User talk:Reineke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
[edit] Chumbley highly regarded?
Hi Reineke, sorry I haven't had much time to put into the article recently. Is there anyone, in your list of people who have written about Chumbley, who states that he was well regarded in the occult community? All we need is a single author who asserts this (someone we can put a name to, writing in a journal or similar, preferably not from a newsgroup), and we won't even have to say "the high regard can be guaged from book prices". We could say "He was held in high regard within the occult community, and the resale values of his books reflect this. In the meantime I'm going to try to action a couple of the other suggestions I made, if I get time. Poor Lulu is a bit hard pressed at the moment, and I'd like to help her out. The trouble is, noname is technically correct, we can't engage in speculation based on known evidence, but only present the speculation of reliable sources... Fuzzypeg☻ 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fuzzy-P, Sorry to have been away, I didn't envisage that it was going to kick off again. Agreed that noname is technically correct; for the moment I have deleted my statement, perhaps the nameless person will be satisfied with that. I like your suggestion there - in fact I have a great source in a detailed article/obituary which could be quoted in exactly that manner - and more. Problem is that it hasn't actually been published - it was written for prominent magazine, of but no issues of that have appeared since Chumbley's death. I have a copy given me by the author. Again, though, there would be grounds for challenging the writer's 'neutrality' - and so back into the loop. reineke 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Reineke: You're doing a great job with the article. Did you see (amongst all the wrangling) that I do have a ref. for the uncited sentence you removed this a.m.? You're free to use it, should you like. It's coming at it sideways, but it is a legitimate reference on the subject. (you might enjoy the book-Emma Wilby) Bongo admitted this a.m. that he has no refs for his point of view or opinions so rationally, it's "game over". However, his points seem based upon a point of view that he's not willing to let go of so the edit war will never be over until we (or I) give up. I'm going to leave now and let you get on with things. I've lost the fun in it and Bongo is determined to get the upper hand. If I leave, maybe things will calm down. If I ever hear back from Dave Green regarding the JSM obit, I'll ring back in. Lulubyrd 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the boost, Lulu - I must say I'm pretty tired of the game myself - but keep checking in, won't you? I'm not going to get into a debate with the guy because it's frankly far too boring. You've done very well - trouble is that talking to these people just inflames their ego; there's no winning because they think there's a contest even when there isn't. These are the kids that used to enjoy breaking other childrens' toys! Thank you for the citation re that passage I removed; I've got one myself but, hey, why bother? I'm prepared to just park it there now. Call it quits - we had a good result! reineke 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It's ugly, but I can't turn away. I guess I'm not going anywhere after all. Let me know if you want me to disengage. Lulubyrd 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No, by all means stay on the case, please! I don't like to engage in argument that is being set up for the sake of argument alone, but naturally you have to decide for yourself what your criteria are in this discussion. I can put my two-penn'orth in nevertheless. Rationality seems not to be very useful in this instance, I have to admit! reineke 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You're a kind man, Reineke, to offer to help with edits. I don't think that will help, but have been known to be wrong. I was hoping that insisting upon references might stop the theorizing and gain concreteness (Is that a word? Well it is now). It must be hard to watch the hacking away at your good article. Lulubyrd 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No, probably nothing will help! - dialogue seems to inflame some people to greater heights of internal dialogue, which they will then share with others. It's an interesting process to watch. But not for too long. If a person wants to contribute then one has to do one's best to guide and encourage them in an appropriate direction. I don't mind overmuch what happens to the article - easy come, easy go as 'tis said. I've been involved in more exciting forms of writing, but nothing is ever wasted. reineke 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If you look up "Ye Nameless One" through the ip address, you will see that he vandalizes articles (see his additions to A Christmas Carol). Please be prepared for a new event should he be thwarted in his intent. However, why this discussion is being entertained when there is a quote from Chumbley himself as to where he got the term SC is beyond my understanding. Lulubyrd 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Autoblock
Can I come back in please? reineke 08:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
