Jump to content

User talk:Modemac: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by AI to last version by Modemac
Restored AI's comment - guess he doesn't like it when Scientology terms are used. Boo hoo hoo.
Line 489: Line 489:


: Tsk tsk, you went past an M/U again. You can edit your own comments all you like, but not other users' comments. Confront that. --[[User:Modemac|Modemac]] 12:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
: Tsk tsk, you went past an M/U again. You can edit your own comments all you like, but not other users' comments. Confront that. --[[User:Modemac|Modemac]] 12:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:: Do not create or restore personal comments. This is your second warning. --[[User:AI|AI]] 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:11, 20 July 2005

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hiya modemac, I'd quite forgotten about Thor in Marvel. Actually comic-book Thor/Norse mythos this is probably an article in its own right. user:sjc

I used to be a hardcore comic book geek way back during the 1980s (sob, I feel so old), but I never did read much of Thor's series. The one paragraph added to your article is about all I know of him. user:Modemac

'k. If you come across anyone that feels like collaborating on this front, send 'em my way, I can help out on the hardcore Norse stuff. rgds user:sjc

Well, there are lots of fanboys (heh) on the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe...I can always post a message there saying that you want some input re: the comic book series. user:Modemac

Please refrain from making unneeded changes...

Why did you move "Disneyland Paris" to "Euro Disney" ? I see no need for that and you made two mistakes in th move:

  • all formatting and links of my original "Disneyland Paris" article has been lost;
  • don't forget to update links. There were three Wikipedia pages that linked to "Disneyland Paris". Did you find and update them ?

I am now restoring the older situation. If you are unhappy with that you can leave a message on my talk page.

FvdP 13:24 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

--


Sorry, it seems I walked on your feet. If you really want the move, please do it, I will no longer interfere.

BTW, to copy pages and preserve their formatting, I suggest you do this:

  • edit the page
  • copy the text in the edit form
  • edit the new page
  • paste the copied text in the edit form

To see the ingoing links you need to correct, click on "What links here" at the bottom of a page.

FvdP 13:34 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

--

Ok, thanks for your apologies, perhaps I have been a little bit more upset than necessary. I, too, vaguely remembered that "Euro Disney" was indeed the official name; the reason I expanded "Disneyland Paris" instead was just that there were already two links pointing there. But, after some search I just made, it looks like "Disneyland (Resort) Paris" is indeed the official name of the resort, and "Euro Disney" the name of the company who operates it. I'm putting this information on Talk:Disneyland Paris -- FvdP 12:59 Aug 28, 2002 (PDT)

When it opened, it was Euro Disney, but the Disney company didn't realize that to Europeans, Euro meant "that currency we're all going to have in a couple years" -- therefore, the name sounded too much like, "Fork-Over-Your-Money Disney". But I wouldn't put this story in the Disneyland Paris listing, as I no longer have sources for it. Oh, and HIYA MODEMAC, you silly SubG. -- Ridetheory Feb 1 2003

Umm...hello? -- Modemac

Something seems to have gone weird when you tried to make an article about "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World". Do you need help fixing this? Vicki Rosenzweig

It certainly seems like I need help! Evidently the Wikipedia software isn't recognizing multiple uses of the <nowick> tag, and this may be causing a malfunction.

no, the problem is that you can't use < no wiki > inside [ [ -- those are part of wiki syntax. -- Tarquin

<nowiki> tags are used to prevent something from acting in the usual way. For instance, if you wanted to show how to link rather than having it link, you would type e.g. "You can link a term by putting brackets around it like so: [[iron]]." This will render the last part an example rather than a link (click the edit link below or it won't make sense to you). And welcome to wikipedia, btw. Thanks for your edits on Spider-Man.  :-) --KQ 17:25 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)

Re: inspiration to write: I'm glad I can cause that occasionally.  :-) Now if someone could inspire me to want to read--I've got to return to the books.  :-/ Cheers, --KQ

You mentioned the load on the server. I've been modifying entries like everyone else and despite the articles being added (about one article every 1-5 seconds) I have not noticed a change in responsiveness due to the addition of articles. I've added 3,000 articles on counties and there was lag during much of that time, but not due to the addition of articles. I've heard rumor that the foreign Wiki's cause lag for some reason. The new PHP software is supposed to be good enough to handle the load. However, I've stopped for now to see if you have any more thoughts. -- Ram-Man


I can see the image. Lir 11:36 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I'll take your word for it. -- Modemac

I think your titles are wrong for the articles The Fellowship of the Ring (movie) and The Two Towers (movie). You have moved articles away from their most precise definition. Please explain your reasons for this move in the discussion in Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring (movie) Talk:The Two Towers (movie). Proposed actions or reversions may be implemented in a day or so if you do not give some reason for changes made. I suspect that there will be a few others who will take a more aggressive line than me, as one of these entrys was also shifted from under me when I made a minor edit! kiwiinapanic 05:52 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Hi there, I just had a look at your web site and just thought I'd encourage you to contribute your writings about the Scientology reform movements (freezone, etc.) to wikipedia.

Okay, now we have an entry for Free Zone (Scientology). I'm trying to be NPOV here, though with this subject it can be difficult. -- Modemac

Hey, just wanted to say if you tag the "This is a minor edit" checkbox when you revert an article, it doesn't show up in the recent changes list, so therefore this brat won't pick it back up so quick. Ducker 13:02 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Armenian Genocide. Thanks. --Kaihsu 13:56 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hi! I wonder if I could draw your attention to the Narconon page. You've done well in the past at contributing facts discovered by Scientology critics into Scientology-related Wikipedia articles whilst adhering to NPOV -- I wonder if you could help out with this one? There's another contributor (User:Desertphile) who has made some informative contributions but seems to be saying (in the talk page) he doesn't think some things can be put in neutrally. Help? --FOo 20:45 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words; I'll see what I can do. --Modemac 11:42 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please excuse the query, but I'm stumped on a project that I think Modemac may be vastly better suited than I. The entry for Scientology doesn't have a fair game entry (though perhaps it once did). My imagination isn't up to the task of defining what Scientology Inc. means by "fair game" nor up to providing a NPOV regarding examples. Could it even be possible? I suppose the entry would have to say "It is alledged that...." and "Some observers say that...."

With even the most passive voice, can one list the drowning of Duke in Judge Swaringer's swimming pool neutrally? I could do it in parody (not that it's all that funny). I write poetry and travel pieces for magazines well, but I'm not up to the task of explaining "fair game" except at its most basic. Naturally, the entry doesn't need examples of "fair game," but examples would be a good idea. Anyone up to the task? (I've got a boat to deliver!) Desertphile 05:52 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Didn't the Sea Org go sailing around, aiming to spread Scientology overseas? This is what I have read around...this wrong? Dysprosia 11:35, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd have to do more extensive research to be sure, but I do know that they were founded by "Commodore" LRH. They're the strong-arms who enforce the laws within Scientology, and they're widely believed to be the real powers behind the organization. I think Miscavige, who heads RTC, is also the head of the Sea Org; but I can't verify this, so I didn't put it into the article. --Modemac 13:36, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment of Talk:Wiping. The article is not so much about wiping tape, as tape or film of old shows being lost or destroyed or wiped. Mintguy 13:32, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll plead my innocence on this one, based upon the article's opening statement: "Wiping or junking is an economic move by TV companies in which old videotapes and kinescopes are wiped (deleted) and reused or are destroyed." This emplies that the major emphasis is on the physical destruction of old videotapes. I'm not sure what a better title for that article would be, though. --Modemac 13:41, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Modemac -- I'm rather doubtful that I've caught your attention at all with my edits to articles in the Scientology section, but I hope if you have, you've noticed that I'm quite capable of accepting edits from people who do not believe as I do (pro-Scientology posters, for instance) and that I try to aim for NPOV even when the POV is the POV I myself believe. I mention this because there is an edit war on the article "Catholicism" that really needs someone to step in, and I really hope that you can help.

The problem is ClarityMS07, who is now operating one of the AOL IPs he used to post under as a sockpuppet, and may also have MattWilkes as a sockpuppet. ClarityMS07 has a laundry list of "widespread opinions", by which he means a combination of opinions and conspiracy theories, about the Roman Catholic Church. He is insistent that because there is a "connection" between Catholicism, the belief system, and the Roman Catholic Church, the religious entity, that the article about the belief system is not "complete" and not "relevant to anything in particular" without his accusations about the RCC.

While still posting under an AOL IP, he vandalized the Talk page of the article, erasing some paragraphs on the weakness of his article altogether, and rewriting my words and those of Samuel J. Howard to praise him and insult me. He is now pretending that that vandalism was done by someone else, who just coincidentally shares that IP and the obsessive focus on the Catholicism article (he does not realize, it seems, how much external and internal evidence shows this to be a feeble lie.) He has refused to address criticisms of his contributions and retaliates with personal attacks and ad hominem fallacies. And now that he has sockpuppets, he seems to think it is legitimate to do three reverts a day per sockpuppet. Can you please help? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-- Antaeus Feldspar 03:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

http://ps.wikipedia.org/wiki.cgi?Report

As I'm not intimately familiar with Wikisource (and I don't have admin priveleges [yet, I hope]), I need to ask for help from the admins in properly moving the page, and the image if necessary, over to Wikisource so that we can use it as a resource there. Once the image and/or page are moved, then the page can be properly deleted here on Wikipedia. --Modemac 12:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It isn't possible to move pages between wikis unfortunately, so you will have to use the cut and paste method. As you are the only author of the page so far, there is no GFDL issue and you can simply recreate the page on Wikisource. An interwiki redirect could be set up to point to the current page to Wikisource, or better still, you could create a short article on what the source is about and just link to Wikisource. Angela 13:37, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Just in case you were wondering why your sidebar looks so cluttered now: I just made you a sysop. -- Tim Starling 08:24, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Modemac 11:09, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, congrats on your adminship and thanks for deleting those silly lists. Don't forget to delete pages that redirect to the page you are deleting too. You should normally delete the talk page as well, unless the discussion is worth keeping, in which case you should link it to Archived delete debates. Angela 12:39, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think I have the right to edit someone else's text on their own talk page, which is where the majority of those links came from. We'll just have to keep an eye on this. --Modemac 12:46, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, I don't mean user talk pages! I mean a page that is just a redirect (not a link) to the page you deleted. For example this page was a redirect to the page that you deleted. Once you deleted the List of black people, the redirect at List of famous black people is broken, so that page needs to be deleted too. And the talk page I meant was Special:Undelete/Talk:List_of_white_people. I've deleted them all now. Angela 13:20, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

Nice job on the List of Wikipedia articles based upon websites page. I'm glad you wasted no time in enacting on a small idea I had. -- Mattworld 21:32, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not a problem; it seemed like a sensible idea. You can do the same thing, too! Look at the option to Move this page on the left frame. --Modemac
I know, you'll see I did that with the talk page. I just wanted to make sure there was some sort of other opinion on the subject before I did that. -- Mattworld 21:44, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Rickyrab 14:21, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How come you deleted Cimeran? It had only been on VfD one day. Angela 17:47, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun on that one; it seemed that a clear consensus existed for deleting the entry, even though it had only been up there for a brief period of time. There was nothing controversial about the entry, and it had no support -- it was clearly just an post meant to boost someone's ego. --Modemac 23:57, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes I realise that, but the decision as to whether consensus has been reached is only supposed to be made after the seven days. Otherwise people complain they didn't get a chance to vote (and I'm sure some people must read the deletion logs looking for things to complain about!). Angela 00:10, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

Applauding move of bloatware to Software bloat. (I wrote most of the article) Williamv1138 14:39, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Deleted page

22:09, 2 Dec 2003 Modemac deleted "Transiaxartesia" (7 days on VFD page) What was the problem with the page? I don't remember even seeing a votes for deletion boilerplate on the page even though it was on my watchlist. I was really happy when that small ammount of info appeared in a link from Khwarezmia. I had no-where else to store it for future ref when I found it and thought it was safe on Wiki. Is there any way to reclaim the info again? I can only remember a few words.

The problem was that this was a nonsense word that didn't exist in any dictionary or any Web site other than Wikipedia. A Google search for "Transiaxartesia" shows nothing at all other than the Wikipedia entry and the sites that copy Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of existing, current information; it is not a repository for fictional words. --Modemac 10:12, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
As far as I remember the article was about the land beyond the Jaxartes in the ancient world, maybe the name was wrong but I remember the info seemed very accurate and evocative at the time. Anyway I take it you mean that the info is irretreivable?

Thank you! You are a scholar and a gentleman/gentlewoman (?). I can't take one more fight today, and Plautus seems to have several fights in him/her. Your aid is more than appreciated. Jwrosenzweig 21:02, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, could you please update the listings on Wikipedia:Protected_page when you protect or unprotect a page? It gets a little confusing. Thanks, silsor 18:15, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Do you think Twins really needed moving? See Pixies for a similar case. Also, isn't the usual Twins (band) if it must be disambiged? Reagards -- sannse (talk) 16:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back for now - the move broke an awful lot of links. perhaps we could discuss it if you disagree strongly. Regards -- sannse (talk) 18:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear goodness me, you actually read that much of Mission Earth? I salute your dedication to human knowledge at the cost of valuable SAN points ... - David Gerard 13:17, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I read all ten books -- and the damn things stuck in my head, similar to what you see when you pass by a vehicle accident. --Modemac 13:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I must confess my original 'plot summary' in that entry was based on the blurbs. - David Gerard 13:29, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Happy Elron Day! ;-) -- ChrisO 12:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I hope the new Mediawiki:Scientology series header is a nice present to Wikipedia to celebrate this day.  :) --Modemac 12:26, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No prob. Glad to help--Samuel J. Howard 01:17, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You posted: You have been busy adding links to your Web site over a dozen articles. Kindly cease doing so. The intent of Wikipedia is to provide content and relevant links, not to blatantly promote your own Web site. --Modemac 23:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Firstly let me apologise for vandalising your page, but only with a message that expressed my displeasure at your reversal of all my contributions that I had spent a long time submitting.

Really you should not have been so high-handed and should have expressed your view-point in a more reasonable manner (in accordance with wiki protocol).

I believe that my site has photographs, content and informational web-links directly relevant to each page that I contributed to.

My site is a labour of love, not for profit, and not selling anything (other than a link to a posters and memorabilia site that is not run by me).

My links were directly to the page relevant for the particular musician or artist (not global).

I am not advertising my site in the manner you suggest, but providing complementary information that is not in conflict with wiki-pedia. I note that IMDb (The Internet Movie Database) has many such links and very useful they are too. You have not removed them (and I hope you never do otherwise Wiki-pedia will be the poorer.

I notice your user page link adverises the Church of Scientology etc. ! - each to his own but I suggest my links are far less contentious

I have also made contributions on other topics (Nepal, Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, Theatres, Sir Charles Hawtrey, Poet Laureate, Elizabet bowes-Lyon, Arthur Lloyd - a famous music hall performer) are the few that come to mind.

Please note that I will be under User:Olive in future.

Finally some of the contributions under that IP are not by me, are subjects I know nothing about nor have I ever visited the pages.

In future I will be Olive so talk to me first.

Mediawiki:Scientology still needed?

Do we still need this article series box? It's large and clunky, and I've added everything in it (I think) to Category:Scientology. It was useful before the category, but now I think it's just unsightly - David Gerard 17:36, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If nothing else, it gives links to key areas of the Scientology discussion - including Xenu - in every important Scientology-related article. If you decide it's unnecessary, I won't contest it. --Modemac 21:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mission Earth (novel) is a Featured Article candidate

It's currently being tempered in the fires of Hell on WP:FAC. There are some questions as to the synopsis. It's this close to getting through, I think - David Gerard 13:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removed The Thin Blue Line

I removed:

    • The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris inspired the judicial appeal of a man who had been wrongfully imprisoned for murder for eleven years, leading to his acquittal -- a moral victory that earned this film a place in film history.

from List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever. It is not because I don't think it is a great documentary. If you check the talk page, you'll find that there was a history of people including all sorts of movies. A consensus was reached to only add movies if they include citations as to why they are on the list. The criteria are, Critical acclaim, Box Office, Popular acclaim, or Academy Awards. If you can document that The Thin Blue Line meets one of the criteria for being "the greatest", you are welcome to put it back in the list. Add a verifiable citation. --Samuel Wantman 21:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

General Hospital

I'm removing your bit about the Venus Butterfly from the General Hospital article. You're confusing it with L.A. Law. The Venus Butterfly bit happened on L.A. Law. Mike H 00:07, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Dobbshead?

I noticed you added an image of the Dobbshead to J. R. Bob Dobbs way back when, then removed it a few days later. I saw that the image caption said "used with permission", but did you decide that copyright/trademark issues required its removal? I think an article on Dobbs really should have a Dobbshead. However, I'm sure a slack-filled SubGenius such as yourself knows best :) Gwimpey 17:39, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I put the Dobbshead in "Bob's" article way back when, then took it out because I thought it would be better to put his graven image in the entry for the Church of the SubGenius itself. But you're right, there should be a picture of "Bob" in an article about "Bob." So now there's a link to that picture in both the entries for "Bob" and the Church. --Modemac 21:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the assistant correcting the Hayduke and George Washington Hayduke entries -- and for cleaning up the Scientology entries. Eventually I'll have to read the instructions. }:-}

Umm...as far as I can tell, the Hayduke articles were edited by User:Infrogmation. --Modemac 10:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie

I noticed your recent comment on Steamboat Willie being the first Mickey Mouse short released in theathres. If by these you mean multiple theatres you are correct. But Plane Crazy was earlier released in a single theater, owned by a friend of Walt Disney. The one which was produced but not released before Steamboat Willie was The Gallopin' Gaucho. User: Dimadick

Alberuni RfC

Hi Modemac, I noticed you commented on the Talk: page, but you haven't yet signed anywhere on the actual RfC page itself. Jayjg 19:56, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, also, if you protect a page, you should probably mark it as protected. Jayjg 20:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noted and updated. --Modemac 21:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


User:GeneralPatton suggests that HistoryBuffer be taken to Arbitration

From User:IZAK#Opposing Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK

:Izak, from my own experience, I suggest you now take HistoryBuffEr straight to Arbitration, and demand he be banned from all articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have a great and compelling body of evidence against him. GeneralPatton 19:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users are asked to please help set this in motion.

Pathetically, HistoryBuffer is now antagonizing more people at Holocaust denial examined, see the "history" of that page and the "revert wars" and other stuff at Talk:Holocaust denial examined IZAK 02:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC):

"This article contains an unsubstantiated assertion about the use of term "Zionist" by Holocaust deniers. The Zionist extremist and Palestine denier Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to correct the false implication that anyone using the term "Zionist" is/could be a Holocaust denier, without supplying any evidence for the assertion. HistoryBuffEr 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)"

Talk:Holocaust denial examined

Thanks for the speedy response. I would have changed the heading myself but obviously couldn't. I did go back through the history to see how long it had been there. It was inserted in a clean up on 24 August 2004 and so has been there for some time. I wandered into the page looking at some of the disputes bubbling on Wikipedia so I knew that it was a problem page as far as edit wars. I agree, the rest of the article is fine and really is a tribute to NPOV on such an inflammatory subject. It was only the heading that stood out. I am sure it would have been a "red rag to a bull" for some of the contributors and may have contributed to the edit war even if that heading was not itself a primary focus. --CloudSurfer 08:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Who created the cult checklists?

Modemac, you wrote that not only cult activists created cult checklists. You may be right and I am interested to see references for your assertion. Some Wikipedians dismiss the checklists as "inventions" by the anti-cult movement. I would agree that they have not been developed based on rigorous empirical research but to dismiss them as inventions goes too far, I believe. Thanks. Andries 00:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My concern is that the description of these "cult checklists" was phrased in a way to suggest that the Evil Anti-Cult Conspiracy created these lists as a way to suppress the poor, innocentm persecuted groups that they consider cults. Please note the actual wording of the edit in question; my intent was (and still is) to make that paragraph more NPOV and less "us vs. them." --Modemac 00:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cult

Thanks for your interest in the article. I am afraid that some Wikipedians will find it POV to include e.g. the unification church in the cult article. I have to admit that he will have a point. I think the groups that are now in the destructive cult should be re-insterted in the article. Andries 22:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article as you see fit. The cult article has been altered, edited, re-edited, and changed around again and again ad nauseum, and I doubt that it will ever reach a point where it will satisfy everyone -- or even most people. --Modemac 22:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Divine Principle texts

Thanks for writing this:

The beginnings of the Church's official publication, the Divine Principle, are said to have seen written form as early as 1945 (though the book is listed as having been officially published in 1956).

Actally, there have been several books explaining the Divine Principle by multiple authors. The two most authoritative are by the late Hyo Won Eu (first UC president) and Chung Hwan Kwak (int'l director of education for UC). Young Oon Kim (female church theologian) and one other guy (first US church seminary president) each wrote unofficial texts, and these are out of print.

Between 1935 and 1946, Sun Myung Moon (not then going by "Reverend") just had scribbled notes in the margins of his Bible. The first written text was handwritten by Won Pil Kim as dictated by Moon (who also sharpened the pencils Kim used -- or was it the other way round?) and then written out fair by a local middle school girl (possibly not a UC member). --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Messiah above others

I think we could cooperate on the wording of Sun Myung Moon's claim to be the Messiah. As a church member of 27 years' standing, I would say that Rev. Moon does indeed claim to be the Messiah -- which the article currently reports correctly. A related point is what Rev. Moon and church members regard as the relative position of the Messiah -- i.e., in relation to Jesus and other religious founders.

I think the church position is that Jesus, as the 'first' Messiah, has an inestimably high position and value. We wouldn't want anyone to think we're "knocking him". But we don't regard him as being the Creator, i.e., God Himself. (This leads into a complex and tedious tangent about the trinity, which we can skip for now.)

But when the Messiah comes again, he'll have a position at least as high as Jesus -- if not more so. And as the fulfillment of all other religions, he'll have a higher position and value than their founders -- as Jesus is higher than Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, etc.

If this is too long, suffice it to say that people who oppose Rev. Moon are probably right when they say he (or the church) is putting him above all other religious founders -- which is what they call self-aggrandizement.

And of course, if he's not really the Messiah, such self-aggrandizement could only be described as lying or lunacy. I think I'm sufficiently unbrainwashed to appreciate that! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Until we get some proof that Moon actually is the Messiah, then statements such as "of course, if he does turn out to be the Messiah" could be equally applied to any self-proclaimed savior, whether he has a wide following or is a street-corner wacko. Comments like that suggest that their author is trying to subtly suggest that he is indeed the Messiah, and when he does indeed turn out to the Messiah then his followers can point fingers and say "See, I told you so!" However, things like that make me uncomfortable because they don't really seem to be NPOV. --Modemac 20:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr arbitration

Hi Modemac, I've asked Arbitration on HistoryBuffEr; as you've interacted with him before, I thought you might be interested. You'll find the relevant section on WP:RFAR. Jayjg 19:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three revert rule

Hey there, I'm as tired as you are constantly having to revert George W. Bush, but please note Wikipedia:Three revert rule as well, someone else will take over, and it's not good for your wikistress to keep reverting :) Take care, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:14, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Request for expansion of the hate group article

Modemac, I received a complaint that the article hate group is unbalanced because there is too much attention on NRMs. [1] I wondered whether you could help to expand on the article with more serious examples of hate groups? Thanks in advance. Andries 20:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help but I would appreciate your advice on the current dispute that I have with Phathgrrl. Andries 17:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The whole issue that Andries has with this article is that it mentions the ex-premies as an example of hate in the context of NRMs. It is important for you to know, Modemac, that Andries is a representative of the ex-premie group and that he works with them to push their POV in WP and remove any negative information about them. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:38, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Speaking as someone whose experience with both sides of this argument comes from what I've seen on Wikipedia, I'd have to say that you and Zappaz are a lot more determined to portray the "ex-premie group" as a hate group. I've done some looking around for the background to this one, and most of what I see is a lot of finger-pointing -- mostly by your folks repeating "hate group!" "hate group!" "hate group!" over and over with the hope that it manages to stick. And other than that, I can't seem to find much in the way of proof that "ex-premies" classify as a hate group. Sorry, Charlie, I'm not convinced. --Modemac 03:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Interestingly that you have chosen to ignore jossi's comments about Andries affiliation with this ex-premie group. --Zappaz 03:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Read this: maybe you will understand with what kind of people we are dealing with here: http://www.one-reality.net/resources/affidavit.pdf . ≈ jossi ≈ 03:49, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Modemac, read more about the affadivit here on the website of the person who signed it. Andries 18:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is very unfair for you to say that my activity in the Hate group article is to "attempt(s) to focus the article on "ex-premies" in a manner to make it seem as though they are a hate group. ". I have made and continue to make substantial contributions to the Hate group article, I have also edited out blatant POVs and have politely asked Andries to help me write and expand article further. An apology from you will be appreciated. --Zappaz 04:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Modemac, I can not say that I often agree with Zappaz but it is true that Zappaz did not hurl the term "hate group" about ex-premies unnecessarily, neither in the articles nor on the talk pages. Unlike some other contributors. Andries 18:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Modemac, I checked your website (http://modemac.com/cos/) and can see that you are CoS critic. No wonder why Andries has asked you to help him. An no wonder what your reaction was in the dispute about the ex-premies.  ;) --Zappaz 04:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, the reaon I asked Modemac for help was because he was the creator of the hate group article and hence I expected her/him to have an interest in improving the article. Andries 18:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This hardly seems fair, Zappaz. I daresay you wouldn't be very happy if someone appealed to your judgement, and then when you didn't say what they wanted you to, dismissed it with the genetic fallacy of "no wonder you say that, you're a cult apologist." -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since my opinion of Scientology so obviously makes me untrustworthy in your eyes, I ask you this: What is the difference between http://www.one-reality.net/ and http://www.parishioners.org/? Both are trying to do the same thing, namely label their chosen enemies as a "hate group." --Modemac 10:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Modemac, Antaeus: Modemac would have had my respect, regardless of his own affiliation if you were not so "trigger happy" in accussing me the way he did in Talk:Ex-Premie. An apology is still expected.
Some points:
  1. You fail to address jossi's comments about Andries affiliation with the ex-premie group
  2. You fail to address the issue that boils down to the fact that Andries is trying to censor the article on behalf of his friends
  3. You fail to respond to the core of the dispute that is NOT about the ex-premies being a hate group or not, but about their critics calling them such. That is a fact, and you seem to know about it: Scientologiy and other NRMs have called their critics "hate groups". That fact 'must' be presented in the article. --Zappaz 16:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you want an apology, then I apologize and I'll work to bring the disputed section of the hate group entry to something more agreeable to all, including your note that ex-premies are labeled as a hate group. I don't care that Andries is a former member, any more than I care that you are a current member. I don't think his edits have been over the top; I do think that creating an article on ex-premies solely for the purpose of calling them a hate group is not NPOV and uncalled for. (Hence the vote for deletion of that page.) --Modemac 17:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Modemac, Zappaz and Jossi, I am not a former member and I only contacted the ex-premies after noticed that there were problems (like deleting facts) on the Prem Rawat article. My contacts with ex-premies are a consequence of my attempt to ensure that the articles remain accurate and NPOV. I had hoped that they would help more to contribute to the articles but they didn't. Andries 18:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I do not want to censor information. I only want to ensure that the information is on the right place i.e. in the Maharaji related articles. I do not oppose a short mentioning of this insignicant fact in the general hate group article in the NRM section. Andries 18:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I gracefully accept your apology, Modemac. FYI, I am not a "current member", neither Andrie is a "former member". It is just that Andries and I find ourselves usually at opposite sides of disputes related to Prem Rawat articles. We find ourselves yet again at opposite neds in the Hate group article: I do not see this issue as insignificant. To the contrary! I agree with you that the Ex-Premies article, at least in its current form, is a candidate for VfD. I will modify the Hate group article, with the hope it is agreeable to all. --Zappaz 20:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in NPOV'ng the Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements section. Hope we can now continue developing the rest of the article in peace. --Zappaz 20:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scientology Nov. 28

Are you sure you reverted Scientology to the version you meant to? The reason I ask is that you reverted changes by the anon because he seemed to be trying to scrub out references to controversy, but the current state of the article still includes many of the anon's more questionable changes, such as announcement of the life one "should" lead, and the "fact" that "raising one aspect of [ARC] triangle increases the other two". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Upon second thought, I decided that just wiping the additions by our anonymous contributor wasn't exactly fair; so I re-added most of it. It's easy enough for me or anyone to change a few words around to make it seem less blatantly pro-Scientology, without just wiping it out completely. --Modemac 22:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Nomination for collaboration of the week

Modemac- I've nominated American comic book for collaboration of the week. This if it is selected it will bring a many good contributors to work on the article. If you don't mind, please give your vote of support here (near the bottom of the page). Happy editing! ike9898 18:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I've gotten the impression that you're interested in articles related to comics and sequential art. I've just created a project called WikiProject on Comics in order to establish consensus on the organization and content of such articles, and I hope you'll join in. See the main project page and please leave comments on the Talk page. Thanks! -leigh (φθόγγος) 06:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 13:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:02, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Your PGP key

Hi, I'd just like to say that putting your PGP public key on your user page is not a very good idea, as everyone can edit it. (Sure you can change it back, but it'll take some time until you notice) --stw (Talk) 01:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since all you can do with my public key is encrypt messages to me, then vandalizing it here would have very little effect. --Modemac 12:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The TIME article

For the last time, a.r.s. was not created in response to the Time article. Please do not reinstate this falsehood. --Kelly Martin 04:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Talk:Scientology vs. the Internet. --Modemac 13:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Origins of Scientology

While Pietzsche does not seem to have a full grasp of NPOV yet (nor of who's who -- I couldn't stop laughing when he accused me of being a True Believer Scientologist doing PR for the cult, in the circumstances) he may have a point that some mention should be made in Scientology#Origins of Scientology of the numerous accounts of Hubbard saying starting a religion was the way to make money.

It seems the natural place to include that accusation would be in this sentence: "Hubbard was repeatedly accused of adopting a religious facade for Scientology in order for the organization to maintain tax-exempt status and avoid prosecution for false medical claims; these accusations have dogged the Church of Scientology to the present day." However, I can't immediately see a way that doesn't make the sentence unwieldy, or a way to split it smoothly into two sentences. Ideas? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "starting a religion" quote is pretty well established by Don Lindsay's FAQ on the subject [2]. That's a solid reference that he definitely said it, and more than once - David Gerard 21:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I, too, believe that the weight of the evidence does solidly establish that Hubbard said it on multiple occasions. But the question of whether he said it or not is being covered in depth in Scientology controversy. Scientology#Controversy and criticism already mentions that Scientology controversy is where the question is covered in depth. My problem with what Pietzsche wants to do is that he wants to add it again to Scientology, and he wants to add it as an established fact. And much as I wish it was otherwise -- I wish we had written evidence, like the written evidence we have that falsify Ron's war hero claims, like the written evidence that shows just how many criminal acts the Church justified to itself to persecute Paulette Cooper -- it's not an established fact. The word of Jittlov and Moskowitz and Sturgeon and Eshbach against the word of the proven liar L. Ron Hubbard certainly convinces me... but I just can't say "This proves it; this eliminates any doubt; there is no longer any dispute." Everything else in the Scientology#Origins of Scientology is provable fact, and I am extremely leery of breaking with that to include something less concrete, even if there is not a doubt in my mind about its truth. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Origins of Scientology, part two. Once again Pietzsche brings up a subject that probably should receive coverage while insisting on a very partisan form of coverage that will only encourage both sides to be more partisan. This time it's the connections between Dianetics and Aleister Crowley. I wouldn't object to those connections being drawn -- also those between Dianetics and Freud (Did Hubbard, who admitted he got the basics of Dianetics from Freud, ever decide whether Freud was an evil reincarnated Marcab psych?) -- but again, Pietzsche wants the focus to be on Hubbard instead of Scientology and will likely scream "cult PR agent!" again if any editing is done to restore a focus on Scientology to the Scientology article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm an evil Zionst Jew!

Just letting you know that your actions are being noticed. I'm not sure yet if you're trolling or if you're another one of the Zionist crowd, but be aware that malicious vandalism and edits on Wikipedia are not tolerated. --User:STP 11:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cool! I've been noticed!  :) --Modemac 12:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults

The sources that we are adding to List of purported cults are those that use the specific words "cult" or "sect" to describe a group. Then we're just adding them as minimal citations, avoiding descriptions or value judgements. The sources you added for Scientology did not entirely meet those goals- I couldn't find where the "60 Minutes" reporters called CoS a "cult" (though I did not read every transcript), and the Boston Herald link is no longer active. I commented out the four you added, then added back the two that fit the criteria. If you can find the Boston Herald article and the "60 Minutes" (or other newsmagazine) references, then it'd be great to add those too. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Boston Herald link is most certainly active; I checked it today before posting it. --Modemac 02:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see my mistake. I followed http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s04a01.html, which appeared to just be a link to the Boston Herald's home page. I didn't scroll down to see that they'd reprinted the series. And in the first article of that series, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s04a02.html, they quote a number of experts who call the CoS a cult. That's good enough for me. Thanks. -Willmcw 03:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting the Hassan link at Unification Church. I was over at a friend's office, demonstrating how Wikipedia works. I wanted him to see how quickly a questionable edit would be reverted. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:23, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perverted-Justice.com

Modemac, I'm taking a look at the above as a result of the RfC. I noticed you protected the page even though you're involved in editing it, and that your link is one of the issues being disputed. Would you mind unprotecting it please, and then listing it on Requests for Protection, so that an uninvolved admin can make the decision? I'd do it myself, but I may want to edit the page too, so I'd prefer that someone else take a look at it. If we edit this page entirely above board, sticking to policy, it should be possible to sort the disputes out, fingers crossed. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. I protected the page because I got the impression from the ongoing reverts and the talk page that no one else was interested in doing so. --Modemac 09:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for unprotecting, Modemac. By the way, I also meant to say: when I said on the talk page that we could only use reputable sources, and that your link probably had to go because it was a personal website, I didn't mean to imply that you're a disreputable source. ;-) I just worded what I wrote badly, and I'm going to make that clear on the talk page when I next post to it. If there's a way for you to bypass the filter without the comments page, that would be great. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I've already replaced the link with a Google link. I'd already put in a Google link before, but that link was apparently lost in the repeated reversions of the page. --Modemac 13:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counter?

Hi! You left a comment on the Playboy page about how many times it had been accessed. Me being an idiot, I still haven't figured out how to read this. Is there some sort of counter on the pages, and can you tell me how to find it? Thanks! Eixo 12:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia used to have a counter to measure the hits on all of its pages, but that was removed at least two years ago. Sorry.  :) --Modemac 13:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Psychiatry Activities

Hello, Modemac, please help having a look on the activities of user AI - he is concentrating on inserting negative psychiatry articles. Uses expressions like "does not confront his past" and reacts pretty strong, as soon as critiziced). Irmgard

Modemac, do not remove my posts from talk pages.--AI 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

(Sarcasm) Thanks for helping out with the "anti-psychiatry activies" --AI 01:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance on Armenian Genocide is requested

I have made several comments on that article (see Talk:Armenian Genocide#Suggestions from an uninvolved party). Most of my comments involve a lack of sources for various statements. Would you be able to assist in this matter? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keith Henson

In the very first verion of the Keith Henson article,[9] you write an "obscure California law" but you do not cite the law or quote it. Is it really obscure? In who's opinion is it obscure? Why aren't the readers allowed to decide? --AI 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flunk, get your TRs in. --Modemac 09:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your opinion that the law is obscure? Why didn't you let readers decide? Are you an anti-scientology propagandist? It is interesting that you wikilink California, but not the law. Zappaz was intelligent enough to link to the actual law and word things neutrally. --AI 20:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flunk, again. File a K/R. --Modemac 05:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

What is the purpose of your restoring personal attacks? Personal comments to another contributor in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Personal attacks in discussion I am involved in will be removed. Do not revert my removals. --AI 12:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk, you went past an M/U again. You can edit your own comments all you like, but not other users' comments. Confront that. --Modemac 12:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not create or restore personal comments. This is your second warning. --AI 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Modemac&oldid=19214982"