User talk:PaulBustion88

PaulBustion88, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PaulBustion88! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hello, I'm WeijiBaikeBianji. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Eugenics in the United States seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015: tendentious editing

Your removal of text at Eugenics in the United States where you said "Removed accusation the Rockefeller Foundation financed Joseph Mengele. Was sourced to an extremist conspiracy theory author who has blamed IBM for the Holocaust, not a reliable source" was reverted with the edit summary "appears to be reliably sourced". What you should do then, next, is not revert again with further claims that Edwin Black is not a neutral source, but take it to the article talkpage, or the board Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. See WP:BRD. Don't reinsert your version until you have consensus for it. That would be edit warring. Please revert yourself.

At Did Six Million Really Die, you have removed text that was obviously sourced to the booklet itself. That's worse; it's actually absurd. Please use common sense.

The more I look at your editing as a whole, the more it seems to exhibit a certain tendency, or agenda, as when you attempt to push the fact that Freud was Jewish into prominence on Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis. You inserted "Jewish", along with "neurologist and psychotherapist" into the very first sentence of Psychoanalysis with the somewhat unhelpful edit summary "Specified that Freud was a neurologist and psychotherapist." (Compare the edit summary policy: "Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important." I would definitely say you left out the most important of the three.) And you have also inserted "Jewish" into the very first sentence of Sigmund Freud (I've removed it). Please note that the lead sections of articles, and of course especially the very first sentence, are for the most central, important, facts about the subject. Freud's Jewishness isn't one of them, least of all one of the salient facts about psychoanalysis.

Your argument on Talk:Psychoanalysis for the importance of Freud's jewishness is disturbing. You complain about excessive Jewish influence which (unlike Islamic influence, according to you) can't be criticized in the media. "People on Fox News constantly complain about excessive Islamic influence, but no one is willing to talk about excessive Jewish influence. Why is the one considered bigoted, but not the other?"[1] I'm not sure what you mean — as far as I know, quite a few people do consider Fox News bigoted — but in any case, neither anti-islamic nor antisemitic arguments are welcome on Wikipedia. There is an unpleasant illogic in the way you jump, in the post I've linked to, from "even though Jews are less than 10% of the USA's population, they are 40% of academia, the news media, etc" to claiming to be discussing the religion of Judaism, not "criticizing the Jewish race". Really? Those 10% / 40 % figures pertain to the Jewish religion? Please apply more common sense and less tendentiousness in your editing or you may be blocked from editing. In the following argument with Maunus, you say he has attacked your character instead of your arguments, which you call "a standard tactic left-wing people use". That's incomprehensible to me — where did he do that? Frankly your stereotyping Maunus as using standard left-wing tactics (do you actually know anything about his political views?) seems more of a personal attack to me than anything he said to you. No personal attacks is one of our policies. Please take a look at it. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Maybe I wrote about Freud's Judaism was inappropriate for the article, but I do not think disturbing is the right term. Even if I was mistaken, I do not see how it is disturbing. I did not advocate violence against anyone or even hate against anyone, and there is a difference between criticizing people who follow Judaism, in its theistic and atheistic forms, versus criticizing the Jewish ethnic group. A person cannot help who his parents are, but he does have a choice about what religion he follows. To be of the Jewish faith is optional, while being of the ethnicity is not. I stand by saying people of the Jewish religion have an inordinate influence in psychotherapy, but I'm not trying to put that into that article anymore because I really don't care about the issue that much. As to my other edits, in the Christian opposition to Freemasonry article, I do not think it is reasonable to cite Blavatsky as having anything to do with that, she was not even a Mason. Manly Hall was an extremely fringe author. Although I am opposed to Freemasonry, I do not think those authors' views reflect what Freemasonry actually believes, so it seems biased. Citing authors like Albert Pike would make somewhat more sense. The only sources I have seen suggesting the Rockefeller Foundation financed Nazism, Mengele, or proto-Nazi German eugenics, are people like Edwin Block and John Loftus, another extremist author. The Rockefeller family has always been associated with the left-wing politically, and Nazism is traditionally regarded as a right-wing ideology, so I think the burden of proof for someone claiming the Rockefellers were Nazi sympathizers or helped Mengele or similar claims falls on the person making the claim, not the person arguing against it. Edwin Block is not a neutral source.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I've also taken down the edits to that article about that book Did 6 Million Die? that you said were inappropriate. I had only taken that material out because it had citation needed tags next to it. I think you should also look at the agenda of the people who inserted into the articles that the Rockefeller Foundation was linked to Nazi eugenics, because that seems very unlikely to me. For one thing, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists like Pat Robertson, Texe Marrs, David Icke, etc. have fixated on the Rockefellers as one of the targets of their criticism, and like I said before, the Rockefeller Foundation has an opposite ideology to that of Nazism. And no, I'm not a Nazi, in reply to what it seemed like you were saying earlier. All I did to the Did 6 Million Die? article was take out two statements that already had "citation needed" tags next to them. I do not agree with Holocaust denial or Nazism or racism. In the Christian opposition to Freemasonry article, I took out content that was making it look like the views of authors who had religious viewpoints that could perhaps be called satanic were part of mainstream Freemasonry, when only one of those authors, Pike was. I was avoiding my bias in that article, because I actually have a very low opinion of Freemasonry. And my statement that Mormonism is not Christian is not mistaken, that's what any Roman Catholic priest or Protestant pastor will tell you. Pope Benedict XVI stated during his reign that Mormons who became Catholics had to be rebaptized, he did not require that of other Christian converts such as Anglicans, Baptists, etc. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"At Did Six Million Really Die, you have removed text that was obviously sourced to the booklet itself. That's worse; it's actually absurd. Please use common sense." To appease you, I have reverted the text. But it was marked "citation needed", if that's so obvious, then why was it labeled such? Also, I thought wikipedia was supposed to rely more on secondary sources than primary sources, I thought when there was an article about a book, for example, that it was supposed to be attempted to find sources other than the book itself for the article.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the talk page for Freud, Biologist of the Mind, even though I oppose Freud's ideas, I suggested a sentence might be biased against his ideas and proposed changing it. "Personally, I am very much opposed to psychoanalysis, but playing devil's advocate, is it perhaps a violation of NPOV to say in the article that psychoanalysis has been "discredited as a science"? There are some medical doctors who still claim to believe in it and use it, although its probably a fringe position at this point. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC) " If I were completely biased a sentence like that would not bother me because it supports what I think.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I've also taken down my edits which disputed the original viewpoint that the Rockefeller Foundation, Nazism, and eugenics are linked. I still disagree, but I'm not willing to edit war over it. You really don't have as much of a leg to stand on now, at least in that area, because I've taken down all my edits from the eugenics and Rockefeller Foundation articles. Maybe in the future I will always seek consensus on the talk page before I make changes. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Judaism, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

New Christian Movements

Adding that to Islam and Judaism is disruptive. I see that this has come about because you feel that Mormonism is not Christian. That is fine but adding the label to two religions that are not Christian is not fine and continuing on will lead to your being blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Opposition to Freemasonry within Christianity. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Edit warring, "...an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." So it does not matter if the same or different material was involved. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion." I understand it doesn't matter if they're each others' contributions, but my last edit had to do with replacing a dead link that probably was not even added by one of the editors I "warred" with. Does that still count?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at overall rather than just one edit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war about it, but citing Manly Hall in a mainstream article about Freemasonry didn't seem to be appropriate to me. Manly Hall was a crackpot. He believed Masons received energy from Lucifer after their meetings. Obviously most Freemasons do not believe that. His writings are not considered part of mainstream Freemasonry. I think it would be like citing Freud or Kinsey in an article on sex instead of mainstream scholars. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

Referring to your comment on Talk:Anti-Masonry#Roman Catholic stance on Freemasonry. If your knowledge of the Craft comes from those two books, it is no wonder your knowledge is lacking as to what Masonery is - neither Stephen Knight nor martin Short let such trivial things like fact stand in their way when writing their books, preferring instead to push their own conspiracy theories. May I suggest that you pick up a copy of a book like Freemasons for Dummies? While it's a bit biased towards Anglo-American masonery, it's explains what the Craft is and isn't fairly well. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, around here we do count Mormonism as Christian, because it is described as such by other reliable sources. I personally think the article on Christianity and Freemasonry should possibly be moved back to that title, which is where I think it started, but Mormonism variation on Jesus has quite a few similarities to that of some early Christian heresies, so taking the fact of their self-describing as Christians, and having similar beliefs to a lot of heretical Christians, who are also still described as "Christians," Mormonism has to be seen as qualifying as Christian too. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Stephen Knight and Martin Short are more reliable sources than, say Texe Marrs or David Icke are. Is that a fair statement? I also read parts of Jasper Ridley's book The Freemasons. I've read Manly Hall, at least in parts, also, but I understand he is not mainstream Freemasonry. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of which author are more unreliable than the others - all the ones you mention are unreliable and tends to prefer their own conspiracies instead facts. It's just that some - Icke in particular - is a bit more looney than Knight. They all fail WP:RS for what masonery is (but they can be WP:RS for what some anti-masons believe about the Craft). WegianWarrior (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the problem with the topic of Freemasonry is the same as with the topic of early Christianity, but even worse. In both cases, there are virtually no really contemporary documents, which leads people of all sorts to, basically, write onto it whatever they feel like. The fact that purported early Freemasonry is even more obscure, because of questions regarding when it started and lack of documents verifying same, than the time of Christ makes it even worse. Now, that is not saying that freemasons in intervening times haven't constructed an even more elaborate and fanciful view of its history than even some of the early Christianity conspiracists. And that makes it even harder, because those guys were Freemasons who seem to have been, basically, lying about Masonry in some way.

FWIW, I am no fan of Freemasonry either, as other editors on the topic will be only too glad to tell you. The best thing I can think to deal with these contentious topics which have been subject to a lot of writing is to just see what the other recent high-quality reference sources say about a given topic and follow their lead. This is itself something that a lot of Freemasons wouldn't necessarily like, because a lot of the reference works relating to religion discuss it at some length, often emphasizing ideas which might have been late developments in the history of Freemasonry which have been, to some extent, rejected within some Masonic groups in the interim. But, maybe, gathering together what all they say in one place, so that everyone, including those who don't deal with Freemasonry content very often, can review them and offer opinions in the hope of gaining consensus, might be the one way to really resolve issues regarding this topic. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Even though I oppose Freemasonry, I tried to keep my bias out of how I edited it. And I actually felt I was being fair to Freemasonry by removing Manly Hall and Blavatsky from the article because a lot of extremist Christians have tried to use their writings to prove Freemasonry is satanic. So I don't feel that my editing in that case had an anti-Masonic bias. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Some advice

(The exchange below is crossposted from User talk:Bishonen)

I believe I've taken down all of my edits that you and others objected to in those two articles. Even though I personally disagree with the viewpoint that the Rockefeller Foundation supported Nazism, and I think it is more Bolshevik/Communist than Nazi, I realize I cannot force the other editors to look at other viewpoints than there's and its not really important. Is that enough of an improvement?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC) I also restored the part of the Holocaust denial book article that I'd removed because of the citation needed tag. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Paul. When you say you had only taken out that material in Did Six Million Really Die because it had citation needed tags next to it, you have to remember Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit — and add tags to. Those tags were themselves tendentious. You're obliged to use your own judgment, and take responsibility for your own edits. But I appreciate your being so reasonable about the things I objected to specifically. Those objections were more in the way of examples, though. I see you have, even after you wrote the above, received several warnings about adding Category:Christian new religious movements to Islam (!) and Judaism (!!). This you did on the argument that for instance Islam "is more similar to Christianity than Mormonism is. Mormonism is considered Christian on wikipedia. Therefore, Islam is Christian." There is no way you can have thought those categories appropriate (or, if you did think it, please tell me so and I'll block you indefinitely per our principle Competence is required). Instead, you were disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point about mormonism. That's actually vandalism.

Unless your aim is to see how far you can go before you're blocked, which is not much farther at all, I have a suggestion for you. Edit uncontroversial articles that need some love for a month or two, to get a feel for the place, and read up on the policies and guidelines that you have been linked to. Nobody really knows the entire byzantine mass of our policies, but when experienced editors and administrators link you to a policy/guideline, it's because you've gone counter to it and need to learn something. You might start with Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, that I just mentioned above. I assume there are some uncontroversial subjects that interest you. I'll copy our exchange here to your own page, not because you did anything wrong in posting here — that was fine — but because I tell you a few important things here, and it might be useful for them to be visible to other people who come to your page. If only to save you getting the same advice all over again. Bishonen | talk 09:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen and John Carter, judging by the timing of when the PaulBustion88 account was created, his interest in Sigmund Freud, age of consent topics, WP:Disruptive editing, and the way he signs his username, I think that a WP:CheckUser should check and see if PaulBustion88 is the highly disruptive editor RJR3333. See this discussion for my recent extensive tracking of RJR3333, where WP:CheckUsers Tiptoety and Euryalus weighed in on matters. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, as usual, RJR3333 promised not to WP:Sockpuppet again. If the PaulBustion88 account turns out to be him, someone other than me might want to note there how hollow that latest promise is. Flyer22 (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I would rather have all my teeth yanked out than deal with this damn fool woman again. Its not worth it to keep going back on wikipedia, just to have this bitch obsessively try to ban me from the site. Ok, fine, you win loser. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: A WP:CheckUser is still needed for his other accounts, including his WP:Sleepers; he always has other accounts. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous Region of Wood

Hello Paul Bustion, this place exist and it a arquipelugo of Portugal,and not a colony of Portugal much less a country and a region that belongs to Portugal that has own autonomy too and the place and also called of Madeira , talk about it here: https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira AlexMota300 Talk April 16 2015 17:54