User talk:Xavthius/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Xavthius, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hey, you took out on of the paul martin quotes that I had found. Here is a link to a site that attributes what I quoted to Paul Martin, its supposed to be in chapter one. [1] Maybe they doctored the chapter, but that is where I found the quotes--Mfpantst 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll put it back in, but with proper attribution. That page appears to be a "revised" chapter one from the book. I own the original book so I was a little confused.

Xanthius 18:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered

Here's the diff: [2]. --

MUSH is more commonly referred to as "Multi User Shared Hallucination" or "Holodeck" than any other acronym. References: [[3]], [[4]]. Further proof of this: "Multi User Shared Habitat" on google returns 248 results. "Multi User Shared Hallucination" returns 10,400 results.

Fair enough. It was reverted out of the page by another editor and it looked like nonsense to me, but it seems I was wrong. I've struck my warning and shall reinstate the edit you made. Best wishes. --

Guinnog 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I can do that (add the quotations). I will need to find time to go through the articles, but I would be glad to do so. The reason I added more sources than the initial three was because somebody was complaining about there only being those three, and two of them were from the same paper. He also implied that it was the result of a renegade reporter, so I figured showing a wider range of the articles GC has been referred to as a cult in multiple cities and papers would be beneficial in dispelling this claim, as well as encyclopedic. Good idea on the Rick Ross thing. I wasn't sure his site was still active as it didn't seem up to date on GCI/GCA, so I hadn't thought of doing so.

Xanthius 01:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Just for clarification's sake here, I'd like to note that I was just pointing out that two of them being from the same paper shows someone likely had an ax to grind. I think it's ridiculous in general to turn over our minds to the media - while it'd be nice if they actually just reported things, that's simply not the case. I highly recommend a book called "The Gospel according to the New York Times", one of many that point this out. Even the fact that "cult" is in the title sadly doesn't represent that a person other than the newspaper used that term, and even if it did why does one person (saying a word that no one can agree on a definition for) somehow make it true. Even GCM's strongest critics agree that it isn't a cult but at worst a "TACO". Your precious GCM Warning is likewise. I think you should reexamine your motives - it's clear from your edit history that you joined wikipedia for the purpose of putting on stuff about GCA. It's a lot to wade through, but there are some edits that are very close to GCM warning's wording of timelines and such that make it clear somebody was trying to avoid outright plagiarism but using that as a source. I apologize if I incorrectly attributed anything to you - are you telling me that you are not a contributor the the decommissioned blog?

I stand by my statement that you have a vendetta against the organization - I believe anyone who looked through your edit history would have to agree. An important part of being "professional" is admitting your bias. Only after you've done so can you ever hope to come close to NPOV. Gatorgalen 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "two of them being from the same paper shows someone likely had an ax to grind." My first assumption would be a failure of GCM to reform after the first reported abuses, followed by a second round of abuses. 'They're still doing it' is a staple of news reporting.

• "doesn't represent that a person other than the newspaper used that term" It would be startling if a mainstream newspaper decided to editorialize that a Christian group was a cult without quoting someone else. They have Christian advertisers to lose, so as a generalization, they just don't do that.

• "saying a word that no one can agree on a definition for" Folks claim this a lot due to the problem of being taught just one definition as mentioned by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. But that's a myth. You will find all the agreed definitions at the top of the Cult article, and they are all explained within the article. Average folks sometimes can't tell you exactly why they think a certain group is a cult, but if one spends a long time analyzing their thinking, it usually falls within range of one or more standard definitions. No one has time for this sorting-out process in every individual case. Just look how much time I'm spending to educate you (because I think you are intellectually honest). That's why LOGRTAC accepts whatever definition of cult by default, but excludes fancults and jokes by consensus since they aren't at issue.

• "some edits that are very close to GCM warning's wording of timelines" Plagiarism is falsely claiming orginality, and Wikipedia doesn't claim originality. All of Wikipedia is "plagiarized" in a loose sense, since editors are required to rewrite the only set of facts to avoid copyright violations (copying a specific arrangement of words).

• "recommend a book called "The Gospel according to the New York Times"" Thank you for mentioning it. :) Intellectuals don't take seriously the long-time right-wing vendetta against the New York Times, that the book you mention is part of. Which is not to say that everything in it is wrong — even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. You can read two reviews here, the first "Are you a victim of Culture Creep? You bet., November 28, 2001", the second, "Little logic, lots of paranoia, hypocrisy, July 11, 2001". The second is by a Christian, and probably the first is also, so the debate isn't really about consensus Christianity. This also isn't really about the NYT or even the media. It's really about the social and political power struggle known as the Culture war. At its root, the Culture war is hierarchist monarchists vs. anti-hierarchist democratists, with a relative vs. absolute truth sideshow. Religious folks who believe that God is a king naturally fall into line with political monarchists, who use them to maintain the temporal king's power in the name of God. This alliance goes back to the complementary power bases of the chief and the shaman in tribal prehistory. After 50,000 years, educated citizens have asserted that both are biased toward maintaining power and control above all else, including the best interests of the citizens. The Exxon-led right-wing conspiracy to suppress the truth of global warming is history's most important example of hierarchy power and control placed above the best interests of all people, and most living species. Milo 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've quite a set of beliefs there yourself Milo. It's interesting oo see your perspective on life in that, helps me understand you and your edits a bit better. To respond, i know plagiarism isn't an issue - i was taking issue with his claim to "have been the result of my own work", when in fact it looks like it was taken directly from the GCMwarning site and only slightly reworded. Regarding definitions of cult - i said no one can agree on a definition, and I stand by that. The fact that there are 8 different definitions, at least, in popular usage makes that clear. I would say really, in popular lingo, it's even simpler. In actual usage, a cult is "a group I (the person using the word) don't like, either because a) they DO something I disagree with morally or b) they believe something I disagree with." That's the only definition I can see that comes close to ecnompassing the actual usage, but the fact is people just throw it around without thinking in our culture. It's sad. I think you put way too much faith in the goodwill of newspapers - just go and read one of the multitudes of books out there (I don't know how you define "intellectuals" or get the idea that they disregard this research, btw) on the bias in terms papers use. As for the headline, I was saying that a word being in the headline doesn't ensure it being in the article. I've seen plenty of articles where an editor puts a catchy title on an article that doesn't really reflect what the article says. A pertinent example would be an article quoting someone as saying "I'm worried about this organization. They seem abusive." and then the headline pops out "XYZ a Cult?". It happens all the time. Journalism is a lost art. Regarding your "first assumption" of the fault of GCM - same issue, it's interesting that you would choose to believe a newspaper over all the other evidence. Be careful what you "assume", I assume you know the danger there. Your perspective on the culture wars is certainly interesting. Thanks for trying to "educate" me :) I'm assuming you didn't meand that to sound quite as condescending as it came off, I appreciate your comments. Gatorgalen 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested.Proabivouac 08:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all references are scrubbed now. -- Avi 15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xanthius, do you want your talk page semi-protected to prevent unregistered users from editing it? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-15 16:47Z

Done, per WP:AN/I thread. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-15 18:22Z

I told everyone you eat boogers. Is that a violation of policy? ClaudeReigns 04:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me, here or in the discussion, how exactly that contradicts any source. It's in the by-laws, if you'll help me cite them. Gatorgalen 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you make a citation if you have a source. The sources currently there seem to suggest the elders make the major decisions of the church, which I would assume include elder appointment, given the movement's history and shepherding beliefs. If that's not true of the current movement, by all means let's add a source supporting it. I'll help you do that if you provide the info.

Xanthius 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a great start I think. Only thought I'd have on that would be "denominational nametag shunned" might be more NPOV as something like "...established with no official name". What do you think about that? Besides that it looks great. Could what you have here be a part of a larger infobox with the logo, home office, and whatever else goes in an infobox (founder ((I say McCotter is listed, personally)), headquarters, key people ((this will probably get debated, so keep it to folks you think are very notable)), website, etc.). This is looking great, though. Thanks for asking. Is there anything I can help you with on getting a good looking infobox finished? Nswinton 02:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought... did anything else happen between 1989 and 2006 (in terms of organizational structure/naming?) I know the apology letter came out ~1991, and that's not directly relevant to this timeline, but I'm wondering if there were other changes that took place. Also, FYI, I'm really asking - I don't know. It's just a big gap there, most of my lifetime, actually (I was born in 1983), so I'm honestly surprised that not much changed between 1986 and 2006. Someone should write a history book or something on GC*  ;) Nswinton 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xanthius,

What do you think about having both of these on the page? Put the main one at the top, with the Background linking down to the timeline one (which would be in the Background section). This is just a proposal. What do you think? I'm putting this on Gatorgalen and ClaudeReigns pages too for their input. Lemme know on my talk page. Thanks dude. Nswinton 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's a final version that ClaudeReigns proposed that he, Gatorgalen and I have all approved. Waiting for you over on my talk page to comment/suggest or give it the "go ahead". Nswinton 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your question about Chris Martin and Dennis Clark on my talk page. If you're cool with the proposed changes there, then I think we can all agree to put this infobox on the article finally :) Nswinton 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sanity look at this article. I'd have you get ahold of

Cool. I may go ahead and try to track down some more sources myself to fill in some of the gaps in the article. A found a news archive with some, but they are charging to download them. :(

Xanthius 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:DonBarnett.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on

chat} 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, the letter that you received does not actually state that Mr Enroth releases the image into the public domain; it just gives you permission to scan the books. There is nothing that states it is permissible to redistribute it and even reuse it commercially. As such, it's still a non-free image. Regards,

chat} 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In addition, please do not remove the {{

chat} 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

My bad.

Xanthius 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK

On 28 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Churches That Abuse, 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 .

--Carabinieri 11:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Gatorgalen 3RR & SPA

Rather than continue to editwar, I reported User:Gatorgalen. Please add any additional comments you feel are applicable. Thanks, ClaudeReigns 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also [5]

Fair use rationale for Image:GCC Logo.png

fair use

.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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]

1. ^ "Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)". Retrieved 2007-4-3. Great Commission Association of Churches changed its name to Great Commission Churches (9/1/06). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. ^ "Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)". Retrieved 2007-4-3. Great Commission Association of Churches changed its name to Great Commission Churches (9/1/06). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)