User talk:Wazronk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Wazronk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] It seems strange....

I hope you check your talk page something close to as often as you smooth out the UB article. I felt like posting this the the article's talk page, but I don't feel right posting it publicly. Basically, I found the List of religions and found the UB under alien-based religions. Why isn't it a monotheistic new religious movement (another section therein)? Or should the Urantia Brotherhood be placed under Christianity as an offshoot of SDA? The actual entry reads: "Urantia, Book of". I'm not quite sure what the entry should say, but I don't think that's the best title. Anyway, that's all I've got. You've struck me as a sharp minded editor, so I was hoping you'd share a few of your thoughts.

On another topic, I've been thinking about the article series suggestion and have been looking at templates for ideas. I thought Dianetics sounded like a good contrast, they're both a 1950's book-founded alien religion, except Scientology is the one that everyone's heard about. Xaxafrad 07:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Xaxafrad,
I've taken a look at the List of religions page, I'd disagree with it being categorized as an alien-based religion. Actually a difficulty is what to classify as the "religion." The Urantia Book has no structured following around it or official "religion" associated with it. It's just a book. If you read it and like it, there's no church you join or anything, no leader, no guru to follow. A Course in Miracles is maybe most similar, at least from what I've come across.
About the "alien" bit... Angels would be more accurate. But even then, the book develops a really extensive and panoramic view of things with many types of spiritual beings, so even that's not so correct, angels are only one kind of being that "contributed". The 192 papers of the book (each about 15-30 pgs long) are described as being written by a broad multitude of different beings, ranging the spectrum from way way high types, to angels, to a low type of being called a "midwayer" (because it's "midway" between angels and the absolute bottom rung of creature existence -- human beings). None of them little gray men but spirits.
I'm not an expert on comparative religion, but after scanning the list I would agree with TUB being under monotheistic new religious movements. I'll make the edit. Martin Gardner argued that it's an offshoot from SDA, but it was more a theory of his based on how William S. Sadler had SDA in his background.
I've had ideas for how the article could be expanded. Dianetics would be one pattern to use, good suggestion. You're interested in participating in expansion of the topic into a series of articles? There's a lot that can be done. You'd have some work cut out for you in familiarizing yourself with the book though, it's a pretty extensive read. Skip around through the table of contents online and read any of the papers that catch your eye, an incredible amount of detail involved, and it's maintained throughout the whole book. -- Wazronk 05:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings: I have a number of questions about this article, but over time I will have opportunity to bring them up. I'm trying to learn how to use this wikipedia device. I am reviewing the history of UB discussion to familiarize myself with the background of the article. The question of format that you raise in your 28 April notation is the same question I am having. I have been looking at the scientology pages, dianetics, qu'ran, bible, and hinduism pages. Also, the recent article on little green frogs was quite good, as it was simple and maybe elegant, without getting bogged down in biological mumbojumbo, yet made reasonable links to the mumbojumbo to clarify the article without turning one into a triple PhD in biology. (Thats what I think at the moment-this could all change tomorrow :) Richiar 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urantia Book

Hi, thanks for all the work you have done the the UB article. I have read a lot of the book and heard audio tape for all of it a few times. If there is a specific way I can help on the article please let me know and I will do my best. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wazronk: Thanks for the reference on age of the universe. I had overlooked that. What do you think of adding links to astronomy articles that correspond here? Richiar 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. You have a good grasp of the book! (That may not be NPOV, but its my opinion).

Question regarding signatures: Hi. I'm reviewing Archive 1, and around the headings of Tenents and Neutral point of view in Oct-Nov 2005. There are some postings that are unsigned, and as a result, its hard to track who's expressing which point of view, and whether they are conflicting points of view or multiple points of view. I was trying to locate the IP address to identify the source, but can't seem to do it for the Archived discussion. I can do it for the actual article, however. Is there a way to locate the IP address for the Archived discussion postings? Richiar 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question. I notice that people need to sign comments on the discussion page, inorder to be identified, no? But they can be identified automatically on the article due to the Internet address? Or am I missing something?Richiar 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Richiar. Archives are created by cutting whatever comments are on the current discussion page and simply pasting onto a new sub-page that is named to be an Archive. So when you read an Archive, and click to look at the history, you'll tend to only see one entry - the time when that archive was created with all the old discussions pasted in. An advantage of this though is that by going to the main talk page for the article -- Talk:The Urantia Book in this case -- and clicking on "history", it actually is an entire history for all discussions including archives. Try that, and where it says (Latest | Earliest), click on "Earliest". This will show you the very first comments. Like with the articles, all changes are logged by a username, or if the person isn't logged in, by their IP address. It doesn't actually matter whether or not they sign their posts.
Not everyone was signing posts early in the discussions (including myself). But people got better about it as the discussions grew. I understand it can be confusing to understand who posted what.
Another thing that can get confusing, and I think this happened more in discussions now in Archive 2, is that sometime a person would post a long comment, and then another person would respond by inserting their own comments in the middle of the first post. You can't always easily tell who is saying what, but one thing to look for is where text is indented, that often means a different person has jumped in. All the best. Wazronk 22:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] UB workshop

Hi Wazronk ! I opened an "experimental version" of the UB as a UB workshop to try out versions to look at without disturbing the article. Then people can work on it and move preferred edits to the main article. I put in your suggestion to look at. Modify as you like. Richiar 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing posts

Wazronk- who are you and what gives you the right to edit my posts? Majeston

[edit] Wikitable

Hi Wazronk. I've been playing around with putting the Comparison with Christianity in a Wikitable format. I have an experimental version of it on the UB chalkboard. Take a look and tell me what you think. Richiar 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the article you made: "History and Future of the World". I like that. Nice job. Richiar 15:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hideki Yukawa‎

Wazronk, explain why you are revising my posting of Mesotron at this page.

   Hideki Yukawa‎; 02:31 . . (+2,239) . . Majeston (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 132277130 by Wazronk (talk))

[edit] Overview

Hi Wazronk: I'm proposing to revise the overview section on TUB. I would propose adding the first 6 paragraphs on the overview as posted on the sandbox version. I would not add the paragraphs 7-8. What do you think? Richiar 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of TUB

Here's my thought right now on the article. This is a long message, I hope not too long, but I've listed my concerns with the article below. Richiar 15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been studying this article for a while, and trying to see what its doing or not doing in terms of communicating the general ideas and central themes of the urantia book. This has been a difficult effort because of the nature of the book itself. First, as a purported revelation, its hard to come up with a standard for evaluating it. Also, because its new, there is no tradition where external compari- sons can be made where agreement on a standard can be objectively agreed upon, like in philosophy, which is a 2500 year old tradition, and is widely taught in universities around the world, with people getting PhD's in it, and with hundreds of books written on the subject. The same with Christianity. The same with science, biology, etc. There are authoritative sources that can be validated objectively.

What has to be done with the Urantia Book article, I think, is a standard for the article has to be set, and a vision for the article has to be argeed upon. There is no external method for validating a standard for the Urantia Book. It hasn'tbeen around long enough. The only way to get a standard is to create one and validation of the standard will only be possible through internal subjective evaluation and judgement.

We need to try to work that out between ourselves, and explicitly state the standard and vision we have for this article. I haven't been able to express it up until now. I thought the article was too obsessive with information from the beginning, but I didn't know how to express it, or why I thought that. The same with the themes. I thought some material would have been better in side articles rather than the main article, but I wasn't sure what should be left and kept.

There is so much information in the Urantia Book, and so many themes, it is difficult probably for people to agree on what the central themes might be. There is no external reference for this. It will have to be subjectively determined by people who are familiar with the book, and with the field of religion and science. (Actually, the science part can be externally validated, and you have done a good job with that: better than I could. I find the science comparisons beyond my capacity. Also, the comparison to other religions can be externally compared to the other religions).

The first thing I can propose is that much of the article is dense in its writing. That isn't meant as a criticism. I know people have poured their hearts into writing for this article. But for the article to communicate effectively, which is the purpose of writing an encyclopedia, or any writing, for that matter, its got to be rewritten.

I don't know that we have a goal for getting this article to featured article status. My goal is to have a concise general article that introduces TUB to the general audience. I want to be able to show this to the average person and say: "Here. Look at this. This will tell you something that may be important. Look at it".

I've listed below where I see some problems with the article as it currently is.


Wikipedia: The perfect article

fills a gap; search for existing or related articles on the topic first.

has a good title so it can be linked to and found easily and follows existing naming conventions.

starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.

  • The introduction has some unnecessary detail that is distracting. It is sort of

like reporting on what a book on anatomy says.

is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.

  • Much or most of the article is bogged down in a complex, obsessive, pedantic, expository style of writing. It is not a simple, concise informational style.

is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles.


branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and external information that add meaning to the subject.

and branches in; editors have found and edited other significant wiki pages which make mention of the topic and link them to the article.

acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.

  • Its trying, but is a confusing article with all the information its presenting.

is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.

is of an appropriate length; it is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be more suitable in "sub-articles", related articles, or sister projects.

  • Its 52 KB. Its too long. Try for 40 and we might get 45.

reflects expert knowledge; it is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles.

is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.

is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.

  • This part is fine.

is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language.

  • Nope. Its not clear. It quickly gets lost in a sea of information that doesn't stop.

is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone. follows standard writing conventions of modern English, including correct grammar, punctuation and spelling.

  • It keeps trying to explain itself. As stated above, it is like reporting what a book of anatomy says, and trying to justify that the anatomy book says this.

includes informative, relevant images — including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so many as to detract from it. Each image should have an explanatory caption. is categorized.

may not be attainable. Editing may bring an article closer to perfection, but ultimately, perfection means different things to different Wikipedians. Perfection may not be achievable, but it's fun trying. For more information, see our editing policy.

Hi Richiar,
Have you read external sources on TUB such as Gardner, Gooch, or others? I disagree with your main point: "The only way to get a standard is to create one and validation of the standard will only be possible through internal subjective evaluation and judgement." That falls outside the role of wikipedia and is original research. There are in fact external evaluations and those have to be the basis of the article. To take a few more of your points in turn...
You say: "We need to try to work that out between ourselves, and explicitly state the standard and vision we have for this article."
My standard and vision for the article is that it be 100% based on external sources, meet WP:NPOV, and there not be an iota of original research in it.
You say: "First, as a purported revelation, its hard to come up with a standard for evaluating it."
It doesn't matter whether it's a purported revelation. The venue here is wikipedia, and the standard is wikipedia policy. The standard for writing the article is that any evaluation must be based on third-party, published, verifiable sources and not on the subjective evaluation of editors.
You say: "There is so much information in the Urantia Book, and so many themes, it is difficult probably for people to agree on what the central themes might be. There is no external reference for this. It will have to be subjectively determined by people who are familiar with the book, and with the field of religion and science."
To the extent that is true, that is the extent such material doesn't belong on wikipedia.
You say: "The introduction has some unnecessary detail that is distracting."
I agree with you on that, the introduction could use improvement. The second paragraph in particular is clunky to me.
You say: "Much or most of the article is bogged down in a complex, obsessive, pedantic, expository style of writing. It is not a simple, concise informational style."
Well, an encyclopedia article is going to be pedantic and expository. As for it being complex, I don't see it as any more complex than any other well-developed topic that is complex in and of itself. We've mentioned Sikhism before, I mean take another look at that article. Just the two introductory paragraphs are more dense and complex than any two paragraphs in the TUB article. And that was a featured article. Wazronk 19:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urantia

Please don't reinsert that thread, it has been the cause of complaints to the Foundation. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urantia Readers-Intl

Hi Guy,

If the person from Urantia Readers Intl wishes to retract their uncivil comments and personal attacks on Talk:The_Urantia_Book, and have complained to the Foundation to have this done, that's fine I guess. As one of the people who was on the receiving end of the attacks, I don't have any complaint though.

The policy at WP:ATTACK#Removal_of_text and at WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments is that removal of attacks and uncivil comments "should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly". I wouldn't have thought these are attacks that fall into the exceptional scenario and need to go, but I accept if that determination has been made.

My comment though was in no way uncivil or an attack and so doesn't meet any reason for removal. It was a most basic request that a justification for the external link be provided. A record should show that the link was in fact being placed by a representative of Urantia Readers Intl and so was removed for that reason. The person added the link off and on for over 9 months and, who knows, may try again in the future. The person may have complained to have their own ill-chosen behavior removed but there isn't a basis for censoring legitimite comments of others. I've tried to meet the differing goals for communication to other editors with a revision to the Talk:The_Urantia_Book page, please see how that looks.

I'll also post this on your talk page. Wazronk 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restating comments

Hi:

I think my comments were misconstrued in part and may not have been expressed in a clear manner. I didn't mean to not use external sources for the UB. I meant there's not an external 2000 year old, or 300 year old tradition to refer to like in philosophy or biology or chemistry. When I said internal standard, I meant for terms like "complex, obsessive, pedantic, expository", etc. There's no external tradition for the UB like there are for other topics.

I think there's some differences between what you see and what I see when we look at the article. The featured articles aren't "complex, obsessive, pedantic, or expository". Thats why they're featured articles. So what I was trying to say was get some kind of "standard" for those kinds of things for the editors of the UB article, so we can move forward a little.

By the way: I didn't mean "97%" change in the article. Maybe 15%, or 20%. I don't know. There are some sections I would leave as is, and some I think should be modified somehow. The way the article stands now, I think its oriented for people who have a background in the UB and want to see it on Wikipedia. I don't think whats been put up was wrong to be placed there, and I respect all the work thats gone into it up until now. I think its because of the difficulty of putting the material thats in the UB into a general article that it has to be looked at with a somewhat critical eye.

The Sikh article is a good case in point for some issues. Actually I think it supports my case in some ways, but we can come back to that. I'll look more closely at it again. Richiar 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the word "expository". That may not be the right word. Maybe the words I'm looking for are in the direction of hyperexpository. Overelaborative. Hyperdiscursive. Abtuse. Bewildering. Complicated. Labrynthine. Maybe that'll make it clearer. Richiar 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked up Sikhism in the list of former featured articles, and couldn't find it. Hinduism is there. Is that the article you were talking about? Richiar 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC) I found it. My mistake. You were right about that article. Richiar 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I compared the featured article Sikhism of August 17, 2006 with the current state of the article: they seem to be different; I will have to print out the two versions and compare them, which I can do tomorrow. Richiar 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: You're right about the Sikhism article. I compared the Aug 17 '06 version with the current version, and they're practically identical. I thought it was too complex in detail, but perhaps its due to the history of the religion. I was looking at simpler featured articles. Also, its 50 KB long, so I guess there's some variance in what they allow for featured status. I guess what I'm saying is the UB article seems to be a little too "preachy" still, and to have too much detail in it still. I would prefer a simpler article that is elaborated on in side articles. But, I can see there are different versions of featured status to use as models, so I'm open to that. Didn't mean to sound confrontational if I came across that way. Richiar 15:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current effort

Hi Wazronk:

I copied a message I left for Hanley for your own benefit, and to help facilitate communication.

I am reading through the archives to get a better grasp of the background discussion previous to my joining. I will let you know when I'm through with that.

In direct response to your inquiry of whether I have read Gardnes book, no I haven't. I'm trusting your judgement on those topics. You have a good grasp of the UB and the issues about the UB. Your reasoning is quite good as indicated by the comments on the discussion page.

As I am researching this article, I come to a conclusion at times, which gets modified sometimes with further research, so I will make corrections to my thinking as I go along, and communicate with you, so you will know what I'm thinking.

I may have given you some misimpressions about my intentions by the expression of some thoughts I have, but that will all get cleared up I trust, with further communication.

In the archives (Nov '06) I noticed a discussion between you and Sweet Bear, over the sentence in the introduction, that there is "confusion regarding God and deity, etc." You made reference to "Herzberger" or something, but that isn't listed in the references for the article. Could you tell me anything about that?

Also, I noticed the article on Islam will be the featured article on July 1, just to alert you.

Regards.

Richiar


Hi Hanley:

Thanks for your message. I am currently working on "simplifying the article". I seem to be silent for periods of time, because I'm studying the article and how to proceed. The language of the UB is somewhat difficult unless a person has the patience to read it over many years, and learn the terminology. I am trying to convert the language being used into more simplistic prose, to fit into an encyclopedic article, while retaining as much of the content from the current article as possible. Right now there seems to be a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the style of language that is used for the article. What I mean is, I think Wazronk views the conversion of the UB style of writing to a more simplistic style, which I prefer and think improves the article, as being "original research".

I am reviewing the archives again, and see that this issure came up before: specifically, with user Sweet Bear, in Nov '06. I haven't had a chance to read the archives as much as necessary, which I plan to do, so I can more fully understand the background before I came in Dec '06.

We hope you can stay for a while, but your cheerfulness is greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Richiar

[edit] Reply under WP: OR section

Just want to call your attention to my reply to your question about TUB and philosophy under the section "WP:OR violation" so you don't miss it.Richiar 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PR

I haven't listed anything yet, but it seems like a step in the right direction. Xaxafrad 06:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TUB as FA

Off the top of my head, given the current lead (the colloquialism statement seems like it should be removed for lack of citation), I would recommend moving the authorship section to the top, before the overview. Further, the teachings section seems overly long. It strikes me that extensive references to specific UB passages isn't off limits, as might benefit the comparisons sections. I think there might be an abundance of weasel words, such as "many think...", "others consider..."; these will probably need citations to get to FA status. Xaxafrad 02:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In the section on comparison to other world religions, the few statements seem kind of glossed over. I'd like to see the comparisons in more detail, highlighting similarities and differences, but I don't have sources on hand to cite (outside TUB). Maybe the whole section should be scrapped? I'm not sure; I'm just spitting out ideas, for now. I'd like to see more inline citations, but I know the policy is to respect the originally instituted citation method. For myself, I still need to realize the appreciable difference between Wikipedia's citations, references, and footnotes.

I might soon collect a list of passages in the article that sound weaselly and post them to the talk page. Xaxafrad 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Urantia Book

I disagree that the category should include "The". The article must, of course, as it is directly about the book itself. But I see no reason to include the article on the category. Of course, you are free to disagree, and if you feel strongly about it, the place to get it changed is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. You might try speedy renaming first, though I'm not sure whether it qualifies. IPSOS (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmology vs universe reality

Thanks for the comments on the the rfd page discussion. You made the statement that TUB didn't use the phrase and define "Universe reality", something close to that. It is a topic heading on p. 6 of the foreword, in the middle of a discussion of reality and infinity. What I attempted to do was a summary in as simplest terms and ideas as possible. You probably got that. The ideas seem so abstract and scattered throughout TUB. It is also part of the cosmology, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "definition" of universe reality is more like a maze of ideas scattered throughout, and what I attempted was a simplified summary. Thanks.--Richiar (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What course would you recommend for the article now? A redirect?--Richiar (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep all edits to one article

The walled garden POV-forks of articles related to The Urantia Book is unacceptable. Please keep the redirects in place and edit the main article. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Going around declaring what's "acceptable" or not and blanking pages and quoting wikipedia essays as being in any way meaningful really isn't all that useful of behavior. Try actually telling editors what the specific supposed POV issues are that you think you see, and work with other wikipedia editors on a WP:GOODFAITH basis to come to resolutions. Thanks. Wazronk (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that content forking is best done from a main article. It doesn't look like this was done in the case of The Urantia Book which, as an article, needs significant clean-up from a summary perspective. I would be more likely to support your creation of these articles if it was clear from the article on the book itself that these ideas could only be truly explained in such spin-offs. As it is, I'm extremely dubious. Tell you what, why don't we try collaborating on the main article and see what type of material needs expanding/reworking/summarizing and what kind of subjects really deserve forking? I have a sneaking suspicion that we can write a much better set of articles than what was passing for the series you seem to prefer. I'm just not convinced that these daughter articles are really legitimate, tis all. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
First off, this simply isn't a content fork situation at all, as you're saying now, nor has there been a POV fork situation, as you've been alternatively claiming in edit summaries as you blank pages. (Which one is it to you anyhow?) The structuring and organization of the articles has come about from many discussions over a few years, references to primary and secondary sources, and to consensus on talk pages by people who have read those sources. I know the articles themselves aren't the greatest or most polished, but the structure of the main article and the decisions about what to expand into spinoff articles came about from careful discussion and from referring to sources.
If you would have taken but a few brief moments of additional effort you would have easily seen, for example, that the "History and future of the world" article was a WP:SS spin off from April 2007, and is from the main Urantia article under the topic subsection titled -- so surprisingly -- "History and future of the world", where a compact summary remains. I really don't understand how you missed it, unless you haven't read the article. That spinoff was according to WP:SS, was discussed on the talk page, and came after the section had been explicitly tagged with {{splitsection}} for quite a while. Here, I've even put in the extra 3 minutes of effort to dig up the diffs: the cut back of an overgrown "history and future" section in the main article, leaving a suitable summary, and the immediate pasting of it into the present spinoff article. Even the edit summaries conforming with WP:SS request to "please note the split in the edit summaries". The Thought Adjuster one on the other hand isn't considered a summary style spinoff but an article specifically to describe details of one of the most central concepts in the book, which is cited repeatedly in secondary sources as a main feature of the book's teachings and primary belief of the followers of the book. The Cosmology one has been discussed in the past on the talk pages many times and the recent AfD of universe reality article (which resulted in "no consensus -- default to keep") led to a discussion and rename of that article to be "Cosmology (The Urantia Book)". Again, this is one of the main subtopics under "Teachings" on the Urantia article (like "history and future") and the intent is WP:SS. Wazronk (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thought Adjuster

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Thought Adjuster, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] March 2008

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn against, and report vandalism. Your report was not a case of obvious vandalism, and as a result, the user has not been blocked and the request may have been removed from the page. Next time please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for reporting a complex abuse or refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if you have a dispute with the user. Thank you. —slakr\ talk / 16:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book

I have nominated Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of History and future of the world (The Urantia Book)

An editor has nominated History and future of the world (The Urantia Book), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Urantia Book related articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on Talk:The Urantia Book

Hi -- just a note that you normally put your comments in the middle of someone else's, as that can be confusing and doesn't make it clear who wrote the comments you are replying to. There are exceptions, see [1] which explains how to interrupt. I'm still learning about this myself! Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are you familiar with this?

166:5.4 It was the apparent misfortune of Abner to be at variance with all of the leaders of the early Christian church. He fell out with Peter and James (Jesus' brother) over questions of administration and the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem church; he parted company with Paul over differences of philosophy and theology. Abner was more Babylonian than Hellenic in his philosophy, and he stubbornly resisted all attempts of Paul to remake the teachings of Jesus so as to present less that was objectionable, first to the Jews, then to the Greco-Roman believers in the mysteries.

166:5.5 Thus was Abner compelled to live a life of isolation. He was head of a church which was without standing at Jerusalem. He had dared to defy James the Lord's brother, who was subsequently supported by Peter. Such conduct effectively separated him from all his former associates. Then he dared to withstand Paul. Although he was wholly sympathetic with Paul in his mission to the gentiles, and though he supported him in his contentions with the church at Jerusalem, he bitterly opposed the version of Jesus' teachings which Paul elected to preach. In his last years Abner denounced Paul as the " clever corrupter of the life teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the living God. " Majeston (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

ScienceApologist I see that you have had trouble with this user in the past. Many people have. Any ideas about his stalking and edits.

  1. 04:05, 31 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Melchizedek priesthood‎ (→See also: remove Urantia spam.)
  2. 04:02, 31 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Nephilim‎ (→In other texts: Removing spam per WP:FRINGE)
  3. 03:57, 31 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Michael (archangel)‎ (→The Urantia Book: this section is forbidden per WP:FRINGE.)
  4. 03:55, 31 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Garden of Eden‎ (→Urantia geography: removing fringe theory.)

Majeston (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Seems to be a tag team of Urantia stalkers forming. user DougWeller

   * 09:02, 31 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard‎ (→Urantia book in Crucifixion article:  Majeston calling other editors vandals)  (top)
   * 08:42, 31 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Garden of Eden‎ (the undo was not a minor edit, even if the editor "who added the text originally" is the Urantian Chief of Reflectivity, WP:FRINGE applies here)
   * 08:41, 31 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Nephilim‎ (the undo was not a minor edit, even if the editor "who added the text originally" is the Urantian Chief of Reflectivity, WP:FRINGE applies here)

Majeston (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am clearly not stalking. Wikipedia makes it clear what stalking is, WP:STALKING says
"Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles..."
I'm not trying to cause annoyance or distress to anyone, and Majeston needs to be careful about breaching WP:CIVIL.
Nor am I part of a tag team, I have not contacted SA. These additions of text from the Urantia book to other articles simply do not belong in those articles, and it is not vandalism to remove them. (I spend a lot of time removing real vandalism, from the addition of smileys to obscenities). See WP:VANDAL to get a clearer view of what vandalism is.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Clearly Stalking Clearly WP:DICK

Coping with being labeled a dick

If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. If you suspect that you may be a dick, the first step is to become aware of it. Ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception. Try changing your behavior and your mode of presentation. In particular, identify the harsh words in your communications and replace them with softer ones.

Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?

If appropriate, publicly apologize to anyone to whom you may have been a dick. It's okay; this won't make you seem weak. On the contrary, people will take notice of your willingness to cooperate and will almost always meet your efforts with increased respect. Majeston (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

When do we begin formal proceedings against Majeston? Clearly he knows very well the policies he's violating, since he's taken to copy-pasting them as a form of harassment. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:BAIT

This page in a nutshell- Goading others into making uncivil comments is a distressingly common tactic. Don't take the bait. This is a fish. This is bait. A smart fish doesn't take the bait.

Wikipedia's policy on civility is the most straightforward policy for administrators to enforce. Disruptive or agenda-driven editors often are clever enough to realize this, and manipulate the civility policy as a weapon in content disputes. A common way to do this is by badgering their opposite number — while being careful to remain superficially civil — until their victim lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor. Most discouraging of all, this tactic is nearly risk-free. There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it, in part because a pattern of ongoing provocation can't easily be explained following the usual "diffs please" request. Majeston (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)