User talk:Fossa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Fossa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here are a few more good links to help you get started:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello Fossa, I cannot see any good reason for your removal of books by ACM protagnists in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines and I reverted the removals. If you disagree then please explain why at talk:Anti-Cult Movement. Please note that it is standard practice in Wikipedia that books about and by a certain movement or person or religious movement are listed. Thanks. Andries 20:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Three-revert rule warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
[edit] Three-revert rule warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
- ROFL. A bit rich. This guy actually DID violate the 3R Ruling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tilman_Hausherr&diff=44450594&oldid=44448723 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tilman_Hausherr&diff=44602888&oldid=44565326 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tilman_Hausherr&diff=44608299&oldid=44605598 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tilman_Hausherr&diff=44618816&oldid=44609682
- and then send me a warning.
-
-
- Read the rule in its entirety: It says "close to 24 hours" and 27 Hours are "close" IMO. But let's not nitpick, the rule is stupid anyways: You or me or both of us create a sockpuppet and here we go. And you have an animated gif as signature! How cheesy is that?--Fossa 23:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Can you spell hypocrite?
-
-
- 16:16, 20 March 2006 Fossa
- 15:43, 20 March 2006 Fossa m (totally manual revert)
- 10:39, 20 March 2006 Fossa (Please don't mark content edits/reverts as minor; please justify your edits on the discussion page, just like I do)
- 15:10, 19 March 2006 Fossa (This is ridiculous: AF, WPX, Sol: Justify your reverts.)
-
-
-
- 66 minutes close enough to 24 hours for you? And calling me 'cheasy'?? Is that the best you can do? For a guy who claims to have a doctorate that very sad...
POW! 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, I cannot see that I gave you a 3R warning, so where's the hypocrisy? And I didn't call you cheesy, but your signature. Fossa 12:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- **Ahem**, quote: "This guy actually DID violate the 3R Ruling" - I didn't claim you did violate it "Dr. Clam", I simply warned you that you were close (if you check the history on my talk page you'll see I also warned myself too)... unlike you who claimed that I actually did violate it... anyway I'm tired of this dialogue, see you next time you revert something you don't like about your cult. Queue "cheesy" sig: POW! 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- **Ahem**, quote: "This guy actually DID violate the 3R Ruling" - I didn't claim you did violate it "Dr. Clam", I simply warned you that you were close (if you check the history on my talk page you'll see I also warned myself too)... unlike you who claimed that I actually did violate it... anyway I'm tired of this dialogue, see you next time you revert something you don't like about your cult. Queue "cheesy" sig:
- Hm, I cannot see that I gave you a 3R warning, so where's the hypocrisy? And I didn't call you cheesy, but your signature. Fossa 12:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- 66 minutes close enough to 24 hours for you? And calling me 'cheasy'?? Is that the best you can do? For a guy who claims to have a doctorate that very sad...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You gave yourself a warning? ROTFL. Hail to the Cult of Wikipedia and hasta luego. Won't take long, I promise.--Fossa 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Inappriopriate edit summaries
Fossa, you used the following edit summary at Tilman Hausherr "Maintenance: This is is a test how long an unjustified revert will take.)" Your edit summary strikes me as if you edit Wikipedia in bad faith. We do not edit Wikipedia articles as a test. Please use the Wikipedia:sandbox as test ground. Thanks in advance. Andries 11:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please tell me, why I should not consider uncommented edits not justified at all on the Talk page as POV activism and thus bad faith? So I find it more polite to state my reasons, even in an admittedly sarcastic manner (what's wrong with sarcasm?), than just reverting without any comment. Note: I am not assuming bad faith out of the blue, but my edits are reverted on principle and my arguments on the Talk page are not taken up. Most reverters, like Stolley and Wikipediatrix have not made a single comment on my substative work, but at best made some ad hominem attacks.Fossa 11:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I did not recognize your edit summary as sarcasm. Please note that edit summaries are irreversible and should contain a neutral description and justification of an edit. It is not the place for sarcasm. I have less problems with sarcasm in the talk page. Andries 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Care to point out my alleged attack(s)? §τοʟĿ€ʀγŤč 12:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Right here on this page: "Maybe you should get your facts straight before making accusations Einstein." "For a guy who claims to have a doctorate that very sad." "Can you spell hypocrite?" "Dr. Clam" (emphases added). But that wasn't really my point, that's why I wrote "at best, not "at worst": Feel free to call me names, as long as you also address my substantive arguments.--Fossa 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Are you serious?! Calling someone a hypocrite after they assert you of doing something that they themselves are doing (like 4 reverts in "close to" 24 hours) is not an ad hominem attack! Look up ad hominem here on wiki will you... §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- So, let's get this straight, you seem to admit that three of the four examples that I gave were ad hominem attacks, but you contest "hypocrite". First of all: I don't trust Wikipedia on anything but hard science facts that are not too complex, so please don't refer me to a Wikipedia definition. At the moment of my writing, however, the definitional sentence in Wikipedia is reasonably accurate:
- Are you serious?! Calling someone a hypocrite after they assert you of doing something that they themselves are doing (like 4 reverts in "close to" 24 hours) is not an ad hominem attack! Look up ad hominem here on wiki will you... §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Right here on this page: "Maybe you should get your facts straight before making accusations Einstein." "For a guy who claims to have a doctorate that very sad." "Can you spell hypocrite?" "Dr. Clam" (emphases added). But that wasn't really my point, that's why I wrote "at best, not "at worst": Feel free to call me names, as long as you also address my substantive arguments.--Fossa 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Care to point out my alleged attack(s)? §τοʟĿ€ʀγŤč 12:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I did not recognize your edit summary as sarcasm. Please note that edit summaries are irreversible and should contain a neutral description and justification of an edit. It is not the place for sarcasm. I have less problems with sarcasm in the talk page. Andries 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."[1]
-
-
-
-
-
- Thus, even if I would have made a hypocritical argument, calling me rather than the argument "hypocritical" is ad hominem. But my argument, or better value-judgement, wasn't even hypocritical. Let's have a look, what hypocrisy is. Just for the heck of it and because Wikipedia is at the moment not egregiously wrong, here's Wikipedia's definition:
-
-
-
-
"Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice."[2]
-
-
-
-
-
- So what was my argument? My argument was that I found it "rich", that you yourself violated the 3R rule (just as I did, a fact that I never disputed) and then gave me a warning to not violate the rule. "A bit rich" is of course an ill-defined colloquialism, a value-judgement akin to "ridiculous". At any rate that was a comment on your warning, and there is no judgement about my own behavior. --Fossa 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hypocritical can also means applying double standards. Andries 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would judge in dubio pro reo for "Wikipedia" in this case; it mentions that later in the article ("bias", however, is not hypocrisy). But again: Where is my double standard? Indeed, where is my standard? Well, you could reasonable infer that I have a standard like: "If one sends a 3RR warning to one's discussion opponent while being oneself in violation of that rule, one commits an act that qualifies as "a bit rich"." We don't have to discuss here, what "a bit rich" actually means, because I did not send a 3RR warning to Stollery at any time nor did I call for such a warning on an in my view unenforcable policy. (I did not know at the time that he gave himself a warning, which he -- in violation of Wikipedia vandalism policy BTW -- had removed w/i 3 hours of its posting.)--Fossa 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Funny you stopped quoting yourself halfway through your statement, you conveniently forgot the latter half which continued "...This guy actually DID violate the 3R Ruling". The emphasis on "DID" implies you did not. When I called you on a false accusation you stated "Read the rule in its entirety: It says "close to 24 hours" and 27 Hours are "close" IMO." - pointing out I did 4 reverts in 27 hours. However you did four reverts in 6 minutes over 25 hours over the same period, thereby you, by your own definition, DID violate the rule. Therefore by pointing the finger at me when guilty yourself, you are, a hypocrite. That is not a personal attack it is a verifiable fact. §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, I was not aware that I also had broken the 3RR rule, my mistake. Now, how exactly does that make the application my standard spelled out above "hypocritical"?--Fossa 16:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Funny you stopped quoting yourself halfway through your statement, you conveniently forgot the latter half which continued "...This guy actually DID violate the 3R Ruling". The emphasis on "DID" implies you did not. When I called you on a false accusation you stated "Read the rule in its entirety: It says "close to 24 hours" and 27 Hours are "close" IMO." - pointing out I did 4 reverts in 27 hours. However you did four reverts in 6 minutes over 25 hours over the same period, thereby you, by your own definition, DID violate the rule. Therefore by pointing the finger at me when guilty yourself, you are, a hypocrite. That is not a personal attack it is a verifiable fact. §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would judge in dubio pro reo for "Wikipedia" in this case; it mentions that later in the article ("bias", however, is not hypocrisy). But again: Where is my double standard? Indeed, where is my standard? Well, you could reasonable infer that I have a standard like: "If one sends a 3RR warning to one's discussion opponent while being oneself in violation of that rule, one commits an act that qualifies as "a bit rich"." We don't have to discuss here, what "a bit rich" actually means, because I did not send a 3RR warning to Stollery at any time nor did I call for such a warning on an in my view unenforcable policy. (I did not know at the time that he gave himself a warning, which he -- in violation of Wikipedia vandalism policy BTW -- had removed w/i 3 hours of its posting.)--Fossa 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hypocritical can also means applying double standards. Andries 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- So what was my argument? My argument was that I found it "rich", that you yourself violated the 3R rule (just as I did, a fact that I never disputed) and then gave me a warning to not violate the rule. "A bit rich" is of course an ill-defined colloquialism, a value-judgement akin to "ridiculous". At any rate that was a comment on your warning, and there is no judgement about my own behavior. --Fossa 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please do never divulge the names of the employers of critics of cults
Fossa, please do not divulge the name of the employers of critics of cults, nowhere in Wikipedia. See here for an example why this is wrong. [3] The antagonism and even harassment between apostates and cult members is not confined to Scientology. Andries 02:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of blacklisted URL from your user page
Hey Fossa, I've removed the blacklisted URL redirect that you had on your user page. Wikipedia has that list for a reason (various reasons, actually, depending on the URL in question), and side-stepping the blacklist is not really acceptable. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 02:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] critics and opponents at cult apologist
The term cult apologist is used among others by Tilman Hausherr who is both described as a critic and an opponent with reputable source. user:Fossa was actively engaged in this discussion about Tilman Hausherr but he reverts the article cult apologist without explanation to a version removing the word critic. I do not understand this and I will revert back unless user:Fossa give a good reason for his revert. Please try to give a reason for this because without explanation your behavior on this article gives me good reason not to assume your good faith. Thanks Andries 10:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your help on Reinhart Hummel
By the way, does the EZW use the term alternative religion? If not, what term do they use? I think the Reinhart Hummel article should use the terms that the EZW uses or terms by others to describe the EZW. I do not know how the term alternative religion is defined. (I do not like concepts without a clear definition). Andries 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that Hummel uses the term, but I do think it's a fairly neutral term, that's why I use it ("emergent religions" is another of my favorite terms). The problem in all of social science is that concepts are usually not unambigiously defined. Fossa 00:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was somewhat shocked to read the "definition" of New Religious Movement on the German Wikipedia: it seems that an NRM does not have to be new nor religious. I can not accept this, because it diverges too much from my commen sense. As if a round red table does not have to be round or red. I think I will start using the good old word cult again which would in correspondence with my status and activities as a recriminating career apostate. Andries 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is manifold: There is no unanimous definition aof a "NRM" in social sciences, but most concepts indeed require a certain novelty. But once the concept has left academic discourse, it has acquired a meaning that is roughly correspondent to the English "cult" and the German "Sekte" (I would imagine it also be close Dutch the Dutch "Sekte"). HTH, Fossa 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was somewhat shocked to read the "definition" of New Religious Movement on the German Wikipedia: it seems that an NRM does not have to be new nor religious. I can not accept this, because it diverges too much from my commen sense. As if a round red table does not have to be round or red. I think I will start using the good old word cult again which would in correspondence with my status and activities as a recriminating career apostate. Andries 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re Seka
Regarding this, you are right. I had no idea what I was reverting to! I was involved in this by one side of the revert war, and aimed to sort it out via a source. That's why I did the revert, and as you see it worked (thanks to you)! :-) NikoSilver 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yap, I was maybe a little harsh as you nilly-willy reverted to a version by a Serbian nationalist. As you can see, he's not impressed by facts/sources (Seka's official website, which states that she was born in Zvornik) and keeps on Serbianizing her. Now, thanks to the brilliant 3RR rule, I am not even allowed to revert his unsourced nonsense. Fossa 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've given Nex a short block for his first violation of the 3RR rule. Believe me, the rule is a good thing - it stops endless revert wars and forces users to talk about their differences. I encourage you to try and explain to him on the talk page the reasons that your sources prove your point. I know it can be hard, but its better in the long run.
-
-
-
- Given that the changes were made breaking the 3RR, I've reverted them. --Robdurbar 10:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] List of state mottos
Hi Fossa! Thanks for helping out with the List of state mottos. Like you said, quite a few of the mottos listed are made up, though it isn't as bad as it used to be. Nonetheless, could you be more specific as to why you removed the mottos for Germany and Schleswig-Holstein? The articles in English and German give the same motto as the one that was listed (see Germany, de:Deutschland, Schleswig-Holstein, de:Schleswig-Holstein), and there was a reference for the German motto, showing that the German 2 Euro coins have the phrase Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit on the edge [4]. This is also stated in the article German euro coins: "The edge lettering features the words "EINIGKEIT UND RECHT UND FREIHEIT" (Unity and Justice and Freedom), Germany's national motto and the beginning of Germany's national anthem." Is it the case that this phrase was added even though it is not official? If so, you might want to edit the main articles Germany and de:Deutschland to reflect that, as well as German euro coins. Cheers, Pruneautalk 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your Landmark Education work
I believe that your very fair editing has been smeared on Landmark Education. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education#Removing_drive_by_vandalism_in_intro. It pains me to see balanced, intelligent editing treated with contempt. Wbroun 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
