User talk:Apostle12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rosebud Denovo

You removed reference to Rosebud's killing because you suggest it had nothing to do with the Park, yet Park activists blamed Chancellor Tien for allowing the University to go ahead with construction plans (volleyball court, etc.). Rosebud was one of many outspoken critics of Tien. Her being in his house with a machete was directly related to people's park, far from having "nothing" to do with it.stan goldsmith 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty tenuous to me. It's true that Rosebud linked herself with those who called themselves "Park activists." Yet she broke into Tien's house because she was deranged, not because her actions had a rational connection to any cause associated with People's Park. Her killing by an Oakland police officer had to do with the fact that she lunged at the officer with a machete; once again, her killing had nothing to do with People's Park.
What I have noticed is that the Park seems to act as a magnet for quite a number of imbalanced individuals. They spend time in the Park, and their "cause celebre" seems to be proving that various authoritarian structures (the University, the campus police, the Berkeley police) are evil.
Perhaps you can find a source that addresses this issue and work it into the article in some rational way. Otherwise it seems largely irrelevant. Apostle12 08:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your points don't make sense. On the one hand you suggest that she "links herself" to the activists and on the other you say she had nothing to do with the park besides being crazy. As a person who knew her I can say that she was instrumental in organizing protests about the park and a major player in the protest movement surrounding the park in the early 90s.

Using your logic one can say: well the marches and riots in the 60's were just crazy people running amok for no reason, just because they were near People's Park or "linked themselves" with park activists doesn't mean anything.

What is the difference between linking yourself with a movement and being a part of it? And where do you get your information that she was "imbalanced" - this seems like a pretty heavy judgement call on your part. Same goes for the rest of the park activists, many of whom were and are still Berkeley students, many of whom are active in the Berkeley government and run businesses in the city, far from being crazed lunatics who think that the cops are satan. They have a purpose and your removal of that purpose diminishes them to something that you can assert your power over, i.e. nothing more than crazy people.

If you want to maintain that you are being neutral you are just kidding yourself. stan goldsmith 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would benefit from reading the link, "What Really Killed Rosebud?," which appears at the bottom of the page.
I used the word "deranged" to refer to Rosebud, which I think is a mild term considering that: she had a long history of violent conflict with authority; she had been committed to mental institutions because of her threats and violent behavior; she had left Oregon because "there weren't enough protests" there, traveling to Berkeley specifically to seek out violent conflict regarding People's Park; and, shortly before her death, she and her boyfriend were arrested with explosives that they intended to use to blow up Chancellor Tien's house. Her shooting, after she lunged at an armed police officer with a machete, seems clearly to have been "suicide by cop." And she voiced exactly that intent, in a note penned before the event, where she declared her willingness "to lay down (her) life" to protest the building of some volleyball courts.
Yes, "imbalanced" is judgmental word. I'm happy to stand by its use as appropriate in this context. Apostle12 08:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Altman

You removed the Robert Altman (photographer) pictures from the Hippy article. Permission to use this copyrighted work in Wikipedia articles were granted by Robert Altman, on September 3, 2006. Do you have information which superceeds that? --Salix alba (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie influence on the visual arts

Thanks, Apostle; I was beginning to think I was the only one in the discussion besides our aristo friend the Bus Stop! --Orange Mike 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to help resolve this argument. I appreciate the brevity of your comments, and I've asked Bus stop to follow your example.. Please also remember not to bite the newbies. And, try not to engage in personal attacks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People's Park article

Hey there -- got your note. See the discussion of People's Park to see some examples I pointed out. Maybe that will help, and we can start an ongoing dialog on how to bring this page up to par! Thanks

Guess I'm dense, but I do not understand why you consider parts of my ediing as biased: in my mind (probably the problem!!), many of the people involved in the "Bloody Thursday" incident were upset and confused. about why the police had fenced the park. People gathered in Sproul Plaza to find out what was going on, and to share their feelings of confusion. So I think of them as 'citizens' and not 'protestors' because they were peaceably exercising their Constitutional right to assemble. When Dan Siegel spoke he was not inciting people to protest -- he was saying that the citizens should go to the park.

As I understand 'loaded' words (I'm thinking of S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action here), 'citizen' is more value-neutral than 'protestors,' a term that suggests a purpose not necessarily inherent in their actions. Also, I am puzzled by your comment that I 'insist' on injecting bias. In my mind, I was suggesting alternative, less loaded language.

Pepkoka, I presume? Please use four Apostle12 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC) to sign your comments.
You are correct that the students who gathered in Sproul Plaza were merely concerned students and other citizens. At some point, however--perhaps when the fire hydrant was opened and the first bottles and rocks were thrown--it became a protest. And it is legitimate to call those who chose to involve themselves "protestors."
Haven't yet had time to read comments on talk page. Will do that soon.Apostle12 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article on People's Park is much stronger these days: more info and overall, more objective. I was initially thrown off by the assertion that Mike Delacour was the Father of People's Park. I have never seen that in print, and from my recollection he was considered a poseur, so thought I'd throw in my own recollections as well. I'm actually really pleased with the current article. As a young eyewitness to these events, I was aware at the time that I did not fully understand what was going on, but I knew it was quite a story!! The current version seems much closer to reality, imho.

only onther question: why is there no link to Rabbi Michael Lerner? (it's the same guy). Pepkoka

[edit] Last two sentences of introductory paragraph in "Hippie" article.

Apostle12 -- In the "Hippie" article there is no source to back up the assertion that "Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through..." That is a broad, sweeping statement. I don't think it should be made at all. I tried previously to change that statement to a lesser statement. I just wanted it to say something to the effect that the "culture," or the "philosophy," of the Hippies was expressed, or "spread," through the various means cited. But it has been changed back to "Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through..." Again: I don't think such a grandiose claim should be made here. But if you are going to make that claim, it needs a source.

I have additional problems with the use of the term "visual art." I don't think it is the correct term to be used here. That phrase includes much more than what is implied here, or what is provided with a source here. A narrower term or phrase is called for, so as not to create the misleading impression that hippie culture had much of a bearing on "contemporary art," because it did not.

All that I am saying is in reference to the following two sentences, which I take objection to:

Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through a fusion of early rock, folk, blues and psychedelic rock. To a lesser degree, hippie culture was expressed in literature, [11] the dramatic arts, [12] and many aspects of the visual arts, especially film, [13] posters advertising rock concerts, and LP album covers. [14] [15] Bus stop 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meese Commission criticism

Please take it to the Talk page if you really need to debate this assertion.  edgarde 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work!

Good job on your latest edits to the hippie article concerning the music scene. You are really dealing with a brand new article, a subpage of psychedelic music. There's no immediate hurry, but I would start contemplating the creation of a new article (I can help out with the correct name if you want), and adding a summary paragraph or two to the hippie article with a link to the main topic. Again, nice work. —Viriditas | Talk 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Several issues

Hi. Yes, I think we need to source everything in the article (it's policy, see WP:ATT), and if we don't, someone else will request it; it's the only way the article will ever meet featured article status. Ideally, the lead section should already reflect sourced material in the body of the article. —Viriditas | Talk 10:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am not questioning the need to source material.
The phrase, "though the hippie movement itself extended far beyong the U.S." seems to me to be just a summary of ALREADY-SOURCED material--quite a lot of it within the "Hippie" article itself.
When a general statement merely summarizes already-sourced material (the existence of hippies in other parts of the world being well-documented), you have in the past defended the inclusion of such material (the Manson section, for example). Apostle12 07:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The Manson section is a summary of a subarticle. If the summary does not represent sourced content in the subarticle, there could be a potential problem. I recall adding or helping to source material in the past. If the lead material in question is already sourced in the body of the article, why hasn't a citation been offered? —Viriditas | Talk 08:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I could start. There is just so much....Apostle12 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Use WP:WIAGA as your baseline. I don't see any justification for the NPOV tag, and I've asked the editor who added it to explain, but I've received no response. —Viriditas | Talk 09:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie

You have to be kidding? Please look at the talk page for why the hippie article is POV, and it's because it is US centred, as has been made clear. We are an international and not a US encycliopedia, yet the article still reads as if it were part of a US encyclopedia after the many changes I have made. SqueakBox 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All the issues that have been raised on the talk page have been addressed as they came up. All sourced material regarding global hippiedom has been added. Please add more if you wish; it will be welcomed. Apostle12 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But your aggressive comments on my talk page are not welcome. The issues are being raised on the talk page though unfortunately Viritidas is being so aggressive it makes it very hard for long time editors like Codex and myself to participate. i suggest you criticise his false allegations before starting to attack me, SqueakBox 03:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never attacked you. Apostle12 04:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the comment you left on my talk page, I did not remove a single thing from the Hippie article. I corrected the formatting and improved the wording and order of the first section. In fact I even added content, such as the alternate spelling. I organized similar topics together instead of having them scatttered somewhat randomly, and I moved the footnotes to the ends of sentences, as per proper formatting style.Spylab 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The alternate spelling has been there for years. Why do you imagine that you added it? What you deleted, specifically, is the important concept of interactive development of the hippie ethos on both sides of the Atlantic. And you added the unsourced idea that "hippie" was used "sarcastically." Perhaps you mean "pejoratively"--in any case the massively rewritten lead kinda sucks friend. Apostle12 06:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The alternate spelling was not in the first sentence before I added it.[1]

It was only buried much, much lower in the article, but it must be in the first sentence, because that's how many people spell the word. I absolutely did not delete the concept of interactive development of the hippie ethos on both sides of the Atlantic. I moved it so it was next to other sentences about that same topic. I'll paste it here in case you don't want to read the actual article:

By 1968, self-described hippies had become a significant minority, representing just under 0.2 percent of the U.S. population.[10] The hippie culture spread worldwide through a fusion of rock music, folk, blues, and psychedelic rock. The hippie ethos influenced the The Beatles and others in the United Kingdom and Europe, and they in turn influenced their American counterparts.[11][12] [13] Hippie culture also found expression in literature, the dramatic arts, and the visual arts, including film, posters advertising rock concerts, and album covers.[14][15] [16] [17][18] Eventually the hippie movement extended far beyond the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe, appearing in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and many other countries.[19] [20] [21] [22].

I also did not add any statement that the term was used sarcastically. Some other editor did that. I suggest you actually read the section and pay attention to who is actually making specific edits, and not to revert the first section to a lesser-quality version that is full of formatting errors, disorganization, and poor, unclear writing style. For example, your preferred version of the first sentence:

Hippie or Hippy refers to a subgroup of the 1960s and early 1970s counterculture that found its earliest beginnings in the United States, becoming an established social group by 1965 before declining during the mid-1970s.

is grammatically incorrect, sloppy and very confusing. However, my version:

A hippie (sometimes spelled hippy) is a member of a specific subculture (often described as a counterculture), that began in the United States in the 1960s, spread to other countries, and declined in the mid-1970s.

is grammatically correct, more clear, and says what your version is actually trying to say. Also, footnotes belong at the ends of sentences and topics should have some kind of organization and logical flow, instead of just plopped on the page in a somewhat random fashion. Spylab 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. The alternate "hippy" spelling was there in the first sentence for years, then somehow disappeared rather recently. I mistakenly assumed this occurred during your rather aggressive editing.
My quibble about "began in the United States" and the interactive nature of the development of hippie culture on both sides of the Atlantic remains, however. "Found its earliest beginnings" was a recent compromise, since it refers to the '60-'64 period. However there needs to be some way to bring in the fact that interactivity during the '65-'66 period (also part of the beginning) was important. Simply saying that it "began" in the U.S. has not satisfied many critics.
Did do some clean-up and minor re-organization. Apostle12 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

I responded on talk about including the tune. If you can find a good cite or two that does not self-reference Wikipedia, we can add it back in. I'll keep looking, too. —Viriditas | Talk 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find something. Not too important, though probably best not to lose it. Apostle12 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re; Dylan turning on the Beatles

I'm sure you've met Diamond Dave (no not David Lee Roth, but the SF Diamond Dave) and are familiar with his claim that he turned Dylan on; Any idea if it is true or not? If you haven't met DD, you really should. Interesting character. —Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is new information for me. Somehow the name "Diamond Dave" resonates, however I don't think I've met him. What is his connection to the whole scene, and how might I meet him? Apostle12 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure you've met him. See [2]. I haven't been in the bay area for a long time, but he was active as a radio DJ on a local station (the one connected with the John Coltrane Church, I'm sure you've heard him on the air) and with the Rainbow Family. His daughter, if memory serves, was/is a popular musician. For some reason, I used to run into him in the Mission/Noe Valley all the time. He's an institution. —Viriditas | Talk 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your policy additions to WP:OWN

Hey, I forgot to tell you some time ago that I agree with the changes you proposed on the talk page for WP:OWN. If you have any interest in revisiting this issue, let me know as I would like to help you add them to the policy page. —Viriditas | Talk 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, V. I'm going out of town for a few days and will take a peek as soon as I return. Apostle12 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Just returned and had a chance to look over the changes I proposed on January 26, 2007. So glad you agree with them, especially since they relate to our own personal history; I am very grateful that we have become collaborators, and I thank you for being willing to help.
I'm not sure why these changes encountered so much resistance. Perhaps the Jungian reference was too obscure, though I think it useful. In any case, if you would like to formally offer your support on WP:OWN (Talk)--along with any changes you might prefer--that would be much appreciated. Apostle12 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Since it is your idea, I think we should work on it in your user space first, revise and refine the text, and then propose it on the talk page. I'm going to move it to User_talk:Apostle12/sandbox for now. —Viriditas | Talk 06:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing Hippie to Good Article status

Although I would like to work with you to elevate Hippie to FA status, I think we should bring it to GA, first. Please take a look at WP:GA so you can see what needs to be done. Let's get this show on the road. —Viriditas | Talk 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am serious about editing, though perhaps not as directed as you are. I did look over the "Good Article" guidelines and the comparison to "Featured Aricle." I guess I'd just like to play with it...do a bit here and a bit there. Apostle12 05:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Nothing will be lost. Getting "hostile" over unsourced material is just silly. Choose a section to start with on the talk page and I will personally help you find sources. Tell me where to start, and I will guarantee nothing we can source will be lost. Do you want me to start with sexual attitudes? —Viriditas | Talk 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, starting with "Sexual attitudes" sounds fine.Apostle12 06:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I just noticed that Spylab recently combined all the festival information in three run-on "paragraphs." I only noticed it because I was going to add a quote to the Burning Man section. (Stewart Brand said recently that Burning Man was a fulfillment of everything we--meaning hippies--were trying to do with the Acid Tests and the Trips Festival.) Not too pleased by Spylab's editing. What do you think?Apostle12 07:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it works. Is your concern that you are losing the section headers? The trick is to use the ";" in front of text without the headings. It gives you headers without the headings. —Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual attitudes

Hippies regularly flouted societal prohibitions against interracial dating and marriage.

The first part can be sourced, but the second part about dating and marriage will be more difficult.

They were early advocates for the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws that the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), but which remained on the books in some U.S. states until 2000, albeit unenforced.

Where can I find a source for this?

With their emphasis on Free Love, hippies promoted many of the same counterculture beliefs that found early expression in the Beat Generation.

That seems reasonable and easy to source.

Co-habitation among unmarried couples was the norm,

Not sure where to find a source for this.

open relationships were common,

Should be easy source if true.

and both Beats and Hippies advocated for legal and societal acceptance of most forms of consensual sexual expression among adults.

Should be easy to source if true, although the legal part will be difficult.

With regard to homosexuality and bisexuality, the Beats had demonstrated early tolerance during an era when homosexual expression of any sort was still punishable by stiff prison sentences.

I'm not sure if that is true. I mean, this sounds like a generalization from Ginsberg and Kerouac alone.

Hippies generally espoused the same tolerant attitude. Many hippies, as in the movie Woodstock and the photo were casual about open nudity.

How many Hippies were naked at Woodstock? Are we talking about full nudity, or women taking their shirts off. —Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking this to Hippie/temp. —Viriditas | Talk 12:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag of photo "Neal Cassady" article

What on earth is the problem with this photo? It's been up for years with no objection whatsoever?

Seems overzealous to tag it. However, please inform how tag can be removed, as it would be a shame to lose it. Apostle12 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The way to remove the tag is to ensure it has an IN DEPTH fair use rationale, see [{WP:NFCC]] and WP:FURG for more information.

Sfan00 IMG 15:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hippies

is it true Hippies rejected established institutions, criticized middle class values, opposed nuclear weapons, opposed the Vietnam War, and promoted the use of psychedelic drugs to expand one's consciousness. why don't these prove that hippies were against a lot of things the U.S. government were for. Were not hippies against the U.S. government. If hippies sold out they would become like all other americans? Some hippies did use violence.

Vietnam: There was never a declared war between the U.S government and Vietnam. The war was between the two Vietnams. Didn't hippies protest U.S involvement in Vietnam and not Vietnam fighting Vietnam. The hippies were protesting the U.S.'s involvement. not the war. VIETNAM CONFLICT.

Drugs: weren't the drugs hippies used illegal.

[edit] William Colby Article

Hi, I see you removed the link to 'The Franklin Coverup'. The thing is that the article about John DeCamp also links to it, so I'm not sure why you feel it is wrong. Do you feel that the John DeCamp article also wrong? Or is it that you feel that the link to 'The Franklin Coverup' shouldn't redirect to The Franklin Coverup hoax? There seems to be extensive discussion of if it really was a hoax on Franklin Coverup Hoax. so I would say leave the link in and let people decide for themselves. --Shimbo 10:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would submit that linking DeCamp's book title 'The Franklin Coverup' to an article called 'Franklin Coverup Hoax' is also inappropriate. DeCamp certainly does NOT consider it a hoax, and the evidence he provides is rather convincing. The fact that some consider it a hoax might be mentioned, but letting people decide for themselves would involve mentioning the title of DeCamp's book without direct prejudice. Apostle12 07:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Moore

You're right, as I added a subsequent talk page comment that explained its removal, here. Do you think a separate section, branching out to a new article, say Culture of the Hippies is required? I think it may be a good idea. —Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the "Hippie" talk page and intend to add a section discussing Floating Lotus.
Culture of the Hippies sounds somewhat overblown to me, because the movement proper lasted such a short time and I see culture as something that develops, and becomes deeply rooted, during many generations.
However there was such a thing as "hippie culture" and, more specifically, a "hippie ethos." Hippiedom was, after all, an idea--something along the lines of:
"We are each conscious creators, and we can choose to re-fashion the world we live in along more loving, compassionate lines. We must not be limited by the societal, governmental and cultural structures we create--such structures are often antithetical to the essential, moment-to-moment practice of loving one's fellow man. Life is a banquet and most poor folks are starving (quoting Auntie Mame)."
The remarkable thing about the hippie phenomenon was that this idea did indeed take root, to the extent that contemporary Western culture would hardly be recognizable had hippies never existed.
I have attempted in the past to add information regarding the beautiful, central idea of the hippie ethos from works authored by Stewart Brand, Stephen Gaskin and others, sourcing same as best I can. Perhaps you might better tolerate the addition of such information in the section you propose.
What exactly to call it? I am open to suggestion.Apostle12 20:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dunites

During the 1930s and 40s, the dunes were the home of a group of free thinking people including mystics, nudists, artists, writers, and hermits who identified themselves collectively as the "Dunites." Among other activities, the group published a magazine, which they called The Dune Forum. The Dunites believed that Oceano Dunes was one of the centers of creative energy in California.[3]

Dunites? This is the first I've heard of them. How about you? Can we connect the dots to the Beats and the hippies? —Viriditas | Talk 07:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Check this out: [4], [5], [6]. Neat. —Viriditas | Talk 07:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You're not going to believe this. I just discovered that one of the leaders of the Dunites, Gavin Arthur (born Chester Alan Arthur III) was not only friends with Neal Cassady,[7] but was a practicing astrologer who helped choose the date of the first Human-Be-In.[8] —Viriditas | Talk 08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I think: the hippies have always been here. Call them whatever you want, bohemians, Der Wandervogel, beatniks, whatever. I think we need to view them as part of a greater community of free-thinkers spanning millenia rather than as an isolated phenomenon in one decade. Obviously, each generation will express this joie de vivre in the language and clothing of their time but the underlying ideas remain the same. —Viriditas | Talk 08:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible addition to the legacy section

I have a reference to École nationale de cirque being related to the hippie movement in some way, either attracting hippies or being influenced by hippies. Do you have any information about this? Now, wouldn't that look great in the legacy section! —Viriditas | Talk 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cirque nouveau was allegedly established in France in the 1970s. I'm thinking that we should be able to find some kind of relationship between the hippie counterculture and the rise of the new circus art form. —Viriditas | Talk 07:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You may be right about a connection. I wish I knew more; definitely worth pursuing, and it would look great in the legacy section. Apostle12 07:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two requests

  1. Need your help expanding examples of hippie vocabulary in both hippie and the etymology articles
  2. User:Brasswatchman has some questions about Charles Manson and his relationship with the counterculture and The Beatles that I think you can better address than I can. Please see: User_talk:Brasswatchman#Re:_Manson.

Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the original question asked by Brasswatchman. If you could address it on his talk page, I would appreciate it:
Can anyone give me or point me in the direction of any information regarding the cultural implications of the Manson family murders? There's the suggestion in this article, linked to in the Charles Manson article, as well as in Wikipedia's hippie, that the murders marked the end of the counterculture zeitgeist. I'd like to know more about how Manson affected popular culture; also, does anyone know if the Beatles ever commented on how Manson used their work? Thank you for your time. --Brasswatchman (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie comunities for inclusion

In addition to Haight-Ashbury, Barry Miles lists the following hippie communities in his book, Hippie (2004):

I'm wondering if you can help add a brief mention of them to the Hippie article and expand upon them in History of the hippie movement. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Hi,

you might want to look at the list I (we) are compiling at: Talk:9/11#NPOV / missing_facts. I appreciate any addition or criticism you can make. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving page

In your recent attempt to move Franklin coverup hoax to Franklin child abuse allegations, you somehow managed to delete the article instead. I suggest you ask for help on WP:RM, since an administrator will have to complete the move now. In the meantime, I restored the text at the original title. --Russ (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I really screwed up. Sorry for all the trouble.Apostle12 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent MKULTRA edits

Hi Apostle12. Thanks for the good additions to the MKULTRA article, but making so many different edits makes it difficult for people to follow changes. Editing a version of the page in a sandbox in your own userspace might work best for you. Bartleby (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try that.Apostle12 (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifun

Thanks for the sympathy :D I never intended to come back to this issue, but there it was and I couldn't help myself. This time I have no illusions. The editor who proposed the change this time is relatively new, like I was when I did it. I got involved initially just to give him some moral support because I expected him to get the same drubbing that I got. Fortunately, whether we win or lose this time, the bullying tactics are much less intense, so hopefully he won't be dissuaded from going on to become the great editor which I believe he will be. ireneshusband (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] npov debate

Hi Apostle12, are you interested in looking into the npov debate which is on Talk:9/11#Heart of NPOV (3) ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 sourcing

I'll reply at my page. Good idea.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • If you want to know how tables work, you can mail me. Or do you need something else?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm working steadily on User:Xiutwel/911 questioning paragraph draft, but I expect I will need some weeks to complete it. I also plan to go through the entire 9/11 talk archives (joined in my userspace) to see whether someone else has already done part of the work. I am not demanding you help me with it, but it helped raise my enthusiasm, when I saw you contribute! So if you could try and add a link once a week, that would be great ! Please note that when you click edit, and then preview, you get to see ugly table instructions, which work out fine only AFTER you have saved your edits. Just replace "sources" or "discussion" with the things you want to add. (I added your source already.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on 9/11 conspiracy theories

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 9/11 conspiracy theories. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AN3RR. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear! I AM terrified. And what of those who have also reverted? Have you warned them (and yourself) as well. Apostle12 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The purpose was not to terrify you. I am just trying to inform you that you have violated Wikipedia policy, which was stupid, because I forgot that you constantly ignore Wiki policy. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I might partially agree with you, especially the self-assessment. It is, however, not true that I "constantly ignore Wiki policy." Apostle12 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert-war anymore, Apostle12 ! Revert only once, and take it to talk after that. I have a question for you: you wrote on the talk page: "actually it was another editor who originally added it; I only restored it" — I cannot find that edit, can you provide a link or a timestamp for me? Thanks !  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I found it now, was it the RxS cleanup action of January 28? I've taken that to talk.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe you're at 3 reverts again.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe you have miscounted, A.R. Edits and re-edits don't count. Besides you have a tag team going on in this article, as you well know. Apostle12 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Mineta

Dear Apostle12,

I would welcome any improvements you could make to my proposal at Talk:9/11#Norman Mineta testimony issue !  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a link for "some members merely"

Would it not be better to give an example of a notable subgroup, who do so? E.g. pilots for 911 truth, perhaps?? I am not sure !!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked over the site and decided to add it. Apostle12 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about whistleblowers

Your comments on those pages are not helpful. Wikipedia talk pages are for improving articles not discussing personal political or other opinions that are marginally related to a topic. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just noticed that the comment was not added by you merely restored by you. In the future please don't do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have a right to restore something that was wrongly removed. I restored it to protest Haemo's high-handedness, which apparently you agree with.Apostle12 (talk) 04:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion about Hameo is irrelevant. The material does not belong on the talk page. See WP:TALK. Restoring disruptive content to make a point is covered under WP:POINT. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted you again. I strongly suggest you do not restore the content unless you want to get blocked. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In the future, please do not visit my talk page. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear Apostle12,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate accounts

Hi. Please take a minute to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT and Wikipedia:Username_policy#Using_multiple_accounts. Most users who use alternate accounts will label the primary account with {{User Alt Acct Master}} and the secondary account with {{User Alternate Acct }}. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how this happened, as this is the account I thought I was using. Must have been when I was locked out a while back and inadvertently logged back in using the other name and password. My mistake, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. Apostle12 (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need more citations

By February 1966, the Family Dog became Family Dog Productions under organizer Chet Helms, promoting happenings at the Avalon Ballroom and the Fillmore Auditorium in initial cooperation with Bill Graham. The Avalon Ballroom, the Fillmore Auditorium and other venues provided settings where participants could partake of the full psychedelic music experience. Bill Ham, who had pioneered the original Red Dog light shows, perfected his art of liquid light projection, which combined light shows and film projection and became synonymous with the San Francisco ballroom experience.

Anything you can dig up about this will help. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your help adding sources to the "Revolution (1968–1969)" section is also appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)