User talk:Catherineyronwode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Wilma Lee and Stoney Cooper

I've been listening to a lot of Wilma Lee and Stoney Cooper songs tonight. My one-time partner Tom Hall used to know 'em all, and taught most of 'em to me -- and 44 years later they still unfold from my memory, melodies and intonations intact and lyrics pretty much so, when i play even a snippet of them at itunes. The mind is an interesting device. Mine has been used to store a temendous number of Wilma Lee and Stoney Cooper songs i didn't even knew i knew.

Hmmmm.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Catherine, I've decided to step back from the article for a while, since I don't have the time to research Bailey. I think quotes from her work would be much better than self-published websites as a source. They also are more accetable, I think (see [1]) Anyways, Kwork himself is also deleting Bailey quotes from the article. And at least for Christian criticism, it would be rather easy to find better sources, i.e. one of those books that describe everything New-Agey, and especially her, as the incarnation of the devil :) --Voidocore 14:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

Catherine, is this correct?:

Kwork deleted and replaced Catherine's new version with the old version that was the center of much conflict in the forum. Most agreed that Catherine's last version was on track and in the middle of our talk about it, Kwork deleted it. We were starting to talk about how to improve on it. It is good to have Catherine's new version in front of us as we talk about it. And were moving toward a consensus, having escaped the problems and disagreements of the old version. I'm glad James restored the new version of that we were focused on.Sparklecplenty 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If so, it was a mistake and not intentional and I am sorry. Kwork 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's just get it finished

I dunno anything about removals of texts, mistakes, etc. -- i missed all that apparently while doing other things away from the computer -- and i am not focussed on the details of it. I just hope we are making progress, that's all. Catherineyronwode 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Interesting article: [2] Kwork 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have found this academic site [3] that lists Hannah Newman (author of Rainbow Swastika); which makes it possible to use her book as a ref. in the article! Kwork 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I have suggested a major change, and simplification, to the criticism section. You might want to take a look. It they will agree, I think it would be best to be done with it. If they do not accept, I could not imagine what more could be done but to continue the process as it has been until one side drops from fatigue with the process. (The motto of the famous Rebbe Nachman was "Never give up".) Kwork 21:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, i disagree very strongly with your proposal to reduce the entire Controversies section to two sentences. The goal of Wikipedia is to educate by being readable. Saying, "Some people we won't name said something interesting about Alice Bailey, but we don't have any information about that here, so go to these other places to read that" is totally unacceptable to me, for this or ANY article. cat Catherineyronwode 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I just asked Kwork to help me help them.

If we can get them to help us initiate the expansion of the Bailey article we can perhaps do ourselves and the article a whole lot of good. Although I can scrap in the spirit of Saul Alinsky, I think the task is to lead by example. If some admin protects the article there are still ways to continue with the writing and the discussion. You are obviously by far the best writer and editor currently working on that article. They may never come to appreciate that fact but if we can take them by the hand and assist them in the expansion until they get the hang of it we can win this in a communal spirit. Anyway it seems worth a try. What do you think ? Albion moonlight 07:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Catherine's discussion of Alice Bailey's antisemitism. But I think, realistically, it will have to go into another article; perhaps to pending Occultism and Antisemitism article, which could be linked to the Alice Bailey article.
I have doubts even abouts about the fairness of trying to put to much antisemitism discussion into the Bailey article. So, Albion and Catherine, if you want to fight to get more of that in the Bailey article, it is okay with me....but I will have to withdraw for now from the discussions. It is an issue of what I think is the right thing to do. Kwork 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAB bio

Catherine, I don't know if you noticed, but I did add two sentences about her suicide attempts to the article; in the first paragraph under "Life". Although I read her autobiography several times, I had no recollection of that until you pointed it out. Kwork 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Material to add to the article (suggestions)

As I have said on a number of occasions, those who are defending Bailey and her teaching know nothing about it. They misunderstand, and will not listen to views differing from their own. If this was the older generation of Bailey followers, none of this argument would have been necessary. The newer generation of followers are much more cultists (6th ray), and as a result distort the better aspects of the teaching to the point that it is the inverse of what Bailey would have wanted. Virtually every statement in the article describing the teaching is actually completely wrong.

In the late 60s and early 70s I was at many full moon (and not a few new moon) meditations in Florence Italy, and NYC. I knew many of the people who had been Bailey's coworkers.

But although I know these things; what I know is, in the context of Wikipedia, only original research. I think it important to find better sources, and get things better organized, so as to avoid the endless quibbling encountered so far.

I do hope you get more involve in the writing of the main section of the article, it would be a real help. Don't pay attention to the editors who say you don't know enough about Bailey. Their own knowledge of the subject is problematic. Kwork 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for AAB

This link [4] (through an e-forum) for an article printed in the Forward is by Paul Berman, who is a fellow at the World Policy Institute [5]. Do you think it might be helpful in the article? Kwork 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Thank you for restoring the bronchiolitis obliterans page. The same vandal deleted your "undo"...I just undid it again but it looks like we have a problem on our hands. Do you know how to handle this? I'm not an expert in Wiki's vandalism policy. Thanks! Chrissy385 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat- thanks for your note on my talk page. I was trying to forge a compromise mainly because, as you saw, up until that point, it was an all out war-- and those anonymous users were just deleting EVERYTHING on the relationship between this disease and popcorn, and I was hoping a compromise might get them to at least leave SOMETHING until we could get this to the attention of an admin. (Thank you for doing that by the way!) Clearly, people are threatened by the highly publicized link between popcorn fumes and this lung disease. Even if we changed the redirect from "popcorn workers lung" and "popcorn lung" to bronchiolitis oblitrans, I think it was ridiculous to suggest creating a new page on popcorn workers lung when popcorn workers lung *IS* bronchiolitis obliterans. People are turning to Wikipedia to get important information about this hazard and it is unbelievable how hurried people are to deprive Wikiusers access to important information. I will fill in some of those orphaned refs tomorrow that you mentioned on your talk page. Thank you again for all of your hard work and attention to this issue! Chrissy385 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A quote from jp gordon

*"ArbCom has had to hear cases regarding meat puppetry, yeah. Often it comes up in the course of cases brought forth for other reasons. It's rarely the primary cause.":Jpgordon

I take this to mean that there is a lot to be hopeful about. I asked him if arb com ever hears cases regarding Meat Puppetry. I did so shortly after he told us all that arb com turns down cases pursuant to content disputes. This is different but it is probably best to proceed with caution, Albion moonlight 08:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about an article on Philip Lindsay ?

Even if it was nominated for speedy deletion by either him or his supporters It is very unlikely that the rest of the wiki community would tolerate such an article being deleted. Speedy deletion is a process similar to the rfc made against Kwork and once it became clear that Lindsay is a racist who is on the record for trying to unduly influence a wiki article, The whole mess would be out in the open and arb com would be almost forced to hear our case pursuant to the Bailey article.

It is hard to imagine a downside here. The worse case scenario would seem to be that the article would spark little to no reaction whatsoever. Either way an antisemetic a blog bigot would be exposed. Feel free to take this idea and run with it. Racism on the internet is a growing phenomenon that deserves a good kick in the butt, : Albion moonlight 08:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)+=

[edit] New Thought

The word secular was not used in either artical. I have never in my years in NT referred to New thought teaching as secular or religious it's new thought. very confused about this. There are different schools of NT.

[edit] New Thought Fact tags

I believe that you are in the position of having to do original research (See WP:OR) in order to bring the article up to date. Your last possibly neutral source has a date of 1980, I believe. I often find that WP standards don't really allow me to write what is probably true and even demonstrably true, or rather, they allow any editor passing by to call me out for violating the standards. I am sorry if my calling you out is inconvenient. I certainly encourage you to do what you can to make the article good. DCDuring 03:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear cat

Maybe I was a little harsh. I try hard to see your jokes -- I do appreciate you as a person. I thought the Rob Berman link was really funny; when I said 'LOL' I meant it literally. But I just couldn't find the funny in your diatribe there. And I want you to understand why. So here's some more personal, opinionated comments, of the variety I usually try to avoid.

Frankly, it's demeaning. It's ... it's really antigentilism, in fact (to cheaply coin a phrase). It made me very uncomfortable, and for what I believe are the same reasons you might not like jokes about "red sea pedestrians" coming from me. I.e., it feels "racist", for lack of a better word. Or maybe "bigoted". In fact, a lot of comments on that page feel that way to me. Sometimes I think some editors there believe that, if it's not the red blood of David in one's veins, then it must be the hateful green blood of the Deceiver. Gentiles don't all hate everyone, you know. That's a ... whaddyacallit .. a stereotype. You may not know this, but being stereotyped really sucks. (Yes, that is sarcasm.)

For instance, take me. I think Jason's has the best rueben ever made by a chain, and a schmeer from Einstein's is to die for. Speaking of Einstein, I can never decide whether he or Lenny Bruce was the smartest man of the 20th century. Of the (I think) 3 different Jewish girls I've had love affairs with, I loved every one of their completely different noses. And I don't even know what davening is. So, can you explain to me what I'm supposed to find funny about that stuff? I don't see it. I just feel insulted. Eaglizard 05:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, it doesn't seem to matter what approach I take with you, your responses to me always leave me feeling insulted. Maybe it's just me. But... whatever. One thing tho, defending bad behavior on the grounds that you've had to suffer the same thing, only worse... Well, doesn't make much sense to me. Eaglizard 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Book

The Black Book (Sonderfahndungsliste G. B.) by Reichssicherheitshauptamt [compiled by Walter Schellenberg] Binding: Paperback, Date Published: 1989, ISBN 0901627518.

Catherineyronwode, I can not find this book anyplace. Even the research collection of NYPL does not have it. Perhaps the title wrong? Walter Schellenberg was Hitler's chief of counterintelligence, and he did write a book or two [6]. Kwork 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, see the Alice Bailey talk page for my comments on this, as well as a reply to Eaglizard's question. cat Catherineyronwode 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for gathering all that information. Interesting, and I appreciate your effort. I had hoped that, if I pushed them enough, the Bailey enthusiasts among the editors would put some work into it and come up with documentation for the article. Strangely, they did not. Kwork 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed for Buddha

Please, re-add the stuff you removed. A.Z. 07:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i got your message asking me to add back that which i had removed in the Law of Attraction article, but i am still working on it. Please check later and add whatever fact tags you deem necessary at that time. I am trying to work with what was there and to tighten up the article to reflect actual English language use of the term, with less emphasis on what ancient people might have meant. cat 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove it in the first place? Were you distracted? Why don't you add it back yourself? This is all very strange to me. What if I hadn't seen your changes? I had partially fixed the problem with that sentence, but someone reverted my changes and didn't add them back. I think it's not good to remove tags that require citation; at least not without mentioning on the talk page that you've done so. A.Z. 07:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I was rewriting and i wanted a clear field. Like i said, please be patient -- i was not simply fixing bad grammar or spelling, i was rewriting the section with new sentences and did not want fragments of old material in my way. When i completed the section, i added fact tags as i thought fit. Please look it over now and feel free to add as many more citation tags as you wush. Please assume good faith. cat Catherineyronwode 08:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law of Attraction

Hi Catherineyronwode, I noticed that you are working on an article called the Law of Attraction. I you might (or might not) be interested to know that this was a key concept in the Alice Bailey books, for example: [7]. Since the idea is present in Theosophical literature also [8], I assume that Bailey took it from there. Kwork 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your progress on the New Tought and Law of Attraction articles. I'll give them a close read. I am interested in how you have been able it handle the lack of high-quality sources problem. DCDuring 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faith Healing

Thanks for adding refrernces and details to the New Thought section. I wrote it one night it needed some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reported by Renee

Hi Catherine. There is a possibility that I might get bounced, thanks to the tireless efforts of Renee and Eaglizard at achieving "neutrality". I want to thank you for your help improving the article, and I regret that my own failings may have frequently made your work more difficult. Kwork 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did that happen.

Please tell me when you were blocked from editing the Bailey article for 7 days. If Renee has done this recently I think the time may have come to fight back hard. I am not about to fly off the handle or anything like that but I do think that we have the upper hand now. The report she filed on Kwork was pursuant to his alleged lack of civility. If he gets sanctioned for more than 24 hours I intend to let them know that 2 can play at that kind of game.

Meanwhile please fill me in on the details I asked for. I suspect that this did not happen recently and I am actually hoping that they are gradually coming around so I do not want to do anything to trigger further polarization. But........ : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind I got my answer by looking at the recent editing history of the Bailey article. Albion moonlight 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I remember that now but I had not realized that Renee was involved or the ramifications of her actions. I was following AnonEMouses talk page at the time. She or he is a very kind Human being. When you reestablished your user the tables started turning against Renee and that bunch. So in that sense she shot herself and her allies in their collective foot. I remember being very relieved at the time. I sensed that it was the beginning of the end of their proclaimed hegemony over the article. I think I was right. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah and thanks for the info. It helped me keep a clear head. Albion moonlight 08:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

cat, while I've never quite seen the "alliance" that Danny and others see w/ Renee, I do want to agree that you "reassuming" your name has made a difference; I for one am glad you did. Hope you are too. Eaglizard 16:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laughing out loud.

Intellectual Opacity, Thats hilarious Cat. I am basically an inclusionist when it comes to Wiki articles. I say this because I see Wiki as a social experiment. I still intend to back you for the most part because I trust your intellectual judgement. But I am not going to get excited unless they start deleting and wikilawyering as they did in the recent past. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 10:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upon further reading.

I am now fully aware of why you are concerned about Jossi. As you know Parsifal defended you. I am going to assume that Jossi has concentration problems. Please be careful Cat. You may be dealing with a loose cannon. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm just talking typing too much today, but I want to agree that jossi's edits have been cause for comment by nearly all the active editors, including me. But I know how difficult the process of becoming an admin is, so I'm willing to go a long way to AGF that jossi will notice it, too. Eaglizard 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Concentration problems? Loose cannon? Ahem. I have been the target of obnoxious comments in my three and a half years in Wikipedia and +50,000 edits, but this tops it. I would appreciate it if rather than commenting on my ability to concentrate or comparing me with failing weaponry, that you look at my contributions to the article in a rational manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
cat, I personally think jossi is overreacting in this, but then, I always think "overreaction" when I see that prototypical "why I never, in all my days" hyperbolism. On the other hand, if you didn't feel the need to be so damned witty with phrases like "intellectual opacity", he'd have no real grounds for this complaint, IMO. It's clever, but it's nonetheless an insult. Do you think other editors won't take your meaning? Surely not; again, I reference your undeniable intelligence. Eaglizard 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Not overrreacting Eaglizard, and that was not hyperbolism. The truth is that I was never compared with a loose canon: an individual who has little to no self control, does not think logically,whose grasp on reality is feeble. A seemingly misunderstood person who is in fact a walking disaster waiting to happen. [9]. LOL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The definition I find is different, and fits the previous situation pretty well [10].Kwork 19:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? Do you really think that these are appropriate ways to address a fellow editor? You are absolutely wrong. No, if you could, get off my back and go edit instead, OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, what you are bothered about is very little compared to what I have put up with for months. Just today Sparklecplenty was complaining about Jewish editors ruining the article. I think that attitude is deplorable, but no one else complained. The approach taken has been to make editing this article so unpleasant that unwanted (Jewish) editors will give up and go away. Since I can not stop others from acting that way, and since I am unwilling to go away, I just do the best possible under the circumstances that exist. Kwork 20:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
We should move away from characterizing an editor as being Jewish, Mormon, Pagan, or what not. This is Wikipedia, and we are all editors. If I see any mention of an editor's religion, race, sexual orientation or any other such distinction, I will sternly warn these editors as they would be violating WP:NPA as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you guys are holding quite a mad tea party on my talk page, aren't you? For the record, i do not consider Jossi a loose cannon, but i do feel that [non-gendered pronoun of choice] started editing the Bailey article from an pure-editing point of view without complete familiarity with the topic. I've done this too, in my long career as an editor -- for instance, when a publisher says, "Here's a book on nutritional requirements and food sources; edit it," or "Here's a series of 110 trading card texts about Mafia gang bosses, serial killers, and mass murderers; edit it." Sometimes one can pull the trick off -- but at other times, especially when the topic is highly technical or specialized, or there has been muddled fact-checking by the author(s), one cannot simply "edit away" and create a publishable text; one must start from scratch, go back to the primary sources, and actually research and learn about the topic before editing. On Jossi's behalf, i will say that [pronoun] is catching on more rapidly than i first thought. Jossi's greatest strengths, in my opinion, are [pronoun's] familiarity with Wikification and Wiki-rule-booking. And now, how about y'all clear off my talk page and let me wash up the tea cups and sweep away the crumbs, okay? Thanks! cat Catherineyronwode 20:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Just note that I am familiar with Theososphy, and I am well read on philosophical and religious topics. And yes, I edit on a variety of subjects, even on those subjects that I am not initially completely familiar with. It does not take much to see an article that is off-track, as it was the case when I came upon this article for the first time and placed the {{quotefarm}} on it. Now, to the business of editing. Sorry for taking this discussion to your page. (and by the way, I am a he) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clue as to your gender. cat Catherineyronwode 22:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Say, I remember those cards. I always meant to track down a set. Anyways, dint mean to start a tea party. :) Eaglizard 22:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Davis

That was great work you did exposing James and linking him to Lindsay. I doubt that anyone will apologize to Kwork but I hope that these issues are not belabored on the Bailey talk page. Maybe an incident report is in order . I do hope that the fragile peace that now exists becomes a lasting one. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Read this posting by sparkelplenty and realize just how laughable things have become. There is no need to worry or even confront anyone about it but it is worth being aware of. [11] : Danny Weintraub  :Albion moonlight 13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

She deleted it alost immediately. I read it in the page history. It's as sad as it is laughable. She's quite obsessed with the mentions on the Bailey page that at least two UFO groups were influenced by Bailey, isn't she? I spent a while last night thinking about that myself, wondering what led both Understanding Inc. and the Order of the Solar Temple to use Bailey as a liturgical source. The best i could come up with is that Bailey mentioned "previous solar systems", reincarnation, vast spans of time, Lemuria, Atlantis, "The Christ", and "race evolution," and that these concepts either happened to fit in with -- or contributed to the development of -- each UFO group's particular cosmology, and once that was in place, it was a short step to actually utilizing Bailey's texts in a liturgical context at their meetings. Of course it would be OR to delve into that subject deeply, so all we can do it take notice of each time a UFO group cited Bailey as a source, and let folks draw their own conclusions. cat Catherineyronwode 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The part that I found most disturbing was the fact that she accused us of continuously referring to them as Antisemitic's. This of course is not so. The thing to remember is that it it probably best that we not get sucked into discussing these allegations with any of them or pursuant to any of them. Not even in the context of they may be this or they may be that. That way we can not have our words taken out of context. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have a good point there. I have no memory of anyone making such charges. People sometimes claim to have been martyred for heir beliefs, even though the martyrdom has not actually taken place, in an attempt to take the moral high ground from their adversaries. cat Catherineyronwode 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Catherine and Danny.

There is, actually, a lot of interplanetary and interstellar stuff in Bailey that might appeal to UFO enthusiasts. For instance, she wrote that the Hierarchy of Masters on this planet is based on Venus, and that the Hierarchy originally came to Earth from Sirius (perhaps the much discussed Sirius B) in the distant past. There is also stuff about "cosmic evil", and plenty more.

Recently, when sparkelplenty accused me calling the opposing editors to Nazis, I asked for her to show an example, but she could not. She is just throwing around accusations, and hopes that if she repeats them often enough someone will start to believe her. What puzzles me is that she keeps saying she knows so much about the Bailey teaching but has never edited the article (aside from reverting some of my edits). Everything she has written is on the talk pages. Sethie was about the same, but he was not a single purpose editor.

By the way do not worry about my editing suggestion from early today. It really is okay the way it is. Be well. Kwork 01:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A declaration of war ?

Read this and sigh. An RFC may be required,: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It has reached the point that I wait with fascination to see what she will say next [12][13] Kwork 12:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A picture from the comic book.

The message you sent me last night reminded me of what you said about your parents knowing Kenneth Patchen socially and your reference to almost being named Sparkleplenty leads me to believe that you had a most interesting childhood, Cat.  : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 07:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, i did not have blonde hair like Sparkle Plenty, but i guess in my mother's eyes i was just as cute. And yes, i did have an interesting childhood. My family members were beatniks, socialists, civil rights activists, poets, artists, left-wing intellectuals, antiquarian book dealers, and fairly far-out folks. I was raised in a permissive atmosphere and encouragesd to act "like an American" instead of "a refugee's child," and thus i was given lots of material to read about 19th century The Old West, as well as the complete Moses Asch library of Folkways recordings of acoustic blues, fiddle tunes, and songs about the 1930s Dust Bowl -- the result of which was that i ran away from academia to join the remaining rural inhabitants of America during the mid 1960s, where i learned how to piece quilts, milk goats, pick fruit crops, play the autuharp, erect natal horoscopes, publish books, and use herbs for medicine and magic. 40 years later i am still doing pretty much the same, minus the goats. How about you, Danny -- how did you come to know of Kenneth Patchen? cat Catherineyronwode 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am 2 years younger than you are and I come from a dysfunctional and abusive family. I am an Identical twin. We were raised by our Mother and Grandmother. They were both very neurotic and conservative. We were encouraged to read and study and were given music lessons. I came to the left via a rebellious nature and the coffee house scene in the late 60's . I discovered Kenneth Patchen by chance through a hippie girl friend who helped radicalize me. : Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faith Healing

You did a great job on the faith healing artical, Just wanted to let you know. You should take a look at the Unity artical it needs some help. I hope you are well. (JGG59) 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The page looks great. I don't know that much about Christian Science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The same IP address

I did not ask for a checkuser but surprise surprise and golly gee. Danny Weintraub  : Albion moonlight 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waiting...

I'm waiting for you to post on the Bailey talk page, whereupon I'll respond as you've requested. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I know how the process works.

The problem now is that until we know where JP Gordon stands we are in danger of dong something that is either redundant or ill conceived. I asked AnonEmouse a queston about this on friday . The answer I received is here That anser indicated to me that I was not being listened to so wrote AnonEMouse an email saying that feel forced to fight back. And the rest is history

Danny : Albion moonlight 05:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoodoo

Thanks for your note Cat. I still haven't completed what i'm planning for the article. I can only get to it during lunch breaks and on the weekends usually. My goal though, is to transfrom it from what it was into a featured article. It's a lofty goal, I know, but we can always aim high right? More later, I'm out of time.GooferMan 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And to follow up, I'll cite your online book for the reference to catalogs marketing. But the reason I put the citation request for it is because I have a preference for primary source material. (It's a quirk of mine:) Regarding the COI, I know that you have compiled a wealth of information on the subject, so in situations like this, if you cite the catalog, and not your own book, then there is not COI issue. It's doubly beneficial because citing the primary source (the catalog) makes a stronger argument. I don't have a copy of it, I don't know if you do, but there has to be a record of it somewhere. If we can cite it specifically, then that's one small step towards turning the Hoodoo article into featured status. On another note, under the section "Cultural Influences" there needs to be subsections on "native american" and "african". however, I am not knowledgeable enough in these areas to cite practices from these cultures. The key is to discuss things that are not found in other areas as well. If you know of anyone who could assist, please invite them. Thanks again for your words of encouragement. And, again, don't be too afraid of COI, I would personally find your contributions to creating this article gratifying. GooferMan 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Creme

A quick look came up with this [14] Kwork 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent source, Malcolm! For my own reference here, i'd like to note that the article is "Benjamin Creme and Maitreya the Christ" by Dr. Reender Kranenborg, in "UPDATE, A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements" Vol. IX No. 1, March 1985, published by Dialog Center International (DCI).
At the date of publication, 1985, the author was descibed thus: "Dr. Kranenborg is a research professor at the Institute for the Study of Religion, the Free University. Amsterdam. He specializes in those new religious movements in the West whose roots lie in Eastern religions and philosophies." In the succeeding decades, Dr. Kranenborg has gone on to get a wiki page of his own, and he is now a member of CESNUR, as noted, so i think this article passes the tests we usually apply when vetting such publications for scholarship and reliability.
It's a good, thoughtful, and informed article, and i would sure appreciate it if you would extract something relevant from that article and bring it to the Bailey page.
cat Catherineyronwode 07:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unity

Thanks for your support. I am slowly learning. I write the way I speak. I know this sounds crazy, but after a few encounters with Scottandrewhutchins. I just did not know how to proceed . I do not believe my way is the only way, I loved the process of understanding different points of view and finding a consensus. I especially like when the mirror is held up to me, ok maybe that part is not alway so much fun.lol Thanks again I think I'm taking a break.JGG59 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PS Take a look at the new intro I believe it to be inclusive and balanced. It honors both NT and Christianity. Please add or change anything that needs to be cleaned up.Thanks again.JGG59 13:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say Thanks again,71.42.142.235 wil not let up. I might not know all the rules on Wiki but I know how to treat people and not talk down to people. Maybe in a few weeks I might venture back. Take care.JGG59 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi again, I saw the revision you did it was great. I won't be going on that page anything soon. I see already any connection to New Thought will be removed or watered down to non- existence. Even the link which explains that the word Christianity is not the offical name will be ignored. I thought your insights were objective and clear. Your abilities as an editor and as a person to connect with others to create a great article were inclusive. I think I will venture forth on less explosive subjects and not take thing to heart.LOL Now that I have had time to reflect ! I will reference and be mindful of spelling and grammer.(that will be a full time job in and of itself). I am now reading up on the Christian Scientist to do some work on Faith Healing. Interesting group of major importance to all of New Thought including Unity. Thanks again.JGG59 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] heya...

Would you mind emailing me at user dot jpgordon at gmail dot com? No problem if you'd rather not. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] funny how that keeps happening

Hi Cat

I thought you might be interested in the sources of the edits that you fixed this evening...

(adding Jewish people back in -- they got dropped (again). Funny how that keeps happening.)

(Don't bury the lead.)

Best wishes... --Parsifal Hello 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. I see that now. Thanks for the tip. That says a lot. I hope you are enjoying your wikibreak, and it's great to know you are dropping in to check on us now and then. cat Catherineyronwode 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jpgordon

I just read the comment he made in reference to the past. He is trying to make nice but I do not trust anyone . So I copied and pasted the email address you left him just in case you get blocked or barred too. I have decided let Kwork teach me as much as he can about Bailey via Email.

I was suspicious of Jpgorden coincidental appearance on the Bailey article a couple of months ago. And now I have a more complete picture as to what happened, Danny W : Albion moonlight 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For the reocrd, although jpgordon and i share some similar life interests (he collected comics, i published them; he worked at eBay, i buy there; etc.) i have not trusted him since an earlier clash we had over the editing of some pages related to Thelema. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode

I think the way that Jpgordon handled the Bailey article back in August and or September worked to our advantage. I think this particular case has more to do with one admin backing the other. I am now going to go read the chatter that got Kwork blocked indefinitely. Danny  : Albion moonlight 05:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My only comment is this: jpgordon rejected my request to block (not ban, just block from that article, even temporarily) jamesd1 and sparkleplenty, but after another admin blocked Kwork temporarily, jpgordon unilaterally decided (with no discussion) to block Kwork indefinitely. cat Catherineyronwode 07:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Heya cat, this is about jpgordon as well, so I thought I'd just add to this existing section. I've just read over your discussion on his talk page, and I am curious about one thing. I know I wasn't "there", but it seems to me that you're rejecting an obvious explanation of jp's behavior: that he was "cozying up" to his "Thelemic buddies" for the purpose of helping you. As far as I can see, a) you asked for his help, b) he said "ok", made buddy-buddy comments to them, c) and you flew off. Is there a point between (b) and (c) where jp argued or edited against you or otherwise took actions allied with the "thelemics"? Or are you assuming there would have been? I mean, what exactly did he do, other than the thing about the cites you didn't add, for which he said he "felt like a schmuck"? Is it in no way possible he was just trying to ingratiate himself with both sides of the dispute to ease the mediation for both sides? Eaglizard 13:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, between b) and c) ...
The reason i asked for his help was that -- in a situation similar to the Bailey page -- the Crowley page had been dominated by Crowley fans and disciples who had filled it with a lot of praise-words and factually incorrect trivia (i.e., claiming he was a chess master, which is simply not true). I attempted to edit the thing back to NPOV and was repeatedly attacked, and eventually someone started a cite-tag war -- putting cite-tags on every sentence, rejecting the "verifiability" of scholars who criticized Crowley (for racism and antisemitism and drug addiction and sexism), removing links to 3rd party sources, and padding the article (just as james did with the Bailey article) with lengthy self-justifying quotes by Crowley himself.
I asked jpgordon, as an admin, to help; he said he would, and then proceeded to join in with the cite-tag folks, over the course of three days, accusing me of adding unverifiable uotes.
What had happeened was that two other editors -- kv and my husband bo-bo (nagasiva yronwode) had looked up and cited the material -- but were working from a different edition of the book than the one then online. I should add that nagasiva is a member in good standing of Crowley's OTO, but wanted the record set straight on Crowley's racism an sexism.
I was repeatedly and heatedly accused of having lied about the cites -- and i repeatedly told people that i was not the one who had made the cites and that as far as i knew, they were correct for the book that my husband had.
We were falsely and disruptively accused of sock-puppetry then, although we have always made our marital relationship clear at wikipedia on our user pages and have never socked for one another.
The result of this incivil treatment was that the ditors who opposed us were never reprimanded, and that nagasiva left wikipedia forever due to the way he and i were being treated. I then blew up, got reported for incivility, reported the non-neutral actions of jpgordon, and saw no action taken against jpgordon (who never apologized to me for his erroneous accuasations, much less apologizing for promoting and prolonging an edit-war on a page he had been asked to informally mediate).
During the same time-frame, another series of occultism pages, which i had rewritten from sratch, was taken over by Crowleyites, who edited the material in such a way as to absolve Crowley of ignorant fakery of perfumery techniques and of Hebrew (long story, just trust me on that one). I then found mysef in the disturbing catch-22 situation of being accused of writing OR, (which was true), but when i attempted to take the OR down, i was accused of "vandalizing wikipedia" because, after my OR had all material critical of Crowley edited out by Crowleyites and new material favourable to Criowley inserted, the OTO-member editors wanted to keep the pages, to bolster Crowley's presence at wikipedia.
Feeling completely betrayed by admin jpgordon and still being continually assaulted by jpgordon's OTO-lodge-brother-editors synergistic maggt|zos and frater5, i left wikipedia for about a year, and came back as an anon IP editor simply to avoid the scummy admin named jpgordon.
Now that he has re-entered my rounds at wikipedia, i will leave wikipedia again. I cannot abide him. He is a travesty of what an adminstrator should be, and experience has proven to me that i have no recourse against his lying, sneaky, disgusting habit of promising help to beleaguered editors and then blocking or banning them
In the case of the Bailey page, he has done it again. He was shown that Conflict of Intrerest and meatpuppetry and sock puppetry had occurred with jamesd1 and sparkleplenty, and he used CheckUser to confirm this, but he rejected the requests of several editors to deal with the situation and chose to not take any action at all against the offenders. Then, almost immediately, with no prior discussion and in the absense of any actual offense, he permanently banned Kwork, the one editor who had most consistently opposed the socking editors jamesd1 and Sparkleplenty.
Jpgordon supports occult fan-boy and discipleship pages, he opposes neutral occult pages, and he lies to those who seek his help, promising to act as a neutral admin who will calm down edit wars in which disciples are actively astroturfing their gurus, but actually helping them to do so, by blocking and banning those who oppose the astroturfing.
I am leaving wikipdia now, before i am called up on an AN/I and booted for incivility, and in closing i wish to say that if i were to be shown a photo of jpgodon dead on his back with a rent-a-horse's hoofprint in his head, i would be very, very happy indeed.
cat yronwode.

Don't do it Cat Jpgordon only real power is the power that you give him. His claims of neutrality can be used against him. And if Jossi gets out of line an ANI can be taken out on him . I am going to advise Kwork that you are quitting with the Hope that he take his case to Arbcom. His case will be strengthen by your presence and severely weakened by your absence. Please don't do this Cat. : Danny W. Albion moonlight 04:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Danny, cat. At least by staying you present him a much better opportunity to prove that you are right in your charges. I don't know if you care, but if you stay, I will back you 100% on any legit claim you have. I often disagree with the black-and-white (could we say "comic book"?) starkness of accusations you make (like the ones just above, in fact). But my experience tells me you're one smart lady, and a good asset to this project. If you're going to let some idiot (as you call him) run you off, I say: at least make him do it out loud, where everyone else can see it. (How's that for a mixed metaphor ;) Eaglizard 17:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kwork can appeal

But before I explain the details of this let me 1st make you aware of this.

I think we can also appeal it for him. But I think it is best to let Kwork do this himself. I have his email address. I am going to ask him to appeal it, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 08:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I will pass this information on to Kwork.

Indefinite blocks (that amount to a ban from Wikipedia) may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Banned users should not create new accounts, or sockpuppets to file an appeal. Rather, they should contact a member of the committee or an Arbitration clerk by email and ask that a request be filed on their behalf. Generally speaking, the banned user will make the request on his or her talk page, which will be copied to WP:RFAR by a clerk. In some cases, a banned user may be unblocked for the sole purpose of filing an appeal. In such cases, editing of other pages is grounds for immediate re-blocking.  : Danny W Albion moonlight 09:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes and backing away for now is a good idea. Lets see what Kwork does. I will email him now.

Not panicking is highly important. First, a sense of proportion: hopefully, after considering it for a while, you'll agree that having someone murdered for a Wikipedia editing dispute is just a trifle extreme. :-) Second, I hope you'll agree that Kwork did get a bit heated. We're writing an article; we should be able to write an article about (must avoid Godwin's law ... ah!) Charles Manson without ranting on and on about how horrible he and his followers are, so hopefully we should be able to do the same with Alice Bailey. Third, you'll notice on his talk page that Jpgordon himself respects your contributions highly, and is willing to back down. From all this, it should be clear that working things out is very possible. Breathing deeply and smelling the flowers is equally important. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Then you know...

That you are not allowed to edit your own article. See WP:COI. GlassFET 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of an oversimplification. COI issues are important to bear in mind, but please note that the guideline is a bit more nuanced than you have described it. Newyorkbrad 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite a bit more nuanced I'd say. Talk to AnonEMouse if this starts gets out of hand and oh yeah it as absolutely great to see that you did not quit.: Danny W : Albion moonlight 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, COI issues always do bear watching, but as a living bio subject and a productive Wikipedian, i have for quite a while now watched this article and helped improve it. When i have not watched, strange errors have crept into the page about me (the claim that i lived in Sacramento), and a personal attack has appeared (a link to vituperative self-published slander about me cited as a legitimate reference). In addition, and on a more positive note, editors have posted questions about my role in various events (the Friendly Frank's legal case, the Nassau County legal case, the titles published by Eclipse Comics, etc.) and since this is my life, i happen to know where to locate the relevant references, and so i have provided them.
I am confident that a look at the editing history of the page will show that i have never interferred in anyone's good-faith editing. I have corrected errors, repaired violations of Living Persons Bio standards, provided references and footnotes, and supplied requested information.
I have not used loaded language to glorify myself. I did not vote when the article was proposed for deletion, but let the situation play out as others wished it to (the vote was for "keep", obviously). I do not participate in the changes made by editors with respect to whether my name, catherine yronwode, should be capitalized or not. (I've stated my preference on my home page and it is not my business to micro-manage how Wikipedians handle capitalizations.)
I stand on my record; i am a professinal writer and editor with sufficient maturity and presence of mind to protect the page from vandalism, to correct errors, and to quickly provide verifiable references and information when they are requested by other editors.
What is going on here is that GlassFET violated a wiki rule by reffing the bio of a living person with a link to a vile and libelous usenet post that implied that the biography subject was mentally ill, etc. The internet is filled with ravingly holstile and unverified self-pubished posts -- which is why usenet posts are not considered valid references for biographies. Furthermore, making such slanderous refs on the bio of a living person -- no matter what the source -- violates another wiki rule.
In this version of the bio page [15], GlassFET added a ref with the editing comment "(add ref)" that led to a page where i was called "A Poster Child for Prozac" by a writer who opined that "Maybe they [people such as myself] feel psycho-socially shortchanged, perhaps by toilet training problems or insensitive counselors at summer camp." In short, it was typical self-published usenet slander. Not saisfied with his handiwork, he then revised it here [16], using as his edit-comment "(improve ref format)"
He then went on to edit the page again by adding cite-tagss [17], and so, in a gesture born of gentility and a desire to avoid conflict by whispering wise counsel in the ear of an erring brother, i removed the slanderous reference, did the research he had asked for and added the references. I then went to GlassFET's page and obliquely mentioned that i had removed the untenable material. His response you can read above -- he has chosen to call me out for COI.
He has since removed all of the asked-for references i provided to him, due to the form they were in; i shall re-make them tonight, using better form. He could have done this himself, but since he did not, someone must, or the article will sit there with his cite-tags on it again.
When i saw the article tonight, i realized that he had even put a cite-tag on a sentence that was already cited! He asked for a cite that i had written books for Kitchen Sink Press after 1981, even though a book i wrote in 1989 for Kitchen Sink was already listed in the Bibliography section and thus proved the sentence to be verified as true. Such pseudo-editing verges very closely on the mis-use of cite-tags in a punitive or disruptive way, in my opinion.
I hope this ends here, but if it goes any further, i will take the next step, which is to directly ask an administrator to discipline GlassFET for making a personal attack on a fellow wikipedian and a living biogaphy subject by citing juvenile slander as a reference.
cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am photo copying your message so I can read it more thoroughly it at the restaurant. Stay Cool but definitely report it if he pushes it. : Albion moonlight 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just in case you haven't heard.

There is a consensus vote going on pursuant to redirecting the Holocaust article. You can vote here if you like . It is a good faith proposal but I thought you may like to weigh in, : Danny W. Albion moonlight 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoodoo herb book

My wife treasures it and her copy is well-worn and dog-eared. Glad to see you on here, even if I may disagree on some edits : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "I AM" Activity article

Hi Cat! I always enjoyed your column in CBG (back in the old days). I thought you might find what has been done to the "I AM" Activity article interesting, since you've edited it before. See the talk page. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benji, and Fictional Dogs, Wikipedia

In general I have scaled back do to busy work, when I added to anything of interest, or comment on such. In general I have found the standards vary from page to page - what is ranked an "A" page in animation with Lion King I started using for ideas for lesser known pages, but then someone changes too much and/or standards change. This gets to big challenge to working on changes, I go back and see what I did some time ago gone in many places, the good changes I like, but become frustrated at some changes. Like cutting out trivia- I find it interesting, changing it to popular culture and limiting the amount is reasonable. 2008 hope to have time to do this, but it depends on being able to find the information I need vs. the amount of free time available with the Internet.Kidsheaven (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Atkinson Boehme

I noticed that you recently tagged the Kate Atkinson Boehme article for non-notability. Why did you do that? She was a well-known and well-respected New Thought writer of her era and at least some of her books are still in print, 100 years after their first publication.

I think it is always better to add data to Wikipedia than to suggest taking an article away.

I suggest that in the future instead of tagging a stub about a long-deceased author as non-notabile that you do a simple amazon search on the author, pick up the status of any current in-print books and current ISBNs and add same to the author's article. That's what i just did. And then i removed your spurious non-notability tag.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the Kate Atkinson Boehme article with {{importance}} because it does not explain her importance. That label suggests improvement, not deletion. What I would suggest is adding information about what her writing introduced or meant to the field. What did her contemporaries think about it? And what do modern writers have to say about her conclusions? How did she shape thought in her field? Thats the kind of information that is needed to explain her importance and the importance of her writings. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added more about her philosphy and the general content of her books, and also listed two more book titles by her. I have no biographical information on her but, due to the "Atkinson" name, i have always wondered what -- if any -- relatioship she had to William Walker Atkinson, another New Thought writer. Both of them worked for Elizabeth Towne, but i have found no record of them ever living in the same place at the same time. As for what her contemporaries thought of her -- well, i could quote Elizabeth Towne, i suppose, but i don't have time to pull down my old Nautilus mgazines and copy such stuff out. She certainly was regarded well in her time, but if i wrote that in so many words, someone would put a cite tag on it, so i'd rather just let the fact that her work remains in print speak for her popularity, since the current ISBNs function as citations for that. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks much better. Nice work. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] channelling (mediumistic)

I also missed the merge with mediumship of channelling and consider it to be a terrible idea.

Do you know what the history was or what the old article was like?

Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritualism

I noticed you made a few nice edits this fall to the article on Spiritualism. The article has fallen into a kind of crisis in the last week. An editor, without discussion, moved it to Spiritualism (religious movement). Another editor, who apparently is unable to distinguish between animism and spiritualism, grabbed the original Spiritualism title and has written an interesting article, as well as adding significant material to the now Spiritualism (religious movement) article. There is probably something worthy in all the new stuff, but it will take sorting out. Hoping that you'll take a look.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as Anthon.Eff well knows, the move was discussed at length. I, being the "other editor", did not start a general page on spiritualism but I agreed with the split and have certainly added to it.
I am sorry to see someone as educated as Anthon lower himself to the provocations and condescensions that I have been suffering, I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between animism and Modern Spiritualism. Anthon seems to refuse that the word spiritualism or spiritualistic is used for any topic broader than referring to the historical movement alone, which is where all this started.
Yes, by all means, please do help. I have also made an infobox to bring together the broad spectrum of spiritualist topics [18] which also offends him, opened the documentation up to spiritualism and spiritism from non-Anglophile nations and added a feminist perspective.
I am happy to be judged my the referenced and citations I have added. Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Catherine Yronwode Article

I reverted some original research from it that attacks your motives for something or the other but perhaps you should have a look at it. I t is on my watchlist but ...... : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of articles

Hi Cat. need your help. Tags for deletion have been place on different articles pertaining to New Thought Divine Science has been deleted Religious Science is Tagged by the same person. He seem to have some sort of issue with religion or things that cannot be proved. Can you take a look maybe I'm wrong. Can you let me know.JGG59 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

JGG59, Cat seems to be away (see her userpage) ... please see my comments on the TALK page for Divine Science. I agree something seems off. Who do we call to look over this? Low Sea (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] AfD nomination of Florence Scovel Shinn

An article that you have been involved in editing, Florence Scovel Shinn, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Scovel Shinn. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Lumos3 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the resolution was to Keep. Good thing, too. I enjoy Wikipedia most when it provides quick biographical information on long-dead people. The "notability" boondoggle -- judging all dead authors by the popularity standards of the current "American Idol" finalists and trying to delete good pages about authors who are unknown to today's crop of arrogant tv-educated know-nothing editors -- could easily destroy Wiki usefulness. I mean, what is the problem with retaining a short bio on Florence Scovel Shinn -- lack of bandwidth? cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You're back! Woo-hoo. I'm glad your discouragement has worn off. I realize that a few editors can be uncivil and worse, but this is the place that articles like Florence Scovel Shinn, or Malinda Cramer or Nona L. Brooks (both of which recently made the Main Page as part of Did You Know . . .) and thousands of others can be made available to the world. See you around, Madman (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)