Hey, thanks for responding to my prod, I was concerned that no one was looking at the article as it hadn't been edited in over a month. Prior to posting the prod I did check the original discussion, but still had concerns as most of the people who had defended the article seemed to be coming from single purpose accounts. Thanks for removing the word "practicing" I probably wouldn't have even gave the article a second glance had that term not set off alarm bells.
There does need to be a lot of cleanup though. Although I appreciate the references, it's difficult to verify the claims. I tried, but couldn't find anything. Perhaps then, you could be more diligent in terms of citation and give actual page numbers (using the proper Wikipedia template) so I can more easily track the information down. That way, the article will be less likely to be deleted.
I really don't care one way or another about the group, as long as the information is accurate. As such I'll remove the prod but keep the page watched. If you can clean up the article and get some proper citation in there I'll check it out and back you up. If not, in about a month or two I'll put up the prod again. I have the page watched so I'll keep an eye out and tried to lend whatever feedback I can.
Haha, god bless the Wiki eh? Your edits are actually much better and the citations are easier to understand. I'll check them later, but I dumped the hoax tag. Thanks for this, now I'm actually interested in reading more. --Wolfrider03:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for trying to push for a truly accurate decision on some of the deletions I raised earlier today. Too often I feel that people just look for the quickest way to make a decision, and I greatly appreciate you trying to help generate a truly thorough decision, no matter how it turns out. Cheers! --fuzzy51005:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the time, people make a snap decision based on rules, as if they were some sort of magical device. I just want to see rules applied, but with common sense in a way that help make a better Wikipedia. I also have become maybe a bit too harsh, as I also like people arguing for "keep" on a poor article to get involved and make the article better during the AfD - it seems the old hands here have that attitude, but many newer people don't see the point. Anyway, a lot of the time AfDs end up coming out "the right way", no matter how many bad arguments are made - I guess we still have many good admins here. So I follow DGAF - I put forward an opinion for what it's worth, but then I let Wikipedia sort itself out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad14:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, that. Most of the people to come under attack from 4chan have been the ones who solve fiction AfDs with constant deletionist hardliner pile-ups. You're considerably more restrained. In any case, your user page got trashed and is now semi-protected. Drop me a note if you want the length changed. --Kizor (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask - and count yourself lucky for not knowing it earlier - 4chan isn't a person but a gargantuan imageboard. There are some smaller parts of it that, I'm told, have some intelligent content, but the place is pretty much synonymous with the board /b/, one of the more vile places on the entire Internet. Its members would probably be proud of this description, quoted from Everything2:
“
4chan is basically where the internet goes to throw up at 4AM in the morning. The internet stays there, wallowing in its own filth while smoking some of the crack it was given by its own mother. He probably hits up his own child with some of white stuff. It then throws up again about 15 minutes later, and, despite all rational hope and logic, somehow manages to stay conscious.
”
They have been increasingly often provoked to make such small-scale raids in the last few weeks, probably due to a single provocateur. :I'm torn between hoping that they'll go away quietly and hoping that they'll invade in force so that I can get to do some proper anti-vandalism work. --Kizor17:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm reluctant to infinitely (semi-) protect your userpage, at least without hitting the help pages first: though it is a bit odd that personal userpages are unprotected by default, openness is considered to be a basic principle of the site. Exceptions are made out of need and very seldom pre-emptively. If you really want one, I can see what I can do; if not, can I interest you in a vandalism counter? They come in handy userbox size nowadays, too. --Kizor17:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Love your overlord syllabus. If I may suggest another name? Thorstein Veblen fits in quite well against that backdrop of thinkers and topics. Also, I hate you for picking that name before me. :) Protonk (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. although, everytime I hear someone talk about the inherent propriety and piety of the wealthy and hard working I think of The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen's impact overall is probably less than those on your list, but I would credit the passage of the Sherman Anti-trust act in part to his writings. but the comment was mostly a compliment on your list. I should use it to homeschool my kids. :) Protonk (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I'm not so into class analysis - Rebel Sell just uses Veblen to explain the idea of (dunno how they describe it...) luxury consumption. It thus provides an explanation for why "countercultures" always sell out: the counterculture provides distinction, which adds to status, and therefore counterculture is a valuable commodity. Which, I've got my own problems with Heath & Potter's definition of "counterculture", but it's still a really convincing argument. Good book generally: but if you find yourself rolling your eyes and cursing the authors after the first 20 pages, please try to struggle through it to part II. If nothing else, they do a good job of dissing Naomi Klein. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diana Napolis
Hi Hypnotoad,
I'd like to revert the last edit you made to Diana Napolis[1] - "harassment" is the wording used by Sauer and Bocij, and her connection to the SRA panic was found in the harassment of people. Is it a BLP concern if it's accurate and sourced to a reliable publication? I don't know, I don't edit BLP pages much. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex12:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that since I'm not sure, and I usually learn stuff when I post on noticeboards, I've asked the BLP question here. I'm not sure what the OR issue would be though, is it "harassment" again? I still think it's OK visa-vis Bocij, which is published by the highly reliable Greenwood Publishing Group. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex12:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got the SRA and Napolis articles in my watchlists. Otherwise, though, I haven't had enough interactions with RE to take any notice of anything. I did revert an edit by Nocob5 recently I think. As fair warning, though - if Napolis is editing her own page, any dispute will likely end up being seen by several editors, in which case you might want to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb to ensure it passes WP:BLP. I'm nagging, but it's still worth mentioning. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, have a look at the RFCU page. Once you know what they look like, they're easy to spot - redlinked talk and user page, three edits with one-word summaries, and generally a paste of the same information. Almost not worth tracking down or tagging the accounts, but eventually I may do another RFCU in order to ask for a hardblock of the IP address. Re:Napolis, it was pretty banal (just an addition of her Ritual Abuse case list) as an EL, but I'm expecting escalation. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex17:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right section?
Hola,
Are you sure your vote is in the right place? 'Cause right now you're on the "SRA was a moral panic" position. Sure we could expand the individual cases, but not to portray them as proof of the existence of SRA as reality rather than moral panic. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm okay with anything. When I was 14 reading about an SRA case in my home town I knew it was retarded bullshit, even though it was presented as reality. I'd like to see more of the "SRA was reality" position in the article, the way the nutters like it... because then it looks even crazier to anyone with an ounce of sense. Is that !vote section even to be taken seriously? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So for you it's a WP:NPOV thing - we don't need to call it crazy since it's so obviously crazy. I'm OK with that - judicious use of the then-extant sources to justify the facts of claims (but I would still oppose their use to justify the reality of them). Of course, there's a lot of secondary sources that also go through the claims while being newer, with the benefit of history and after the fact analysis. Do you have a preference for which to use, the original articles versus newer secondary sources? Might also be an idea more for the list of satanic ritual abuse allegations than the main article, which is already very long and can't really include more details on a lot of individual cases.
It's a straw poll, so basically to establish where the consensus is regarding whether it's a moral panic or not. It's a vote, not a !vote, but it's not really binding so much as it is to establish where the consensus is. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more of a "journalistic neutrality" person - that is, I'm up for the journalistic neutrality style seen in the 60s and 70s, long before journalists became flaks for political positions and threw out their code of ethics. So, it'd be nice to include more claims in the article from kids of being kidnapped and taken in a spaceship to an underwater city where they were raped with a lobster by an LA Dodgers baseball star. (You can see I've read the literature.)
Obviously SRA was a moral panic - what other interpretation can we find? But at the same time, it'd be nice to give some more weight to the idea that SRA was an actual conspiracy to rape babies for Satan. Because, y'know, it's so very stupid, and also will lead people into the late-90s idea that even the "Satanic cults" memories were planted to cover up CIA mind control experiments or alien abductions, and so on. In seriousness, journalistic tone allows one to put forward "he said/she said" info, and let the reader make their own decision. And I am happy with stupid decisions.
Sorry dude, but it's a deep pile of goo you're wading into, and I prefer to see more chaos and confusion in society - so I'd like to see the goo go even deeper. Hell, we should give Napolis admin rights at Wikipedia. But as these are the opinions of a drunk Satanist chaos-mage, you might want to discount them in your final tally. I'm not much of a contributor to the article anyway, not nearly as much as you. I just want the damn Schnoebelen/Todd/Napolis pages to get undeleted, dammit! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - what's undue weight, really? Millions of people believed that SRA was true: or at least went along with it, similar to Germans in the reign of the Nazis. Should one give more weight to millions of bozos, or to 20 or 30 "ivory-tower intellectuals"? Part of my interest in SRA is how prima-facie stoopid the idea is, and how people tend to go along with stupidity in the moment, but then years later disavow any involvement. This is one of the beautiful lessons to take from SRA - that people thought there was a grand conspiracy, but now those same people all purport that it was a silly joke and they personally weren't involved. Anyway, Satanic drunk chaos-mage, don't care, back to drinking now, talk soon. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just started, but were you thinking of something like this?
I HATE journalistic neutrality (finished Flat Earth News a while ago, and a big loather of the "balance" presented in the news coverage of vaccination - I'm sorry, but Paul Offitt is insulted when his "opponent" in a debate is Jenny McCarthy. On one hand we have a man who devoted years of his life to meticulous scientific research to develop a vaccine for a deadly disease; on the other hand we have a woman who ate puke for money. Why are they both being interviewed by Larry King? Journalistic "neutrality"). But that's a whole different discussion. Let me know what you think of the changes I'm making to the allegations section. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...you want to remove "fucktard" from your last post. Totally, totally makes you feel better, but over the long term it can be bad for your reputation. I understand and agree with everything you said, spirit and words, right up until that last one. Doesn't matter, but ad hominem attacks just makes us look unreasonable over the long term.
I've been talked down and away from similar sentiments in the past by other editors and appreciated it. Just payin' it forward.
I would agree too if you could remove that word. It only makes him angrier, as you can see with his latest sockpuppet's user name. Cheers, --Cesar Tort16:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latest sockpuppets vandalizing my talk page are almost certainly not RE. He has an almost pathological aversion to profanity, and I've pissed off a couple other sockpuppeting vandals lately. I don't give a shit about making RE angry; it's not like he can get any less rational. It's more that it makes us, the proponents of the moral panic hypothesis, look as irrational as he is. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex19:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes us irrational to believe there isn't a world-spanning conspiracy of Satanists who rape babies with lobsters on hot-air balloons under the ocean aided by players from the Los Angeles Dodgers, and it makes him rational to believe there is a world-spanning conspiracy of Satanists who rape babies with lobsters on hot-air balloons under the ocean aided by players from the Los Angeles Dodgers, then... well... seriously, where is Douglas Adams when you really need him? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
It was created and uploaded by User:Earl Andrew. I later made a minor modification to it because he had incorrectly labelled Espanola rather than McKerrow as the northern terminus, but hadn't noticed at the time that he had also made that error, and I've never really gone back to scrutinize the image again since then. So I apologize for my own corollary oversight, but it was Earl's error first.
Here is a kitten for you, as I'm no vandal, but an English-speaking English person, not overly familiar with US spellings etc. If I wanted to vandalise your Wiki (and why would I. as a Socio-Anarchist, researching the inner workings of 'bent as a ten-bob note'; Governments and Elitist slimebuckets, finding this Wiki interesting, education, yada), I'd have taken 10 gallons of red paint, 4 teaspoons of purple glitter and a nip of toad piss, and scrawled 'REVOLUTION' at a 43.2 degree angle over it.
Peace, and no hard feelings.
It doesn't really matter outside of the English language as used in the beginning of the last century and before. Czech and Bohemian are basically the same thing when it comes to the state described. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are entirely right about that. But the Bohemians called it "Czechy" even back then. It's not really important but it is seldom realized that there is no real dichotomy between those two words. Except of course in historiography, which I respect, so I wont revert you. I'm just being a "clever d*****" at this point. Sorry about that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: RfC on Notability of D&D Standard Creatures
I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was trying to cut off the discussion or anything. I saw that it had wound down for the last couple of days and thought it was ripe for achieving some resolution, and then I saw that you were still adding to it. Thanks for your comments and participation, I think it was definitely valuable. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're ok, I was repeating myself. Once the good points have all been made, any discussion at WP will devolve into restatement of cogent arguments vs constant naysaying until the discussion gets closed (or progressed, or whatever you've just done). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read that the Koro article was the best thing ever In fact, I think your comment on the talk page was the best thing ever. I am still laughing over that, as well as the citation to MEMRI's "Panic in Khartoum" article :o) Keep up the good work!
Noticed your comment on the talk page for Isn't Anything and agreed with the lack of contemporary reviews. I managed to find a 1988 year-end round-up from Melody Maker and added it to the page.--Larrybob (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
No idea where I am, but wish to express my appreciation for your (if it is yours) contribution to the Gabriel Marcel article. Never heard of him before reading Edwin Muir: Man and Poet by Peter Butter. Khrystyna2 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for this comment! I don't necessarily agree (I think it's a rather arbitrary narrowing of scope and sourcing that isn't prescribed by WP:OR/WP:V, and my impression of secondary sources is that describing the sentiment using them may sound less neutral than presenting factual statements - which do suffer from major style problems, no doubt), but it's a fair argument and we can expect to get good-quality feedback from other editors and form a consensus in the current discussion or use it as a question in an RfC if it'll be necessary to get wider participation. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a narrowing of scope, though - it's really a big part of WP:OR, all the best articles conform with it, and all the dumpster-fire-level articles ignore it.
Anyway, hopefully I clarified my opinion. I don't want to say any more in the RfC, since the point of an RfC is to hear from other editors who weren't participating in the talk page discussion. Whatever comes of it is fine by me, but ultimately the article will follow the policies. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
