User talk:Jefferson Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus, defaults to keep.

Contents

[edit] Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, 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.

We're so glad you're here! --Simonkoldyk 18:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Defence Forces

Hello there,

Just to let you know, (as the primary author of the article in question) the article does indeed cite it's source of information, which it links to under "External links". Because of this, I am going to revert the tag. Thanks--Thomas.macmillan 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for deletion on Black concert T-shirt

Just wondering why you added the delete tag to this article. You did not provide any reasons and you did not add to the discussion. People nominating articles for deletion normally provide some argument as to why they have done so. --Mattarata 14:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article had 1 source when you tagged it, and it has 3 sources now. I could probably cull 100 references to the Black concert T-shirt in popular literature and news articles if I spent hours searching. Most people, when tagging an article, provide a little bit of detail in their reason for tagging other than just WP:OR or some general statement. --Mattarata 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paganism and Polytheism Recategorizations

You seem to be doing extensive cleaning up and reorganizing of the Paganism and Polytheistic categories. I think I understand what you're doing but would you mind explaining the removal of the Irish and Scottish Culture categories from the Samhain article? I suppose you think these are covered under the Religion in Ireland and Scotland Categories but I think they are more cultural celebrations than religion per se. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up my grammar and spelling mistakes on Lopezian Paganism before you decided it did not belong in Wikipedia. Although it is certainly not something I made up and has been around for about 30 years now, I had not realized that original research was not acceptable when I put up the article. I have moved it over to the religion wikia now, which seems a better home for it. Babylon Horuv 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization Questions

Re: Perhaps you could help with a couple categorization questions that I'm not sure what to do with. Take a look at Category:Paganism. I have a question about two subcategories. First, I don't think that Category:Idolatry belongs here at all, being a concept of Abrahamic religions. Second, it seems to be that Category:Pagan festivals should really be called Category:Neopagan festivals and moved down under Category:Neopaganism. What do you think? Jefferson Anderson 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think both of those suggestions are good about Idolatry and recat of Pagan festivals to Neopagan Festivals. The standardization you are doing is good and needed overview work. I might quibble with a few of your deletions but I'd prefer to see some overall order imposed and then tweak it than just leave it in the haphazard manner now applied. I'm still curious about your removal of the Irish and Scottish Cultural Cats I mentioned above. Would you mind explaining your rationale? Thanks. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I missed your response. Sorry. I'm switching the cats on those articles to Culture because I think it's more appropriate than Religion. In those countries, I think the way those days are celebrated is more cultural than specifically religious. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be discouraged

I know Wikipedia is full of controversy. This is to be expected. In my time hear I have been insulted, threatened, abused, but I have also been encourages, educated, and apologized too. I have received much good faith advice which I have taken to heart.

Wikipedia is a confusing and passionate place at times, if you ever need advice or help in any way simple click the Ask me button on my signature. And keep up the good work, people's opinions are this site's greatest asset. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some action taken

I have just done a round of deletions of names from the Starwood festival page and a few deletions of Starwood mentions on other pages. I also assembled some 3rd-party sources referencing Starwood appearances on the part of many of the subjects who had mentions in their articles and added them. Some include interviews by the subjects discussing these appearances. I also provided links to a couple articles that had only been referred to in the past. (I would not be suprised if I did some of these wrong, in that I may have put links in the body of the text that belonged in the "Reference" section and such, and I welcome anyone changing such errors.) I hope this demonstrates my desire to improve articles and satisfy requests for 3rd-party sources. I have not added to the Starwood Festival page, only subtracted (though I did ask someone to fix a link to a band's page), and though I have added to the Jeff Rosenbaum article it was only to beef it up to avoid its deletion. If it can pass muster, I plan not to edit it any more, and I hope to ask others to handle any direct additions to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles. I may still make more deletions to them for a while.

I appreciate the fact that you weighed in on this issue. I find myself in a position where those who have been here longer that I have wield a big advantage in their ability to draw on friendships and alliances in any issue. I have certainly made some mistakes, but most have been the result of an honest attempt to create valuable articles. I have been subjected to both attacks and sabotage (which is the only way I can describe some of Matisse's actions), and though I've tried to find compromise positions and satisfy some of the demands put upon me, the pressure keeps up on several fronts. Again, I appreciate ANY support.
And as to the accusations and treatment you have been subjected to, I must say that I'm unimpressed with those who tell you "well, I might be wrong" when they marginalize you but won't take down the statements. Rosencomet 21:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uniterran Church edits

Just wondering what is your justification for removing yahoo links and email links from the Uniterran Church page. Please let me know what the wikipedia rules are concerning this if you were acting in accordance with these rules.

Mirlin 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

prod vs afd i see your point but if you don't at least try to put the prod on it you never know if it would be removed for sure. i guess it because i look for smaller articals which haves less information on it or just something that should not be on wikipedia oh well at least you heard my side of things. i more thing also i guess my point of view comes from last week i proded 2 articals for delation and the tag was left for 5 days but because nothing happend i put them on afd which i know i should not have because i should have let the prods expire thats all i am sayingOo7565 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am of the "opinion" that user Jefferson Anderson declares warfare on articles he personally does not like. If I had been aware that the UTC article has been marked for deletion before today, I guarantee that it would have gathered more "Keep" votes than "delete" votes. Our church will do everything in our ability to have this article restored. Mirlin 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. - WeniWidiWiki 19:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bridgeland

Okay - I know where Bridgeland is... it is in Northwest Harris County. It is a large suburban development that will open soon. I reverted the article to an earlier form and voted to keep. WhisperToMe 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In Texas there are MANY unincorporated communities that contain a lot of residents.

The Woodlands, Texas is not a town or city - It is a development mostly in unincorporated Montgomery County but partly in Harris County, for instance.

Also, Kingwood, Houston, Texas originally was unincorporated but was later annexed by the city of Houston.

By the way, I would make sure that authors of development articles phrase the developments in NPOV manners :) WhisperToMe 22:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait - I do not understand the idea behind the "Bridgeland Community" trademark name... I don't understand the problem. WhisperToMe 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yogani AfD

Hi Jefferson Anderson,

I was wondering if you could pass by the Yogani AfD discussion page, after first viewing the article's discussion page ([1]), which may help in the AfD discussion. Thanks and have a great day. Mdyogi 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jefferson Anderson. No offense taken. I'm definitely still a greenhorn when it comes to writing on Wikipedia so any guidance is appreciated when given. Regarding the article, I understand completely what you are saying about Yogani's anonymity, and I know that I have my work cut out for me. I'm gonna give it my best shot over the weekend and if it still doesn't make the grade according to Wiki standards, I will have nothing against the actions that must be taken. Rules are rules, and I acknowledge that. The funny part about the whole thing is that his anonymity (and no desire for fame or guru status) is really what sets him apart is his field. Here we have a guy who has written hundreds of free lessons on many advanced spiritual practices, most which have been inaccessible to the general public for thousands of years, and asks for absolutely nothing in return. Through this open-source style of teachings, he is leading the way on redefining the way spiritual practices are taught. Now I've just got to figure out a way to prove it.  :)
Thank you for taking the time to explain your side of things. Have a great day. Mdyogi 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Source (Response)

Hi Jefferson Anderson. Thank you for taking the time to share those excellent recommendations, they are appreciated. I will definitely look into them if the article doesn't make the cut. One quick question: Regarding your last statement about interviews. Yogani has recently done three radio interviews and is scheduled for three more this month, the soonest one being Sunday. There is plenty of information in the interviews, which have been archived and are available for streaming or download at http://www.aypsite.com/audio.html, so they can be verified. The interviews have been conducted on a talk radio show in Cincinnati (1360 WSAI [2]) called "Yoga - The Other 98 Percent", and simultaneously broadcast live on the internet. I was originally going to use these as sources in the article as there is plenty of information there, but the closest I could find to a radio interview in the Wikipedia guidelines for sources was for video. Would these interviews qualify as sources, so long as the information referenced is contained within the interviews, or would I run into a problem again due to them being hosted on the AYP site? Thanks again for your help and have a great day. Mdyogi 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions Underway

Hi Jefferson Anderson. I have started by removing the sections of the article which can not currently be verified to Wikipedia standards. Using a recent radio interview as a source, I have rewritten the entire Biography and other sections of the article. As more sources become available in the future, I will maintain the article, adding new information and citing as necessary. Please let me know if I am on the right track here. Thanks.  :) Mdyogi 17:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nomination for deletion withdrawn

Hi Jefferson Anderson. Just wanted to say thanks for the guidance on the article over the past week or so. It is because of the help that I was able to get the article up to spec, so it is greatly appreciated. I'm going to continue with the expansion over the weekend per your recommendations, and hopefully create a great article worthy of the man it is about. On a side note, can I assume that the AfD tag will be removed from the article in the near future? Thanks again and have a great day. Mdyogi 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab case: Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

I am presently contacting all parties to confirm voluntary participating in MedCab Case you had requested. If this issue is still outstanding and you wish to accept me as your mediator please return to the mediation page, edit the discussion section, state that you wish to proceed with my mediation and sign your name. Alan.ca 21:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The respondents in your MedCab case seem quite unwilling to co-operate with mediation. I strongly suggest that you seek advocacy at the WP:AMA. Alan.ca 04:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Advocate

Hi, I read your request and it interested me very much. As I see, is a very difficult case and arbitration has already begun, so, if you are willing me to be your advocate, this will have to be fast. That's why my first question is how will we communicate each other. I highly prefer to use email, but, if you have a problem with it, we can use another way. If you accept to work with me send me an email at emvigo (at) gmail (dot) com or post me a message in my talk. Yours! (in case you don't want me as advocate, the case request's status will be placed as "new" again) --Neigel von Teighen 11:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will accept you as my advocate, and will email you shortly. Jefferson Anderson 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood arbitration update

The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [3] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The bad news is that while I was analyzing the case I became convinced that Frater and Anderson are the same editor. It may not be proveable in a court, but the evidence is much stronger than is normally required on Wikipedia. The good news is that, except for the sockpuppetry (both accounts editing several AfDs and the Celtic Paganism article), the edits were (in my unofficial opinion) more or less reasonable as to questioning the appropriateness of the CR Faq as a source. Thatcher131 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of T. Allen Greenfield

An editor has nominated T. Allen Greenfield, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen H. Greenfield and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Greenfield

I don't get why there's even a question about this, and I'll say so on the deletion page. I was not previously aware of him, but I'll bet Ian Corrigan and Donald Michael Kraig have some info, and I can e-mail them about it. But though the article itself can certainly use some rewriting and expanding, the subject seems perfectly notable. Here's a link to a website with plenty of biographical material; I can't vouch for any of it, and some isn't encyclopedic, but valuable stuff can be culled from it. [4] I will add a few items myself.

I think the best course is to add a nice section on his background as a UFOlogist, and not rely so much on his occult chops. I haven't a clue as to how notable all the "titles" he is said to hold are, but he's got broadcast media appearances and has been a lecturer at several conferences, and has written and/or contributed to several books, and was quoted by several legitimate journalists and authors. Rosencomet 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allen H. Greenfield

Recently you argued "keep" on an article for one Allen H. Greenfield based on his supposed academic credentials. I have researched Mr. Greenfield's "Doctor of Divinity" and have discovered that it was issued by the Universal Life Church, an on-line ordination and diploma mill that specializes in selling ecclesiastical titles. I would urge you to consider whether or not you want Wikipedia to become a advertising agency for every crack-pot author and pseudo-doctor who happens to write a book or two. Eyes down, human. 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Case

User:MensKeperRa has filed a request for assistance with the WP:AMA (found here that you are involved in. I have asked MensKeperRa to write a brief summary of his arguments in the Discussion section, and once he does that I would appreciate it if you would write a brief (1-2 sentences here) counterpoint. Obviously this is not mandatory, but it seems like the user is very adamant about this - thus I do hope you will seriously consider taking part in the discussion. I look forward to working with you, and hopefully we can all come to a agreeable solution. --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well apparently MensKeperRa isn't interested in working on the cased -I'm going to shut it down.--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 15:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:running to admins

Well, since I assume GF, there must be a good reason why I think you don't merit that. You aren't improving Jahbulon at all. Let me ask you this: why have you never touched the article since it was rewritten until your friend User:Frater Xyzzy got reblocked, and all of a sudden you're on a crusade to "fix" it? An article I rewrote. Add to that that you are obviously watching my contribs - otherwise you wouldn't even know I asked any admin anything. Care to explain why you might make a habit of that, and why I shouldn't get you banned for wikistalking? MSJapan 18:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, at what point . . .

...are you planning on going and tagging anyone/everyone (who disagrees with you regarding the Obligations in Freemasonry) as a possible sock?--Vidkun 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just try to be the bigger man, and walk away from the dispute, specifically the sock issues? All this looks like right now is more tit-for-tat from you. I happen to know that they are all three distinct indivduals. Writing styles, behaviour etc all point that way.--Vidkun 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Go ahead and suspect me, accuse me, whatever. It merely proves you have little interest in content, and more in personality. It now seems like you are fully engaged on a mission to attack persons, not content.--Vidkun 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So, your response is to do the very same thing you are accusing others of doing? Way to miss the point of wikipedia.--Vidkun 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wouldn't you rather archive it?

Jefferson, I noticed you removed a lot of content from your talk page. Wouldn't you rather archive it? That way, if it ever needs to be referred to again, it can be easilly found rather than trudging through the edit history. Logoistic 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal responsibility

Your user page violates the No Personal Attacks policy of Wikipedia.

The dispute you were involved in at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism is a strawman. You unilaterally removed material against consensus. Three admins were involved in the discussion, as well as other editors. The other editors involved willingly pulled all refs which could be construed as being a conflict of interest. Provide diffs which show actions that violate wikipedia policy. Use the dispute resolution process. As for myself, I have a grand total of seven edits at that entry.

I doubt any of your problems might have stemmed from your attitude or actions. It's just those nasty cliques on the wiki. It's all turf battles and gangs "protecting" articles. A single tear falls from my eye. - WeniWidiWiki 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jefferson Anderson/Evidence

Please do not make personal attacks on other people as you did at User:Jefferson Anderson/Evidence. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. WegianWarrior 09:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'd advice you to log in and actually file the evidence so others can contribute. WW, I don't believe preparing evidence in a standard format for submission in an official WP process can be considered a personal attack. In fact, your tagging of this page is more likely to be viewed as a personal attack and abuse of tagging templates. Frater Xyzzy 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

<offensive personal attack redacted Newyorkbrad 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)>

After all the whining WeniWidiWiki has done about so-called "personal attacks", using this crucifixion icon is pretty low (besides being extremely insensitive to Christians). What a foul and sarcastic thing to do! Rosencomet 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

I thought this might interest you. I contacted an arbitrator who confirmed that Mattisse, BackMaun and Alien666 "all share an IP from time to time", and he asked how serious the problem is. I told him to look at the activity on List of Thelemites, List of UFO researchers, Allen H. Greenfield and Anodea Judith; Mattisse has been criticized for this kind of thing before on some of the same pages and others edited by the same editors, and supported then by Kathryn (like she did on Anodea Judith) and her two partners as may be happening now. I told him that this looks like a "ramp up" to me, at a time when others in the Starwood arbitration had been saying that there were no recent indications of sockpuppet activity on the part of Mattisse. Rosencomet 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Starwood Festival

An RFC on the mention of child care and youth programming in the Starwood Festival article has been opened[5]. If you are interested, please read the information there and the discussion that led to it immediately above it[6] on the Starwood Festival discussion page. Your input would be appreciated. Rosencomet 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood decision

Jefferson, congratulations! Reasonability triumphed finally! Cheers, your former advocate --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson Yeah, congradulations. Mattisse 04:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJefferson_Anderson_4d56.html"