Talk:Discordian Works/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There was a big argument about the articles on Apocrypha Discordia and Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. Some said keep the articles, some said they didn't deserve a separate article and should be merged into one, some said that the number of paragraphs that went into great detail on the legal problems were unverified.

I've taken everyone's suggestions, and this is the result. I cut out almost off of the talk about legal problems, except for either bits that can be verfied, and bits that I said are alleged (according to the Wikipedia guidelines, you can even quote a highly unreliable source as long as you're simply stating that's what it claims. There's a big difference between fact and opinion, but it can be a fact that someone holds a certain opinion).

I hope I've made at least most of the people happy. If not, I guess I'll have to deal with the putdowns. IamthatIam 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't like what they did to Gerina's and my article, and I wish it could stay as it is. I don't think the details about the legal problems should have been cut out because we did verify them.
But I think you've done a really good job of making a compromise. I think this is a great article. Maybe later they'll let us expand it and put back all the controversial stuff you had to cut out. But thanks for doing a great job! Binky The WonderSkull 06:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You've completely jumped the gun. You shouldn't post an article assuming that other articles are going to get deleted. I think this is inappropriate. But I suppose that's your choice. MRN 16:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You said I completely jumped the gun, but I notice you didn't hesitate to add your own stuff. But that's all right with me. I'll just assume you changed your mind. I'm cool with that. IamthatIam 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you worked hard on this, but both articles should be kept like they are. But if they won't be, then this is the next best thing. With what's going on, I think this is the best that can be done if they won't keep both articles. JennyGirl 07.43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I had an idea. What if a few paragraphs could be added here for all the other Discordian works that don't have their own article? JennyGirl 07.57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

THAT is what this should be used for. Put descriptions of all the other Discordian works here, but leave Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia and Apocrypha Discordia where they are. MRN 16:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. That's why I called this article Discordian Works instead of Apocrypha Discordias. It looks like the individual articles are getting deleted, and I can't do anything about that. IamthatIam 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Date Stamps

I just added a paragraph verifying that the discussion of the group's legal problems date back to December of 2001. That doesn't verify they actually happened, but that it's at least been claimed for five years. If it's true, it goes back that far. If it's a hoax, they've been at it for five years at least! MRN 16:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Novus Ordo Discordia

Lest anyone think me contributing to this article is a matter of vanity (of which I have plenty), note that my addition is about Novus Ordo Discordia and not my own work. I have corresponded with S. John Ross a few times after he first contacted me, for which I feel lucky. But I can take no credit whatsoever for S. John's work. Although as he does some damn good stuff, I'd sure like to. Reverend Loveshade 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Book 5 (The Zenarchist's CookBook)

I merged and rewrote this, as suggested by others in Talk: Book 5 (The Zenarchist's CookBook). I don't know much about zenarchy, but am going by what was written in the previous version and in the Zenarchy article. But I know if I got anything wrong someone will change it. MRN 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm going to clean this article up over the next while. There's things that need adding, things that need sourcing, and other stuff which prolly shouldn't be here, as was pointed out in the recent AfD. If there's objection to any of my changes, please raise it here on the talk page first. Cheers, Drjon 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I'm the fellow responsible for discovering the First Edition of the Principia Discordia (which should not lead to a conflict of interest), and also the compiler of the Apocrypha Discordia (which might). There's been some discussion about merging the Apocrypha Discordia with this entry, because it's a stub. If anyone wants to take it upon themselves to flesh that article out, please feel free. That will make my job here more easy. I am happy to make myself available to answer questions. Cheers, Drjon 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's start by removing all the unsourced material. I got rid of some of it but there is probably still a lot more to clean up. Ashibaka (tock) 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the process of cleaning up this article. That includes sourcing things. If you'd like to help, please tag things which you regard as unsourced. Please don't vandalise the article. Thanks. Drjon 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I call bullshit on your sources, they are all Geocities pages and random people's opinions on the Internet and none of them have scholarly weight. Ashibaka (tock) 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please list the sources which you claim are "mine"--I think you'll find that the sources I'm adding are good ones. As I've repeatedly stated, I'm in the process of cleaning up the article. Removing it out-of-hand whilst I'm trying to work on it is counter-productive, and seems to smack of bad faith in the list of recent history. I agree with you to a certain extent: there's content here which could use cleaning up. But if you're not going to help with the process, might I suggest you take a step back for a while? Drjon 00:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, I will come back in two weeks. This article doesn't seem to have done that much harm to Discordianism for the few months it's been here. Ashibaka (tock) 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I saw this after I put this up for mediation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Discordian_Works I hope I stated the case clearly and without sounding angry even though I am. I think that wise heads can see what's being done for themselves. Binky The WonderSkull 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Binky, I've already approached Ashibaka about refraining from simply removing the article. The first thing I'd like you to do is to try not to antagonise other editors. The second thing I'd like you to do is to have a good hard look at the Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia piece and consider which parts of it are extraneous to needs. We don't need large exposition here, the piece is suppose to be a short outline of what makes the work notable, not an essay on the beliefs of your cabal. An outline paragraph is sufficient--maybe even the first paragraph as it stands would suffice. The third and most important thing I'd like you to do is to consider expanding some of the other entries, maybe even adding some: the Ek-sen-trik-kuh's just one Discordian Work, it's by no means even the most notable. At the moment, it's got a lion's share. Try and provide good sources. We've got about a week and a half to do this, okay? This is where we prove our worth as Wikipedians, not just promotors of our own private groups. I can't do this on my own, I don't have the time. So I need you on board. Cheers, Drjon 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Discordians fighting amongst themselves again, eh? As Rodney King said, "Can we all just get along?" (or however King said it--sources disagree). I get in enough trouble without trying to, so won't enter this debate. I would like to clarify, however, that Binky The WonderSkull who posts here is actually not a member of the Discordian Division of the Ek-sen-triks CluborGuild. That's OK, there are two or three decent people in the world who aren't. Our Binky the WonderSkull (note the lower case t on the) is a brainless, bodyless skull, and thus rarely posts comments on Internet sites. We certainly respect the fine work of the Wikipedia-posting Binky The WonderSkull, and the fine work of Rev. DrJon Swabey. But we can't claim either one of these fine Wikipedians as a member. Reverend Loveshade 16:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making those interesting assertions. I hardly think it's helpful to be saying that "Discordians (are) fighting amongst themselves", especially when it's not actually true. And I'd have to question why, if Binky has no connection with you, she seems to be so knowlegable about your group, and seems to focus on wiki work which promotes your group and its philosophies, but that's neither here nor there: like the mysterious iamthatiam, hopefully we can all work together to get this article sorted out. Cheers, Drjon 22:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Because I'm a Discordian fan, silly! I see the site and I get their news letter. I'm a fan of Evanescence too, but that doesn't mean I'm a member! But you said "The first thing I'd like you to do is to try not to antagonise other editors." You're implying that I'm doing that. I read what you said to Ashibaka and he said to you. That sounds a lot more like fighting than what I said! Binky The WonderSkull 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but my comments stand. Regardless, please let me know if you're interested in helping me with this entry. If not, I'd appreciate knowing that as well. Drjon 07:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
DrJon I'm already helping! I added a lot of sources to the article and I can find more. But Ashibaka wants to delete this no matter what we do even though the vote was KEEP! Post what you're thinking about working on here or on my member page. Binky The WonderSkull 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
DrJon I said two weeks ago I wanted to help and wanted you to contact me! Where are you? Binky The WonderSkull 06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Because I'm a Discordian fan, silly!" If you are a Discordian fan you will recognize the ridiculousness of including a book that uses gender-neutral third-person pronouns as a "Discordian work". And where in the Principia Discordia does it say that "this is the philosophy of generally being nice to people?" Just because it is a humorous book doesn't mean it is a Flying Spaghetti Monster-style meaningless parody. I will not allow random people to advocate "nudism for all ages" and get their nonsense listed on Wikipedia as a "Discordian work". And if Wikipedia really allows that (which it doesn't), I will write my own book, put it on Cafepress, and add it to this page.

In a search of my collection of 4th edition versions of Principia Discordia, I didn't find the phrase, "this is the philosophy of generally being nice to people?" So there I must agree with Ashibaka. However, I did find, on page 15, "Eris is not hateful or malicious." I also found, on page 38, a statement by Eris that if people don't like fighting and injustice and war, that they can stop it. The book says, on page 42, that before the anti-Discordian Greyface came along, life was a "happy romance." On page 53, it says that Discordians could end the world, but that they refrain from doing so as "a public service to all mankind." Near the conclusion of a letter to Malaclypse the Younger (Mal-2) on page 73, it says, "If civilization makes it through this crises, our grandchildren will live in a world of authentic freedom and authentic harmony and authentic satisfaction." On page 75, it says, "The human race will begin solving it's problems on the day that it ceases taking itself so seriously." And on page 76, it talks about what can teach us "how to turn your miserable mess into a beautiful, joyful, and splendid one."
As to Ashibaka's idea for a book, by all means write one. I for one would love to see it. Reverend Loveshade 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
And I for one would not. Binky The WonderSkull 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to start your own religion, that's fine, but don't call Wicca Druidism, and don't call a bunch of random junk you made up yourself Discordianism. Ashibaka (tock) 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Don't call a bunch of random junk you made up yourself Discordianism." I may use that quote on our site. Thank you. Reverend Loveshade 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a Discordian Work?

There's been a lot of strife (Hail Strife!) regarding the contents of this page recently. I think there's an interesting issue that should be discussed separately from the section about mediation.

As I see it, the central question is one of definition - what makes a book a "Discordian Work"? It's relatively easy to identify a "Catholic Work" or a "Scientologist Work" - those faiths have clearly identified tenets and central decision-making bodies. This is an advantage organized religions have. Discordianism is a disorganized religion (some faiths, such as Unitarian Universalism, use that phrase as a joke but for Discordia it's deeply true). It has no dogma, no central body, and no real definition. So how do we say that a book is a Discordian Work?

I'm not sure it should be sufficient for someone to say that their book is Discordian, but I'm not sure what else should be required. Just because a particular book doesn't seem to match what I see as "Discordian", that doesn't mean it's not deeply Discordian to a lot of other people. What is a reliable source in this case? Apparently many Discordians feel that the Apocrypha is a major part of their picture of Discordianism - I can't say they're wrong. Should it only include the Principia? But that rules out the Illuminatus! Trilogy, Zen for Zen Masters, and other contemporaneous works. If we say that works must be contemporaneous, that implies that Discordianism is a static religion (which seems wrong).

I'm not sure what the solution is but I think we could benefit from a calm discussion of the problem. DenisMoskowitz 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You realize, DenisMoskowitz, that by stating your point in a calm, rational manner, you threaten to reduce the level of strife in this discussion? Shame on you!
Seriously, I agree that Roman Catholics and to an extent Scientologists have a central decision-making body. But Catholicism is known for having priests who strongly disagree with mainstream doctrine, and for taking divergent views. And that leaves the question of who and what is Christian: some claim that Roman Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists are not Christian. And any church can call itself Baptist--there are several different Baptist conventions, and some independent churches use that designation. Some of the most popular Christian churches and television ministries respond to no authority other than themselves--and, presumably, God. Mahatma Gandhi said, "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, I am a Jew - and so are all of you." Many Christians and Muslims and Jews would say that's impossible. The Nazi's in 1930s and 1940s Germany sometimes used Christianity as a basic for their actions. So did the Crusaders, and so did the Rev. Jim Jones, and so did Rev. Billy Graham and Martin Luther. And so do the Catholics and Protestants who have fought and killed each other for many years in Ireland. Are all these groups and people Christian? And if not, who is and who isn't?
If we can't pin down what is and is not Christian, which supposedly is a unified faith, how can we possibly do so with Discordianism? I believe, quite simply, that Wikipedia cannot. As an encyclopedia, it is supposed to maintain the neutral point of view. Perhaps the solution is as simple as adding a statement early in this article that there are many works that have appeared in the 21st century that identify themselves as Discordian works. Reverend Loveshade 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Loveshade, I have to agree with you that Wikipedia simply cannot describe a unified 21st century Discordianism, because no objective articles or studies have been made about this subject. What we have instead is the clamoring of individual Discordians, and no case has been made that any of these are more important than the others. This is why I think Wikipedia should not have this article at all.

The question of "how do we say whether a work is Discordian" is rather simple to answer. If someone without an agenda comes in and decides, "these works have wide dissemination and are generally regarded as new Discordian literature," then we have our reliable source. But there is no one saying that. We can't simply list every self-described Discordian work because it will inevitably include Harry Potter fanfiction, cow jokes, and other crap. And if you say Discordianism encompasses everything, including the crap, then to say something is "Discordian" is a meaningless statement and we should delete the Discordianism article too. Ashibaka (tock) 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mu. 66.41.136.26 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

Is this request still necessary or can I close it? --Ideogram 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You can close it. Also, in case anyone else is counting, I am giving the editors above five more days until I redirect the article to something else for lack of reliable sources. Ashibaka (tock) 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be closed until Ashibaka stops threatening to get rid of the article even though the decision was KEEP twice! And I've added a lot of sources! Does Ashibaka have the authority to overrule everyone else? Binky The WonderSkull 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You added "sources" which are a bunch of Geocities and free home pages. Read WP:RS. I'll be generous and give you 24 hours. Ashibaka (tock) 07:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I just learned that cafepress, infotoday.com, Steve Jackson Games, 23 Apples of Eris, www.dia.net.au of Australia, Robert Anton Wilson's site, Wikisource, the site of a candidate for the U. S. Senate, and a U. S. Government site (firstgov.gov), and my own discordia.loveshade.org site are all free member sites! Cool! I'll stop looking for sponsors to make our payments! And as Wikipedia itself has a large number of links to this article, we can assume that Wikipedia doesn't need any more donations! And you can bet I won't be paying any more taxes now that the U. S. Government is a free site! Gosh, thanks Ashibaka! Reverend Loveshade 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I just reread WP:RS as Ashibaka suggested. I found it very informative and reassuring. I suggest you do the same. Thanks again, Ashibaka! Reverend Loveshade 06:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. ... self-published material is largely not acceptable.

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves... so long as... it does not involve claims about third parties, (such as RAW) or about events not directly related to the subject (such as the Principia Discordia) [and] the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Don't be a jerk. I removed some unsourced sections. If you can find reliable sources for them, then you can add them back, statement by statement. Ashibaka (tock) 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've basically reduced the article to sourceable claims now. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think you've basically reduced the article to where it's completely useless. And you don't need to call people jerks. Is that something a sysop is supposed to do? IamthatIam 07:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Where are the reliable sources for the stuff you're adding? Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Why when you made your cuts did you only leave parts that had no sources at all? Binky The WonderSkull 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about those, but they appear to be sourced to the Principia Discordia which makes them legitimately Discordian. Feel free to remove them. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, bureaucracy. Ink Pudding 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not bureaucracy. WP:ENC Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Final warning, if you can't find a reliable source for anything on this page, I will redirect the article to Principia Discordia. Wikipedia does not allow original research and this article is all original research. The WP:A policy says "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed" so technically I can just revert you again, but I will give you a couple days (on top of the month I've already waited) since you guys seem so insistent on reintroducing these claims to the article. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Final warning Shii, if you continue to vandalize this article and ignore the decisions on the nominations for deletion of 5 June 2006 and of 31 Jan 2007, both of which were KEEP, I will file a formal complaint against you. You've already ignored the informal one. And before you respond, you might want to consider this. I am a user here, you are an administrator. I would imagine that means you are expected to live up to higher standards. Think carefully: do you really want your actions reviewed by those higher up? IamthatIam 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Go do it, now. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O

Summary of current discussion:

  • Shii: This article has no reliable sources. The claims made by unreliable sources are extremely dubious and do not belong on Wikipedia.
  • IamthatIam, Reverend Loveshade, Binky The WonderSkull: Shii is a vandal.

Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 15:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate Shii alias Ashibaka in possessing the acumen to sum up the whole of a three month debate over several Wikipedia pages into such a short and concise summary. We can clearly see that he was merely standing firm on well-grounded Wikipedia policy, whereas those who expressed differing opinions were merely name-calling. But as my memory may be faulty, I do request of Shii to reveal where on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter, I called him a vandal. Thank you and have a day. Reverend Loveshade 20:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion - though I'm not sure how much use I'll be here. I might as well state that I have no interest or bias whatsoever as regards this subject matter. First of all, Shii is not a vandal. Namecalling of that nature is against the rules when a user is clearly acting in good faith and attempting to make sure this article abides by our policies and guidelines. Matters would be greatly helped if this was discussed rationally.
To be entirely honest, both versions of the article are not terribly wonderful. The links made in the previous revision before Shii removed a lot of content are clearly far to involved with the subject to count as reliable secondary sources, and for an article to rely entirely on primary sources is unacceptable, especially as those primary sources exist purely to push a particular point of view. Whichever way you look at it, this article violates our policy concerning the neutral point of view - incidentally, almost no context is provided either. This article must be rewritten on a sweeping scale to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT: these are policies; they are not negotiable. If this is not done or cannot be done this article will not exist on its own in six months. Due weight must be given to both sides of whatever arguments are involved, and reliable sources must be cited. We cannot have the individual opinions of editors ruling the roost: that is original research.
I would suggest trying to source everything in the current version of the article, and any more content that is added must be referenced per WP:ATT. At the least, now the article looks to have been reduced to that which is sourceable. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow! As Binky The WonderSkull so astutely pointed out, Moreschi did an amazing job in 25 minutes! In that small amount of time beginning at 15:03, 14 March 2007 (as listed above), this user somehow stumbled upon this discussion, read the entire article, checked all of its 25 sources (and perhaps its couple dozen links), read and analyzed the discussion, and posted a pithy and somewhat lengthy commentary. That's in just 25 minutes! Fantastic! Amazing! I'm impressed! Reverend Loveshade 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Please note that at the moment of this posting, there is an arbitration request initiated by User:IamthatIam regarding this article. Please see [1] for the case and provide statement(s) if you so choose to. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 07:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pertain to the RfAr filing, I have asked for page protection, which was granted here. Talk it out here. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes We Have Sources

Much of the debate on this article has been over whether or not we have reliable sources. That and some other problems, some major and some minor, resulted in a request for arbitration. As of right now, we don't know whether we'll get help that way or not.

But there's already been a quite significant victory for keeping this article and not hacking it up as has been done. None other than Arbitration Committee member Jpgordon who, while not voting for our case for formal arbitration and saying we've had a lot of infighting, did say we have reliable sources!

Reject. Pot, kettle, reliable sources. Hail Eris! But not like this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You can see the original post at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Discordian_Works Realize that Jpgordon is one of currently only 13 active members of the Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom. If you don't know, ArbCom is as high as you can go on Wikipedia, other than being the Wikipedia Creator Jimbo Wales himself. Anyone is free to say we don't have reliable sources, but keep in mind that you are disagreeing with one of the top people in all of Wikipedia!

Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! IamthatIam 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what jpgordon was saying in the slightest. What he was saying was that pots, kettles, and reliable sources are highly contentious topics - Hail Eris! - but that the he was not willing to turn that contentiousness into an ArbCom case. Hate to disillusion you. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so we still have Moreschi, who we already figured out is either an alias or a friend of Shii aka Ashibaka (See Talk:Discordian_Works/Archive1#WP:3O). Pot, kettle refers to the saying, "That's like the pot calling the kettle black." That is, person A complains about person B reverting when person A was also reverting. It's an old saying--check it out here on Wikipedia. But reliable sources is not an old saying--it means reliable sources. Check out what that means on Wikipedia. Hate to disillusion you. Rev. Bootie 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Either way, better start talking about fixing the article. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Penwhale, that's what people were trying to do when their work was continually thwarted. Rev. Bootie 04:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of other rows - and please take your entirely baseless accusations of sock/meatpupptry to WP:RFCU - this articles still needs proper referencing for a number of entirely unsourced claims as is required by policy; it needs secondary sources - period, as is required by WP:RS, and it needs to be far more neutral than it is now. Basically, we all need to start fixing up the article, so I've requested unprotection so that that can be done. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's fun seeing my words interpreted; always quite creative. Disadvantage to being terse, though one would hope that people who evince an affection for discordianism would develop a skill for extracting truth from pseudo-surrealistic utterances. (One would hope many things.) But I meant precisely: "this is the pot calling the kettle black; evaluation of reliable sources is what matters, and you can determine that without ArbCom's participation." By the way, I really like the bold text at the end of the article. Skidoo, y'all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
But Master, how may we war amongst ourselves over the meaning of your words when you explain them to us so clearly? And why do you praise the meaningless words, "Bold Text?" Ah, I see. We may still fight against each other over the validity of the sources, as we did before. But meaninglessness still remains. Nothing has changed; Chaos remains. Reverend Loveshade 01:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't call me Master; I fnord for a living. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative to unprotect

How about we actually talk about the changes, and when we gain consensus, we'll use {{editprotected}}. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this could do with addition of a few {{fact}} tags, not to mention actual proper references for the vast bulk of this article, which at the moment just reads like NFT/OR supposition. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Penwhale, that's an excellent suggestion. That's why we tried doing that repeatedly, with no success. It essentially came to several people vs. one person who continually reverted everyone else's work. You can read the history of it on the Request for arbitration page, or at least you could. Our request seems to have vanished--anyone know what happened to it? IamthatIam 18:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was rejected by the arbitrators, who didn't want to hear the case. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I just came back from a Habitat for Humanity trip, so I wasn't able to respond to whatever sort of RfA happened here, sorry about that. Surprised to see that there are still no reliable sources for this article. If none are presented I will redirect the article to Principia Discordia as soon as it is unprotected. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To refresh everyone's memory of the discussions on the archive page, self-published sources (23ae.com, loveshade.org, Geocities and other blogs) are not reliable. Vanity publishing houses (cafepress.com, lulu.com) are not reliable. DrJon's "outroduction" tie-in does not make the Apocrypha Discordia notable because the people publishing the 2007 hardback Principia are not necessarily Discordians, and even if they are they are not the arbitrators of what makes a work Discordian, and if nobody has yet disputed that assumption, well, I am disputing it now. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How nice that you were off sacrificing yourself for the good of others. But don't worry, your friend Moreschi has been filling in for you. To refresh your memory, you nominated this article for deletion on 31 January 2007, and the result of the discussion was Keep. If you'll check Wikipedia policy, that means the decision was to Keep the article. If you want to mark this article or any article as unsourced, you may certainly do so. As a sysop, I would think you would know this. And note that just because the Arbitration Committee didn't take this case, there are other recourses on Wikipedia. A number of us have posted complaints against you. I would suggest you check Wikipedia policies and procedures. Perhaps you can find a sysop who knows these who can help you. IamthatIam 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm assuming you don't have any sources for this article. I'll file a request for unprotection and redirect the page. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 04:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Shii, it's a bit much to expect people to provide sources while the article is protected. Why not unprotect it, decorate it with {{fact}} tags, and then if no one provides sources, redirect it? Moreschi Request a recording? 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, adding the sources on this page is fine, too. But that's besides the point at this stage. I've waited nearly two months for IamthatIam et al. to provide sources and they have consistently ignored me. At this point I'm just going to redirect it. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you make a statement that anyone with access to Wikipedia can verify is not true? If we've been ignoring you, then how do you explain the slew of comments you've made about our edits and our sources? How do you explain the things we've filed against you? Ignoring is not engaging in heated debate, and it is not adding sources that you happen not to like. You put this article up for deletion before over a dozen sources were added; the decision was Keep. Check Wikipedia policy--a decision to keep does not mean redirect the article, essentially deleting it. And the reason more people aren't staying for this battle is because they're worn out banging their heads against yours. If you want a source for that, read your own discussions. Unless you don't classify yourself as a reliable source of what you've done. IamthatIam 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I also think fact tags would be a good idea. The Storm Surfer 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The Storm Surfer, I agree that's what Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka should have done originally if he thought the article was unsourced. Instead, he nominated it for deletion right after two of his edits to the article were reverted. Adding the tags would be proper Wikipedia procedure, and I wouldn't expect him to follow it. He hasn't so far. IamthatIam 03:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Check this out! Every time I ask someone to provide sources they make derogatory comments about me. This is getting so predictable I barely even need to check this page for updates anymore. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)