User talk:ClaudeReigns

Tom Short pays a visit

There is some interesting information on User Pages at Wikipedia:User page. Here is the list of Userboxes, and this is some Wikipedia information about Userboxes. Yours, Smee 04:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your Chaotic good and outwardly bumbling warrior mentality. Thanks for making me laugh! Yours, Smee 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to post to your user page and/or leave on your talk page as you see fit, except of course this part itself. Smee 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Council on Mind Abuse. I think I saw some citations for that in some archived news articles somewhere... I will dig them up... Smee 07:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Dude thanks. It was hard to establish the notability of a defunct anticult org, I hope I did that job at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClaudeReigns (talk • contribs).
• Sure looks like it to me. Btw, I think looking a teeny bit that this Mr. Howarth guy would be easier to get lots of citations on then that last article... Smee 07:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yeah, I see that for sure. COMA was necessary to some understanding in the GCAC thing. Trying to work outwards from both sides of that issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClaudeReigns (talk • contribs).
• You can sign your comments with four tildes, like this. ~~~~. Yours, Smee 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On 24 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Short, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations! Smee 18:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey ClaudeReigns, that was a remarkable job on the GPN page. I don't have the time to do much more than get a ball rolling on most articles right now. Thanks a bunch for gettin' 'er done. Nswinton 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GPN_Maxwell_Davis_Soul_Millionaires_promo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BSPCon_Giuliani_and_Davis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed image and don't plan on contesting deletion. ClaudeReigns 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you actually calling this edit "vandalism"? Funny, how it hasn't been reverted yet, even though there have been nine edits since then (including one by you). And then you have the temerity to ask me "don't delete discrete and applicable links to article Jesus within WikiProject:Christianity"? Let me cite some relevant policies: WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, and WP:OWN. If you want to accuse someone of vandalism, be sure it actually IS vandalism before you do so. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting with link to Jesus. ClaudeReigns 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ClaugeReigns,

Have you seen any good (wiki-legal) images of McCotter yet? The only one I can find online is from Maverick Jets, and I'm pretty sure they're not gonna give me permission. I see that you're still planning on doing an article on him, and figured you'd be the person to ask. I was hoping to get an image of him up on the GCA article. Nswinton 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, and it's bugging me. I know of some people to ask, but sofar nobody who has a copyright to a J.D.M. picture has budged. I suppose we could always just stalk him and take one ourselves LOL ClaudeReigns 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uh... know a guy... I'll have him contact you. Is there a good way to talk to you off of wiki? You can find my contact stuff on my userpage. Nswinton 15:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ClaudeReigns 16:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people I know will send you the stuff they have when they get around to it. Nswinton 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my codename is "Igloo". LOL! ClaudeReigns 20:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is "booger" :S Nswinton 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makin' any progress on the article? My friend told me he sent you an image the other day. Nswinton 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no progress. Running into some issues obtaining a free use image, and even my fair use options are a bit shaky. ClaudeReigns 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the bajillion red links to McCotter are driving me crazy, I'm thinking about starting a stub on him. Should I hold off till you can pull stuff together (hoping for a DYK?), or should I go for it? Nswinton 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw the DYK this morning. Nice work. Nswinton 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Global Pastors Network, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ClaudeReigns,

Nice job on the article this morning. That pic was a great start. Stop by my userpage in a bit and you'll see a list I'm making of sources of good GC* pics for the article. I'd love to have you contrib to the list so all of us editors can have a central place to search/work from. Nswinton 15:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed the work you did on this article. Nice work on the infobox and the image. I had wanted to add one a while back but ran into copyright/webmaster issues... Anyway, thanks for the contrib. Nswinton 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good revised first paragraph on Bosworth - now flows a lot smoother, etc, and contains all of key ideas that are good to have up front. --JGEdit4567 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, sorry 'bout all the talk page spam i'm giving you today. I think this[2] is a recent update to the GCC site. Might be a helpful source for some of your up and coming articles. The GCC history section has been expanded as well with a few internal links. Ok, I'll leave you alone now :) Nswinton 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure? I could swear they read my Tom Short bio LOL. My usual modus operandi is to pick a subject, Google "Subject's Name"+news and go crazy with the first 10 hits. Except of course if there's a source which immediately comes to mind. D.B. looks so different from his pics in The Cause. ClaudeReigns 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I heard back from the GC* folks, and we've got permission to use images from www.gccweb.org. Nswinton 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! I'll leave that to you since you're the one who got word. Do you think they'd consider a free license like GNU or Creative Commons? ClaudeReigns 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know hardly anything about GNU or Creative Commons (I had to go look up CC to know what you were talking about). I'm still a wiki-noob in several ways. I'll read up some more and look into it. I'll probably learn quite a bit adding some images to the GCA article in the next few days. Looks like there's been some excitement lately on the Tom Short article, huh?  ;) Nswinton 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, there has :D You're welcome to try and help balance the PoV, right now the only stuff I have to add is more bad mojo (police interactions). If you have "5 Crucial Questions about Christianity" (I don't yet have a copy) you are definitely welcome to summarize his points, I think it would make him feel a little less like we were trying to pee in his wheaties to have that included. I know Smee quickly archived those posts, and maybe it would help if he knew we still have record of the conversation going, or else he might think we deleted the whole thing. I have the conversation archived and ongoing here in case he might get directed to the right place to talk about his concerns (hint, hint) LOL. Not exactly desiring an email relationship with Mr. Short, but definitely willing to address his concerns and enhance his PoV. ClaudeReigns 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed him this afternoon and I'm gonna try and help mediate things. I know Tom personally and went to staff training with his son-in-law. Tom is actually a great guy IRL. I know the story behind alot of those things on his article (I read the article a while back and kinda chuckled, because there's definately two sides to everything, but Tom's side is much less documented. Up to this point I haven't even considered wading into the article, especially given my obvious POV. I try not to make edits where my POV can come through onto the article. I gave Tom some pointers on what can be done to improve the article, and what can't be done (in terms of communication style, etc). If I end up helping him out, I'll probably spend 3-1 time on the discussion page versus the actual article. Have you ever seen Tom preach in person? Nswinton 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once. Not on campus. He's good at telling personal stories. Most of what I "know" is admittedly secondhand. ClaudeReigns 03:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ClaudeReigns,

What do you think about having both of these on the page? Put the main one at the top, with the Background linking down to the timeline one (which would be in the Background section). This is just a proposal. What do you think? I'm putting this on Gatorgalen and Xanthius' pages too for their input. Lemme know on my talk page. Thanks dude. Nswinton 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Commission Churches

File:GCC Logo.png
Founded	2006 (See Background section)
Type	Evangelical Christian Church Association
Location	Columbus, Ohio
Official language	English
Key people	Herschel Martindale John Hopler Rick Whitney Dave Bovenmeyer Tom Short Mark Darling Brent Knox Chris Martin
Website	http://www.gccweb.org/

Name history of the movement
1965	First "works" established with no official name.
1970	Movement becomes informally known as "The Blitz Movement"
1983	Great Commission International (GCI) formed.
c. 1985	Campus ministry of the movement referred to as Great Commission Students (GCS).
1989	GCI becomes Great Commission Association of Churches (GCAC). Campus ministry becomes Great Commission Ministries (GCM).
2006	GCAC changes its name to Great Commission Churches (GCC).[1]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Marc Moran Concerned Businessmen's Association of America Moxon & Kobrin Joseph Adams Association for Better Living and Education Coma (film) Erskine Theological Seminary Reactive mind John Carson (college president) Del O'Connor International Association of Scientologists Coma (cometary) White Aryan Resistance Celebrity Centre Advocacy journalism Campion Hall, Oxford Free Zone (Scientology) Mark Rathbun Colleges of the University of Oxford

Cleanup Charles E. Blake List of Scientology references in popular culture The Fall of Man Merge Great Awakening Palmer Theological Seminary Order of the New Templars Add Sources Sea Org Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Wikify Paul Spiegel Howard High School Universal Life Church Expand BitDefender Doctor of Music New Acropolis

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Intelius, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Good work on the expansion. --howcheng {chat} 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ClaudeReigns 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Ludwig van Beethoven was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

— Pious7_Talk^Contribs 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just commented on your barnstar proposal that if you changed the name of the barnstar you would probably be able to get a lot of the oppose votes to disappear because the image is really neat. IvoShandor 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jim McCotter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (5th nomination) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xanthius (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I saw this history: [3]

If you have having an issue with a free image, as opposed to a fair use image, you may wish to first upload that image to Wikimedia Commons, at http://commons.wikimedia.org , and then to refer to it on Wikipedia. This will make things easier to refer to on multiple projects, but can only be done when dealing with "free" images and media... Smee 09:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

yes, I don't think that constitutes as a free image. I am constantly looking over image pools for free images to do with the articles I edit, but usually I end up getting practice in writing Fair Use rationales. The Ronald Enroth picture is something Xanthius obtained and uploaded. It's a really good case for Fair Use. I don't think anyone will fault us for it. It doesn't have a specific Free Use license attached to it (though that in general seems to be Enroth's wish from the letter Xanthius linked), otherwise Wikimedia Commons would be an awesome place for it. Honestly, I don't think I've been able to convince a single image source to license under CC or GNU, which is weird. I drop a lot of emails. But next time I get my dirty mittens on a free use image, I will definitely swing by the Commons first. ClaudeReigns 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes government sources are good for finding free images / public domain documents... In the coming decade, it will be most interesting to witness the increase in electronic availability and pervasiveness of information from these "public domain" sources onto the internet... Smee 11:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On 5 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Larry Pile, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 07:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to re-edit the F F Bosworth article. I added some new info, but am not familiar with formatting requirements, length of sections, etc., and part of the last section on his ministry remains hidden in the editing page, and doesn't show up in the main screen. There is a book which fills in a lot on F F Bosworth's early life - Fred Francis (Joybringer) Bosworth by Eunice M Perkins, where most of the new info came from. Also, there are a couple other items mentioned as sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.150.69.210 (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Saw the recent work you did on the F F Bosworth article - good job and well broken out headings. Last paragraph on Zion still doesn't show up, and the full heading on Ministry still can only be seen from the editing page, but even at that its a big improvement. Not sure what can be done to fix the link to the part that doesn't show up, but I suspect you probably have something on the go for fixing that.

Please note that I have responded to your rather frivolous accusations. You could at least try to discuss the merits of my edits; there were only two reverts btw. Gatorgalen 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion of the merit of your three deletions is ongoing at Talk:Larry Pile. The actual listing of each of those three deletions exist at both the links above. ClaudeReigns 08:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)"

It's interesting that you waited until afterward to begin discussing. There were three edits listed by you, but only two were reverts. The first was not a revert, but rather I looked over the entire page and made an edit I thought was fairly simple and straightforward. It was reverted, I reverted; it was reverted, I reverted. Then it was reverted again, and I quit. So three reverts for you and Xan, 2 for me. Suppose if this were an edit war you'd be winning. Gatorgalen 19:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first edit I listed, you reverted User:Xanthius' addition of the Pile article. The administrator counted three edits reverting the article as well. You went to North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics? O_o ClaudeReigns 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The "simple straightforward edit" was a deletion of information, i.e. a revert. ^.^ ClaudeReigns 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how quaint, looking up additional info on me. Indeed, I did attend that prestigious school whose motto is "Accept the Greater Challenge". As usual, I encourage you to look things up before talking - it'll make you seem smarter. If you'll look at when Xanthius edited it, he added a lot of things. You're suggesting that any edit is a revert, essentially. Which is bogus. Xanthius added several things at once, I tweaked it. Not a revert. Also should not be objectionable - if an administrator comes in there they'll delete it on the spot. There's really no question here. Gatorgalen 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think you're talking to yourself because what I hear is "blah blah blah". Your deletion of that data is a revert and an admin counted it as such. Did you have any point to be here on my user page except to argue with me? Since we're not accomplishing anything beside an "is so is not" kind of squabble, I've got nothing further to say to you here. ClaudeReigns 23:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit much to say that "an admin counted it as such" given that he dismissed your claim out of hand - I mean, it clearly wasn't a violation because even if it had been a revert that would have made 3; in case you missed it a 3RR violation is more than three. Your accusation was empty and rrivolous, and was counted as such. Look in the mirror. I came here to defend myself against false and baseless accusations. Learn to discuss like an adult, please. Gatorgalen 01:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I pretty much gave up on having a discussion with you some time ago. The only discussion you want is people agreeing with you or bashing GCA. It's sad, really. We worked well together for awhile, but then you threw away any pretense of neutrality and refused to even discuss most things. Very sad.Gatorgalen 01:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking ClaudeReigns 23:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he thinks we're still having a discussion. ClaudeReigns 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just FYI - I honestly don't share the beliefs of the anon guy that commented on the GCA talk page recently. I'm guessing you and Xanthius are dudes from Decomm, but so am I - and I can sympathize with some of the stuff there. Please believe that his viewpoint is not the only one in GC. Things ARE changing. I blushed when I read his comment, because I'm sure he reinforced a stereotype. I'm sure we can all work together to make a legitimate, honest, balanced, high-quality article. I posted this on Xanthius' talk page as well. Have a great day! Nswinton\^talk 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just created/wrote new article you might be interested in, as you wrote the one on Council on Mind Abuse. Cult Information Centre - currently sourced to citations from (32) reputable secondary sources. Yours, Smee 09:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I see that you have already taken an interest in the article I created, PSI Seminars. When last I left the article, it was sourced to (17) reputable sourced citations. I see now that there are (16), so I guess one has been removed. I have stepped back from this article and taken it off of my watchlist. Can you do me a favor and take a look at the article yourself once in a while, and please notify me if it goes to WP:AFD? I am taking a break myself from the article, but the main few things I was concerned about were whitewashing, removal of material backed up by reputable sourced citations, and a possible nomination for AFD. Smee 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please go to Grey's Page. I have written something there for you to read about people changing her birthday. Sheila

Hey, long time no see. There's a discussion going on over there that you might want to participate in. Hope all is well. Nswinton\^talk 22:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran across your article in your notes. Fun. I especially like the sketch, which actually isn't that bad. Well sourced too. Not sure where you got that birthday though. Also, if you'd like I can give you a better picture for free use. Did you make that sketch/ I'd like to have a copy, it actually does somewhat resemble me. Gatorgalen 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you should give me a shot too, are you taking requests? I'd love to see an article on me sometime. There's at least 6 people with my name right now, though, so be careful. Nswinton\^talk 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GPN logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This fair use rationale should be so obvious any HUMAN should see it.... I'm not wasting any more time on that trivial article just to prove this to a ROBOT. Delete it if you think it will make wikipedia better. ClaudeReigns 08:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tbilisi Aerospace Manufacturing.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Proposed Deletion template has been added to the article Tom Short, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. KnightLago 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GCC Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question ported from own talk page:

A few months ago you expressed your opinion about the Jim McCotter article. I was checking to see if those concerns had been addressed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns are very well addresed, and the quality is very much improved. 1000 thanks! Said: Rursus ☻ 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies as a fact? If everything is on YWAM's website, does that work or what references are you looking for? Lots of it is in books too. Is it required to list each page number or just rely on the website that has references. Is there any organization that has 16,000 employees that does not have some of the difficulties you've described?Keiko234 (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide references. Unreferenced statements may be removed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification for the uninitiated...Claims of notability where credible and unchallenged may be made by the article's subject and used as a source. For other statements which do not pertain to the subject's notability, other third-party sources must be used. Thank you for acknowledging the concern. I will be removing unsourced statements shortly, if no considerable effort is made to provide sources. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define subject's notibility? Keiko234 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking this over for a long time like a koan. I don't define the subject's notability. Reliable third party sources do. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC broadcast a one hour public affairs show, part of its long-running Fifth Estate series about the abusers at Abu Ghraib, entitled "a few bad apples". Geo Swan (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dave Andrews, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this subpage you made--Angel David (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks... I don't think his wikipedia page does ol' J.C. justice. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have deleted this image as it was infringing on copyright. If you check the comments at the flickr source page, you'll notice that the uploader did not own the copyright to this photograph and that it was recovered from stolen property. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows parody is protected under copyright law. That was not the original stolen image. It was modified by the Jackace to depict Paris Hilton beating "Tiny Charms" and therefore his/her property. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a derivative work, protected under the original copyright. I'll undelete the image and post it on WP:IFD for further review. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment in the discussion. Thanks ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this image is licensed under {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} at the flickr source. I've re-deleted under WP:CSD#I3 as a non-commercial use only image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not notable, thousands of youth go through this program every year. Several locations had over a thousnad each. Saksjn (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability has to be established by a reliable third party. It sounds like it is very notable--but it needs references. I don't want to delete the article, but it should be cited so someone else doesn't. Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, just post it on my talk page next time so that I can see your response, thanks. Saksjn (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Efraín Ríos Montt article appears to indicate that abuses got worse under under Montt's regime. Paul foord (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the firefox search is not finding the initial instance for Rios Montt. I see you have it covered. Paul foord (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Human Terrain Team, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74326. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For above-and-beyond efforts - in the truest Wikipedian spirit - to establish notability for Liveoak Church before proposing it for deletion. I only wish I had that much generosity of spirit before prodding the articles I don't think are worth the electrons they're displayed with. Ipoellet (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Rayhade is revert warring with you as he has been doing with me for the last couple of weeks on Criticism of Mormonism. Any thoughts on a potential block? --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Human Terrain Team, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just responded to your query concerning my edit to the Mike Wiley article. Wish I could provide helpful advice concerning the Sun. As far as I know only fairly recent content is available on-line. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've indicated three publications which have noted the organization. You have the article listed for speedy deletion for non-notability. I could definitely see where you might propose an AfD as controversial, but the A7 criteria for speedy deletion seems a bit of a stretch. Please comment at the article's talk page. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied on the talk page as requested. Just a gentle nudge that way :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I also removed the CSD warning template from here. Since its incorrect i don't think that it should clutter your userpage. Im not trying to hide the fact i made a mistake on this one though, so if you want it back, do so by all means :-) )

Your changes / additions look very well rounded. I think people will be happy with the current state of the Wendy Yoshimura article. Thanks for asking. Proxy User (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your name was removed. As for the articles, my intent is (I think...) the same as yours, to clean up a messy article. I tend to be a perfectionist in matters like this. I am bothered by the "angry speculators" remark, and the edits on the page have not reflected such (although I will admit to posting one time, out of curiousity, speculation regarding uses of Intelius, which was immediately reverted, and I have not and will not attempt further uses, which I hope opting to not post anonymously has helped convey). I am content with the new article, and as I said in the talk page, I more than welcome acclaim to Naveen Jain on his wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no effort to remove the statement as much as there was an effort to restore a contested statement, and in the cases I removed the phrase, it was always noted with a reason. Furthermore, I did not consider it an edit war as much as an effort by two editors to improve an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I contend that the statement does not belong, I am not really willing to get into a prolonged fight over a trivial reference. In regards to the "concerted effort", there was none, there was me when I was logged in, and there was me when I forgot to login (to be perfectly honest, I had even forgotten my password, I haven't edited in some time). I have requested a third-person review. As for this issue, consider it done and other with. Have a good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask for third opinions, you will get third opinions. Also note that I do not edit any articles related to Scientology. I have removed your comment from my talk page, and if you have further disputes consider other venues for WP:DR. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit, when did I rub that magic lamp? Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse! ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake! Forgive my mistake, now I know where I know you from. [4][5][6][7] We didn't get into it in the past. My mistake. You are not a Scientologist. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the admin likes to vanish notices of his RECENT cult-related activity as well. [8] ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message re the 3R rule and this article. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the other editor involved, but s/he simply reverts the article without responding, as can be seen at our respective Talk pages. You will also note that I said in my last comment that I would not be reverting again today, but would instead submit the issue to an administrator. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Look forward to having some gazpacho and mulling this one over. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has just pointed out to me that, according to his user page, Therequiembellishere‎ is aged 14. That explains a few things. I don't wish to be unpleasant to children, but if they want to play with the adults they have to expect to be treated accordingly. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe as you can clearly see above, I have been accused of failing to Assume Good Faith. Which means that when I see someone use age as an excuse, it fits the profile of others who have lied about their age on the internet to get some slack. That's just my perspective--I'm a skeptic. I know a perfectly serious and well-conducted editor, User:Saksjn, who can't possibly be "of age" but does well by not edit warring, using talk, and seeking other opinions. So I don't see how that has any bearing on a discussion of Raul Castro. Were we discussing Hannah Montana, it might lend him some authority. Does it change how you and others feel about your having called him "stupid" though? Probably better to call the edit stupid and spare the ad hominem. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention on this. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Claude,

I have no close relation with Jossi. He is just an admin who is familiar with these articles and he holds an institutional memory on all of the edit wars and other issues with them.

I have no problem with a neutral, balanced article, and would be happy to contribute to that. And, at no time have I called CultFree names despite his persistent edits doing just that to me (as well as making libelous -- thanks for the tip -- statements that are completely untrue about me being paid by the group and/or a member when I'm not). I have not accused him of anything other than being biased because his username is biased, as others have noted (like as I might, I think many would find a user name GeorgeBushFreeWorld biased, because it shows I am inherently against George Bush0.

So, I hope this makes sense to you. All I want is civil discourse and efforts to create truly balanced, neutral articles. Thanks, Renee. Renee (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for dropping by. Civil discourse is not an end in itself... probably why I'm finding the community lacking in straight talk and CFW being such a breath of fresh air in light of the recent embarrassment. I don't think his latest psych evaluation of you was very fair either--but it totally had me laughing.

Now knock off the wikispeak. Loaded language is one of Lifton's big eight and I don't buy in. I think at this point people being forthright with Where They Are Coming From And How They See Things is a good thing. Specifically, the reduction of CFW's argument, which you repeated, is off the mark. The reason I am typically against the bad guy fallacy is that it is thought-stopping. Acknowledgement that social structures can reduce free thought, and the verbal identification of those social structures can be helpful--and not necessarily as prejudiced as the strawman argument which you've taken up from the anonymous user would indicate. I think to bandy about the term "cult" without as specific explanation also can be perjorative, and yet another arrest of critical thinking.

Civil discourse cannot trump critical thinking or the Project will fail. Less wikispeak and a thicker skin will allow experienced editors to Look Beyond The Limits Of Rule Boundaries. I am all in favor of CFW writing a terribly biased article about a religious group I've never heard of involving some nutty court case--in a temporary space to be reviewed by peers. Once the article gains existence and he realizes We Collectively Own It, then I will look forward to observing the result which will necessary quickly approach neutrality simply because Widely Noticed Things Balance More Quickly.

Sorry if my current observations and wishes do not match current policy. You may Assume My Best Wishes For The Project, if you wish, for it is so. But a skeptic like myself assumes very little, and wonders, since you brought it up to me, how you make your money. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Claude,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that there should be a range of discourse with many different viewpoints to create a neutral article, but at some level there has to be a mass consciousness or unspoken agreement (civil society) that we all are really striving for a balanced article. Otherwise, the whole premise of Wiki fails, because it takes just one person who refuses to adopt that ideal to disrupt the whole system, because they are incapable of looking at the good in addition to the bad. For instance, I am sure there must be some dissertations on the group in question in India, but more than likely they're neutral or positive, so they are dismissed by CFW whose own user name implies he is on Wiki to promote a POV.

The second issue is probably more relevant, and, that is that we HAVE gone through the whole Wiki process on articles on this topic with discussions on exactly the same sources and issues (this version was basically lifted from a blog I found). The process you propose is good if it goes through several iterations and then ends up with a relatively stable article, but that wasn't the case here. People would work on it in good faith coming from all sides and then one extremely anti-person with a stated POV like "cult free" would come on and create havoc. All of the arguments made in this most recent page's short life have been made at least a hundred if not a thousand times on previous talk pages over years. Just to give you the history, to try and solve it we made the article a stub and then tried to work out from there (finding reliable sources). Then, we broke it into several articles so that the groups wouldn't fight and made those stubs so each group could find reliable sources. Still, there were endless edit wars with people trying to use blogs or extremist sites as evidence (with no concurring sources anywhere). For example, the previous incarnation of CFW (who probably is CFW) actually argued that a newspaper article found libelous and false by a court of law was a reliable and verifiable source simply because it was described in court documents -- he argued that because it appeared in a court doc it must be true and then he ignored what the courts said about it (again, the courts found it false, libelous, and that the newspaper failed to engage in proper fact-checking procedures). Ultimately, 7-8 editors plus several admins watching from afar came to the conclusion that there were currently no reliable, verifiable sources and thus it was deleted. I write this so you can understand the whole context of the article topic. This is why I contacted Jossi when I saw the new (same) version posted again, because he holds an institutional memory of the past several years on the article. It's lunacy to repeat history over and over. (did you see movie Groundhog Day?)

Ultimately, every time this happens I'm grateful to see that Wiki really does work, though while I'm in the midst of discussing a source for the 8,768th time it is easy to wonder if it's ever going to end. There are blogs for people to say whatever they want, source things the way they want, offer their analysis and opinions. I hope the ideals of Wiki can be maintained. p.s. I'm a retired professor, currently a writer, which makes Wiki a form of procrastination to real writing...Renee (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We broke it into several articles so that the groups wouldn't fight." Please explain to me how this works? I have never heard of forking as a practice to avoid edit conflict... though I have heard of forking used to eliminate information. I am also unsure why the judgment of the court as to the libellous nature of documents does not satisfy Our Desire To Include Only Verifiable Information. Such a thing, it seems to me, establishes what Group X isn't (and at least implies a claim as to what the group is). Attempting to interpret your statement of self I might imply your possible preference for academic sources in over journalistic and legal sources. I find the conflict between a legal and journalistic source to be interesting. I wonder if there is an article about that incident in itself. Obviously the 8,768th discussion of a topic doesn't make it inherently notable, but it suggests it.

My intuition about the nature of Seeing Things As We See Them is that nearly all editors come here wishing to display the clarity of their outlook. Though some fortunate few will come to see the importance, scope and long-term impact of the Project and buy into the aims, many will continue to nurse a perspective. Having tried to step outside that box and write from the opposite side on a few articles, I think it is a richer view. But don't let me pretend I no longer possess bias! The myth of the Million Neutral Clones quickly washes away with a year on the project and seeing the conflict of very real opinion on a near daily basis. Everyone Can Edit but Not While Admitting Their Prejudices must needs cede to some new order where Civilly Reconciled Opposing Points of View balance the articles. Real life example: many people seem to think that racial relations are now better in the South (where biases have traditionally been in the open) than the North (where bias is less exposed). But I like your example of the particular situation.

I saw Groundhog's Day. It seems that the main character did rely on a kind of "institutional memory" but he never got out until he Made It Happen. This seems like an article that wants to Happen. So when occurance 8769 manifests, then I'd be happy to take a peek. I'm a disaffiliate from an evangelistic Christian movement possessing a quite skeptical but somewhat tolerant view of most religion regardless of cultural orgin with a particular curiosity towards all religions: Is it ethical in practice? So that's my take. I think I hear the alarm clock going off now. Pair me up with Ned Ryerson and off we go. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, believe it or not, I was kind of exaggerating when I said the 8768th time...just a little wee bit...just a tiny, tiny bit...okay, a lot...the reason I focus on academic sources is because I know from experience they go through a very careful vetting process, and dissertations go through an especially rigorous process of verification, so one can bet they're pretty reliable... regarding the libel, seems to me that information found by a court of law to be untrue and false is by definition unreliable and unverifiable. Anyone can make up a story and get it published. How's this? Mother Teresa's convent is really a front for Afghan opium dealers and the food in her kitchen is spiked with heroin. (this is made up, don't sue me!) Say a newspaper published that, the Catholic church sued and the court ruled it was libel. Would you put this in a Wiki article about Mother Teresa? For me personally, accusations and inuendo are for blogs, not something that is being used by schoolchildren for research projects.

Ned Ryerson, huh? I was thinking I probably do need some life insurance....Renee (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd put it in the wiki article about the source and link to Ma T, especially so editors can caveat emptor when they check the source for new citations (as I am usually careful to do when using a new source). But the schoolchildren can go watch smut in b&w at pornography, so I'd say ixnay to the implications that it wouldn't fly because of audience. This reminds me of a previous conversation with User:Justanother, if my horrendous memory serves me well. Just because I latch on to something as seemingly important/unimportant as a minor libel case about an article which causes incivility during its quotidian creations and destructions doesn't mean that I always have a definite bold answer to its treatment. The problem is the apprehension of passersby that there's Something We're Not Telling. This will continue to be the reaction as long as someone has a reason with support to believe that there's a "David Copperfield" here to make the sources disappear. And when I walk by an article that's been once deleted, I think "There's an article I could make fly"; when I see a bountiful article deletion log, I think to myself, "Here's a great chance to make tons of enemies writing a good article that will be ripped to shreds by our community." :D So naturally I can nearly remember the name of the subject that got us talking. And I remember seeing a source that was a college newspaper. What do you think of college newspapers as sources? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm....interesting on the porno site....I wonder if Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry for that? Re deleted articles, some just aren't notable enough and keep getting re-posted as a vanity PR site or by those with an axe to grind for the site. I think that's the case here. I checked out some other eastern meditation groups's sites on Wiki and they all have full books and journal articles and academic dissertations on them. Depending on the college the paper might be okay (do they have a vetting process?) but I don't think it's enough for an article yet. I've been working the AFD rounds pretty consistently so have gotten a good idea as to what's notable and what's not. You should try them out! They're a nice break from regular Wiki work. If you want to see some impressive deletion logs, take a look at these here and here.

Hey, if you were so inclined, I'd be interested in your take on the Alice Bailey page. It seemed pretty neutral and then a contingent of Jewish editors found it (it was posted on one of the lists for them to come and take a look at it) and imo slanted it into a negative article. The woman did say some anti-semitic and racial things things that should be reported. But, the problem with the article is that those things are featured when they compose less than 5% of her total writings, so her main topics get obscured. Anyways, if you have the time or inclination I'd be interested in your take on it.

Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threw down an edit on the intro consistent with my work at Criticism of Mormonism. Also can tell that notability is going to need to be established for a lot more of this. Bailey is given a mighty big soapbox for the note given. Example, "The spiritual Hierarchy, Sirius, Venus, and Shamballa" noting author gets one sentence, Bailey gets the remainder of the two paragraphs. The same pattern follows in the next two paragraphs about discipleship. Will need to examine these sources for affiliation--for where they are affiliated with Bailey, they are primary sources and should be treated as such.

This is an interesting article; one of the astrology books (an ephemeris or table of houses) I used to have was printed by Lucis Trust. Still hard to evaluate without a deeper study of the subject matter and a who's who. Sorry about the nasty tags, all the articles I jump into look worse before they look better. I'm the handraising jerk my teachers hated :D ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:DaveAndrews.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not changes to the article without discussion. If you take a look at the talk page you will see how hard the editing process for the Alice Bailey article was. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm....WP:OWN comes to mind. Malcolm (aka Kwork has a long history on this article. Good luck with this one, I'll move any further comments to the talk page. Renee (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renee, you misunderstand. What I hope for is that caution will make it possible to avoid another difficult seven months of contentious editing. I also want to point out, Renee, that your assumption of my bad faith is uncivil and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines for editors. Please cease such incivility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear Malcolm, My apologies if my comments seemed uncivil -- not meant to be. I've put some comments on the talk page. Claude's edits were so minor and then you jumped on him with the note above that it seemed to imply some sort of ownership of the article. The assumption of good faith goes both ways my friend. Renee (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renee, you wrote "you jumped on him". I did not jump on him. My note was two sentences, and I pointed out that there had been a contentious editing process....which this exchange between us will make demonstrate well enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renee is misrepresenting the history of the Alice Bailey article but I will not go into that right now, I will merely hope that your intentions are as pure as you claim they are and assume good faith on your part. :Albion moonlight (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure everyone has their own way of seeing things. That's why I wanted to be upfront about where I'm coming from. Still learning the topic and getting a feel. Thank you for the welcome. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go any further with editing the Alice Bailey article, I suggest that you think about what I have already said their, but which may get ignored:

The problem remains that there are no scholarly sources that can be used as a basis for an Alice Bailey article (which does raise the issue of notability). Most of the sources actually used in the article, are from either Alice Bailey herself, or non-scholars who worship in the Church of Alice Bailey, or New Age advocates who think anything connected with the New Age movement must be good. Other sources focus on her racial views, on her antisemitism, or her views on Christianity. There are no books that have been written about AAB that are of the nature of the Richard Noll studies of Carl Jung, or K. Paul Johnson's scholarly studies of Theosophical Society literature. As a result one administrator who participated for a while in editing this article, Vassyana I think, thought it would be better to reduce the article to a stub rather than use unsound sources. Others, such as AnonEMouse, thought it okay to use the sources we have, and build the article on that. At this point, I am willing to live with it either way. What I am not willing to live with is including the non-scholarly AAB worshipers, and excluding those sources that question her perfection. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no scholarly studies that have been made of AAB, and any changes you make will run into all the same problems unless that issue is resolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the headsup. I am still willing to work with the sources extant. I just want to give greater clarity as to what those sources are. If you'll notice my chaotic user page you will note that I am not by nature a deletionist. On topics of religion it isn't easy to dismiss authors because they have a particular point of view--that's the nature of religion. Therefore I cling tenaciously to good attribution. The Jew will see his voice sourced, the Christian will see his voice sourced, and the Occultist will see his view sourced, and provided there is no undue weight, there should be no dispute as to balance. Forgive me if you don't see me working in your favor yet. You haven't whispered your outlook to me. As in all things, I assume good faith and natural bias and hope all sides will be well-served.

When I say that I am not a deletionist, I do not mean to say that I do not support a good faith effort to delete poorly sourced material. It's just not me who will be pulling the trigger. For a deletionist on this article, I'd suggest a well-rounded sweep of the worst sources, which I am all too happy to point out with my attribution efforts. While material remains, any newcomer should have ample opportunity to understand if the material comes from a particular "side". I'm still holding hope that some published occult expert will be able to shed a little light. But do what you have to do. I do not oppose you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea there was a whole portal. This is interesting too. And this looks like a lot more fun than the afd's I've been working on...Renee (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claude, Per Jack A Roe's comment on the RFC, I would like to take a stab at re-working it to reflect content only? Is this okay with you? I know you put a lot of effort into it.

Regarding Malcolm, he has loads of knowledge on the topic and I think his weariness in repeating what he has said before months ago shows in his responses to you. You had listed several sources that you had questions about earlier and I don't think you ever got a response about them individually. Perhaps you can re-ask the question for 1-2 and see what happens? I've noticed a huge change in his responses and attitude toward me and feel we are working together nicely and think he's eager to do that with everyone, because this article has been such a drain in the past on everyone. Renee (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claude,

Per my post above (and following Jack-A-Roe's suggestions) I redid the RFC completely to focus on content and then archived the old RFC discussion as a permanent record. If you have a problem with this please revert, but I hope it is okay with you. Any comments that focused on user are now on permanent record in the archive. I think this will build good will and am hopeful that Albion and Malcolm will respond positively.

I have left in your original comment and mine and classified it as biography. Thanks for your hard work on this. Renee (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I look forward to seeing it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not remotely seem to qualify for speedy. Try cutting it back, or, if you disagree with me, using afd. DGG (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a number of false, dead, outdated and/or (apparently) misleading links and references in the Youth With A Mission article.

As you seem to have done a great amount of work on this article, I'd like to first request that you verify a number of the articles references. Although some seem ripe for deletion, I do not want to ruin your previous research and notations. Is this the place to have this discussion? Or should we move it to the Youth With A Mission article notes?

Also, I noticed you undid my deletion of the "Athens Three" red link cleanup. I deleted this deade link after consulting Wikipedia's red link guideline: "If you think no article with that title should ever, ever exist (or if the article has been deleted), you can remove the link. It's perfectly fine and indeed encouraged, to leave red links to useful potential articles, as a signal to other editors that the article needs to be created. "

If you have added a red link with no meaning, the you should, as Wikipedia advises, "If the article referenced by a red link deserves to exist, you can start it and then mark it as a stub." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delhiwallah (talk • contribs) 11:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gave reasons at the talk page of that article. Google it and get back to me there. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the different version proposals, but haven't had the chance to really figure out which is best. Plus there's been no rebuttal or comments at all from Gatorgalen since I started looking into it. It's on my to-do list, so just give me a bit more time. Dreadstar † 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to weigh in on recent comments and reverts at the Criticism of Mormonism article. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:A Few Bad Apples.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Tom Short Maneater97.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [9], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Tom Short Maneater97.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Lemieux Road.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Lemieux Road.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Short UtahChron06.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Short GCBootcamp2007.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was moved to commons, but ran into problems... Can you PLEASE talk with someone from Wikimedia Commons urgently? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move seems to have been executed without referencing the original image source URL, a Flickr page. Find the Flickr page and you'll find the explicit permission to license as free GNU image. Sorry, images are such a hassle now that I scarcely have time for them, much less a separate registration on Wikimedia Commons. Good luck! ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is International House of Prayer. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International House of Prayer. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tim Rude has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Another Us political coatrack?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Brevard Technical Journal August 2002.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:McC 086 0206 MontCountySentinal 01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your first formal warning for the mess you're trying to create here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was trying to correct the problem the template noted. I did try to find the consensus and have discussed this on talk. Please also assume good faith. What is your specific objection? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma loves you too! Amandajm (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hehehehe! Thanks! ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quite rude in some of my comments. I see you've not said anything since and hope it wasn't because of this. I offer my sincere apologies. Skullers (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're cool! Glad you're part of the project! ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been given some titles by User:Pluto2012 to review in my effort to understand multiple viewpoints about the topic.

• The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Benny Morris
• critiques thereof: "Myths, Old and New" by Norman Finkelstein and A Critique of Benny Morris by Nur-eldeen Masalha
• Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948
• Rosemary Esber, Under the Cover of War

I definitely encourage others to add to my reading list as well. I hope that they are sources that conform to WP:RS, or in the very least, sources which would be considered neither spurious nor vague. What are you reading? ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Adding[reply]

• Morris, "Response to Finkelstein and Masalha" to check for true consensus. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply