User talk:ClaudeReigns

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question ported from own talk page:

A few months ago you expressed your opinion about the Jim McCotter article. I was checking to see if those concerns had been addressed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns are very well addresed, and the quality is very much improved. 1000 thanks! Said: Rursus ☻ 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies as a fact? If everything is on YWAM's website, does that work or what references are you looking for? Lots of it is in books too. Is it required to list each page number or just rely on the website that has references. Is there any organization that has 16,000 employees that does not have some of the difficulties you've described?Keiko234 (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide references. Unreferenced statements may be removed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification for the uninitiated...Claims of notability where credible and unchallenged may be made by the article's subject and used as a source. For other statements which do not pertain to the subject's notability, other third-party sources must be used. Thank you for acknowledging the concern. I will be removing unsourced statements shortly, if no considerable effort is made to provide sources. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define subject's notibility? Keiko234 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking this over for a long time like a koan. I don't define the subject's notability. Reliable third party sources do. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC broadcast a one hour public affairs show, part of its long-running Fifth Estate series about the abusers at Abu Ghraib, entitled "a few bad apples". Geo Swan (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dave Andrews, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Cheers, Daniel 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like

LOL thanks... I don't think his wikipedia page does ol' J.C. justice. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have deleted this image as it was infringing on copyright. If you check the comments at the flickr source page, you'll notice that the uploader did not own the copyright to this photograph and that it was recovered from stolen property. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows parody is protected under copyright law. That was not the original stolen image. It was modified by the Jackace to depict Paris Hilton beating "Tiny Charms" and therefore his/her property. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a

WP:IFD for further review. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please comment in the

discussion. Thanks ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that this image is licensed under {{

WP:CSD#I3 as a non-commercial use only image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Why is it not notable, thousands of youth go through this program every year. Several locations had over a thousnad each. Saksjn (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability has to be established by a reliable third party. It sounds like it is very notable--but it needs references. I don't want to delete the article, but it should be cited so someone else doesn't. Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, just post it on my talk page next time so that I can see your response, thanks. Saksjn (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Efraín Ríos Montt article appears to indicate that abuses got worse under under Montt's regime. Paul foord (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the firefox search is not finding the initial instance for Rios Montt. I see you have it covered. Paul foord (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from

]

Barnstar of diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For above-and-beyond efforts - in the truest Wikipedian spirit - to establish notability for Liveoak Church before proposing it for deletion. I only wish I had that much generosity of spirit before prodding the articles I don't think are worth the electrons they're displayed with. Ipoellet (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rayhade and

Criticism of Mormonism

Looks like User:Rayhade is revert warring with you as he has been doing with me for the last couple of weeks on

]

Human Terrain Team DYK

On Human Terrain Team, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just responded to your query concerning my edit to the Mike Wiley article. Wish I could provide helpful advice concerning the Sun. As far as I know only fairly recent content is available on-line. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've indicated three publications which have noted the organization. You have the article listed for speedy deletion for non-notability. I could definitely see where you might propose an AfD as controversial, but the A7 criteria for speedy deletion seems a bit of a stretch. Please comment at the article's talk page. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied on the talk page as requested. Just a gentle nudge that way :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I also removed the CSD warning template from here. Since its incorrect i don't think that it should clutter your userpage. Im not trying to hide the fact i made a mistake on this one though, so if you want it back, do so by all means :-) )

Your changes / additions look very well rounded. I think people will be happy with the current state of the Wendy Yoshimura article. Thanks for asking.

Your name was removed. As for the articles, my intent is (I think...) the same as yours, to clean up a messy article. I tend to be a perfectionist in matters like this. I am bothered by the "angry speculators" remark, and the edits on the page have not reflected such (although I will admit to posting one time, out of curiousity, speculation regarding uses of Intelius, which was immediately reverted, and I have not and will not attempt further uses, which I hope opting to not post anonymously has helped convey). I am content with the new article, and as I said in the talk page, I more than welcome acclaim to Naveen Jain on his wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no effort to remove the statement as much as there was an effort to restore a contested statement, and in the cases I removed the phrase, it was always noted with a reason. Furthermore, I did not consider it an edit war as much as an effort by two editors to improve an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I contend that the statement does not belong, I am not really willing to get into a prolonged fight over a trivial reference. In regards to the "concerted effort", there was none, there was me when I was logged in, and there was me when I forgot to login (to be perfectly honest, I had even forgotten my password, I haven't edited in some time). I have requested a third-person review. As for this issue, consider it done and other with. Have a good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask for third opinions, you will get third opinions. Also note that I do not edit any articles related to

Holy shit, when did I rub that magic lamp? Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse! ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake! Forgive my mistake, now I know where I know you from. [4][5][6][7] We didn't get into it in the past. My mistake. You are not a Scientologist. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the admin likes to vanish notices of his RECENT cult-related activity as well. [8] ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message re the 3R rule and this article. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the other editor involved, but s/he simply reverts the article without responding, as can be seen at our respective Talk pages. You will also note that I said in my last comment that I would not be reverting again today, but would instead submit the issue to an administrator. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Look forward to having some gazpacho and mulling this one over. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has just pointed out to me that, according to his user page, Therequiembellishere‎ is aged 14. That explains a few things. I don't wish to be unpleasant to children, but if they want to play with the adults they have to expect to be treated accordingly. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe as you can clearly see above, I have been accused of failing to Assume Good Faith. Which means that when I see someone use age as an excuse, it fits the profile of others who have lied about their age on the internet to get some slack. That's just my perspective--I'm a skeptic. I know a perfectly serious and well-conducted editor, User:Saksjn, who can't possibly be "of age" but does well by not edit warring, using talk, and seeking other opinions. So I don't see how that has any bearing on a discussion of Raul Castro. Were we discussing Hannah Montana, it might lend him some authority. Does it change how you and others feel about your having called him "stupid" though? Probably better to call the edit stupid and spare the ad hominem. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention on this. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Claude,

I have no close relation with Jossi. He is just an admin who is familiar with these articles and he holds an institutional memory on all of the edit wars and other issues with them.

I have no problem with a neutral, balanced article, and would be happy to contribute to that. And, at no time have I called CultFree names despite his persistent edits doing just that to me (as well as making libelous -- thanks for the tip -- statements that are completely untrue about me being paid by the group and/or a member when I'm not). I have not accused him of anything other than being biased because his username is biased, as others have noted (like as I might, I think many would find a user name GeorgeBushFreeWorld biased, because it shows I am inherently against George Bush0.

So, I hope this makes sense to you. All I want is civil discourse and efforts to create truly balanced, neutral articles. Thanks, Renee. Renee (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for dropping by. Civil discourse is not an end in itself... probably why I'm finding the community lacking in straight talk and CFW being such a breath of fresh air in light of the recent embarrassment. I don't think his latest psych evaluation of you was very fair either--but it totally had me laughing.

Now knock off the wikispeak. Loaded language is one of Lifton's big eight and I don't buy in. I think at this point people being forthright with Where They Are Coming From And How They See Things is a good thing. Specifically, the reduction of CFW's argument, which you repeated, is off the mark. The reason I am typically against the bad guy fallacy is that it is thought-stopping. Acknowledgement that social structures can reduce free thought, and the verbal identification of those social structures can be helpful--and not necessarily as prejudiced as the strawman argument which you've taken up from the anonymous user would indicate. I think to bandy about the term "cult" without as specific explanation also can be perjorative, and yet another arrest of critical thinking.

Civil discourse cannot trump critical thinking or the Project will fail. Less wikispeak and a thicker skin will allow experienced editors to Look Beyond The Limits Of Rule Boundaries. I am all in favor of CFW writing a terribly biased article about a religious group I've never heard of involving some nutty court case--in a temporary space to be reviewed by peers. Once the article gains existence and he realizes We Collectively Own It, then I will look forward to observing the result which will necessary quickly approach neutrality simply because Widely Noticed Things Balance More Quickly.

Sorry if my current observations and wishes do not match current policy. You may Assume My Best Wishes For The Project, if you wish, for it is so. But a skeptic like myself assumes very little, and wonders, since you brought it up to me, how you make your money. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Claude,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that there should be a range of discourse with many different viewpoints to create a neutral article, but at some level there has to be a mass consciousness or unspoken agreement (civil society) that we all are really striving for a balanced article. Otherwise, the whole premise of Wiki fails, because it takes just one person who refuses to adopt that ideal to disrupt the whole system, because they are incapable of looking at the good in addition to the bad. For instance, I am sure there must be some dissertations on the group in question in India, but more than likely they're neutral or positive, so they are dismissed by CFW whose own user name implies he is on Wiki to promote a POV.

The second issue is probably more relevant, and, that is that we HAVE gone through the whole Wiki process on articles on this topic with discussions on exactly the same sources and issues (this version was basically lifted from a blog I found). The process you propose is good if it goes through several iterations and then ends up with a relatively stable article, but that wasn't the case here. People would work on it in good faith coming from all sides and then one extremely anti-person with a stated POV like "cult free" would come on and create havoc. All of the arguments made in this most recent page's short life have been made at least a hundred if not a thousand times on previous talk pages over years. Just to give you the history, to try and solve it we made the article a stub and then tried to work out from there (finding reliable sources). Then, we broke it into several articles so that the groups wouldn't fight and made those stubs so each group could find reliable sources. Still, there were endless edit wars with people trying to use blogs or extremist sites as evidence (with no concurring sources anywhere). For example, the previous incarnation of CFW (who probably is CFW) actually argued that a newspaper article found libelous and false by a court of law was a reliable and verifiable source simply because it was described in court documents -- he argued that because it appeared in a court doc it must be true and then he ignored what the courts said about it (again, the courts found it false, libelous, and that the newspaper failed to engage in proper fact-checking procedures). Ultimately, 7-8 editors plus several admins watching from afar came to the conclusion that there were currently no reliable, verifiable sources and thus it was deleted. I write this so you can understand the whole context of the article topic. This is why I contacted Jossi when I saw the new (same) version posted again, because he holds an institutional memory of the past several years on the article. It's lunacy to repeat history over and over. (did you see movie Groundhog Day?)

Ultimately, every time this happens I'm grateful to see that Wiki really does work, though while I'm in the midst of discussing a source for the 8,768th time it is easy to wonder if it's ever going to end. There are blogs for people to say whatever they want, source things the way they want, offer their analysis and opinions. I hope the ideals of Wiki can be maintained. p.s. I'm a retired professor, currently a writer, which makes Wiki a form of procrastination to real writing...Renee (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We broke it into several articles so that the groups wouldn't fight." Please explain to me how this works? I have never heard of forking as a practice to avoid edit conflict... though I have heard of forking used to eliminate information. I am also unsure why the judgment of the court as to the libellous nature of documents does not satisfy Our Desire To Include Only Verifiable Information. Such a thing, it seems to me, establishes what Group X isn't (and at least implies a claim as to what the group is). Attempting to interpret your statement of self I might imply your possible preference for academic sources in over journalistic and legal sources. I find the conflict between a legal and journalistic source to be interesting. I wonder if there is an article about that incident in itself. Obviously the 8,768th discussion of a topic doesn't make it inherently notable, but it suggests it.

My intuition about the nature of Seeing Things As We See Them is that nearly all editors come here wishing to display the clarity of their outlook. Though some fortunate few will come to see the importance, scope and long-term impact of the Project and buy into the aims, many will continue to nurse a perspective. Having tried to step outside that box and write from the opposite side on a few articles, I think it is a richer view. But don't let me pretend I no longer possess bias! The myth of the Million Neutral Clones quickly washes away with a year on the project and seeing the conflict of very real opinion on a near daily basis. Everyone Can Edit but Not While Admitting Their Prejudices must needs cede to some new order where Civilly Reconciled Opposing Points of View balance the articles. Real life example: many people seem to think that racial relations are now better in the South (where biases have traditionally been in the open) than the North (where bias is less exposed). But I like your example of the particular situation.

I saw Groundhog's Day. It seems that the main character did rely on a kind of "institutional memory" but he never got out until he Made It Happen. This seems like an article that wants to Happen. So when occurance 8769 manifests, then I'd be happy to take a peek. I'm a disaffiliate from an evangelistic Christian movement possessing a quite skeptical but somewhat tolerant view of most religion regardless of cultural orgin with a particular curiosity towards all religions: Is it ethical in practice? So that's my take. I think I hear the alarm clock going off now. Pair me up with Ned Ryerson and off we go. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, believe it or not, I was kind of exaggerating when I said the 8768th time...just a little wee bit...just a tiny, tiny bit...okay, a lot...the reason I focus on academic sources is because I know from experience they go through a very careful vetting process, and dissertations go through an especially rigorous process of verification, so one can bet they're pretty reliable... regarding the libel, seems to me that information found by a court of law to be untrue and false is by definition unreliable and unverifiable. Anyone can make up a story and get it published. How's this? Mother Teresa's convent is really a front for Afghan opium dealers and the food in her kitchen is spiked with heroin. (this is made up, don't sue me!) Say a newspaper published that, the Catholic church sued and the court ruled it was libel. Would you put this in a Wiki article about Mother Teresa? For me personally, accusations and inuendo are for blogs, not something that is being used by schoolchildren for research projects.

Ned Ryerson, huh? I was thinking I probably do need some life insurance....Renee (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd put it in the wiki article about the source and link to Ma T, especially so editors can caveat emptor when they check the source for new citations (as I am usually careful to do when using a new source). But the schoolchildren can go watch smut in b&w at pornography, so I'd say ixnay to the implications that it wouldn't fly because of audience. This reminds me of a previous conversation with User:Justanother, if my horrendous memory serves me well. Just because I latch on to something as seemingly important/unimportant as a minor libel case about an article which causes incivility during its quotidian creations and destructions doesn't mean that I always have a definite bold answer to its treatment. The problem is the apprehension of passersby that there's Something We're Not Telling. This will continue to be the reaction as long as someone has a reason with support to believe that there's a "David Copperfield" here to make the sources disappear. And when I walk by an article that's been once deleted, I think "There's an article I could make fly"; when I see a bountiful article deletion log, I think to myself, "Here's a great chance to make tons of enemies writing a good article that will be ripped to shreds by our community." :D So naturally I can nearly remember the name of the subject that got us talking. And I remember seeing a source that was a college newspaper. What do you think of college newspapers as sources? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm....interesting on the porno site....I wonder if Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry for that? Re deleted articles, some just aren't notable enough and keep getting re-posted as a vanity PR site or by those with an axe to grind for the site. I think that's the case here. I checked out some other eastern meditation groups's sites on Wiki and they all have full books and journal articles and academic dissertations on them. Depending on the college the paper might be okay (do they have a vetting process?) but I don't think it's enough for an article yet. I've been working the AFD rounds pretty consistently so have gotten a good idea as to what's notable and what's not. You should try them out! They're a nice break from regular Wiki work. If you want to see some impressive deletion logs, take a look at these here and here.

Hey, if you were so inclined, I'd be interested in your take on the Alice Bailey page. It seemed pretty neutral and then a contingent of Jewish editors found it (it was posted on one of the lists for them to come and take a look at it) and imo slanted it into a negative article. The woman did say some anti-semitic and racial things things that should be reported. But, the problem with the article is that those things are featured when they compose less than 5% of her total writings, so her main topics get obscured. Anyways, if you have the time or inclination I'd be interested in your take on it.

Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threw down an edit on the intro consistent with my work at

Criticism of Mormonism

. Also can tell that notability is going to need to be established for a lot more of this. Bailey is given a mighty big soapbox for the note given. Example, "The spiritual Hierarchy, Sirius, Venus, and Shamballa" noting author gets one sentence, Bailey gets the remainder of the two paragraphs. The same pattern follows in the next two paragraphs about discipleship. Will need to examine these sources for affiliation--for where they are affiliated with Bailey, they are primary sources and should be treated as such.

This is an interesting article; one of the astrology books (an ephemeris or table of houses) I used to have was printed by Lucis Trust. Still hard to evaluate without a deeper study of the subject matter and a who's who. Sorry about the nasty tags, all the articles I jump into look worse before they look better. I'm the handraising jerk my teachers hated :D ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered,

Please do not changes to the article without discussion. If you take a look at the talk page you will see how hard the editing process for the Alice Bailey article was. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm....

WP:OWN comes to mind. Malcolm (aka Kwork has a long history on this article. Good luck with this one, I'll move any further comments to the talk page. Renee (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Renee, you misunderstand. What I hope for is that caution will make it possible to avoid another difficult seven months of contentious editing. I also want to point out, Renee, that your assumption of my bad faith is uncivil and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines for editors. Please cease such incivility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear Malcolm, My apologies if my comments seemed uncivil -- not meant to be. I've put some comments on the talk page. Claude's edits were so minor and then you jumped on him with the note above that it seemed to imply some sort of ownership of the article. The assumption of good faith goes both ways my friend. Renee (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renee, you wrote "you jumped on him". I did not jump on him. My note was two sentences, and I pointed out that there had been a contentious editing process....which this exchange between us will make demonstrate well enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renee is misrepresenting the history of the Alice Bailey article but I will not go into that right now, I will merely hope that your intentions are as pure as you claim they are and assume good faith on your part. :Albion moonlight (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure everyone has their own way of seeing things. That's why I wanted to be upfront about where I'm coming from. Still learning the topic and getting a feel. Thank you for the welcome. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go any further with editing the Alice Bailey article, I suggest that you think about what I have already said their, but which may get ignored:

The problem remains that there are no scholarly sources that can be used as a basis for an Alice Bailey article (which does raise the issue of notability). Most of the sources actually used in the article, are from either Alice Bailey herself, or non-scholars who worship in the Church of Alice Bailey, or New Age advocates who think anything connected with the New Age movement must be good. Other sources focus on her racial views, on her antisemitism, or her views on Christianity. There are no books that have been written about AAB that are of the nature of the Richard Noll studies of Carl Jung, or K. Paul Johnson's scholarly studies of Theosophical Society literature. As a result one administrator who participated for a while in editing this article, Vassyana I think, thought it would be better to reduce the article to a stub rather than use unsound sources. Others, such as AnonEMouse, thought it okay to use the sources we have, and build the article on that. At this point, I am willing to live with it either way. What I am not willing to live with is including the non-scholarly AAB worshipers, and excluding those sources that question her perfection. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no scholarly studies that have been made of AAB, and any changes you make will run into all the same problems unless that issue is resolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the headsup. I am still willing to work with the sources extant. I just want to give greater clarity as to what those sources are. If you'll notice my chaotic user page you will note that I am not by nature a deletionist. On topics of religion it isn't easy to dismiss authors because they have a particular point of view--that's the nature of religion. Therefore I cling tenaciously to good attribution. The Jew will see his voice sourced, the Christian will see his voice sourced, and the Occultist will see his view sourced, and provided there is no undue weight, there should be no dispute as to balance. Forgive me if you don't see me working in your favor yet. You haven't whispered your outlook to me. As in all things, I assume good faith and natural bias and hope all sides will be well-served.

When I say that I am not a deletionist, I do not mean to say that I do not support a good faith effort to delete poorly sourced material. It's just not me who will be pulling the trigger. For a deletionist on this article, I'd suggest a well-rounded sweep of the worst sources, which I am all too happy to point out with my attribution efforts. While material remains, any newcomer should have ample opportunity to understand if the material comes from a particular "side". I'm still holding hope that some published occult expert will be able to shed a little light. But do what you have to do. I do not oppose you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea there was a whole portal. This is interesting too. And this looks like a lot more fun than the afd's I've been working on...Renee (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claude, Per Jack A Roe's comment on the RFC, I would like to take a stab at re-working it to reflect content only? Is this okay with you? I know you put a lot of effort into it.

Regarding Malcolm, he has loads of knowledge on the topic and I think his weariness in repeating what he has said before months ago shows in his responses to you. You had listed several sources that you had questions about earlier and I don't think you ever got a response about them individually. Perhaps you can re-ask the question for 1-2 and see what happens? I've noticed a huge change in his responses and attitude toward me and feel we are working together nicely and think he's eager to do that with everyone, because this article has been such a drain in the past on everyone. Renee (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claude,

Per my post above (and following Jack-A-Roe's suggestions) I redid the RFC completely to focus on content and then archived the old RFC discussion as a permanent record. If you have a problem with this please revert, but I hope it is okay with you. Any comments that focused on user are now on permanent record in the archive. I think this will build good will and am hopeful that Albion and Malcolm will respond positively.

I have left in your original comment and mine and classified it as biography. Thanks for your hard work on this. Renee (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I look forward to seeing it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not remotely seem to qualify for speedy. Try cutting it back, or, if you disagree with me, using afd. DGG (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a number of false, dead, outdated and/or (apparently) misleading links and references in the Youth With A Mission article.

As you seem to have done a great amount of work on this article, I'd like to first request that you verify a number of the articles references. Although some seem ripe for deletion, I do not want to ruin your previous research and notations. Is this the place to have this discussion? Or should we move it to the Youth With A Mission article notes?

Also, I noticed you undid my deletion of the "Athens Three" red link cleanup. I deleted this deade link after consulting Wikipedia's red link guideline: "If you think no article with that title should ever, ever exist (or if the article has been deleted), you can remove the link. It's perfectly fine and indeed encouraged, to leave red links to useful potential articles, as a signal to other editors that the article needs to be created. "

If you have added a red link with no meaning, the you should, as Wikipedia advises, "If the article referenced by a red link deserves to exist, you can start it and then mark it as a stub." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delhiwallah (talk • contribs) 11:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gave reasons at the talk page of that article. Google it and get back to me there. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the different version proposals, but haven't had the chance to really figure out which is best. Plus there's been no rebuttal or comments at all from Gatorgalen since I started looking into it. It's on my to-do list, so just give me a bit more time.

Sure thing. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to weigh in on recent comments and reverts at the

Thank you for uploading Image:A Few Bad Apples.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

permitted conditions

then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant
  copyright tag
  .

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Tom Short Maneater97.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Lemieux Road.jpg

section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright

infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Lemieux Road.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Tom Short UtahChron06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Short UtahChron06.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before

13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Replaceable fair use Image:Tom Short GCBootcamp2007.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Short GCBootcamp2007.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before

13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Commons:File:DaveAndrews.jpg

This was moved to commons, but ran into problems... Can you PLEASE talk with someone from Wikimedia Commons urgently? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move seems to have been executed without referencing the original image source URL, a Flickr page. Find the Flickr page and you'll find the explicit permission to license as free GNU image. Sorry, images are such a hassle now that I scarcely have time for them, much less a separate registration on Wikimedia Commons. Good luck! ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of International House of Prayer

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(s) by adding your comments 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of Tim Rude

The article Tim Rude has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Another Us political coatrack?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Brevard Technical Journal August 2002.JPG

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:McC 086 0206 MontCountySentinal 01.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is your first formal warning for the mess you're trying to create here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was trying to correct the problem the template noted. I did try to find the consensus and have discussed this on talk. Please also assume good faith. What is your specific objection? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Claude!

Grandma loves you too! Amandajm (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hehehehe! Thanks! ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I've been quite rude in some of my comments. I see you've not said anything since and hope it wasn't because of this. I offer my sincere apologies. Skullers (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're cool! Glad you're part of the project! ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources about the

Nakba

I've just been given some titles by User:Pluto2012 to review in my effort to understand multiple viewpoints about the topic.

• The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Benny Morris
• critiques thereof: "Myths, Old and New" by
  Nur-eldeen Masalha
• Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948
• Rosemary Esber, Under the Cover of War

I definitely encourage others to add to my reading list as well. I hope that they are sources that conform to

WP:RS, or in the very least, sources which would be considered neither spurious nor vague. What are you reading? ClaudeReigns (talk

) 10:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Adding[reply]

• Morris, "Response to Finkelstein and Masalha" to check for true consensus. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you interested in criticism of New historians you may try this [10]--

WP:RX 20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Fascinating! I found dialogues between Karsh and Morris to be an entirely constructive debate. While I agree with Morris that Karsh is not meaningfully conciliatory, Karsh is able to contextualize Morris' claims in an entirely logical way. I haven't seen Karsh challenge what I consider to be some of Morris' more important claims. But the process is superior to Gelber's. Thank you so much for an important reference. I plan to discover what Karsh has to say about April and July '48 as soon as I get my hands on the text itself. Again, thank you, Shrike. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Karch view [11] on what happened in 1948.--

WP:RX 07:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at reviews on Amazon I noticed Ben Alofs, a doctor who has worked in Palestinian camps in Lebanon recommends highly the Rosemary Esber book you've listed above - "This study focuses on the final six months of the British Palestine mandate (from November 29, 1947 to May 14, 1948),- Understanding the unfolding events in this period is essential to comprehending how approximately 800.000 Palestinians became refugees.

The Palestinian historical narrative has been echoed to some extent by Israel's "new" historians (Simha Flapan, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim). But the latter's excessive or even exclusive reliance on Israeli archives has limited their narratives and conclusions. Palestinian perspectives on the war critical of Israel have remained relatively absent from historical discourse until fairly recently. For a full understanding of what happened the voices of those who became refugees are indispensable. Rosemarie Esber's "Under The Cover Of War: The Zionist Expulsion Of The Palestinians" is an important addition to the recent literature of the Palestinian Nakba"Sayerslle (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her book is on the top list, and almost certainly my next read. In fact, I aim to occupy a library today. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i wrote that before i noticed you'd started an article on Esber - btw - have you seen The Promise (2011 TV serial) - thats a dvd ben alofs recommends also - its from the viewpoint of a british soldier watching the events unfold i think. Sayerslle (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

User talk:Captain Miles#Proofreading

Captain Miles's talk page.
Message added 13:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply

]

talk) 13:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Teahouse Q&A board

. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are

t c 09:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naomi Sakr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MacMillan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rosemarie Esber

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply