User talk:Zappaz

Dear Zappaz, I would like to call your attention to the article on Robert J Lifton who is frequently quoted by member of anti-cult movements of all sorts. Lifton is a very well-known psychiatrist in countercult circles and recently he softened his theories and toned down his speeches, while adding other dimentions to his search of 'roots of the evil' (to which activity he was inspired by some rabbi, according to his interview). The fact is that while Lifton is som much important as legitimate scholar with generally OK renome, the bias manifests in increasing this level of legitimacy. Then he is being quoted as big authority on other pages, most notably concerning: roots of (Arab) terrorism, anti-semitism, cults (including 'Christian) et cetera. Please kindly review the page and add some balance, thank you very much. You may safely delete this messag afterwards

I have noticed that for the last several days, the article China History Forum has been extensively altered to suit the point of view of its founder, General Zhaoyun. This could imply self-promotion and misrepresentation of facts. May 27, 2005

May I take this off the Prem Rawat page for a moment?

What we are discussing here is the claim of divinity, such as "I am God". Claiming to be Satguru is not the same as claiming to be God.

I'm interested in the larger question: what does it mean when claims of divinity are made regarding a human being?

On one extreme, you can have the real-life equivalent of what was portrayed in movies: George Burns in Oh, God! or Morgan Freeman in Bruce Almighty. This is God the Creator Himself appearing in human form to interact with a selected individual (to teach or inspire, apparently).

In the case of gurus or messiahs like Prem Rawat and (arguably) Sun Myung Moon, you have people claiming a special connection to, er, "the divine" -- or some sort of special status, like "I am the chosen one and am thus so important that you really ought to drop everything and start listening to me."

The criticism He says he's God has to be taken in context of the above. To really do justice to the objections, we have to figure out what the objectors really mean.

1. "I created the heavens and earth and am Omnipotent and Omniscient".
2. "I'm perfect and you should listen to me."

I doubt that Prem Rawat is making the first claim. Sun Myung Moon certainly does not.

I get the impression that Rawat's claim is closer to the second. Moon alternates between (a)making the second claim and (b) asserting that he's a fallible human being, e.g., "One mistake I made took me 7 years to fix."

Stop me if you don't want to discuss this here... Anyway, great work on Prem Rawat; I hope you will continue! --Uncle Ed 14:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By the hight tempers expressed recently on the talk page, I am re-considering if it is worth my time and effort to continue.... we shall see...

In regards to the "claims of divinity", my research shows that he made claims 20 years ago in the cultural context of the Indian culture that may be perceived as claim of divinity. Certainly in current speeches (I mean in the last 20 years or so) he presents himself for as a guide, master, friend, etc. and most certainly human, not god-like. Detractors, being somewhat "stuck" in a time-warp of 20-30 years ago, cannot accept the evolution that clearly exist in his presentation of himself. They see this as malicious. --Zappaz 20:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps an explanation like this would suffice:

In recent years, Rawat has soft-pedaled his earlier claims of divinity, presenting himelf as a guide, master, friend, etc. and most certainly human, not god-like. (Good luck dealing with the angry hordes; I'm taking a vacation myself!) --Uncle Ed 13:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is not bad.... Will try and use it.... but I am not very confident that will calm the hordes... :) Have a great vacation. --Zappaz 14:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, could you email me the article by Ron Geaves? Thanks in advance. Andrieskd AT chello DOT NL Andries 15:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Will do. -- Zappaz 15:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I do not think that DUO is the same as the DLM. It is related but different. Andries 20:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You may be right... mind soing some resarch on this? Ther is a discrepancy: Hans Ji maharaj seem to have founded DUO, but on the expremie site they claim that Prem Rawat formed it... a bit of confusion here... I will remove the entry about DUO from te main article until we find out.--Zappaz

Zappaz, from a few of your most recent edits I do believe you have raided my contributions list, LOL! I was a video weenie for a short while, many years ago, from whence comes my occasional interest in things luminant and chromatic. Are you perchance also an ex- or current video-premie-weenie? ;-) --Gary D 00:26, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed.... I was waiting for this message. Yes, I have developed some hardware and software for video applications (may years ago) and I am somewhat proficient on video compression and codecs, so I am intersted in that subject.... I was checking your contrib list and bingo... :-) --Zappaz 04:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I am twice over a video weenie. First, I was a video engineer at a television station, that was the many-years-ago thing, even before serious digital, really. Then, more recently I was the lawyer at a small dot com company that did MPEG-based streaming video. It later turned out that company had sold an unprotected product that had allowed the DVD Content Scrambling System to be hacked into and defeated. I had nothing to do with it, honest! --Gary D 04:18, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

So.. now you are telling me that you were involved on the de-CSS thingy? On my! :) Are you still involed in startups? I had my share of that as well, now prefer to hide under the more solid façade of "Consultant"--Zappaz 04:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid that was indeed my ex-employer. Yikes! I think (hope) I was already out of there by then, though. These days I do strictly the law firm thing, no more "on spec" stuff. --Gary D 07:23, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Nice to know that you both are interested in video & digital. I saw your contributions to Luminance. Sorry Zappaz, but I had to "undo" you last one... The "L" in HSL color space stands for "Lightness" and not "Luminance". This is a usual confusion. :). As a digital artist, the choice of color space to use is always interesting. You can see my digital paintings here: http://jossif.deviantart.com/gallery/ and here: http://jossif.deviantart.com/scraps/.

Taking the opportunity to thank you both for your work on Prem Rawat

≈ jossi ≈ 03:33, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ooops! I stand corrected, Jossi. My knowledge must be a bit rusty... Cool paintings, BTW! --Zappaz 14:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I noticed that you had changed the checklist of a hate group without references or explanation. I think this is wrong. Please do not do it again. Thanks. Andries 17:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sorry for my false accusation. It was not you. Andries 17:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gary, Talk:Hate_group is going out of hand. All started with a mention in the article by Andries and me regarding hate groups as it pertains to NRMs, and I am afraid it now has escalated to an open war. I am afraid I cannot do much more at this stage, maybe just compound the problem :( . Could you come over there and help restore a bit of peace? That page is becoming USENET and civility degrading slowly. Thanks. --Zappaz 16:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but I don't generally try to tame talk pages, as opposed to article pages. I believe I would be unable to do so, and am not sure I want to, anyway. I never tamed the talk pages of the Prem Rawat complex as they swole and flamed; instead, I merely slogged through the massive invective to glean the gems pertaining to article editing. Talk pages serve as pressure valves where both sides can vent their mutual hostility without damaging the article with reverts or massive deletes. I compared here the activity on the Hate group talk page with that on its article page over the last few days, and while the talk page has taken off, PR-style, the article has only undergone a few minor edits. Indeed, the raging on the talk page isn't even about the article page or its editing anymore, it's just degenerated into the same old pro/anti PR warring we saw in the PR talk pages. Heck, we could just open one of the old PR talk archives and paste it on this talk page, and no one would notice the difference, LOL! I think if we didn't have this talk page outlet, people would be venting their spleen on the Hate group article page instead, reverting it every five minutes. Between those two options, I'd rather have it the current way.

Now, that's not to say I don't recognize a problem, or that I wouldn't like to see calm and cheerful cooperation on the talk page also. That's a bigger issue, though, one involving people loving their neighbor as themselves and loving their enemies. No third party can impose that from the outside; it has to be a series of personal choices on the parts of the participants (or should I say, warriors) themselves. Your comment above about compounding the problem is insightful. It starts with each one of us, and it ends with each one of us. As an editor actively participating on the Hate group pages, you, Zappaz, your contribution to the editing atmosphere in either direction is significant. If you fuel the fire, it grows; if you dampen it, it shrinks. The legitimate business of the talk page is to discuss editing the article, a task you must perform with Andries and others who don't share your views. There's a sneaking respect in there between you and Andries, and you can build on that. Putting your nose to the editing grindstone and not becoming upset by or involved in the invective is the order of the day. Let others do what they will; as to you, you will be the example. And if someone says something outrageous and you're tempted to shoot back, think of it this way: You're there on the editor team representing a viewpoint, and indeed representing the group behind that viewpoint, whether officially or not. Now, I'm not saying you're anyone's stooge or spy, that's obviously not the point. But it's absolutely true that what you do here reflects on your spiritual path and on PR. In the long run, how you do everything you do is probably more important even than what you do. The big Christian motto going around these last few years was, "what would Jesus do?" I put that on you now as, if he were here writing on the talk page and article page, what would Maharaji do? That should be your standard. Here's a little prayer from A Course in Miracles that puts a fine point on it; it may or may not fit the circumstances exactly, but it expresses the sentiment and attitude I am advocating:

I am here only to be truly helpful.

I am here to represent Him Who sent me.

I do not have to worry about what to say or what to do, because He Who sent me will direct me.

I am content to be wherever He wishes, knowing He goes there with me.

I will be healed as I let Him teach me to heal.

This is an awfully long way for me to go 'round just to tell you that I'm not going to do anything for you. But there's something far more powerful on the horizon: You're going to do it for yourself! Be the one. You have the power; I know you can and will do it. I'll be watching. Make me proud. Make Maharaji proud. Make God proud. Get in there and spread the peace and the edits around.

--Gary D 20:01, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Gary ... I may not agree with you on some of the beliefs you expressed, but I appreciate your kindness and the time you took in answering. I'll do my best to calm things down, starting home first :) From my studies, to attempt to know "what Jesus would do" would a bit of a minefield ... and I would not know what Maharaji would do either (from what I have read, he will probably ignore the whole thing and let it be) ... I liked the prayer though... Thanks again.

--Zappaz 20:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words of encouragement. I may say that it certainly feels better now... --Zappaz 04:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Glad to hear it feels better; my guess is that if it feels good in your gut, you're probably on the right track! I saw the substantial material you added to the Hate group article page—great stuff, and I don't think you'll get too much "where's you authority" flak when using material from the FBI! Good job; moving on to the article and getting those edits done is what it's all about at WP. I also saw you on the Ex-premies talk page extending a hand and trying to cool the flames with other editors. Again, good show! The good news is that you'll be amazed how often a peaceful demeanor will bring around "the other guy." The bad news is that even when it doesn't, you still have to keep up your own peaceful demeanor anyway! LOL. Sometimes it doesn't seem fair, but it always works out for the best in the end. It turns out those goddamn bastards are our brothers, LOL. When we get that through our thick skulls, then we automatically do what Jesus would do, and Maharaji too, I bet. Hang in there. --Gary D 08:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Happy to weigh in again. Let me get right to my POV, which colors my conclusions: As you may have gleaned from my comments, I believe the proper use of the term "hate group" as it has been used and defined so far is limited to those who hate broad categories of people, unconnected to behavior or specific events. Hence, I think that its use in connection with NRMs or specific causes like abortion or animals rights is incorrect. Now, language is always evolving, and with sufficient usage over a sustained period the term's meaning could be broadened to include these areas, but I think such broader use is currently a misnomer.

For me, the upshot is that there is still an encyclopedic aspect to discussing the recent application of the term "hate group" to an NRM or specific activity group, but it's a narrow one, and it applies strictly to the bare fact that the term is being so used, rather than to attempting to substantively compare "true" hate groups with other groups to whom the term is applied. In other words, the article's full-blown analysis focused on the groups themselves should be reserved for true "status-hating" groups, mostly racists I suppose: "Dear reader, these are hate groups, here is their history, here is their structure, here are their activities." Then, there is room for a sort of P.S. mention about the term "hate group" being used in other arenas, like NRMs and specific activity groups. I also like the current counterpoint in the article responding that the use of such a loaded term in these other areas is propagandist. But I think the bare listing of the fact of that other area usage and the countercomplaint about such usage is about all there should be. Beyond that, I agree with Antaeus Feldspar that it's just too far afield of the core definition. I'm talking about, like, one paragraph. Bang: The term has occasionally been given a wider use lately, as with abortion, animal rights, NRMs. Bang: on the pro-NRM side, the Scientologists have been called that. Bang: on the anti-NRM side, the ex-premies have been called that. Bang: Shupe and Darnell question use of this term in the NRM context. And get out.

So I'm sideswiping your NPOV question by recommending instead that the whole section be so reduced and streamlined essentially into bullet points of fact that there isn't even room in the section for POV to build up. A discussion on whether Scientologists are properly defined as a hate group, if it is merited at all (a big "if" for me, given my premises above), would go on the Scientology page; that discussion as to the ex-premies, big "if" again, would go on a PR page; same for animal rights and abortion foes, their own pages, more big "ifs." The substantive discussion of violence brewing either for or against NRMs, if merited, deserves its own article or a section in the NRMs article, and Introvigne and Barker would all go there. Frankly, I would really like to see you take out your machete on this section; among the benefits of doing so, aside from the obvious one of greatly improving this section (IMO), is the pleasing irony that you will find Antaeus and probably Andries on your side in this endeavor. I wish you happy slashing. --Gary D 09:43, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Zap, I think your slash edit on Hate groups was exactly the ticket. I think you, and we all, will be very happy with the results of your work. Thanks for giving my slant on this a shot, and good job! --Gary D 21:29, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

• In talk:cult you say that the checklists must go because they are unscientific, though they are clearly mentioned as disputed and attributed to the anti-cult movement. The one by Lifton is referenced. I support replacement of the other checklist by the one by Eileen Barker. Andries 12:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• In talk:hate group you support a checklist presented as proven fact that is unattributed, but just made up and you oppose my view that the checklist must be referenced. Andries 12:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I may miss something but it seems that you use double standards to support your views. I hope that your can re-consider your opinions about references for checklists on these subjects. Thanks in advance. Andries 12:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good point, Andries. I do not have a problem with these checklists if they are placed in the destructive cults article. --Zappaz 19:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, thanks for you changing your opinion. The problem is, I think, that it is difficult to distinguish between a harmless NRM, a cult and a destructive cult. That is why I think the checklists are important and should stay in the cult article, or at least directly linked to. I mean, my former group has some destructive/exploiting traits, which I only found out after nine years. Besides many scholars, the media and the public do not make the distinction between a cult and a destructive cult. Andries 19:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is exactly the reason: the media and the public do not make that distinction. My hope is that the Wikipedia articles can throw some neutral light into that confusion. That is my hope. With your help and the help of other editors editing those articles, we have a good chance to suceed in doing that. And that would be a wonderful thing. --Zappaz 01:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

May be it is because of my English but I think I was the co-author of the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. So were you. So was Jossi. I admit that Gary D was the main author. May be I am confused because of the subtle language differences between Dutch and Engish. Same for e.g. the word "study" that has a slightly different meaning when compared to the Dutch word "studie", which was, in hindsight, the reason for one of my many disputes with Jossi. Andries 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I only said on talk:past teachings of Prem Rawat that I do not understand you. In fact, I defended you against Jim's accusations. Andries 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I checked what I wrote on forum8 about you the last 60 days and I could only find the following post by me in which I defended you. http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/7621.html Andries 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really do not understand why you think that my behavior towards you is inappropriate. Andries 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I think we have to concentrate on articles to prevent endless and senseless discussions. I do not think that we will ever agree about your complaints about my behavior. Andries 01:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I clearly see that you do not want to take responsibility for your actions. Fair enough. --Zappaz 05:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I do take responsibility for my words. I write here under my real name and I even clarified my words outside Wikipedia upon your request here in Wikipedia. This is far more than the guidelines in Wikipedia or its spirit demand. Andries 18:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Besides, I did not make a cloaked accusation towards you. I had no other intention than to defend both Jim and you. What can I do to convince you of that? In that post I explicitly wrote that I believed you to be sincere. It is not my fault that you go far beyond the literal meaning of what I wrote there and suspect that I made a cunning attack on your credibility. It took me even a while before I understood to what extent you had misinterpreted what I wrote. Andries 18:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I appreciate the information from Marc Galanter in the DLM article. Andries 18:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) ~

• I generally consider apostates' testimony to be reliable. For years I thought that the detractors of SSB had been dirty liars who had been bribed to give false tesimonies and I even actively helped to distribute one discourse by SSB in which he said that. I am myself an apostate and I know that I did not exaggerate in the case of SSB. Please take into account that leaving is a lot of trauma, as Barrett wrote. Ardent followers usually only leave when they feel they have no choice based on their own experience and the information that they have received. And then getting branded as a liar or as unreliable after a traumatic experience is unfair and very insulting. Andries 08:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The fact that you have had a traumatic experience with one specific NRM, does not warrant animosity againts 'all NRMs. That is is a significat finding in my study. Your case is not isolated. BTW, apostate testimony is indeed considered not reliable because of the huge emotional baggage they carrry as a result of their change of heart. I feel for you, Andries, but please do not use WP as an unguent to ease your pain. That is unfair to others and mainly unfair to yourself. -Zappaz 14:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Zappaz, the emotional baggage clearly wanes after some time. So that means, following your line of reasoning, that apostate's testimony will automatically become reliable after some time. Andries 16:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Zappaz, following your line of reasoning, a judge should consider the tesimony of a victim of a crime unreliable because the victim is too emotionally involved. I am not a aware that judges have general opionions about the reliability of the victims of crimes. It seems that your line of reasoning is non mainstream and belongs to a small minority which according to NPOV guidelines should not to be mentioned. Andries 20:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am working on a major extension to the apostasy article that includes information about this. --Zappaz 19:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• With regards to my alleged double standards (or anticultists'), please take into account that I did not remove the ex-premies from the hate group article and more importantly that I did not criticize several NRMs, like Swami Roberto and Benjamin Creme's Share international that I created, though I personally believe that they are either frauds or self deceived. I only oppose a whitewashed picture of religious leaders, like SSB and Prem Rawat here in Wikipedia whose lack of authenticity has been well documented elsewhere. In the beginning, before you were here, supporters of Prem Rawat removed documented accusations from the Prem Rawat article. Andries 08:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Same as above. The fact that you have had a traumatic experience with Sai Baba does not mean that all gurus are bad, or that all pictures of religious leaders in WP are a whitewash. --Zappaz 14:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Zappaz, either I did not make myself clear or you did not read my reply to you well. I said that the entries on Swami Roberto and Benjamin Creme did not give a whitewashed picture because there is not documentation that they are either frauds or self deceived. This is in sharp contrast to SSB and Prem Rawat. I never meant to say that all pictures of religious leaders in Wikipedia are whitewashed. On the contrary. Andries 08:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. From my research, I disagree with your perception that Prem Rawat is self-deceived or a fraud. That is an example of the effects of the propaganda disseminated by his critics. --Zappaz 19:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, Prem Rawat is at least incompetent for the profession of a guru or Perfect Master. For example he said that Jesus gave Knowledge. Andries 19:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean? Pls clarify.--Zappaz 00:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• In talk:cult you say that the checklists must go because they are unscientific, though they are clearly mentioned as disputed and attributed to the anti-cult movement. The one by Lifton is referenced. I support replacement of the other checklist by the one by Eileen Barker. Andries 12:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• In talk:hate group you support a checklist presented as proven fact that is unattributed, but just made up and you oppose my view that the checklist must be referenced. Andries 12:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I may miss something but it seems that you use double standards to support your views. I hope that your can re-consider your opinions about references for checklists on these subjects. Thanks in advance. Andries 12:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good point, Andries. I do not have a problem with these checklists if they are placed in the destructive cults article. --Zappaz 19:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, thanks for you changing your opinion. The problem is, I think, that it is difficult to distinguish between a harmless NRM, a cult and a destructive cult. That is why I think the checklists are important and should stay in the cult article, or at least directly linked to. I mean, my former group has some destructive/exploiting traits, which I only found out after nine years. Besides many scholars, the media and the public do not make the distinction between a cult and a destructive cult. Andries 19:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is exactly the reason: the media and the public do not make that distinction. My hope is that the Wikipedia articles can throw some neutral light into that confusion. That is my hope. With your help and the help of other editors editing those articles, we have a good chance to suceed in doing that. And that would be a wonderful thing. --Zappaz 01:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

May be it is because of my English but I think I was the co-author of the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. So were you. So was Jossi. I admit that Gary D was the main author. May be I am confused because of the subtle language differences between Dutch and Engish. Same for e.g. the word "study" that has a slightly different meaning when compared to the Dutch word "studie", which was, in hindsight, the reason for one of my many disputes with Jossi. Andries 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I only said on talk:past teachings of Prem Rawat that I do not understand you. In fact, I defended you against Jim's accusations. Andries 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I checked what I wrote on forum8 about you the last 60 days and I could only find the following post by me in which I defended you. http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/7621.html Andries 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really do not understand why you think that my behavior towards you is inappropriate. Andries 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I think we have to concentrate on articles to prevent endless and senseless discussions. I do not think that we will ever agree about your complaints about my behavior. Andries 01:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I clearly see that you do not want to take responsibility for your actions. Fair enough. --Zappaz 05:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I do take responsibility for my words. I write here under my real name and I even clarified my words outside Wikipedia upon your request here in Wikipedia. This is far more than the guidelines in Wikipedia or its spirit demand. Andries 18:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Besides, I did not make a cloaked accusation towards you. I had no other intention than to defend both Jim and you. What can I do to convince you of that? In that post I explicitly wrote that I believed you to be sincere. It is not my fault that you go far beyond the literal meaning of what I wrote there and suspect that I made a cunning attack on your credibility. It took me even a while before I understood to what extent you had misinterpreted what I wrote. Andries 18:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I appreciate the information from Marc Galanter in the DLM article. Andries 18:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) ~

• I generally consider apostates' testimony to be reliable. For years I thought that the detractors of SSB had been dirty liars who had been bribed to give false tesimonies and I even actively helped to distribute one discourse by SSB in which he said that. I am myself an apostate and I know that I did not exaggerate in the case of SSB. Please take into account that leaving is a lot of trauma, as Barrett wrote. Ardent followers usually only leave when they feel they have no choice based on their own experience and the information that they have received. And then getting branded as a liar or as unreliable after a traumatic experience is unfair and very insulting. Andries 08:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The fact that you have had a traumatic experience with one specific NRM, does not warrant animosity againts 'all NRMs. That is is a significat finding in my study. Your case is not isolated. BTW, apostate testimony is indeed considered not reliable because of the huge emotional baggage they carrry as a result of their change of heart. I feel for you, Andries, but please do not use WP as an unguent to ease your pain. That is unfair to others and mainly unfair to yourself. -Zappaz 14:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Zappaz, the emotional baggage clearly wanes after some time. So that means, following your line of reasoning, that apostate's testimony will automatically become reliable after some time. Andries 16:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Zappaz, following your line of reasoning, a judge should consider the tesimony of a victim of a crime unreliable because the victim is too emotionally involved. I am not a aware that judges have general opionions about the reliability of the victims of crimes. It seems that your line of reasoning is non mainstream and belongs to a small minority which according to NPOV guidelines should not to be mentioned. Andries 20:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am working on a major extension to the apostasy article that includes information about this. --Zappaz 19:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• With regards to my alleged double standards (or anticultists'), please take into account that I did not remove the ex-premies from the hate group article and more importantly that I did not criticize several NRMs, like Swami Roberto and Benjamin Creme's Share international that I created, though I personally believe that they are either frauds or self deceived. I only oppose a whitewashed picture of religious leaders, like SSB and Prem Rawat here in Wikipedia whose lack of authenticity has been well documented elsewhere. In the beginning, before you were here, supporters of Prem Rawat removed documented accusations from the Prem Rawat article. Andries 08:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Same as above. The fact that you have had a traumatic experience with Sai Baba does not mean that all gurus are bad, or that all pictures of religious leaders in WP are a whitewash. --Zappaz 14:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Zappaz, either I did not make myself clear or you did not read my reply to you well. I said that the entries on Swami Roberto and Benjamin Creme did not give a whitewashed picture because there is not documentation that they are either frauds or self deceived. This is in sharp contrast to SSB and Prem Rawat. I never meant to say that all pictures of religious leaders in Wikipedia are whitewashed. On the contrary. Andries 08:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. From my research, I disagree with your perception that Prem Rawat is self-deceived or a fraud. That is an example of the effects of the propaganda disseminated by his critics. --Zappaz 19:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, Prem Rawat is at least incompetent for the profession of a guru or Perfect Master. For example he said that Jesus gave Knowledge. Andries 19:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean? Pls clarify.--Zappaz 00:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the Apostasy article works quite well as a single article featuring sections for each religion, since the article can then discuss apostasy as an overall interpersonal or social phenomenon, and how it plays out in the contexts of these various religions. And if any specific religion's section grows sufficiently large and detailed, it can then be broken out into its own article. This article looks good overall, except the Christian section can't just be a link to Great Apostasy, since that is actually an inverted, almost ironic use of the term: Instead of the main group being left by a few, as is the case with standard apostasy, here instead some small, selective groups within Christianity use the term "Great Apostasy" in the reverse sense to mean that essentially the whole Christian faith walked out on them. So this section needs instead a discussion of standard Christian apostasy, maybe followed by a note to the effect that this term has also been turned back and used against the main group, see Great Apostasy. --Gary D 21:00, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Gary. Yes, my intention was to add a summary to the section on Christianity and have a see also for the Great Apostasy. It will be hard to do a short summary for this section, though... Once I am done I'll let you know. I would appreciate some copyedit from you, if your could. --Zappaz 22:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you consider revising your removal of Category:Extinct Languages from Sanskrit language? I'd prefer to persuade you, rather than just reverting the article.

Frequent study, choral and liturgical use does not make a language "living". Use of Latin in the Catholic Church before the 1960s didn't mean that Latin was alive then, except through French or Romanian, or its other descendants. Even its use in discussions within the curia didn't make it living. Show me a fair-sized community for which classical Sanskrit is the first language for all speakers, and I'll buy that Sanskrit is living. Note that I don't mean some commune of Sanskrit revivalists, either. Ben 04:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Ben. The issue here is the definition of "extint language". Is this taxonomy used elsewhere? Let's explore that. --Zappaz 15:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty happy with the definition in the Extinct language article, which describes them as languages for which there are no native speakers. I'd be a bit pickier, though, to make sure I ruled out revivalist efforts like those claimed to exist for Manx, Sanskrit, and others, by explaining that there was no community of native speakers. (In fact, if this definition implied that Modern Hebrew does not make Biblical Hebrew non-extinct, I could probably live with that. But that's my preference and my extension of the definition, not the def itself)

If you'd like, I can do some research on the subject to explore this. -Ben 22:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That will be excellent... a good and shared understanding on this would set a precedent that can be used on other articles about languages as well... happy hunting! --Zappaz 01:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you were so "generous" as to suggest New Year's resolutions for me, I thought I'd return the favor:

1. Act with integrity.

What do I mean by "integrity"? It's the opposite of a double standard: instead of deciding in each case "which standard works out in my favor?" and advocating that standard there, and another one over here, and still another over there, figure out what standard represents actual fairness, and try to abide by that standard. Refuse the temptation to define any case in which the standard is not in your favor as an exception to the standard or a clear indication that the standard needs to be modified. If you ever get good at this "integrity" stuff then yes, you will find cases where your original standard didn't anticipate the complexity of the situation and its own complexity will have to be enhanced -- but don't use that as a cheap dodge to maintain a double standard. Live by your new standard as you did by the old and don't give in to the temptation to change it just because in this particular situation it didn't work out to your advantage. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see that I may be preceived by you as acting without integrity so I will make sure that your perception of me changes. Because integrity is something that I consider precious. --Zappaz 02:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar is quite a problem. He is engaged in cyber-bullying and puts people down. He is arbitralily deleting material. I saw he was causing problems with you too.

Did he go against an arbritrttion?

I had several tough moments with Antaeus here at WP. My strategy these days is to avoid him as much as possible. --Zappaz 02:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, there is currently an RfC on Antaeus Feldspar: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antaeus Feldspar. Please enter anything you know about Antaeus' disputed behavior. Thank you. --AI 8 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

I am going to file an RfC on Antaeus Feldspar this monday. The last RfC on him was deleted while I was away from Wikipedia and is now inaccessible. Do you know if there is any way to see still a copy of it? --AI 23:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno... I think that once deleted there is no way to recover. You will have to ask a friendly admin. --Zappaz 23:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to refile for RfC on Antaeus, especially now with an arbitration I am involved in. But, I will be starting the RfC again as soon as I am finished with the arb. Antaeus is still making subtle personal attacks in edit summaries. I am going to document as much as I can then I will let you know since RfC requires 2 users for validation. --AI 10:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Zappaz. My apologies again for the delay. First, let me thank you for citing my Approach on your user page and for copyediting it – I really appreciate and feel honoured that you go on to recommend it to other editors. Secondly, I'm afraid I will not be editing the article in question since I have been abstaining from all article contributions for the last several months for reasons that go beyond the scope of this note, though still helping on PR, RfC, etc. (since 2005, I have been back in limited capacity to work on the series of articles I originally worked on upon first joining WP – I authored the Central African Federation a few days ago, it is my first article contribution in several months). All that said, please feel to consult me on anything you wish. While I am largely a 20th Century historian, I am also a professional translator, therefore, I may prove useful to your work here on that front. So, do not hesitate to ask my opinions on any item, nor entering these or portions of which as article edits yourself (I could care less whether my name appears in an article's revision history as per given edits). At your disposal,

Cordially & sincerely yours,

El_C 22:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer of help. I will be consuling with you on several of the linguistic aspects of the article. --Zappaz 02:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zappas, love the work youre doing. Especially in this particular article. God Bless.

-Eric 00:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Eric.... but I share the laurels with a bunch of other wonderful editors! --Zappaz 04:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello Zappaz, are you sure with Dirya? I am pretty sure, it is "Divya", as it was printed in the old materials, has sanskrit roots meaning "divine,heavenly", also written "Divya Sandes Parisad" with different transliteration as mentioned in "Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen" from Reinhart Hummel at page 75.regards Thomas h 11:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is the spelling in George Chryssides' dictionary. I can double check ith other sources. --Zappaz 21:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Found another source at [1] its "Divya". Thomas h 11:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. That article is citing the same articles, and could easily be a circular reference ( a mispelling creeps in and then cited and quoted by others, perpetuating it). I am researching this via a colleague of mine in Mumbai. BTW, The Dialog Center is probably from where Andries picked up that spelling. [2]--Zappaz 16:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Technically possible, but believe me, in 14 years, i have never heard of a Dirya Sandesh Parishad. On ex-premie.org there is only Divya Sandesh Parishad mentioned as well; Divya and Parisad have sanskrit roots, the former meaning divine , the latter meaning gathering, assembly, group. Thomas h 16:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't seen too much action on this on peer review in a while. Are you still actively working on it? If not, this should be archived... is it OK to do this? I'll give you a little while to respond and then archive it :-) Good luck with getting it to FA status! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I got some help from some fellows. You can archive it. -- Zappaz 03:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Zap. I have been away. I will take a pass at the article. --Gary D 19:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, Zap. I continue to be heavily occupied elsewhere, and I suspect it may be time I headed outta here. I took a look at the article, and it's pretty good; I don't think my editing is particularly needed. Since it has already been listed as a featured article, I'm hesitant to tinker with it. So let's leave the matter with my congratulations to you for your hard work and success in getting it listed. And best of luck and success to you (and jossi and Andries and all the crew; please pass my regards along to all of them) in general. --Gary D 03:58, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your presence 'round these wild frontiers will be sorely missed. Thank you for all the help and take good care. --Zappaz 05:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously interested in creating and editing articles, or just in playing games? I don't know if you're trying to prevent a certain group from appearing on the list of purported cults, are pushing some POV, or what. Whatever it is, please don't waste the time of other editors. I asked you if you had any objections to the exisintg sourcing and you said no. Then a day later you start in on attacking it. I don't care whether we use the queen of england as a source - but if you agree to something then please stick with it, at least for a few days. Thank you. -Willmcw 01:50, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your accussations are unfounded and unwarranted, and your comments about wasting time can be applied to you as well. You are wasting everybody's time by going against consensus made on that article. See my arguments at Talk:list of purported cults. --Zappaz 01:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a few quick notes:

1. You might want to take a look at Template:inuse.
2. The bullet on Template:sup looks a bit strange to me when on the real page (the visual flow jumps up to the <sup> and back down to the bullet).
3. I see a doubled Wpost on the Heaven's Gate entry (didn't want to fix right now since I assume you would be using {{inuse}} and just did not know about it).
4. I'm not sure about it, but I think you will sooner or later yelled at at WP:TFD for creating a template with such a generic name as Template:sup (and perhaps Template:Location too)

Other than that, great work on the cleanup.

cesarb 20:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers. I do not know much about templates... just my first foray... I cannot see anything on Template:inuse ????? --Zappaz 20:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should see a big green box warning other editors that someone is doing a huge edit on the page and they should hold off editing until it's done.

See also Wikipedia:Template messages.

cesarb 20:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes... Now I see. Thanks. --Zappaz 20:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re cult: it looks as if willmcw violated the 3 revert rule by blanket reverting your edits. -G

Thanks for the nice words. Will see what I can do to comply. Tom Haws 22:50, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't edit (or delete) my talk page comments. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:51, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

????? I did not tocuh your page, god forbid! Please be careful with your acussations. It is not pleasant...--Zappaz 16:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to my comment on the Talk:List of purported cults page that you deleted in this edit [3]. -Willmcw 20:58, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

If that is the case, then you have to sign your messages. What you wrote there was a lie. --Zappaz 21:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did sign my message in the RfC summary and then you came through and stripped off the signatures. When I added a second comment I tried to follow your lead and didn't add one. Please decide whether you will allow signatures or not. What did I write that was incorrect? -Willmcw 21:58, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Enough of this silly game, Will. What you wrote there was just a lie. RfC summaries do not carry a signature and you know better than acusse another editor. I am off that article until Monday. Cheers. --Zappaz 22:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so then why did you mention that I didn't sign if that is the norm? I'm confused. I'm also confused because you have been making accusations too, by writing about "one editor is using sources..." and "Same editor is adding..." Are you the only one who is allowed to make accusations? And what was the lie that you are now accusing me of? If you can't specify it, then I'd assume you are making it up. BTW, I did find an incorrect statement that you've added. I did not accuse you of "vandalism when challenged on the validity of sources". I wrote that deleting proper sources is vandalism. And it is. Please stop doing it. Thank you. -Willmcw 22:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The statements I made were facts, not an opinion, while your comment was an outright lie (I did contribute to the article and I did not engaged in vadalims). The sources I challenged you on and clearly discussed them in the talk page. Hence, their deletion was NOT vandalism. Or is it only you with the right to v=being bold in editing? Clearly we are MIS-communicating here, probably beacuse of antagonistic POVs. Let's make an effort to get overe these. --Zappaz 01:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zappaz, thank you for voting for me in my adminship nomination, and for your kind comment. I very much appreciate your support. SlimVirgin 00:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

My honor and pleasure... --Zappaz 01:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HI Zappaz, take a look here [4] This is the first LaRouche case, held back in August 2004, in which the arbcom upheld the principle of no advocacy that is outlined in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The arbcom ruled: "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind"." Best, SlimVirgin 23:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Very useful. Thank you. --Zappaz 23:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A vote to merge is always also a vote to redirect as we must follow the GFDL attribution rules. Merge and delete is not a valid option see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion#Incompatible votes. - SimonP 16:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the current sitution isn't ideal. Your best option might be to list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion- SimonP 19:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

For your extremely kind comments, and your vote, in support of my RfA! Keep up the good work! All the best, El_C 00:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — Phil Welch 19:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor, user:Jayjg, cleaned it up before I got around to it. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:18, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

PS, if you know anything about it, we're looking for a source for the assertion that a judge called the Cult Awareness Network a "hate group". Thanks, -Willmcw 06:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, that was added by Ed Poor. You can ask him. --Zappaz 16:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, he just posted what looks a bit like a farewell notice on his talk page. There has already been some discussion in the article's talk page, so the original author was has had some notice if they watch their prior contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:47, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to see other editors helping out with this article. '--Zappaz 03:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hehe...actually, I did quite a bit of work on guru years ago, but eventually got tired of arguing with Andries (check out the top of Talk:Guru/archive1) before you and Goethean even arrived. Mkweise 05:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah... I have beent arguing with Andries since I started editing WP. Mostly trying to compensate against his crusade against anything that reminds him of his affiliation with SSB. I have told him many times that WP is not a replacement for therapy, and that his advocacy is only making him more frustrated... --Zappaz 15:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zappaz, I have placed a 3rr violation complaint against you on the Administrators noticeboard for your recent reverting on List of self-proclaimed deities. Although I applaud your efforts to ensure wikipedia is as objective as possible, your aggressive editing disturbs the normal process of improvement on wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 05:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to start a dialog to discuss List of self-proclaimed deities. I have read all of your comments on the talk page, and I am a bit lost as to what you are trying to accomplish. It seems pointless to insert a paragraph of buffertext on jesus when we already have an article that discusses the history of the beliefs in jesus in detail. I agree that the older revisions of the article gave insufficient coverage to religions that believe everyone is a god, but the current version addresses that. Tables are an acceptable layout element on wikipedia, and the page in it's current form is attractive and readable. I haven't found your claims of protection by editors to be true at all, as I was able to add Sollog without difficulty. As an outsider who walked into the issue the only problem I saw in the article was your relentless editing and debating. --Gmaxwell 05:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a bloody mess. When I read it for the first time I was taken aback by the lack of rigour and the poor quality of the article. Nevertheless I have chosen to slow down and clearly describe the dispute. See Talk:List_of_self-proclaimed_deities#Process --Zappaz 15:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concern. I have been at the opposite end of Willmcw on the dispute on List of purported cults, and whoever followed that dispute, may have noted that it took a considerable effort from my part to create an environment in which the article could be developed within consensus. My concern is that Willmcw has a strong bias agains new religious movements and he will need to show a high degree of restrain not to misuse admin powers once vested as an admin. Once Willmcw responds to my concern and publicly states to fellow editors his intentions when editing articles related to new religions and purported cults, I will be delighted to add my support, as I do not doubt his abilities as an editor. --Zappaz 11:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I'm not exactly sure I know what you are asking. A general rule is that admins should avoid using the major tools (page protection, editor blocking) in content matters where they are involved. If I follow that rule then becoming an admin should not have much effect on my editing in the field of new religious movements. Naturally, I expect to use the minor admin tools (rollback, page move) when they are helpful. (Though I'm ambivalent about the rollback button. I like to explain the reverts that I feel are necessary, except in the cases of clearest mischief.) I'd be very honored (and a bit surprised) if you give your support, and I will continue to consider you a valuable contributor and collaborator whether you do so or not. List of purported cults was not easily arrived at, but I think that it is now an article of which we can all be proud. And not just the outcome - the discussion, though contentious at times, was always polite and to the point. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support for my adminship. By doing so you have gained the right to say "But I voted for you!" anytime I disagree with you. Cheers, -Willmcw June 28, 2005 18:05 (UTC)

I have no doubt you will be a good admin. Congratulations. --Zappaz 29 June 2005 00:47 (UTC)

---

I do not see a personal attack in what I wrote. I thought I had carefully described your POV, your assertions about yourself (self admitted cult apologist) and your behavior with regards to your edits here without passing a judgement on any of them. Andries 00:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a clear personal attack and you know it. Now do the honorable thing, apologize and help me reign the vandalism by Anon at Rick Ross.--ZappaZ 00:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you pride yourself on being a cult apologist then I think there was nothing wrong with my wording on talk:Rick Ross. What I wrote there was a reaction on your presentation of yourself as completely unbiased and impartial about Rick Ross, which is clearly untrue. I will look at the Rick Ross article. I have not studied it well. Andries 01:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was impartial (are you?). An apology is still expected. --ZappaZ 01:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You gave the other editors the impression that you were impartial when you wrote "again, let me made it absolutely clear, that I have nothing personal against Mr. Ross." To me that sounded somewhat dishonest and needed to be corrected with polite words about your self-admitted POV and your behavior. Andries 01:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely have nothing personal against Ross. --ZappaZ 01:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am sorry, but you made a lot of personal comments about me that I consider far worse than this one (taken into the context) and I did not demand an apology from you. Andries 01:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, If I ever cross the line in my opposition to your POV, please alert me. I need feedback as much as you do. --ZappaZ 01:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask me, I think that you have crossed the line many, many times and continue to do so on a daily basis. The way you cross the line includes using double standards, insisting on using long quotes, not reading and responding carefully to what I wrote on the talk pages, and insisting on using non-notable or non-scholarly sources. In on other words, I think you have no sense of fairness in pushing your POV. Though I share your opinion that the anti-cultists sometimes exaggerate and generalize too much and the media sensationalize too much, I consider your POV extreme. Andries 13:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I will take that into account in our future exchanges. Just note that you may be doing the same, as I have exactly the same concerns about your own behavior. Nevertheless I think that so far, we have made articles better by virtue of our opposing POVs. And that is, after all what matters in this project. --ZappaZ 16:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your 3RR report on the Administrators noticeboard. There is a template for reporting 3RR violations, as is mentioned at the top of the page "To report a violation, there is a template at the bottom of the article which you should make a copy of and fill out (i.e. do not edit the original). Here's an example of what a listing should look like..." Please use this when reporting 3RR violations. Also, beware, you have also violated the 3RR on that article. You may want to try the dispute resolution process. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that in the heat of the discussion I broke the rule myself. --ZappaZ 01:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I've had a look, and agree with your position. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --ZappaZ 20:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curisoity, how'd I end up on the list of people whos opinion count?--Tznkai 17:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your edits at Human, and thought that your opinion would be useful in that dispute. --ZappaZ 20:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it is being used as a way to throw mud at religious groups that are not mainstream and thus inherently POV.
  • Gee you never bothered to say so before. -Willmcw 18:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

You acusse me of "trolling for votes", Will? I wasn't. I don't know how Mel and Tznkai would vote, but I respect their opinion as I respect yours. Regarding my statement above, yes, I think that way in particular after reading the comments by other editors on the VfD. I waited for four days before voting as I was not sure how to vote. Now I am. --ZappaZ 20:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change your mind, if I may ask? That's quite a reversal. -Willmcw 22:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Read the VfD comments by fellow editors. I though about it for quite a bit and realized that we were wrong in attempting to make that list work. I fact, I now think that many lists in WP have an inherent problem in them, in particular when used to create arbitrary taxonomies that only serve a certain POV. It was an honest attempt to get that list working within NPOV, and I learned to respect you as an editor while we were working on it. Nevertheless, I feel now strongly that the article needs to be deleted. If it gets deleted (uncertain at this point, given the lack of consensus), we should salvage what we can and move on to edit other articles. If it remains, I will be happy to continue working on it with your help and the help of others. --ZappaZ 23:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZappaZ, an acquaintance of mine vandalized the cult page at 22:44, 3 August 2005. You reverted it immediately, thank you very much. He then bragged about doing so on a large social email list that we share. The members of this list were talking about wikis and he was trying to show how vulnerable they are. I replied to his post by pointing out that you had fixed it, and scolded him. However he was unrepentant and just made some snide remark. I wonder if you can recommend how to handle this individual. This is not a bad person and I think if there were a human face on the work required to clean up, he might change his ways. This is not someone who has done a lot of damage, but they could use a little enlightenment. Do you want to say something to him? You can reach me by email to spot at draves dot org. Thanks again for your copious contributions.

Vandals quickly find out that their vandalims is short lived, and theny gave up. The average revert for a vandal edit is less that 1.5 minutes. --ZappaZ 05:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#FeloniousMonk. --goethean ॐ 17:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I've unprotected the article as per your request. Fire Star 04:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On that page you said:

• I am also surprised and disappointed at Willmcw's attitude against anons as presented in this page. I would expect a much higher level of restrain, and a more amicable, community-building attitude from an Admin than that.
• Will, I read this page in its entirity and you come across not very nicely, I must say.

I asked you a couple of times to explain specifically what you meant by those remarks. If you read over the page, as you say, then you read the extremely rude comments by Joe Moreno. How would you have handled him differently, and why do you criticize me but not him? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Joe Moreno is both a newby and a side on the dispute. You are a very experienced editor and admin. You could have:

• Asked for an RfC to get other editors involved
• Avoid making assumptions of bad faith such as "seem deceptively labeled" and use that for a revert
• avoided using terms such as "don't push your luck", as if you have the power to decide on an article's contents and in fact challenging the whole concept of collaborative editing and consensus
• You decided that a link was not good because it had, in your opinion "hominem attacks"
• You claimed that external liks "do not add anything to Wikipedia", when actually almost every article has links
• You did not acknowledge the deletions by Andries of material added by anons
• You seemed to ignore useful comments by editor Alan Kazev
• You did not delete personal attacks, and allowed escalation.

Hope you see these comments as constructive feedback. In the heat of a dispute, sometimes we lose sight of the basics.

--ZappaZ 00:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Moreno is no newbie, having edited under various IPs for at least a month.[5] In addition he's a webmaster, so hardly uninitiated into cyberspace norms. The links were deceptively labelled, implying that they were other websites. This article had 45 links, and Joe was demanding that we add more. Not criticisms, not rebuttals to the criticisms, not responses to the rebuttals of the criticism. Nope, he wanted to add rebuttals to the responses to the rebuttals of the criticisms. These websites are just bickering with each other and our article is caught in the middle. I didn't delete personal attacks? The one personal attack that I did remove you insisted on re-adding, three times. And then you criticize me. Weird. -Willmcw 04:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz your complaint about Willmcw includes

1. that Willmcw did not ask for a rfq, but I think that would have been too early because the editors did not seriously try to change the article or wrote specifically what was wrong with the article. The only serious complaint is one external link of Gerald Joe Moreno (he wanted two) that is now include in the article.
2. "the deletions by Andries of material added by anons". I am not aware that I deleted any new good material by anons. What are you referring to?

Andries 15:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, Will, you are saying that you acted in good faith and abided by WP policies? I read the complete thread on the talk page, and my assessment is different. You may want to ask other editors/admins for their opinion. As for you Andries, I am still awating for an apology on your personal attack on me. Do that and then we can talk, OK? --ZappaZ 16:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zappaz, how do you propose I should respond to these last posts? [6][7] Thanks in advance. -Willmcw 06:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, easy... Acknowledge that you may have played a part in creating such animosity, step back, and ask other editor(s) to assist with the dispute. It works wonders. --ZappaZ 00:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll pass on the first bit, but take you up on the other two. Please assist with the dispute. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:29, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox says spamming talk pages is A-OK! --goethean ॐ 16:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Yes, I'm interested. Although we might be able to come up with a more accurate name. I mean, freedom of religion impliues that our freedom to worship is being threatened or something. The nub of it is combating or countering prejudice against religion and spirituality, and ensuring neutrality. --goethean ॐ 14:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created. We can always change the name later. --goethean ॐ 15:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zappaz, I think Antaeus likes to censor valid POV which inherently discredits his own POV and therefore his action is a violation of NPOV. WP:NPOV states that all POVs should be fairly represented. What do you think? --AI 02:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated you for Adminship. Hope you accept. Good luck and thanks for all your efforts. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It is nothing personal, but let me clarify and say that I voted neutral on your RFA because I am basically uncomfortable about promoting a user that generates too much controversy in the minds of other people, even though their claims may be unwarranted, and what is really NPOV is POV to them. As a general philosophy, I am wary of any admin heavily involved in any type of POV dispute because there is a strong temptation to use the sysop tools to one's advantage. Also, if you dig deep into the archives of ANI and RC, you will find a number of cases where a user at one end of such a dispute will accuse an admin at the other end of the dispute (rightly or wrongly) that he/she is abusing sysop powers to maintain the "right version". Such accusations, in my mind, generate a perception that the admin in question is not neutral, and thus does not lack integrity... nevermind that it may actually be a false rumour.

I do not fault you for trying to maintain NPOV in very controversial subjects. But the fact of the matter is that however controversial the subject may be, at least someone will want to put a bullseye on your head. That is unavoidable and so there are no easy answers on "the right way" to do this (other than to completely stop participating in editing those pages). Good luck. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Zappaz, and I'm sorry you're having a hard time over the RfA. They can be pretty nerve-wracking. I'm not familiar enough with your edits to be able to give advice, but I'd say there's nothing wrong with being controversial so long as you're editing within the policies, particularly NPOV, NOR, and citing good sources. So long as you do those three things, and you write in a very factual style, I don't see how you can be faulted, and we need editors prepared to deal with controversial issues. As for whether you should withdraw the nominatio, it depends on how it's making you feel. If you feel unhappy about it, then feel free to withdraw it; you can always try again in a couple of months if you still want to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I have decide not to withdraw my RfA, even if at this point it is highly unlikely that it will go through. I think that people that are opposing my nomination along the lines of a politically motivated agenda (i.e. opposing my POV in regard of NRMs) are doing a good job of showing their true colors without my help. I will let them shoot themselves in the foot :) --ZappaZ 18:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your RfA. Since you asked for constructive criticism, I'll note that you frequently revert good faith edits. We all revert, but doing so excessively can be an unfriendly and uncollegial way of editing an article that doesn't build consensus. The tasks that you mentioned, such as welcoming new users or participating in policy discussions, do not require administrative tools and I encourage you to go ahead and do them anyway. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did vote against you being an Admin, because, had I been in your place, had I respected myself and members and wanted the best for the community, I would not want to be an Admin. When I vote, I vote by reading that members participation and interactions, and try to decide if I would accept being an Admin had I been in that members place. And just that you don't have hard feelings, I would refuse to be an Admin myself, when being in my own places. :) Fadix 00:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear zappaz, thank you for your kind words. As I couldn#t back up my claims immediately, and you said you wre gone, I just want to give you may answer, that I already posted there here too:

Zappaz I couldn't agree more with you. I am glad there is an awareness like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. I don't see the use of this list except in creating some kind of pseudo-category, putting all kinds of people together, from mystics to psychotic mass-murderers and dictators. I don't know how this could help to elucitate the phenomemnon or cultural environment for the people concerned. Above that I fear that no-body wants to be really part of this list, which speaks volumes in itself. Since this list attempty to be a kind of pseudo-category, especially when it wants to be linked from the individual wikis, it is clear that it is not a 'natural' category. There very wording of the list, together with the type of grouping, I feel is hostile to anybody having an grounding in eastern culture. It's a list similar to 'list of all cults' and other lists to discreditate non-christian thought. Again: the intersection between the Divine realm and the human is much wider in Vedantic thought than I the west, where there are clearcut distinctions, and calling oneself 'God' is regarded as plasphmy. In Indian thought, almost any guru is being regarded as 'God' or 'Avatar' by his followers. Thus the problem of the list will be, that it is not representative at all. I could name you immediately ten more indian teachers who are called Avatar and have a fair western following. This is encouraged by indian scriptures who say: Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheshwara (Guru Gita). The goal of indian spiritaulity is to realize ones basic identity with God, which the 4 great Mahavakhyas state: Aham Brahmasmi. It is in this sense that the Guru, or Mentor serves as a focal-point for this identity, in being identified with Divinity at first. Furthermore the concept of Avatarhood depends on reincarnation. A human being is reincarnated in a process of upward evolution, to finally merge with the Divine. If someone has already reached Divinity, he may still reincarnate, but this time not to work out his individual karma, but to help further the Divine Evolution for others, similarely to the concept of the Bodhisattva in Buddhism. In fact AC Bahsham, says in 'The wonder that was India' that the Avatar-concept comes from Buddhism, from the concept of reincarnating Buddhas. I also don't see why one should participate in the discussion, how to improve the list, when one thinks that the whole idea of the list is basically flawed. Therefore I don't agree with you, alterego, that zappaz withdrew from discussion. Our objection is still valid. In short: why create a pseudocategory for people who don't want to be on such a list. Also, alterego, the way you spoke about, why you would include Ching Hai, that even though the quotes of her, as I had pointed out, are generic in nature and are pure hindu philosophy, her 'weird' behaviour would qualify her for inclusion, shows, th basically negative idea you have of the list. Its putting people on a pillory, trying to brandmark them. I just hope that this attempt will be prevented.

This was what I posted. Thank you, I appreciate your work. The pages on Maharaji you made, have been an inspiration to me also, to make the wikiquote page on Mother Meera. -- mizar ॐ Talk 11:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mizar. I would encourage you to come and join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systematic bias in religion. I would also invite you to look over the Guru article, as I see you have a good grasp of the subject. --ZappaZ 17:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be so kind, please take a look at - and make any needed edits to - the Surat Shabd Yoga article to help improve it and ensure it reflects NPOV. Thanks, — RDF ^talk 20:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zappaz,

I'm writing this message to you because you are one of the editors who supported Nafaanra language on its way to become a Featured Article. Back in February, quite a few of you asked for sound recordings. I am really excited to let you know that User:Alafo, who came across Wikipedia when googling for Nafaanra, the native language of his wife, has provided us with some fine recordings of the language. I have just added them to the article so that all of us can enjoy the sounds of Nafaanra from Ghana. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't do too much, mostly because my lack of knowledge on the subject would fill volumes. Still, it's good to know that somebody's occasionally happy with my edits, because I usually only hear about them when I've annoyed people ;). --Scimitar ^parley 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdie,

This is related to the discussion on Talk:Status of religious freedom in France, but a bit off-topic.

I think that you should be somewhat wary of American exceptionalism, and in particular of this, in my opinion, very American tendency to come and give (or enforce) advice to other countries on how they should run themselves. A good way to become aware of this is to imagine put yourself in the opposite situation.

Imagine that the US government takes some action somewhat controversial, but more or less supported by the ACLU, on some problem that US society faces. For the sake of the argument, let us imagine that it concerns law enforcement in urban ghettos. Imagine that after that, American groups seek help from French lobbyists and that the French government forms an enquiry commission. Imagine that the commission then writes a report with vague allegations of a possible climate of presumption of guilt, and that the US government should tackle the issues of law enforcement in urban ghettos.

I suppose that almost all Americans would wonder what business it is of the French government to meddle into the internal policies of the US. People would point out that American politicians, journalists, academics, etc. have been grappling with the problem of urban ghettos for decades now and that they certainly don't need foreign "wise guys" to point the problem out to them and to tell them to invent solutions.

Most certainly, US editorialists and politicians would laugh the report off.

And if people were to quote from it on Wikipedia, the edit would be likely to be summarized into a single sentence, because, people would argue, the opinion of every Tom, Dick and Harry government around the globe may not be much relevant.

Thus, I'm somewhat sceptical about quoting at length from the various parliamentary enquiry commissions etc. formed by the US government to deal with the internal issues in foreign countries. Do these commissions have specific expertise? Presumably, American elected or appointed officials have little knowledge of the social, political and legal context in France, so that's quite dubious. Do they have some kind of legitimacy? Absolutely none, for France has already a democratically elected government, and does not need foreign politicians and journalists in that respect.

On the other hand, it is important to note that the US government is intervening in such matters. First of all, there are suspicions that some of this activity may be related to campaign funding by certain groups. Second, such unwarranted interventions in the internal affairs of other democracies go a long way into explaining anti-Americanism.

Your thoughts? David.Monniaux 11:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a perception that I support American interventionist policies, but the opposite is the truth. But the issue we are exploring in Status of religious freedom in France is the perception that reports, laws and other legislations of the French government have created an atmosphere of religious intolerance against minority religions. Generalizations are always bad, but the fact remains that if you live in France and you belong to a group considered to be a "secte" by the MILS report, you better keep that to yourself, otherwise your job, career, etc. will be in jeopardy. I have many friends in France, some professionals, some scholars, that have told me directly of their fears. They indeed live in fear of persecution (wouldn't you?). The good news, is that things have improved somewhat in the last two years, but that is still a concern. I welcome any government commission report that puts pressure on any government to protect the freedom of religion, freedom of worship and freedom of expression of their citizens. Please note that, as you have amply documented it in the articles about France, these laws were not designed to limit the freedom of religion. But the fact remains that they are perceived as such by adherents of new religions in France, and anticult groups in France perceive the legislation as a statement of support of their views by the government. That creates an atmosphere of persecution not intended by the laws. That is the concern. -ZappaZ 18:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome any government commission report that puts pressure on any government to protect the freedom of religion, freedom of worship and freedom of expression of their citizens.

Unfortunately, such interventions are likely to produce actually the opposite effect!

A number of people in France are persuaded that the Clinton administration's interventions were motivated by campaign funding by some special interest groups such as the Church of Scientology.

All these commissions, enquiries, and pressures reinforce the widespread opinion in the French population that the US government (and, more generally, its ruling and journalistic class) meddle into the affairs of foreign countries. This is especially resented since the impression is that they intervene even though they don't know the issues and try to impose solutions that do not fit the reality. Have you noticed that many French groups have distanced themselves from the US interventions? The reason is that they don't want to seem associated with foreign meddling. There is an ample cause for backlash there (in the same way that the US public would probably not feel much sympathy for a religious group who would have the Italian, French or German government meddle in US affairs on its behalf).

A good illustration is the remarks of this commission on the immigration and integration policy. Seriously, do those people believe that the French are too stupid not to have paid attention to the issue? Why those "wise guy" remarks?

If you want to improve the situation of your friends in France, this is what you should do: stop all this governmental intervention which probably has opposite effects to those that you intend, and support information campaigns about the groups that these people belong, explaining their beliefs and why they are harmless.

Now, you may be true in saying that there is some kind of climate of hostility with respect to certain groups in France. However, I don't think that you will be able to fight it by a top-down approach (by putting pressure on the French government). France is not a totalitarian country — people think what they want, journalists report what they wish, without the need for the government to orchestrate the action. David.Monniaux 20:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement, Zappaz. I am not concerned with Andries or others who revert. My skin is thick enough, as I have been aware of the ex cult since their websites and forums first appeared in the mid-90s. **Armeisen 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA, and for your very kind words. Both are sincerely appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray! Congrats! --ZappaZ 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zappaz! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved! --ZappaZ 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zappaz,

Some editors have been discussing the possibility of creating a “Spirituality” portal. What do you think of the idea?

p.s. I hope you're enjoying your wikivacation! ;-) — Richard_RDF^talk 14:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I entered some basics to get the ball rolling. I look forward to your participation in the Spirituality WikiProject and reading your contributions to the Spirituality portal. :-) — Richard_RDF^talk 00:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zappaz, I am new to wikipedia and I came across your id/comments on some of the talk pages. If you have time, could you kindly have a look at this [article compare] regarding "Guru in Hinduism"? Am a bit confused as to why it was so promptly deleted, and am not sure what went wrong.. Have also tried to put my view in the talk section. Many thanks. Miljoshi 13:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zappaz. I gather you are taking a break from your break. May I renew my above request please? --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 14:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you are still around, but note that Andries is at it again, re-adding material back to the article after you reduced it to a manageable size. I don't want to start again another tedious process. Please help if you can. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back, even if we don't see eye-to-eye. Hope you've been well. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing great, thanks. I do not see myself as engaged as before, though. Very busy with other projects. --ZappaZ 18:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gone-Fishing.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've been using Image:Yin yang.png in your signature. This image has been obsoleted by an SVG version of the same image: Image:Yin yang.svg. I'm posting here to ask if you could change your signature accordingly in your Preferences so that it will point to the right image file—just changing 'Yin yang.png' to 'Yin yang.svg' should do the trick. This will help ensure that your signature won't include a deleted image. (In reality, it's probably not going to be deleted anytime really soon, since it will take a while to fix the many pages that link to the old file.) Thanks. — Jeff | (talk) | 05:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this image is on your userpage. I'm afariad fair use images are not allowed on userpages. Could you remove it please?Genidealingwithfairuse 20:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zappaz, for your information, there is an RFA Evidence Page involving Andries. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God in Judaism has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" from featured status. The instructions for the FAR process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Devanagari INSCRIPT.png. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to have contributed to Apostasy#In_Hinduism_and_Buddhism a while back. Would you care to see a current discussion there? 76.200.153.67 00:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Recovery from cults book cover AFF.jpg. 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 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Brainwashing.jpg. 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 (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested that User:Zappaz/sandbox/List of groups refered to as cults by the media be deleted. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 23.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zappaz/sandbox/List of groups refered to as cults by the media, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zappaz/sandbox/List of groups refered to as cults by the media and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Zappaz/sandbox/List of groups refered to as cults by the media during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Justallofthem (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zappaz/scrapbook/Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zappaz/scrapbook/Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Zappaz/scrapbook/Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Thanks for uploading Image:Shahara_islam.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sup-sources has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Sevent-two-letter-name.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Zappaz-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppet of Timothy Miller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.205.224 (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Sefirot.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:YHVH.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Da Vinci The last supper.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

We already have a higher resolution scan at Commons (File:Última Cena - Da Vinci 5.jpg, which was made directly and with the cooperation of the Italian Ministry of Culture and not out of a book or from another third party source that includes a fold. It appears that this image has not been in use for more than seven years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 16:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is listed as a participant of the WikiProject Countering system bias in religion.
I would like to know if you agree with this edit: DIFF.
24.78.228.96 (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Juan de Valladolid, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zappaz! In its origin you have uploaded this file to enWiki. Can you give us a reference for it? Vollbracht (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]