's not serving wikipedia, it's petty and no one in the world will care other then you two. Just choose to ignore eachother for a while. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy for you to say, TheDJ, you don't have some Uber Wikipedian stalking your posts and reverting them. WiccaWeb 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism by User:207.112.45.79 wasn't me. I've given that IP a hard block for awhile, so I doubt we'll have any problems from him/her again. Rklawton 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I should have given you a heads-up. I have been house-sitting a friend's place, and haven't been as connected as I would have liked. The result of my note at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review was that the old article was (temporarily) restored, and moved to my user space... User:Geo Swan/working/Religious conversion and terrorism

Choices now are:

1. decide to initiate a full deletion review...
2. decide to cannibalize the most valid sections of the original version...
3. do nothing.

This re-instatment is only supposed to be temporary. I said I thought a week would be long enough...

Cheers! Geo Swan 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WiccaWeb. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you get for arguing with an admin, or anyone here, for that matter. How do you think he became an admin? By being nice to people and being a nice person? Stop feeding the trolls and go do something useful. I'm sorry that you were treated this way, but that's the way people are treated here, and as you've seen, there's nothing you can do about it. So don't take it personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiness McTruthytruth (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not basing the things I enter on "friend of a friend" second-hand information. I'm basing it on what Carter's friends have said in the media, and what the media has reported about his demeanor that night, and on nights previous. You would do well to not accuse me of things that are not true. And the thing about the tag is just ludicrous. That tag requires that there be something like "hundreds" of people editing it daily. Stop putting it on when it's not applicable.K. Scott Bailey 23:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there is no justification for this pattern of blatant information suppression and removal of the controversy section, along with the unjustified removal of the POV and Advertisement tags --Dseer 03:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seems to be a playground for cults. Such groups need to be held to the rules. WiccaWeb 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilance is required. If they start taking over, its ok to report them: [1]--Dseer 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you liked Chinmoy :-), you'll love Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article also. Rules aren't applying there either, same old excuses.--Dseer 07:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time for me! Maybe next... WiccaWeb 17:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just wanted to point out another example I was familiar with. The cult evaluation checklist is useful, thanks. Eclectic Wiccans may go astray and form cults, but rarely fall for them :-)--Dseer 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments on the Bandidos talk page could be construed by some readeers as a personal attack. Please see Wikipedia:Civility. Have a wiki day! Mmoyer 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a break. No one would consider that a "personal attack". You're overreacting. And, some might consider YOUR comments on my page as intimidation. Are you trying to intimidate me because you disagree with my comments about the nature of the Bandidos? One might get that impression. I don't intimidate well, I find it an offensive and unbecoming quality all to prevalent here at Wikipedia by the "old timers". Please stop now.

I'm sorry you disagree with me about the nature of the Bandidos, but me saying your comments where patronizing is not a "personal attack", it's a suggestion that you maybe need to look at your approach to talking to people. Please get a life and try to focus on worthwhile Wiki activities. WiccaWeb 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WiccaWeb for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mmoyer 03:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so... WiccaWeb 05:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

closed with no action see comments there. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. See WP:SSP#User:WiccaWeb. If you have input, leave it there at SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for those who like railroads, it's been closed again! DOn't you people have better things to do? WiccaWeb (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You take strong stands and apparently you get this kind of treatment. Hang in there!--Dseer (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has (again) been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WiccaWeb for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. jæs (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.