User talk:Arbustoo

I protected the page. Please work toward a consensus on the talk page; afterwards, any edits that contravene that consensus should allow you and the other agreeing editors to make judicious use of reporting any 3RR's. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also added it to my watchlist and will be interjecting ... er, guidance ... when needed ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help again. Arbustoo 03:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, please do not remove the Disputed Tags from the Jack Hyles or First Baptist Church Wikis. As noted in the talk section of the Jack Hyles wiki, these articles are in dispute, hence the tag. Removing them is considered to be vandalism. --Teeja 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Even an Admin. removed the tag after you reinserted it. It will be removed if you cannot argue the grounds you put it in. See the talk pages for my response. Arbusto 19:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arbustoo, I hate to seem overly critical, but I think you need to look at your use of the 'minor edit' function. Minor edits are only for typo fixes & formatting. Don't mark it as minor if you have added or deleted any info, and especially don't use it is you've done a revert. See Minor edit & WP:REVERT. Otherwise, keep up the good work! Ashmoo 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Arbusto 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, a great deal. I look forward to Arbusto/o giving this better attention. Don't know why JzG and JoshuaZ never noticed. They can be such sticklers for rules! PSRuckman

Simple: once somebody has established a reputation as a reasonably neutral editor with a good grip of the ruiles you tend not to watch their every move. Nobody is above scrutiny, but neither is anybody required to critique every action by every editor. As far as I'm aware Arbustoo has never "corrected" perfectly correct British English spelling - people living in glass houses should not throw stones. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, different people have different issues they put emphasis on. In Ashmoo's case, he apparently cares about the rules for marking minor edits. (Actually, until I saw this I didn't know that reverts shouldn't be marked minor either for that matter). Don't assume bad faith just because you disagree with people. JoshuaZ 18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on University of the Nations (U of N) accreditation. No I am not trying to mislead anybody about the school's accreditation, but rather trying to follow the normal paradigm for university entries. You have been stating that the U of N is unaccredited in the first descriptive line for the Wiki entry. If you continue to do this, it will continually be deleted. If you would like to comment on a university's accreditation, I suggest that you do this in the section titled "accreditation", following the example of countless university entries throughout Wikipedia.

Secondly, your statement that the U of N is not accredited in the United States is true. However, as it is an international university offering courses around the world (and as its international provost office is in Switzerland, its transcripts and records office is in the UK), a far more relevant statement would of an international nature. I have updated it with a full and internationalized explanation.

Lastly, I have once again added the link for U of N Kona as this is the most important branch of the U of N. Please stop removing it as it is highly relevant information. Thank you. 82.33.116.35 (talk • contribs)

No, you are misleading people about the accreditation both in relation to the school in the US (Kona) that lacks accreditation and the international body schools. There is CHEA (North American accreditation) and UNESCO (international database) neither of which list the school. Your comments are POV and misrepresent what accreditation is.

Lastly, the two articles are merged so it does no good to link the page to itself. Arbusto 11:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: UofN Kona is a redirect, which is why it was unlinked. Circular redirects are Bad. Note also: accreditation details per Arbustoo are factually correct. If the anons and drive-bys can link to a document showing recognition by UNESCO as accredited, please do so. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this of some interest to you? I became curious about Indiana Christian University when looking at the CV of Ulf Ekman , a Swedish minister and leader of the controversial U.S.-influenced Swedish charismatic congregation Livets Ord ("Word of Life"). Ekman has a legitimate theology degree from Uppsala (and started out as a minister in the former Swedish state church, the Church of Sweden) but also claims honorary doctorates from Indiana Christian University in South Bend, Indiana, and Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is also president of Livets Ord University, which is unaccredited in Sweden (where accreditation – or whatever it should best be called – is not private, as in the U.S., but conferred directly by the government) but awards American degrees through an agreement with Oral Roberts University. ORU is accredited. Indiana Christian University seems more obscure, but real. It is not in the CHEA database, as far as I can see. It is mentioned here (on talkorigins.org), referencing a different, now unavailable, web page, and here (in the bio for the president of Summit Theological Seminary. Here is a discussion, where somebody links to this PDF file about ICU, apparently an official catalog. ("ICU offers a Certificate of Charismatic Studies".) In their not very extensive presentation of faculty, it appears that almost everyone has only got a degree from ICU (which seems remarkable, considering the number of people in the U.S. who go to at least some kind of college). There is probably more, but that is what I could find looking through the first few Google hits. u p p l a n d 06:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research, that should be an article.Arbusto 18:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Newsflash! an anon, 172.130.180.94, is making multiple, good edits to Peter Ruckman. JoshuaZ 05:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its time for an admin. to show some tough love. The sock puppets and civil attacks are tiresome and its not even a controversial or heavily visited article. Arbusto 06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, Arbustoo, I did say "good" in that sentence and I really meant it.

Sorry, I was confused on the IP. I thought you meant this one. Arbusto 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your wikipedia email is once again not on it seems, so I emailed you using the address that you sent from last time. It concerns the socks. JoshuaZ 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check the email ASAP. JoshuaZ 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have access to that one today. Please contact the new one via wiki. Arbusto 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of nominating you for adminship soon. Would you a) mind if I did b) have any relevant issues that I should consider when drafting the nomination? JoshuaZ 15:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't nominate me. I have no interest at all. Thanks anyway. Arbusto 19:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be grateful for other opinons on Kennedy-Western University, which is called a "diploma mill" in many places but has apparently come to some agreement with the Oregon degree office that it shouldn't been called thus. They still say that it is unaccredited and that its "Degrees do not meet requirements for employment by State of Oregon or for work in any profession licensed by the State of Oregon for which a degree is required". Somebody who presents himself as a current student there has been editing the article and tried to purge a mention of KWU as a diploma mill in an old comment of mine from an old Votes for Deletion page. See User talk:Uppland#Incorrect_statement (and following section), Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Knightsbridge University, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Dispute regarding a "dead" page. u p p l a n d 16:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it and keep my eye on it. Thanks for pointing it out. Arbusto 09:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your evenhandedness in this matter.

I will avoid editing the article but if you do not mind, I would like to contact you if I see any attempts by any parties to try to sabotage this article. That way a completely neutral party, which is what I presume you are, can determine if the change is worthy of edit.

At the very least I would like to insert criticisms in the discussion page.

I understand your points that you made. I do have couple of criticisms though. First, the statement The Seattle Times noted in article that included Kennedy-Western that some believe Wyoming has "become a haven for diploma mills." is in the seceond paragraph. Wouldn't it be better to put this under the section "Controversy and criticism"? And the second, mention that KWU is unaccredited in the opening sentence. Should this not also go under "Controversy and criticism?" Just my own, admittedly biased opinion.

On final thing to mention. I believe there should be more civility in this discussion. So that this does not become a mud slinging fest I will not mention names but if you read through the comments you will know what I am talking about. This discussion should be about the article and noting else.

And contrary to what that individual said I do edit and create other articles on other subjects, from such subjects as German Industrial Music to history, though the KWU article has taken up the bulk of my posts here.

Oh yea this also: I do not know that Honest Joe character. He is not a friend of mine and is doing nothing to help with that article.

PeacePiercetp 16:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure no problem contact me if you need me and if you see vandalism on that page feel free to revert it and contribute. I just wanted you to be aware of the policy and becareful. Arbusto 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken you to the arbitration committee. You can find the request in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbustoo, Arbusto, Just zis Guy you know?, David D.. Pooua 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a gross misuse of arb. Arbusto

I'm guessing Arb Com rejects it by this time next week. JoshuaZ 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with that filed referral I don't know where to begin. You can't just take someone to Arcom because they put in sources from the AP that criticize someone you personally knew. Arbusto 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you can't write an authoritative, reliable encyclopedic biography just by quoting scandalous statements you found in a newspaper, either, but you are trying. Pooua 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Either add sources to it or not. Verfiable sources stay. Arbusto 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article will grow to be more balanced if you start editing it. David D. (Talk) 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It got rejected fairly fast. Yet, the criticism keeps getting removed from the article. Arbusto 08:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Material that is written using sources that are self-published and unreliable can be removed. Material that is written in a biased tone can be rewritten. An ArbCom rejection of Pooua's initial referral doesn't mean that ArbCom has voted in favor of keeping your edits. If you want to see how it works, try to nominate Pooua for ArbCom right now. I'd guess that you would be rejected nearly just as quickly. Vivaldi (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Never said it did. Why would I want to go to Arbcom for this? Imrpove the article then. Arbusto 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It got rejected fairly fast. Yet, the criticism keeps getting removed from the article. What was the purpose for that statement? You link ArbCom rejection with your edits getting removed as if one event meant the other should stop. Vivaldi (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Imrpove the article then. I have been improving many of the articles that you have inserted your personal bias into, including the Jack Hyles article which you wish to have be 80% criticism, even though not a single reputable source has even accused Hyles of a misdeed, let along a crime. Vivaldi (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's review your "improvements." Here you removed "an unaccredited institution" and replaced it with "a bible college." Considering the article is about a church its clear it's a bible college. It is unaccredited and should be mentioned in the article. Your edit summary didn't even label that you made such a POV change. Arbusto 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You DO realize that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article, right? And therefore has to go through WP:DRV? --Calton | Talk 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not notice, but I just added it to review after you mentioned it. Arbusto 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I started working on an article offline on the history of diploma mills, but it appears that some relevant American publications are unavailable to me here in Sweden. Are you interested in collaborating on the article? u p p l a n d 11:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, *Robert H Reid, American degree mills, a study of their operations and of existing and potential ways to control them, Washington, American Council on Education [1959], seems to be a standard work on this topic but unavailable around here (although it may be in one of the old dead-tree catalogues but missing from the electronic catalogues, if nobody has borrowed it in the last 20 years - I'll need to check that). u p p l a n d 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Email me about it and as to what you said about consolidating the mills check out University Degree Program. Arbusto 03:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Anyway, I started the History article in my userspace: User:Uppland/Dipmillhist. I will add what I can find there, but will need help eventually from people with access to possibly good references I can't locate here. I miss anything that gives an overview of the topic, rather than the snapshots I get from the various articles I have used so far. u p p l a n d 09:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification at Riek Machar. I had done a brief look around the wiki trying to figure out what article to link to and was incredulous that one didn't already exist. In 2006, a diploma mill is much more likely that Wikipedia missing an article on a British university. Also, I read through some of the above sections. Very interesting. Good luck and thanks again, BanyanTree 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

One indictaor it was fake was he does not have a Bachelor's degree. While some programs will let you skip a MA it is not possible to have a doctorate (graduate degree) without have an uundergraduate degree. No problem. Arbusto 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The article states he went to University of Khartoum, where I assume that he got a degree. Cheers, - BanyanTree 18:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I read it differently. "Went to" probably means never graduated because it never stated what degree, what year, or if he graduated. Like I said that's how I read it after reading the diploma mill website from the ODA. Arbusto 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I found your additions to the Smith Wigglesworth article to be pov. I reverted your edits. You also inserted a piece of information in the article as a category, that was false; his death was 1947 not 1949. If you have meaningful things to add to the article, then do so, or we can discuss your and my, edits on the relevant Smith Wigglesworth talk page. Thanks. Эйрон Кинни (t) 09:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You removed a citation where he claimed to "raise the dead" and heal the sick. He had a daughter with a "serious hearing loss" he did not cure. Either he did not care for his daughter or he couldn't faith heal. So you either he was incompassionate or a fraud.

Do not remove cited sources and call that POV. That is called white washing and its vandalism. Arbusto 21:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I emailed the maintainer of that webpage asking for his source, and he provided none; he didn't even reply. So until you get a better source (your source had no source) I will continue reverting your vandalism. Do you have any other sources for your claims? Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is well established he claimed he could raise the dead , and here it puts the claim as "raising fourteen dead peopl", and here it claims he raised he wife from the dead. Wiggelsworth also wrote books about raising the dead.

He had a daughter named Alice with a hearing loss . He it claims he "frequently" prayed for his daughter's hearing loss. Healing his daughter never occured. That hearing not healed and here.

Stop removing cited sources. Arbusto 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also please don't remove vandalism warnings. Arbusto 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch it with the V word in edit summaries, in content disputes it's not vandalism, it's just contentious. Just zis Guy you know? 09:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you always sign your comments as Arbusto? When your username is Arbustoo?

Kalmia 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Arbusto" is Portuguese for "Bush", but it's pronounced with like a "too" on the end. Only the Portuguese know why they don't pronounce their own language properly. Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why have you posted my edit summary even though you have been told not to? User:Arbustoo 09:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Told not to by whom? One of your sock puppets? What are you hiding from? Kalmia 10:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusing other users of running sockpuppets without evidence is a personal attack. Cite evidence, with diffs, and preferably CheckUser reports. Just zis Guy you know? 12:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to American_Council_of_Private_Colleges_and_Universities. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Scott Grayban 11:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You could answer my questions on your talk. Arbusto 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I did. You don't listen. Read the talk page about that article. --Scott Grayban 11:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

replied to talk page --Scott Grayban 12:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have reverted your changes in article Bob Cornuke because they reduced the neutrality of the article, which is already in question. T. J. Day 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you give reasons on the talk instead of just reverting changes. Arbusto 23:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article from the most recent change to the previous change; I did not explicitly remove any links. A quick Google search did not find any evidence on the Internet of this chap being labelled a "con artist" so I feel that your changes were not appropriately impartial. T. J. Day 00:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1) They aren't my "additions." I reverted the removal because there is no consensus on the talk to remove them. One person can't just up and decide to removal links when more disagree. 2) A "quick google search" of "cornuke con artist" brings up . If you want to remove this discuss it on the talk. Don't remove it until people agree one way or the other. Arbusto 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Article got redirected. Arbusto 08:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto, part of Wikipedia is the free discussion of articles. You, apparently, are afraid of people making a fair presentation of Jack Hyles. You have no right to remove discussion of this subject in relevant forums. Jack Hyles is part of Fundamentalism, and so it is reasonable to ask about him in the page for Christian fundamentalism.

If you were so careful about following Wikipedia editorial guides, you should have noticed that WP:ISNOT specifically states, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." Yet, you have cared no more about the Jack Hyles article than to scavenge a few snippets from newspapers and dump them on the Jack Hyles page. Pooua 17:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It sure does specifically state that one should not offer first-hand and/or breaking news. The articles you want removed are neither. As for "censorship," you do not use wikipedia article talk pages for "further reading posts" or to recruit people to other articles. Arbusto 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk 06:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please identify socks to me or at WP:AN/I. But please keep a cool head - remember that wrestling pigs is foolish since you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not much of a fan of someone that swindles people out of money in the name of mythology...but you should cool it at Bob Cornuke, okay? Or the very least, try to change what you're saying rather than inflict bias into the statement. The fact is, one does not need to explain that a Ph.D. from an unaccredited university means that he hasn't earned a degree from an accredited one and does not require you to hit the reader over the head with it, whether it be archaeology or brain surgery.

Please do not revert this again. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As you can tell I am not the only one who wants it left in. The reason it was put in is he has an unaccredited "graduate degree" but has no undergraduate degree(s). As you probably know, in real academia this is not possible; not at all. So if you would like to avoid a revert war please find evidence of a bachlor's degree (I couldn't find anything) or make mention of this inconsistency. As it stands, it looks as if the education part is incomplete due to this inconsistenecy. The reader should know that this is Cornuke's education flaw and not the article. Arbusto 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies (ICAATS) seems to be used by some dodgy places (e.g. ); appears to be approved by the Indian govt., but I'm not sure how real that is. The ICAATS article appears to be largely a monograph and needs some cleanup. Just zis Guy you know? 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. That article is all garbage. Indian's Ministry of Education has never heard of it and it is not listed as an accreditor.

A quick look at John Bear's webpage shows "Whole thing is an enigma. This seems to be run by Kenny Rhodes who at one time was a student at ACCS and set up their on line library. With everything that happened at ACCS, he did not finish his doctorate (looks like in his bio he only got through a couple of courses). He appears to be doing his PhD through Calvin (one in India accredited by the same entity that accredits Scofield). His bio lists him as a candidate."

Rhodes runs Scofield Graduate School which is also ran by Johnson C. Philip (you posted on that talk the other day). As you know Philips is located in Kerala, India. That happens to be where Scofield claims their "accreditor" International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies- ICAATS is from. At least according to their webpage.

On a side note, this is also tied to a Louisiana Baptist University "graduate"/degree buyer-Mal Couch. Arbusto 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly 61.17.226.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted on the Philips article and 61.1.28.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 61.1.28.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted on the ICAATS range. A quick IP check shows they are from the same carrier in India. 61.17.0.0 - 61.17.255.255 Arbusto 09:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Even more interesting is the person who started the ICAATS article signs his name at the top. Well so does the editor at the Philips article. Check user? Arbusto 09:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Stubbed as such. Let's see what else we can dig up. Might be worth an email to the Indian department of education, I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 10:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in keeping an eye on Talk:Canbourne University, where an anononymous poster claims to have first-hand knowledge of that English diploma mill. u p p l a n d 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Its now getting hit with vandalism. Arbusto 05:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not the first time, but it has been left alone surprisingly long before now. u p p l a n d 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your threat of blocking: Please note this policy states "Calling for bans and blocks" is *serious* example of unacceptable behaviour. I ask you to *never* again suggest that you will have a user blocked in such circumanstances. You are well aware of the fact the user that you threatened, had not literally made a legal threat. Please do not engage in this behaviour. The statement "I do not have time to fight in a court where there is no arbitrator and where might is right", isn't a reference to an actual court, its a reference to the system at Wikipedia. You're smart, so must have known what he meant. --Rob 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

From the link I listed in the context of what I refered to "A legal threat may lead to you being blocked from editing (on a case by case basis), so as not to exacerbate the problem through other than legal channels." I did not make a literal threat. Arbusto 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try and wiki-lawyer a technical excuse. Your actions may well have discouraged a new Wikipedian from further contributions. You aught to think how your words will be taken by a new contributor, and show more sensitivity. You have been repeatedly uncivil to the same new user, and that's not acceptable. --Rob 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I summarized that section nothing techincal about it. I don't appreciate having the first edit on that talk page referring that I was "systematically mutiliating" it, committing "vandalism," and AFTER he said "I do not have time to fight in a court where there is no arbitrator" you bet I became more direct. Arbusto 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the obvious fact there was no legal threat. Basically, he said Wikipedia was a kangaroo court. That's not nice. But, it's not a legal threat. If he said "I will take this to a court where there is an arbitrator" *that* would be a legal threat. He didn't say that. Basically, he said, he was so, fed up, he was giving up. Giving up, is unfortunate, but not a legal threat. Essentially, he was saying you would get your way. Hardly, a "threat". More of a surrender. --Rob 02:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I perceived the writing to be hinting at something; I said if you do X then Y happens. If my post was "uncivil" then you ignored the other user who was just as, if not more, uncivil. Arbusto 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a legal threat was not made. However, the other editor was being far more uncivil than Arbustoo. To condemn Arbusto for this is uncalled for. JoshuaZ 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He, Rob, admitted his real problem isn't so much the article. Rather, its on my interest in labeling unaccredited institutions as "unaccredited." Arbusto 05:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility isn't for everyone. Arbusto 08:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We both have thick skins, and we probably both have been uncivil (and I will try to be more civil in the future). But, neither of us is going to quit the project over what the other said. However, the newbie in question, may well just do that, and that would be sad loss, of signficance. We should welcome new contributors. I do think the spirt of WP:BITE, is we should not expect newbies to understand all our rules and systems (like we do established users), and try to be welcoming. Telling a newbie that they could be blocked, is chilling, as a newbie may not realize such threats are empty, and then just leave. --Rob 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I never got personal with you or that new user. Using court jokes or analogies in a debate enviroment after one has spewed forth insults is not a good idea. When the mention of court came across I explained WP:LEGAL. If the mention of wikipedia "legal" in that context could be considered a threat then surely the mention of court after insulting and reverting occured could be a hint at a deeper claim--ie legal action. Hence, my explanation. Arbusto 08:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys for giving me a hard time with the article on Johnson C. Philip. It was based upon solid research conducted by 3 theology students in 3 subsequent years in the Asian Christian Academy, where Philip studied for some time in 1978. Though I would have gradually added many more documentary evidence, Arbustoo was more interested in arbitrarily mutiliating the article. Whenever I gave a reply, he took the attitude of a prying wolf and, instead of addressing the issue I raised, he kept sidetracking the issues. Now you have anyway deleted the article. Meanwhile I did examine articles on people and found that many of the creiteria stipulated by Arbustoo was not followed in articles that have been on Wikipedia far longer than the Philip article. As a newbie I came to Wikipedia with great expectation. I wished to expand many more articles the way I did with the Philip article. But I have been bitten, stung, and humiliated by Arbustoo. I repeat, he dealt unfairly with me, the way the proverbial wolf told the lamb "if it was not you then it might be your father" and killed him. I came a last time to this forum to bid goodbye to all of you. I will not be coming back to Wiki to contribute any article. What is more, I would be spreading a word about this treatment to as many as possible so that they might not be stupid enough to join and then bitten by the more senior ones on the Wiki. I also know many Indians who contributed funds to the Wiki fund raising drive in recent times. I would be sharing my experience with them also. Good Bye. Nonikay2K —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonikay2k (talk • contribs)

The schools were unaccredited and should be treated accordingly. Had you cited the information and decided to not attack people with name calling it would have turned out better. However, since this person is linked to an accreditation mill, three unaccredited schools, and has no google hits outside of his personal webpages I suspect that the article was vanity to promote himself and the "schools" it runs. Arbusto 08:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this. It seems a "new user" created the unaccredited "school" ran by Johnson C. Philip. Clearly, "someone" isn't quite done trying to make a name for an person of marginal notablity and the questionable schools he offers degrees for via the internet. Arbusto 01:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I think it might be benificial to have the Kennedy-Western University article mention that the University is a member of the Better Business Bureau.

Please see http://data.fortcollins.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=11000363

Also I did do some checking and I asked someone about Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and I got this response:

To the best of my knowledge, the "rule" against editing topics about which you are personally involved could only be found at WP:NPOV, under the Bias section here. There is no longer any mention of that rule; it must have been edited out some time ago. The WP:NPOV page is really dynamic, averaging several edits per day by a wide variety of users, and I don't have the time to search through the edit history to find it -- sorry, but I'm really busy right now.

In my opinion, that "rule" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I think it originated from WP:AFD where counter-vandalism hawks were trying to curb endless non-notable articles written about bands/websites/individuals by their lead singers/webmasters/autobiographers.

For more on this please see my talk page.

Piercetp 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think it would be helpful to add that. Arbusto 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. If you can do that it would do a lot to give both sides of the issue. I don't want to sound like I am busting your chops or anything. I just think that readers of the article should be able to get the whole picture and judge for themselves.

Shalom Piercetp 06:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add it in yourself and contribute; I just wanted to bring the conflict of interest to your attention. You have a good grasp on the policies. Arbusto 06:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto: Thanks for editing the Wikipedia, Kennedy Western, article to include that Kennedy Western University is a Privately Licensed School in Wyoming, and for indicating they are a member of the Better Business Bereau. Also, let me thank you for all the other editing work you have done on the article.

Taylor W. 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am giving you this notice because you originally created Preying from the Pulpit. I proposed deleting Preying from the Pulpit, and when my proposal was removed from the top of the article, I went ahead and nominated it for deletion. If you would like to add your vote and thoughts on the subject you may do so HERE. If you have comments about what others have written in the AfD then you are encouraged to put your comments in the talk section TALK PAGE.

I believe that an article about a TV News Series that happened at least 13 years ago is not notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Secondly, the details about this TV news series are so sketchy that the article can't even provide the name of the station, the date it aired, the time it aired, the reporters that worked on the story, who the reporters used for sources, or any of the other pertinent details. Vivaldi (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the TV station, month and time was not entered into the article, but a transcript from lexisnexis was posted by someone. Secondly, the program discusses 7 locations around the US. It doesn't matter much now.Arbusto 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you don't like the topic. But please be aware that there are actually noted sources on that page and therefore it does not qualify as "original research." Jesus_Christ_as_source_of_"A_Course_In_Miracles"#Notes Andrew Parodi 11:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a POV fork YOU created for A Course In Miracles. Out of 22 votes (so far) there are two keeps, one of which is YOU, the author. This discussion should be continued on the article page. Arbusto 01:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you "voted" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Barnham. I made a complete rewrite of the article, and wonder if you could look at it again and see if you now think it should stay. AnonEMouse 15:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I changed my vote accordingly. Arbusto 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this field, but is this guy notable? He seems similar to some of the Gastrich-cruft that was deleted in January/Frebruary. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into and get back to you. Arbusto 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable enough, some vanity press books through online sellers, but seems rather known for his small community. The President of a well-known private school. He made national headlines for expelling a student because that student was gay. Arbusto 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest, to further my anti-vandal activity, where can I find the popular whitewash targets for diploma mills, etc? Hopefully I can block them myself this time next week. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

It really depends, but recently Breyer State University, Buxton University, Weston Reserve University, Warnborough University, National Distance Learning Accreditation Council, and International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies have been getting hit. Arbusto 08:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is Warnborough University (Ireland) does not exist anymore. It is now Warnborough College (Ireland) and a candidate for accreditation in the Republic of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warnborough (talk • contribs)

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello Arbustoo. Thank you for your support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need any admin assistance, feel free to ask me, and naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future -please keep me up to date with the diploma mills. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please watchlist talk:Brett Kavanaugh. There is a dispute over the murder v. suicide of Foster there. Thanks. 205.188.116.196 10:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi's shown no interest in acknowledging that his efforts on certain pages lack consensus, preferring instead an unfortunate sort of response. Considering his response and my failing to get him to reconsider his method, I've reinstated your user conduct RFC against him, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi, and certified the basis for the dispute. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re "Can we move to close the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)", I'm OK with that, but if he's still being a problem, and the RFC has had no effect, I guess we're ready for the next step? Jim62sch 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to close the RfC before we move to the next step. Arbusto 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I would suggest adding whatever sources are in the articles (if any) to the list page. Perhaps those entries could be unlinked, but we could keep a list with red links somewhere in project space or as a subpage of Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning to be able to have an easy way to check for "related changes".

You may be interested in the "history of diploma mills" I started working on in userspace. I gave up on it and haven't moved it out into mainspace yet, as I have no access (without costly international interlibrary loans) to some probably important American publications on the subject, such as Robert H. Reid, American degree mills, a study of their operations and of existing and potential ways to control them, Washington, American Council on Education [1959]. At least it seems that I have managed to find earlier evidence for the term "diploma mill" than the one from OED cited here. u p p l a n d 10:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Why not put it up as an article and see some people contribute? Arbusto 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies (second nomination). I would appreciate it if you would also address my concerns about POV Fork. --Blue Tie 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It already addressed by Glen S (talk · contribs). The O'Reilly article is long, and so is this one. It would be a mess to merge them both. To delete this well-sourced article would be strictly POV.

You keep throwing up quotes, but read WP:FORK : "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique." Arbusto 19:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am sorry that I (evidently) annoyed you. I do not really see how your response meets with my request, since this article was apparently not split off for size but to keep the main page "clean", but I appreciate the effort you gave. Thanks again.--Blue Tie 19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to know User:Cyde (who you may already know either from here or elsewhere) has a script/bot thing he wrote which converts pages to refs in a semi-automated fashion which makes the conversions much faster. JoshuaZ 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to link to it, too. --Cyde Weys 02:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that'll save me some time on a few articles. Arbusto 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice I moved the tag down to the Tipper Sticker section - everything else is referenced by the links which are now in the reference section.

I'll convert them into proper ref format when I get a chance. Λυδαcιτγ 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Editor, I reverted the edit where you applied a strikethrough on a vote by another editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock. That is considered very inappropriate. Alternatively, you can add a comment why you disagree with that vote, as you already did. In addition, on most AfDs, one vote will not make the difference. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One vote doesn't make a difference. It anon. user votes aren't usually counted. 205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) voted on only four AfD the last AfD votes 205.157.110.11 made that were not Gastrich-my AfDs on August 30, 2006 (five days before). These articles created by

Gastrich 1 anon Gastrch 2 user who made 5 edits. Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) was caught pushing POV and is banned from wikipedia.

The previous day my AfDs also go hit my a Use_Your_Naugin (talk · contribs) who first edits were on my AfDs and were Gastrich related(note user's edits on Lousiana Baptist University). This was brought to an admisntrators attention and those votes were ~~lined~~ out my me.

With that in mind from the previous day and that banned Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) watches some of his articles still I warned an adminst. to expect puppets before this anon appeared. Arbusto 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did take note of your opinion on the anonymous editors history. Regardless of his history, you should have just made a statement rather than striking votes that were not yours. I can understand your concerns and see your point, but by removing and striking votes of the anonymous editor, you are in fact diverting attention that should have gone to investigating your claims to an investigation of your own edits, which naturally was not your intention. I hope the issue gets resolved quickly. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Best, Arbusto 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Editor, I again removed a strikethrough you applied on someone else's vote in an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock). I explained you why last time. Again, I understand your issues with these type of votes, but please leave it a comment and let the other voters and closing admin decide on the value of each vote. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many others do it, but as you wish I will refrain. Is this a policy or recommendation? Is there somewhere I can read the guidelines on it? Arbusto 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I could care less if the articles are kept.

205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) voted on only four AfD the last AfD votes 205.157.110.11 made that were not Gastrich-my AfDs on August 30, 2006 (five days before). These articles created by Gastrich 1 anon Gastrch 2 user who made 5 edits. Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) was caught pushing POV and is banned from wikipedia.

The previous day my AfDs also go hit my a Use_Your_Naugin (talk · contribs) who first edits were on my AfDs and were Gastrich related(note user's edits on Lousiana Baptist University). This was brought to an admisntrators attention and those votes were ~~lined~~ out my me.

With that in mind from the previous day and that banned Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) watches some of his articles still I warned an adminst. to expect puppets before this anon appeared. This anon. user directly came to four AfDs, and being anon. I removed the material with a edit summary explaining. Arbusto 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that User:Jason_Gastrich and User:205.157.110.11 are one and the same, I suggest you file a Checkuser request. -- Netsnipe ► 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They are obviously not the same after you explained it; my comments/explanation was regarding what you said about me at the end of your post on AN/I. This, you said: "solely because you don't like their opinion in your AFD", and also regarding the "ad hom" attacks you posted on the IP's talk.Arbusto 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 205.157.110.11 and the removal of people's comments from pages, is this acceptable? Arbusto 19:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Most administrators including myself would permit that because your comment was irrelevant to whether the article for deletion's subject was notable or not. The most you can ever do in an AFD is tag a single purpose account with a spa tag and let the closing administrator decide whether to count that comment or not. -- Netsnipe ► 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The "most" I can do is "tag," I am not allowed to comment on my suspicions and the voting habits of other people? So people are allowed to remove other's comments if they deem it irrelevant? Arbusto 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no hard policy on this, just convention. If it's not about the article at hand, then you shouldn't. Not without a Checkuser to back you up. I wouldn't worry about this too much, because administrators don't do head counts on AFDs anyway. If it a comment doesn't refer back to policy or clearly a WP:SPA, administrators don't count them as a general rule of thumb anyway. -- Netsnipe ► 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the AfD being kept or not. I didn't see it as notable, and if people show it is then fine. 've editting on wikipedia for a long time, and have never seen that practiced or read it in the rules. I've seen sock puppets and vandalism reverted, but not an established user's remarks being removed by an anon. Arbusto 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it deeply troubling that would allow my intial comments to be removed an IP, and then allow that IP to accuse me of wrong doing on that very page without readers being able to even reference my comments. You claim its not policy, and with good reason it isn't policy. Arbusto 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted me. All I'm saying is that most administrators will permit the removal of ad hominem arguments in an AFD because they detract from the discussion at hand and border on being personal attack because such arguments imply that you think that person does not deserve a voice. As long as your argument for the deletion or retention of an article based upon its merits is untouched, it's not vandalism. -- Netsnipe ► 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cite policy or provide reason that "Most administrators including myself would permit that because your comment was irrelevant to whether the article for deletion's subject was notable or not."

For you to claim that this "borders" an ad hom surprises me. It was the explanation of why I crossed out the vote. Without that explanation it simply looks as if I wondered into the AfD crossing off votes I didn't agree with.

Now this these on other hand, are an ad hom. and breaks WP:CIVIL and is not based on a "argument for the deletion or retention of an article based upon its merits" . Yet, you seem to have missed that one. You also missed this , which was not based upon its merits of the vote (emphasis yours). Your failure to actually look at the matters before commenting is disappointing.Arbusto 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth noting on your arbitration with Vivaldi but what you're intrepreting as removing your comment was my reverting of the vandalism that you did to my comment, which happened to include your commenting on the vandalism. You don't explain away vandalism and there was no rational justification for you to vandalize my comment. You did this on all 4 AfD. On the David Jeremiah AfD, since that is were the bulk of the discussion was taking place, I left you comments in as a placemat for discussion and I replied to you there. It would have been spammy to have the same discussion on each and every AfD.
As for being uncivil, I was borderline and for that I do apologize. However your vandalism and accusations of sockpuppetry against me were, in my observation, a direct correlation of your lack of research into my contribution history. You saw that I was an anon and went from there. It was an easy springboard to the assumption that your lack of research into the notability of the subjects of the AfDs. You saw their author and went from there. 205.157.110.11 11:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw a warning on your page and you only voted on my AfDs all connected to a banned user. If you wish to avoid such problems in the future you can sign up for a wikipedia account. Had you taken the time to research who created the articles, why I was expecting sock puppets, the long history of that banned user, voted on any other AfDs, got a wikipedia account, etc it could have ended better. Arbusto 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you took my comments on this AFD personally; I was just pointing out that you seemed to be targetting this group of articles, your aim seemed to be a bit indiscriminate, and that therefore people should look carefully at other similar AFDs by you. The John D. Hannah one may succede; however, he has enough notability that I probably wouldn't have bothered trying to rid of the article.Brianyoumans (talk · contribs)

Indeed, frustrated. I explained that type of linking is unusual, and even gave you a friendly reason your talk. You could have gone to MOS:BIO to read the formatting, but instead you posted in at least four different areas that you thought what I did wasn't acceptable. You tried to make it out like I was removing a source of some important fact, when I ALREADY explained and provided an outside format to help you. After being told you were wrong, you still haven't apoligized or explained that you were wrong in the different areas you left insinutations about me. Arbusto 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC) See below

I am confused. I am not aware of having posted in at least four different areas that you thought what I did wasn't acceptable. I posted in the John D. Hannah AFD, but I didn't say what you did was unacceptable, I just said you should be more careful. Some of the articles you are trying to delete are articles that needed to be deleted, and that is a good thing. In the other AFDs, I was simply researching the subjects of the articles and voting on them as I saw fit. --Brianyoumans 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. I thought you were Bagginator (talk · contribs); you didn't sign your first edit above. I am not annoyed, and I don't take it personally. I don't care if the articles are deleted or kept. They should assert notablity; they should be kept on the subjects merits. This AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scofield Graduate School was nominated by me, and I created it. I don't feel it meets notablity standards. Arbusto 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I should probably nominate one of my first articles for deletion, myself. Good luck getting rid of your youthful transgressions! :-) --Brianyoumans 01:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently added a link to American here. American is a disambiguation page as the phrase has many uses including a person from the Americas or the United States. In the future, could you link the term to one of the articles listed on the American disambiguation term, that would be great. As an example, if you're linking to something related to the United States, you would input [[United States|American]]. Thanks! --Bobblehead 07:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I got an email from somebody claiming to be you (and probably is you) last week but unfortunately I only just noticed it amongst all the spam etc. I take it you have your password now and there's no problem? Drop me a note if not. --kingboyk 10:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It was me, and everything with the account is fine. Arbusto 16:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK good stuff. Sorry about that, I thought it was a troll :) --kingboyk 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No harm done. Good to see others taking the unaccredited troll problem seriously. Arbusto 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Arbustoo.

Thanks for the good work on St. Clements University. I've added some links, and think the University is a notable diploma mill -- can you take a look at the current version and tell me what you think? Thanks again, TheronJ 17:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work, I'll withdraw the afd nom. Arbusto 00:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I started adding links. Arbusto 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The biography is meant to be factual and verifiable. The content on David Cunningham's page does not lead to verifiable facts when the links go to blogger's opinion pages. The controvery about the path to 9/11 should be on it's own separate page. This IS a biography and the information about blogger opinions can be left on the 9/11 page(a separate Wiki entry). Incorrect facts don't need to be recycled again on David's wikipedia page.

These are the statements that refute what Lariginga has written.

Subject: Statement from Youth With A Mission

Youth With A Mission (YWAM) is a non profit, international and interdenominational Christian organization. We are responsible for hundreds of health clinics, orphanages and schools around the world. We have a special emphasis on the developing world and are completely staffed by unpaid volunteers from 150 nations.

We are not affiliated with any American political party and have no political agenda in that or any nation. We had no part in any funding of the ABC mini series THE PATH TO 9/11.

John Dawson, President of Youth With A Mission International Auckland, New Zealand

Subject: University of the Nations Statement

Keiko234 22:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not removed cited material and copy and paste uncited press releases. What you did was white wash an enitre section, and moreover those press releases deny things that aren't address. Nowhere in that article does it claim the group is connected to Republicans or funded by the church. However, there is an inherent bias offered though. Arbusto 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing content as two other editors have also told you. Arbusto 02:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link that talks about who hired David Cunningham. This directly refutes Max B's article that states David brought Cyrus Nowrasteh in to write the script. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/arts/television/12path.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I submit that the articles contained with this information be deleted from David Cunningham's biography. I will continue to find more references to fill in the gaps. I've also found new references and inserted them already. When the references lead to balanced and truthful material, it is worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiko234 (talk • contribs)

A NY Times article is worthy of inclusion. However, you simply removed material dispite warnings not to do that. Discuss the changes on the talk page of the article, and bring this new citation there too. Arbusto 05:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also be aware that some sections of that article don't refute certain claims you want removed. Platt is quoted, but others disagree citing the institute and statements made. Example:

Mr. Nowrasteh drew subsequent attention for his political remarks about the 9/11 film however. He told the conservative Internet site Front Page Magazine that the mini-series shows how the Clinton administration lacked the will to stop Mr. bin Laden. The mini-series “dramatizes the frequent opportunities the administration had in the 90’s to stop bin Laden in his tracks but lacked the will to do so,” he said, according to an interview posted Aug. 16 at frontpagemag.com.

Arbusto 05:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign my earlier note. First test, isn't the article about David? Second test, is it authentic? Discussion about Cyrus and ABC belongs on their own pages.

````

Keiko234 07:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, "Also I take offense, as the other voters probably do, here to Bagginator's statement "I urge those who do not have a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity to look into this further and reconsider their positions". This claim violates" How could anyone be offended by this? If you do not have a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity, then simply reconsider your position. That is what the above says. It doesn't accuse anyone of having a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity. I'm puzzled by your offense, is there something else going on here that I need to know about? Is your real offense coming from my siding with Vivaldi? Just because we do not agree over who and what should be included in Wikipedia doesn't mean we can't be friends. If you start to feel offended in the future by something ive written in an AfD, feel free to bring it to my talk page so we can work it out. I'd hate for you to feel offended in the future due to misunderstandings like this one. Bagginator 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean. Arbusto 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as to my understanding, those who have voted appear to be legitimate and long-standing editors (except a few newcomers), equally split on the matter, henceforth no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to send you an email but your Wikipedia email isn't enabled. JoshuaZ 00:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please quickly activate your Wikipedia email so I can send you a note? (If you are worried about compromising your email account the system doesn't let me see where I'm sending it to). JoshuaZ 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Email set up. Arbusto 02:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, still showing an error here. Did you confirm the email set up? It should have sent a confirmation email to the account and then you need to click on the confirmation link. JoshuaZ 02:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Check your email. Arbusto 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I decided to remove the tag, as this guy is clearly notable. He was a member of two NCAA Championship teams, he was an ABA Rookie of the Year, and he was a solid NBA player (averaged a double-double, in fact). If you want to discuss this, leave me a message. Zagalejo 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, add some sources to WP:V too. Arbusto 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What is your issue with these two articles? Please try to make constructive contributions rather than just being a nuisance. Thank you. Masalai 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

They are of a group of articles that assert no WP:notability tagged by me. If any of the articles that I tagged remain without indications of notability they will be put up for AfD. Arbusto 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And who, precisely, are you? And who are you to be tagging issues of "notablity"? Why aren't you tagging clearly foolish articles such as those on television shows and tiny hamlets in places like Iowa and Saskatchewan? Masalai 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Point me to them and I will. Arbusto 02:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What precisely are your personal issues with the Anglican Cathedral of Hamilton, Ontario, and the organist/conductor Donald M. Kendrick? Such issues are not appropriate criteria in editing Wikipedia articles. Please desist; I shall report you to the appropriate Wikipedia mentors if you continue. Thank you. Masalai 02:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My issue was it doesn't look notable so I added the notablity tag. You removed it claiming it does assert notablity. Now we'll let the community decide. Arbusto 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, mate, I think that Christ's Church Cathedral is simply a title issue - Google for Christ Church Cathedral instead, you get many more hits. Guy 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother reverting Gastrich when he blanks his talk page, it looks too close to harassement even if it isn't. Also, don't bug Aphaia about the matter, she's under a lot of stress right now. JoshuaZ 21:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I basically replied to Gastrich on her talk. She could clarify or correct her statements regarding all parties. Arbusto 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What she should do and what she will do are different issues. As long as she stays uninvolved and doesn't block anyone or make any more uninformed remarks we shouldn't bug her. If she gets involved again then replying may be necessary but it isn't necessary to rebut Jason's comments on her talk page at this moment. JoshuaZ 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor was it necessary for her to block you. Arbusto 01:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't but that doesn't mean we have to therefore engage in unnecessary responses (incidentally, Jason just blanked his talk page again, I suggest you don't revert it since they seem to take a much dimmer view on Meta of reverting others talk pages than here). JoshuaZ 01:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Shadowing my AfD participation is not very nice. , ., , . Taking it to the next level by entering an edit war on an article you have never edited based on my participation is out of line and serves just to inflame the situation. Stalking is not very becoming. Please tone down the insults as well. . --JJay 23:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm wikistalking you, LOL? If anyone is getting wikistalked its you following my edits. I've been actively involved in voting afds of primary and high schools for weeks, and colleges for months. How long have you been involved in voting in Norwegian ski jumpers and choral conductor afds? Here I voted before you. As for a insult, I simply agreed with another user at the Norwegian ski jumpers because your comment showed either you are confused about the policy or didn't look at the article. If its the latter, why did you vote in the afd the way you did-- my vote maybe? As for your edit warring, this edit summary says it all-- your egging on users. If you don't want your edit warring to be watched you should be more careful on how you behave (see your talk page for evidence). Arbusto 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Arbustoo, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove a reliable source cite, and replace it with a fact tag? That seems to be counter-productive to improving the article. Crockspot 03:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Click on the link. ~~It is dead.~~ That is to say its not a source for the claims. Arbusto 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC) The link in there now works, but it doesn't support the claim. Clean up the article and intro to that section so both sides are represented. Arbusto 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't insert the claim or the source, just trying to format it to comply with the rest of the cites. If the count of people is off in the statement, then go ahead and correct it. No problem there from me. I just don't want to see reliable sources removed from the article. Things are moving a little too fast there to keep up at this hour of the night. Crockspot 04:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the edits such as are removals of Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning which seems to make sense since that is (or should be) a supercategory of Category:Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges which in fact he made it in the edit you showed me. So whatever the problem is with these edits I'm not seeing it. If you can explain in more detail what is problematic I'd appreciate it. On a separate topic, I sent you an email to the yahoo email you used earlier. JoshuaZ 02:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Diploma mills" like Hamilton University said the were religious only to get around laws. They should be under one category for unaccreditation. I agree supercategories are bad, but they are all under the school category. I replied to your email as well. Arbusto 03:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a complicated issue. I'm going to need to think about it. There should be a better procedure than supercat (possibly a cat of unaccredited schools which allege but don't have a religious element to distinguish them from the actually religious ones)? JoshuaZ 03:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Without the unaccredited religious schools there are very few articles on secular unaccredited schools. Afterall, religious schools get latitude with not having accreditation, and thus there is more of them. These is less than 15 unaccredited articles that aren't religious. Arbusto 03:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

May I say something here? I just wanted to let it be known that I was not vandalizing the unaccredited articles. I saw that there were three unaccredited categories, and it seemed to me that "unaccredited institutions of higher learning" would make a good super-category and the others would make good sub-categories of that (well the other two could probably be combined into one). I did that, and then set to put all the articles in the appropriate category. I was not trying to offend you or undo your hard work, but simply help you make wikipedia the best it can be. It didn't seem right to have the three seperate categories that served much the same purpose and I was merely trying to put a more logical order to it. That said your solution, of combining them into one category, is equally good and I will support it. Mgroop 16:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Arbusto 18:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Also about Hamilton University, I read the article before I removed the category. But it is not a seminary or theological college. It was a business college that was using a defunct church as a way around the laws. I went to its website as well as looked up Richardson University, they don't give Bible degrees, they give business degrees. That means it is not a seminary, even if they are using a church to cheat the system. Mgroop 16:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be disputed that is was a theological college, as was its intent to fool the government. Arbusto 18:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific -- which discussion are you referring to? I'm happy to explain when I have the time, though you may want to just take your issues to deletion review if you're not satisfied with my answers. Luna Santin 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thought that might be it, but better to be sure. So. As you're probably aware, consensus isn't about vote-counting, but a weighing of arguments; while a strict vote count would have led me to delete the article, many of the delete votes didn't look to be very thought out. The subject appears to be a borderline notability case. The article isn't cruft, and has some verifiable sources. I was leaning toward "delete" and "no consensus" results, which leads me to close as "no consensus" -- if I can't decide which way consensus was headed, it indicates to me that consensus isn't settled. You're welcome to take the matter to WP:DRV if you like. Luna Santin 07:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I never asserted my argument based on votes. Please explain what part of WP:BIO he meets. The main keep argument comes from a user who is following my afds and removes my comments from his talk. (I will be dealing with that matter through other channels. _

Note JJay claims, and three people vote based on his comments, he played Caregnie Hall as meeting notability. However, the promoter who booked this subject will lease out the building and let people play for a fee. As discussed by another user who voted delete. Arbusto 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your opening statement, "I'm just curious how you considered the vote 'no consensus' with a 12 delete and 7 keep" implies a counting of votes, is why I mentioned that; but, fair enough, you weren't. Beyond that, please do consider DRV. While I am interested in seeing your concerns addressed, I'd prefer to allow for more community input. Luna Santin 07:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The point was nearly twice as many voted for delete. However, the second line is important as well: "Does a 11 year old article that called the subject not disguished really pass the notability test?" Is that what you are basing your "borderline notability case"? Is that what you are using to judge WP:BIO? Arbusto 07:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That reeeeally sounds like vote counting. News, tours, appearances -- these are the sorts of things I look for. He's at least more notable than some huge number of the pages I run across in deletion discussions. Anyway, please, DRV. Luna Santin 07:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The majority of keep votes were based on an article this person played Carengie Hall 11 years ago. The paper claimed he was hired because he was "inexpensive not distinguished." Moreover, as another user noted on the deletion that the promoter who hired Kendrick specializes in bringing out-of-town choirs to NY to sing there " - for a fee". Are the tours notable? Or did he simply hire a tour agent and spent his two week vacation in Europe? I opened the DRV, but am still curious as to what WP:V and BIO policies used. Oh well. --Arbusto 07:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the DRV was closed endorsing the AfD result. Either way, I think you had some good points; I figured DRV would give us both some closure, where duking it out just between us would drive us both up the wall, annoyed at each other. But, you're more than free to start a second AfD ({{afdx}} is a handy template for that) if you like. I'm not aware of any requirement that you wait, although giving the article some time (a week or two, I guess?) should avoid inclusionists accusing you of malicious intent. Good luck. Regards, Luna Santin 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reiterated my argument, hopefully a little more clearly. Thanks for the heads-up. Whatever the result here, I think I'm finished on the subject... -- Bpmullins 15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be Wikipedia's go-to guy for dodgy institutions of higher learning, what do you think of this place? I note that they don't even have a real "edu" domain, and Googling them doesn't look promising. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I need to take some time and look through it, but an IP check shows that it is registered and operated in Serbia. However, it doesn't appear on UNESCO's list. I'll look into in a few days.Arbusto 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The school is mentioned in the Oxford Medical Journal. While it is missing from UNESCO's list it does check out in other matters. As for now, I'm going to leave the article alone until I can find more. Arbusto 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

While there are times I'm willing to block on sight, this guy seems more confused and new than malicious. I'm hoping he can be reformed, and will start trying to discuss this with you; if not, I'm planning to block him for a day or so and see if anything changes. Now that the page is protected, hopefully he'll be a little better about it. If not, let me know (or JoshuaZ, since I'm gathering from our interaction that his response suits your liking better -- just an honest observation). I am willing to block at this point, but I wanted to be very sure about that before proceeding in that direction. Sorry to test your patience. Luna Santin 01:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is this has been ongoing since April, and not only has he been warned 9 times his behavior is very clearly trying to white wash the page. Just read the talk with other people's opinions to see he's been white washing.

Now because he was warned twice as many times needed for a block(4), the page is now getting hit by shared IPs. That's very alarming. Had he known wikipedia means business there won't be shared IPs hitting the page on a person connected to genocide. Arbusto 03:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey ho.

If you have the time, would you please respond to my questions regarding the Hovind article. I just cannot make any sense out of the paragraph dealing with social conservatism, political cartoons and lying textbooks. As far as I can tell the paragraph is just a mishmash of disconnected half-thoughts, but you disagree. Please let me know what its point is. Thanks. Phiwum 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It does need work. When I get some time, I'll look for sources to clean it up. It is important to mention his political stance/ideology with his opinion on government- conspiracy theories, etc. This is very telling with his ties to the Christian Patriot movement and his tax evasion that will probably cost him his freedom. Arbusto 07:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed "Preston University" from the unaccredited list. But there is a fake (or at least unaccredited) Preston U. in Wyoming.. And look at the coat-of-arms at the Pakistani version at their website: http://www.preston.edu.pk/ Is it the same business? Why would a Pakistani university have such an American-looking logo? Something is clearly fishy about this. u p p l a n d 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The article wiki-linked is for the Pakistan one, which appears as accredited on UNESCO's list (this list does have issues though). While I am suspcious, I removed it simply because the wiki article doesn't make any claims that it is unaccredited or that it is tied to US one. If we can make the link between the Preston University article and it should be back on. Just to be fair to the way the Preston article is portrayed now it should be removed. Arbusto 07:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not argued on behalf of any other article you have listed for possible deletion, I was simply attempting to peaceably "play devils advocate" I don't like or respect Texas Baptist College but it is what it is and I know that it has had to screw up peoples lives, I was just trying to give a possible reason,

I mean I never claimed I was dead right, I would say that nine out of ten times I am wrong

I just try To Help I don't understand why I had to be bashed,

I am very sorry that I (apparently) annoyed you I am sorry that I am ignorant to the worjings of things

But geeze man why bash me? I only try to help

--MJHankel 05:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you're right or wrong. Just support your claim with policy or evidence. AFD's are not votes. Arbusto 05:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read edit summaries and use article talk pages. As explained, you need to independently verify those numbers from an independent reliable source: they can't be sourced to *her* via her website. Please respond on the article talk page. Sandy 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you use article talk pages? Please respond there. Arbusto 06:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Diane Farrell. There are a small number of persons (who will remain nameless!) who seem to have a political ax to grind and may be a bit, uh, emotionally invested.--Francisx 06:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that person has tried very hard to get the page removed. Arbusto 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

...and is still working. She's still shopping around for an Admin who shares her political POV to get involved, and she's campaigning hard for support. Somebody has way too much time on their hands.--Francisx 22:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sandy is shopping for an admin, and yes Sandy is POV pushing. But you must cease adding huge amounts of Iraqi viewpoints in the article. First off it is unfair to the subject, secondly it is a violation of policy, thirdly memorable quotes belong in wikiquote, and fourthly it makes it hard to follow the article when reading it. Arbusto 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently physicist George Gollin has been particularly involved in the Saint Regis University case and has been attacked for this in various places on the web. His article was prodded by Highperformanceauto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has been adding defamatory stuff elsewhere and now edits as an anon. A user claiming to be Gollin has also registered and reverted defamation in his article. (See also WP:AN/I#User:Highperformanceauto). u p p l a n d 05:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please address a few comments in Talk:Ginny Brown-Waite? This Mark Foley section that you re-added seems very inappropriate and unrelated to Brown-Waite. The source you're citing is simply a local newspaper. I figure every local newspaper went to interview their local congressperson to get their reaction, esp. in Florida which Foley represented - it doesn't mean that what is said is notable or needs to be added here. I'll put the last few comments in the article talk page. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A Florida politician who personally knew Foley, and knew about him getting intoxicated and trying to get into the page dorm is notable. Arbusto 18:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi case opened on 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC). Most cases last 6 to 8 weeks. Currently preliminary proposals are being written on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop page. These are the opinion of one arbitrator and do not represent the opinion of the whole committee. You can give your opinion on the section of the workshop labeled parties under each proposal. FloNight 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article which you had tagged with a notability tag. What do you think? Can we remove it? GeorgeC 05:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how The Final Jihad is notable. Arbusto 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, there. As regards the Murtha dispute, I was thinking it's probably about time to let you know about this thread at my user talk page, and in particular my most recent reply in it. Regards, Luna Santin 22:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If an IP has a limited range of edits it will be tagged as a SPA. Moreover, this type of stuff does not win sympathy. Note this IP is involved in two canidates running for election. This IP has continuly tried to remove another user's good faith edits. Rather than clean up that, the IP removes a news source and the content.

If this IP wants to contribute to wikipedia on a range of articles and not be confused with a SPA, she/he should get an account. Until then it looks as if this IP is pushing a POV on two articles related to one congressional race.

This IP has called a long-time wikipedia adminstrator a liar when that admin. was trying to get a handle on IP's POV pushing. Arbusto 22:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. They've done some stupid stuff -- though I note the most recent of those diffs is from about two days ago, and some are older. I guess what I'm getting at is that if they'd like to contribute legitimately, we may as well let them; if they regress or keep pulling crap, I'll be happy to block them. So a "second chance" is what I'm looking for, I guess. Luna Santin 22:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking further into your comments, I don't think you realize this started at the Irey article nor that I reported it at the AN/I days ago. And told this user where to deal with it a week ago. It is very telling that he is doing in on your talk page and feeding you parts of what really happened instead of on AN/I. There is a wider spectrum to this. Arbusto 23:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your comment on the AfD. However, I think that you're starting to push a little too hard here. You are correct that this is a discussion and not a vote, but ad hominem arguments won't help your cause. I am a long-term contributor and administrator and I understand quite well our core content policies such as WP:V. JYolkowski // talk 20:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you left a message about vandalism/white washing on my user page, but I don't seem to recall having vandalized anything. Could you let me know what you're referring to? Thanks, BarrettBrown 09:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, could you please respond? I think you've got my edits confused with those of the guy you're arguing with below. I was the one restoring large portions of the article, not removing them. Please see the Regnery talk page and edit history, and, if you would, remove the whitewashing box from my talk page. BarrettBrown 21:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have put the warning on the wrong user talk page. See the comments on this talk under Regnery or at the article talk. Arbusto 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We should give it a little more time. Arbusto 21:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby grant you the Barnstar of Diligence for your work in watching and keeping clean the articles of diploma mills :). Thue \| talk 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you not use the SPA tag on stuff other than *fDs please? The main point of the tag is to let closing admins know about it for consensus purposes. Using it on newer users has an unecessary WP:BITE element. Thanks. JoshuaZ 23:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

On this edit you removed a notice about an AFD. Isn't it fairly common practice to notify a the project that is associated with an article? ---J.S (t|c) 06:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Below is a why I reverted

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible.

Arbusto 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Canvasing" seems a stretch and as for the motivation requirement of "in order to strengthen one side of a debate" there is no evidence to suggest that that was the purpose. (the wording was neutral, and since only 2 personal notifications were made it's impossible to prove selection bias). ---J.S (t|c) 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making a dig deal about it. I simply reverted it. If I posted that it the wikipedia project page for science I would expect it to be reverted just as well. Arbusto 00:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You were quite vague about what I did wrong. Most of the time, I reverted to previous edits. The article is biased as it is now and I am going to do my part to change that. I need to know what is wrong with that as it doesn't go against ANY policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 (talk • contribs)

Sure, read: WP:Vandalism. Whitewashing articles is not acceptable and will get you blocked. You received a warning, hence that is why you are not currently blocked. Don't remove cited critcism. Arbusto 01:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you were already warned. So what's not clear? Arbusto 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have a problem with the Regnery article. What's not clear is why I was warned more than a month after my last edit? What is your deal?! Vandalism is keeping that subject line of criticism up. I did not take the Ben Domenech part down, remember. The whole article is slanted against Regnery Publishing and Eagle Publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 (talk • contribs)

Don't remove cited criticism. If you have issues or do any major editting use the discussion page. The wholesale removal, which is what I reverted it not acceptable. Arbusto 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 (talk • contribs)

Please provide a link to my interaction with you. As I don't simply edit one article or make one edit to an article. Arbusto 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Do I need to make that any more clear that I am not violating a vandalism policy? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 (talk • contribs)

This is NOT a good faith edit. Anymore of that and you will be blocked. Arbusto 01:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 (talk • contribs)

Your edit here. Arbusto 01:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. As you can see, my later edits included the Ben Domenech part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.214.28 (talk • contribs)

What on earth are you talking about? You are making no sense, view your edits here: 24.7.214.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

No, I am cmr924. cmr924 was the one that got the "warning" from you, before I deleted it off my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr924 (talk • contribs)

Well you aren't signed in. This means either you are Cmr924 (talk · contribs) and 24.7.214.28 (talk · contribs) or two separate people with the same editting interests edit from the same computer.

It addition to white washing getting you banned see: WP:Sockpuppet. Arbusto 01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not sock puppetting. I just did not sign in. Also, the warning was to CMR924, and I clearly left in Ben Domenech. Let's at least get that straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr924 (talk • contribs)

We are going nowhere: Take this to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Arbusto 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And say what? This is a problem you have had with me. I feel it is your duty to fully explain everything, and you clearly have not come close to that or I wouldn't still be here.

Also, I just saw. My user page was deleted, and you never answered my question. Where is the policy that dictates what I can and can't remove. It was never shown when you brought everything back.

What do you not understand? You have removed cited criticism under at least two identities. I warned you not to do it and reverted your vandalism. Perhaps you should bring in a third party for your own sake. Arbusto 01:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Address your concerns here Arbusto 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to get a response. How long do these things take??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr924 (talk • contribs)

You never issue a disputed there so its been removed. Arbusto 04:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. I clicked on the link YOU provided and I replied where you started an area for me. It doesn't seem to have been removed. This is far from being resolved.

As far as I can see, you have yet to answer anything I was asking. The last edit I made, under Cmr924, was September 19th. I am assuming there was nothing wrong with this edit, as you have yet to respond to me when I brought it up. Unless I hear otherwise, I will fix the article so it is less biased without removing actual content, save for headings.

Thanks for your valiant filtering efforts. I have sometimes voted to keep unaccredited schools if they appear to have reliable verifiable documentation that they are training a good number of preachers, who are then able to obtain positions at churches within the related denomination. I am all for any of them being subjected to AfD, and have no sympathy for diploma mills which purport to grant degrees to further peoples's careers, but whose graduates find themselves with certificates which do not satisfy requirments of employers or other legitimate colleges. I also do not favor articles legitimizing places which trade a diploma for a check with no course requirements.I especially would not appreciate such places trying to use a Wikipedia article as proof of their legitimacy. I suppose if a bad diploma mill were infamous enought that its infamy had been widely covered in mainstream press an argument could be made for an article, just as we have articles on famous bad people. I encourage you to let me know when such an article is up for AfD. Thanks. Edison 15:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree keeping notable unaccredited schools is important and thanks for your interest; we can use help cleaning up the List of diploma mills. However, I do not like it when the school inclusionists contact each other (or use their school watch list) in an effort to keep the schools and I don't want to behave in a similiar manner to get attention on an article. So I won't be contecting people when I afd a school.

It is a mixed bagged. When I nominated St. Clements University that article changed 180 degrees from what I expected. Arbusto 01:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi since your delete comment on the above article I have expanded it and added information locally relevant. I would appreciate it if you would review the article and your comment. Thank you --Alex 15:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You initially amended Image:Kent Hovind.jpg with {{reviewedfairuse}} ; only to revert yourself "on second thought" . By no means am I challenging or contesting what you did; I'm just curious what your initial thoughts were when you added the {{reviewedfairuse}} tag. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It had been there for so long unchallenged and is so widely available on the internet, at first I thought, it is okay. But it is an outdated and undated photo without any information on who created it, when, or who owns it. So I changed the tag. Arbusto 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Maxwell. Arbusto 08:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Clicking on your Special:Contributions/Arbustoo link actually opens a treasure trove of fascinating and important information. Thanks to the diligent work of people like you I have been able to glean more interesting information from Wikipedia in far less time. If you ask me, most of the really juicy and fascinating stuff is not found in the articles themselves but in the deletions found in the article history and discussion pages (which have histories too, btw).

Anyways, thank you again for your efforts, you really deserve to bask in the compliment considering that censorship is always a lost cause. 84.160.230.160 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice to see some people notice it. Arbusto 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding- I don't think it is relevant to call him a new user if he started editing over a week ago. JoshuaZ 07:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I mentioned that he was a new user when he voted on another afd, another person claimed, "the nominator (me) is associated with the school and wishes to remove what they consider negative press. " Someone a week into their wikipedia history likely does not know the policies as much as someone who has been editting for months. Arbusto 07:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bump. Are you happy with the changes or is it whitewashing? --kingboyk 13:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like some washing. For example, to claim its a "private accreditor" doesn't make sense because all accreditation is private by definition in countries that use an accreditation system. In other countries that require state supervision, like Russia and China, there are no accreditors because they simply aren't needed. Arbusto 18:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of "private" versus "public" refers to the organization itself and it's standing as either a private organization/corp or a public non-profit or governmental agency. CHEA is a public non-profit, for isntance. 12.207.87.61 11:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No you're wrong. All accreditors are private and are recognized by the government. That is who accreditation works. If you care to prove otherwise I suggest you go to school accreditation and supply sources. Arbusto 00:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The note that you are insisting upon about not being a current SACS candidate is the only statement in the article that is not cited using the <ref></ref> style. Could you switch to citation style, because the Wikipedia preference is to have all referencing in a single article use identical style. While your are at it, can you fix the spelling error and also replace "Currently" with "As of today's date". "Currently" is a form of wording that easily becomes false over time, while "As of date" plus a citation that uses a date doesn't become wrong, it just becomes out of date, so it is better in almost all situations. GRBerry 23:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He's not any better known than other Islamic public speakers, it's just that the article has been the scene of frantic revert wars between those who find him hilarious (if you eat pork you'll be promiscuous, like pigs) and those who think that he's a brilliant man who has memorized the Qur'an, the Bible, the Vedas, etc., and who want to use the article to spread his fame and attract people to Islam. They simply do not see what is funny about his arguments and claims. The mockers put in something that seems transparently ridiculous to them and the supporters nod their heads and amplify. Then add a list of fifteen books and videos they want readers to buy.

It's accident, I think, that he is the subject of this back and forth. There are several other Muslim evangelists who have articles that seem to have been written by supporters. Without any mockers, the articles just sit there, lauding their hero to the skies. Zora 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure on that. If some claims to prove he passes WP:BIO aren't produced its likely he and his organization will be put up for WP:AFD. Arbusto 06:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that what I have now added to Thomas Blackshear places him firmly above the notability threshold. Frankly, not a topic I'm all that interested in, and I really don't want to put a ton of time into researching this. If you're satisfied, please remove the tag. If not, let me know and I'll find more. I have no doubt that he's more notable than what I can easily prove. Unfortunately, the more than half a million Google hits on him (!) are thick with sites selling his collectibles, so it's hard to find anything substantive. Probably those collectibles (an area in which I'm sure he is a multi-million seller) would also make him notable in their own right, but I can't think how to cite solidly for that. - Jmabel | Talk 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for sourcing it. Arbusto 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Vanderbilt University source and consider changing your vote. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior (proposed state) MPS 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote changed. Arbusto 02:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arbustoo -- OK I think I have enabled my email. I haven't done this before, so I'm not sure how it works. Yours, Famspear 20:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have sent the requested information. Let me know if you haven't received it. Yours, Famspear 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Arbusto 02:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Association of Drugless Practitioners... hopefully I haven't walked into too big a buzzsaw. Anyway, I'm not sure if the incoming link from List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning should be removed or not, that seems like it's your domain so I figured I'd see if you could help. Thanks. --W.marsh 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't walk into anything and I agree with your reasons. The link should remain as it is a useful tool for those searching at google or yahoo. Arbusto 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which contains poorly sourced controversial material are placed on article probation. The material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo has been determined to be controversial material which does not have an adequate source. They are warned to avoid edit warring and encouraged to edit the articles in dispute appropriately.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello...I noticed you had some dealings with Alansohn recently. I was wondering what this guy's deal is because I'm having similar problems with him. Helical Rift 21:10 10 November 2006

He is a school inclusionist who is trying to keep every school article. He also has an immature attitude in dealing with people of opposing views. I urge everyone to follow Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and vote as it has just become a bastion for keep. Arbusto 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Arbusto! I get the picture now. I will do whatever I can to help out with this guy. He definitely seems immature and to be an extremely pompous ass. Helical Rift

Birds of feather flock together! Arbustoo, aren't you engaging rather shamelessly in votestacking?? I'll be sure to mention this in future AfDS. Alansohn 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Arbusto, I guess he just proved to everyone the type of ass he is. I'm keeping a watch on him. Helical Rift

Two of a kind stalkers, perfect together. Alansohn 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Alansohn...don't push it. Helical Rift

Only thing I push are facts. It's folks like the two of you who have no idea how to deal with facts. The two of you were a match made in heaven. Alansohn 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Second warning Alansohn....want to try for a third? Helical Rift

Warning what??!? That you'll be stalking me some more? Alansohn 05:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Typical. Helical Rift 05:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Alansohn's behavior is replusive, don't sink to his level. Arbusto 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Arbustoo's tactics are far more appealing. Find articles you don't like and attack away, denying the facts as you see fit!! Alansohn 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is the place you should go to leave comments about that article. Your personal opinions and childish behavior don't concern anyone here and thus, should be kept off wikipedia. And regarding Helical Rift, refer to WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Warning a new user that you will block him is out of line. Arbusto 07:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not about BHCTI, it's about the fact that you were willing to publicly post your insults here to a user, when you clearly had no understanding of what the user was referencing. Furthermore, your tactics regarding BHCTI are just the tip of the iceberg of the methods that you have shamelessly applied to dozens of articles that don't meet your arbitrary standards. Vandalism is vandalism. While I disagreed with the removal of a category, I explained why I felt it belonged there, and never marked his repeated removals as vandalism. There is no possible way to assume good faith for his removal of specific portions of text that supported the presence of a category he wanted removed. There was ample explanation of what the situation was, and the user's choice to delete text from an article, that had explicit sources without justification, which was removed to enhance his argument is vandalism, plain and simple. He was warned, and will be blocked if he continues to do so. Alansohn 07:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That is a place where people get blocked for vandalism. Be sure to note he is a new editor too. Arbusto 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto....let's just drop this. It's obvious Alansohn considers Wikipedia as his "baby" and God forbid someone else messes with it. I'm dropping it because to be honest, I don't have the time or patience to deal with someone as stubborn as he is. He is acting childish in that he is just not getting his way. Personally, I think its b/c he is an Orthodox Jew that he feels he must spread the word about Judaism and find any article that he can to link it to the religion. My point on the article was that I simply do not like labels but he has continued to add it. Then he felt that b/c I disagreed with him, that he "warned" me with vandalism or whatever. I'm a grown man. I leave the games to my little cousins. Its obvious he spends way too much time on here and takes things too personally. Instead of updating his 6000 items on his watchlist, he should probably be playing catch with his kid or more importantly, considering its after midnight, probably should be in bed with his wife. If he wants to label Cedarhurst as an Orthodox Jewish community, then let him. Its my hometown so I would think I have to right to edit the page whereas he only lived nearby before moving to NJ. You should Google him. He is all over the place with similar comments on Teaneck webpages. Pretty amusing stuff actually. You should see what he looks like lol. God knows what his job is if he has all this free time to edit pages all day. Anyway, thanks for the support. Its nice to know that not all people on Wikipedia are complete jerk-offs. Helical Rift

This has been reported to the AN/I board. Arbusto 08:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What was reported? Helical Rift

You can see it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cedarhurst.2C_New_York. --Arbusto 08:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. Yeah I know i'm acting childish, but this guy is just not letting it go after I already asked him to drop it Helical Rift

Considering that you've fought to keep many conspiracy-related articles with only tenuous Wikipedia notability qualifications (and I've defended you each time), why on Earth would you slap a "notability" tag on something as obviously notable as Scientology's "Study Tech", which has generated a whole conspiracy-theory cottage industry of sources about itself?? wikipediatrix 03:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't vote to keep unnotable conspiracy theorists for afd (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Maxwell). I am not aware of Study Tech. The sources for notablity are lacking, and thus, the tag. I see two self-published online articles critcal of scientology and links to scientology. Neither prove notablity. Am I missing something? Arbusto 04:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing quite a lot. Did you even look at the References section? Did you do a Google search? Did you check the "What Links Here"? wikipediatrix 04:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at the references section. Did you read my reply? Please note my above comment: "I see two self-published online articles critcal of scientology and links to scientology. Neither prove notablity." The external links go to the same website as the self-published essays or scientology websites with the exception of one Toronto newspaper, which has a trival mention. Arbusto 04:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it that you're not seeing the reference links to the State of Tennessee board of education? thomas.loc.gov? ode.state.or.us? pnais.org? pubblica.istruzione.it? wikipediatrix 05:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Those don't prove notability they prove WP:V: Two examples: http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/specialty/private/rptSchoolListingByCountyPrivate.pdf is a long list (52 pages) of programs and the US congress link shows that Tenn. gave a one time grant to Applied Scholastics. In fact, those sources show the two articles should be merged as the material in the articles is so similiar. There is nothing convincing of notablity. Arbusto 07:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire focus of the newspaper article is study tech, to which it always returns, hardly "trivial mention". AndroidCat 12:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct one source. One source is hardly notable. Arbusto 02:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo

We (ACSI) have noticed repeated changes you have made to this entry that are incorrect and irrelevent.

First of all, we do not accredit institutions of higher learning, therefore, the link to institutions not recognized by the government is erroneous and misleading. We should not be on the list at all, as the U.S. Government only recognizes those institutions that do accredit higher learning facilities. Appearing on the list suggests we accredit higher education institutions and we do not. Again, the Department of Education only recognizes institutions that accredit higher learning facilities, and we do not offer higher education accreditation.

Second, the case history and accomplishements of a lawyer should be handled by a link to a page concerning that lawyer, and not outlined on our entry. The selective history included only injects bias, and is not relevent to the case being discussed, which is that of discrimination against a point of view.

Third, we are not a scientific body, and are not on the list of scientific societies rejecting Intellgent Design, so why include such a link?

We wish to remain as objective and factual as possible. If you feel something is inaccurate, feel free to contact ACSI for clarification. We understand that you may not agree with the position of our organization on certain topics, but please refrain from injecting further inaccurate statements into our entry.

Thank you.

Supporting Materials:

From the State Department of Education:

“By law, the US Secretary of Education may only grant recognition (the term which the Department uses for accrediting bodies which it approves) to those accrediting agencies that accredit (i) institutions of higher education, provided the accrediting agency is a required element enabling those institutions to establish eligibility to participate in programs administered by the Department under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and (ii) institutions of higher education programs, provided the accreditation by the agency is a required element in enabling those institutions or programs to establish eligibility to participate in programs administered by the Department or other Federal agencies.”

“What this means, in practical terms, is that the Secretary does not have the authority to grant recognition to any accrediting agency that only accredits institutions or programs below the postsecondary level, i.e. at the elementary or secondary level. The Secretary does recognize three of the “schools” commissions of the regional accrediting bodies, but this is strictly for their accreditation of institutions that offer postsecondary education.”

From the College Board:

“As of January 1, 2001, we have added ACSI to our list of accrediting organization on our application code. This is the application that schools must submit to gain a six-digit code that will allow them access to ther students scores on all College Board and ACT exams. More importantly, this code will allow access to secure testing materials, thus permitting administration of exams given by the PSAT/NMSQT Program and Advanced Placement Program.”

From the office of Nonpublic Education (US Department of Education):

The US Department of Homeland Security, through the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Student and Exchange Visitor Program is responsible for the review and adjudication of Form I-17, Petition for Approval of School Attendance by Nonimmigration Student. Title 8 Code of Federal Regulations Section 214.3 details the various requirements that petitioning private elementary and secondary schools must meet for approval. To this end, the US Department of Education, through the Office of Non-public Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, hereby recommends that private (non-public) elementary and secondary schools providing evidence of one or more of the following criteria meet the definition of a school “accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body” as set forth in 8 CFR 214.3 (b) (2).”

¨ Full membership in and accreditation or approval by the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) or the American Association of Christians Schools.

¨ All NCPSA fully recognized members - ACSI is a founding member of the National Council of Private Education and is recognized as a full membership agency in current standing.

¨ Accreditation or successful evaluation by an organization holding full membership in the Council for American Private Education (CAPE). ACSI is a full member.

Regional Recognition:

ACSI has written third party or dual accreditation agreements with five of the public accrediting agencies:

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)

Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NAAS)

North Central Association (NCA)

Southern Association of Colleges & Schools (SACS)

Middle States Association (MSA)

What this means is that an ACSI member school can get dual accreditiation with ACSI and one of the Regional Accrediting bodies by using the ACSI accreditation protocol. The regional bodies have recognized our protocol as an accreditation instrument that is fully acceptable to use. When accreditation visits are done we do them together, using a single instrument.

State Recognition:

Several states recognize ACSI accreditation as a stand alone or through the non-public state office of education.

CITA recognition:

Based on our full membership with NCPSA, ACSI is recognized as a full member of CITA (Commission on International and Transregional Accreditation). CITA is made up of SACS, WASC, NCA, Middle States Elementary, NSSE.

Hi Arbustoo. Pardon my lack of experience here, but is your ({{notability}} for short wave radio) on Trans World Radio simply a request for sources attesting to TWR's use of shortwave? Neil 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Having heard nothing in response, and not wanting the Trans World Radio entry to disappear unnecessarily, I'm removing the ({{notability}} for short wave radio) tag. If the question is whether Trans World Radio has in fact used shortwave, there are decades of World Radio Handbook issues (now World Radio TV Handbook) as well as engineers, listeners, and DX'ers who can attest to the fact. My parents worked with TWR for 35 years, and shortwave was a key capability that allowed them to reach their target countries. You can read all about it in Towers to Eternity (Paul E. Freed, Sceptre Books, Nashville, 1979, ISBN 0840757093). This is my first time overriding somebody else's change, so I apologize if I'm breaching protocol. Neil 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Also on the notability issue, please consider http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22trans+world+radio%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search. Neil 06:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your wikify tag from this article. There is nothing there to wikify right now. What it really needs is expansion. Metros232 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added to the article on Robin Collins since you placed a noability tag on it. Please take a look at the article and see if you think it now justifies its inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not the greatest article, but I do think it now meets at least the minimum notability requirements. Let me know what you think Jacob1207 20:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be something of an expert on this kind of stuff. Would you happen to know if Bircham International University is a legitimate school? I did not see it appear on any lists of unaccredited schools. Is it accredited? Piercetp 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. "The school: Founded in 1992, Bircham offers a doctorate program that costs $4,500. “Previous experience and knowledge” can count for 100 percent of the total credits needed to obtain a degree.

The lowdown: Oregon education officials describe Bircham International as 'totally bogus'." Arbustoo 05:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I could well be mistaken, the tingle from my spider-senses seams to be telling me that a subtle POV-push may be taking place with this article. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had witnessed some methodical POV pushing. Arbustoo 05:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to figure out how common bogus degrees were between, say, 1900 and 1940. I noticed you had been working on a history if the subject, but I can't find what you've been writing. Can you point me anywhere else? Thanks, Fuzzypeg ☻ 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I might add more to wikipedia. Arbustoo 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you again! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it may be short lived. I've been very busy and need to tend to non-wiki matters. I should have more time to edit at a later date. Arbustoo 10:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that I have edited wikipedia for nearly five years, you are correct that I am familiar with most aspects of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I do not agree with your assertion that I have not abided by it, and I suspect if you reviewed the edit log you would come to the same conclusion. I know that the articles relating to diploma mills are the subject of frequent vandalism, and understand if it is harder for you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith in these cases. - O^O 04:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats for editing wikipedia for 5 years. I looked at a your talk page, saw no archives, comments about the 3RR rule from others, removal of comments from your talk page, and so on. I commented on the talk page, and would enjoy a response on your one country link, which as you know from your 5 year experience goes against Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, namely template:Globalize. Arbustoo 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that postings to my talk page are reqularly cleaned, and that no archives are kept. Such is the nature of my talk page. Regarding the "one country link", remember that I suggested multiple times that you were free to add whatever citations you wanted, and that I was not the ideal person to pick which citations were inserted. All that is required here is to insert a single citation that affirms the statement being made. If you want to add more citations, feel free, I am not standing in your way. - O^O 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My point that adding a single link that fails to adquately convey the legal matters would be misleading. The link you listed has failed to address the issues made in the template.

On the other hand the wiki-link to school accreditation on the template has lots of information on the subject. Curious people could simply go there.

BTW: On first look when someone is "cleaning" a talk page appears it as if they are trying to hide something. Arbustoo 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Kent Hovind article shows this on the edit history page:

(cur) (last) 16:50, 8 March 2007 Arbustoo (Talk | contribs) (→Official Hovind and Pro-Hovind - REMOVE link see talk)

I can't find anything on your talk page about it, so I have added the link back. FreeHovind.com is a valuable resource to many Hovind supporters, and it therefore makes sense that it would be listed with the other sites in the "Pro Hovind" section.

Roburmow 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not his talk page, the article talk page. See WP:SPAM. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only did I post on the ARTICLE talk page, but others agree with my comments. That link is spam. Arbustoo 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops - sorry. I started a post on the article's talk page once I realized my mistake :-) Roburmow 01:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I never meant to upset you or anyne else, not even the university. But if I have done so, unintentionally, I am sorry for that.Pointchair 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a role account? -- Librarianofages 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Pointchair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one. Arbustoo 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion? No. WpBio, no matter his unusual negativity, uses a much more coherent writing style than kzq. I really doubt they are the same. Therefore 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to see though. Arbustoo 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to ad, kzq has an o'reilly-fueled anger. WpBio is on some sort of mission but at least it is even-handed -- he vandalized George Bush's and Hilary Clinton's and Michael Moore's controversy pages. I don't see kzq being that even-handed or consistent. Therefore 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen and busted so many of these sock puppets before I won't be suprised. The check user is a precationary measure as if they aren't the same IP then they will be vindicated. Arbustoo 00:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. I keep learning something new everyday. Where does that leave the Wilson page? Therefore 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And WPBio was blocked as well. Sometimes I'm right. If no one else have objections I think the Wilson article protection can be removed. Arbustoo 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done! You saved me a whole lot of hassle; and did it promptly. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WPBio? If I'd have known I'd have probably blocked on username alone. Sounds official, given that WPBIO is WikiProject Biography. --kingboyk 21:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the method you used for moving the two Michael Battle articles around is not recommended (the method is called a "cut and paste" move). Such moves cause the edit history of an article to be separated from its past text, and make source of development and authors of an article a mystery to new readers. In this instance, it caused the history of related to Michael J. Battle to be severed from its history, and caused the text for Michael A. Battle to also be severed from its history. I reversed the edits, in effect re-joining the text with the history for each article, and re-moved the articles, and created a disambiguation page at Michael Battle, with additional redirects for Michael Battle (academic) and Michael Battle (attorney). This treats all of the subjects and articles uniformly and with parity.

See Help:Moving_a_page#Page_histories for policy. There is general guidance on moving pages at: Help:Moving a page and for moves that may be or are are actually controversial at: Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Yellowdesk 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Only admins can merge page histories, and wiki policy for naming convention has the most popular/commonly searched name as the non-disamg page when there are few disam articles (in this case they'd be onewith my change). Arbustoo 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge was necessary, since there were no other edits but your move-related edits at the time. I basically put the severed head (the text) back with the body (the edit history) associated with each article. -- Yellowdesk 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Most new users who turn up and edit the same old articles are not actually socks, and it doesn't help to accuse them of being socks. Concentrate on the behaviour of the individual user, unless you have compelling evidence to link them to a previous account. Many of them are problematic in their edits, and that alone is sufficient to work on. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

check it here. --Blue Tie 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Arbustoo 02:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary here mischaractarized the article. ABC DOES say those things, and titled their article similarly. The book to which you refer is not even mentioned until halfway through the article, AFTER they say the things you say they never said. I think you should adjust your edit appropriately. Also, you are citing a named citation multiple times. It only needs to have the fully written cite once, and a shortened tag can be used for additional uses of the same cite. - Crockspot 20:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and put the ABC charactarization back in. Please read the article with a neutral mind. They do indeed make that charactarization. I also cleaned up some of the duplicate citations, and defined ref names. - Crockspot 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be changing it. The subtitle of the article says, "Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite" and the claim is made by the authors of that book. The quote on the second page of the article is: "Drudge's coverage affects the media's political coverage, Halperin said." You are being disingenuous by claiming "ABC" said it. Arbustoo 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said already, the book is not covered until well into the second half of the article, and the title of the article does not appear in that exact form anywhere in the book. Crockspot 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said WP:ATT requires to attribute the claims. Arbustoo 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Drudge Report. Please be more careful to discus controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you wish to request a review, please email me or use {{unblock}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arbustoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I removed material that was not cited. And reverted three times. As an experienced editor I know about the 3RR and did not break the rule. Please review the edits in order. The person who filed the 3RR did not put them in order, which made it appear as I broke the rule. See the link below.

Decline reason:

A summary review of your contribs and of the discussion below (a thorough examination would take longer than your remaining block period) makes me believe that you either violated 3RR or at any rate edited aggressively enough to warrant a cautionary block. Seraphimblade's assessment appears credible enough to not make me second-guess their judgment. — Sandstein 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is not a revert. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) listed that as the "forth revert". That was not the fourth revert, that was one of my clean up edits made before ANY reverting. I am very troubled that an experienced user falsely used one of my clean up edits as a "revert"-- the fourth too. As I have had issues with this editor in the past this is curious.Arbustoo 23:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the diff you cite, I note removal of the following text:

ABC News concluded that the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage.

which seems to be part of the content debate in question. Can you please explain why you don't believe this to be a revert? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a revert look at the page history:

(cur) (last) 21:05, 2 April 2007 Crockspot (Talk | contribs) m (fix fatal typo)
(cur) (last) 21:05, 2 April 2007 Crockspot (Talk | contribs) (replace ABC charactarization. Arbustoo is just plain wrong in his assessment.)
(cur) (last) 20:58, 2 April 2007 Crockspot (Talk | contribs) (→Errors at the Report - try again - define refnames and remove duplicate citation)
(cur) (last) 20:55, 2 April 2007 Crockspot (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 119806714 by Crockspot (talk) self revert, totally screwed that up)
(cur) (last) 20:53, 2 April 2007 Crockspot (Talk | contribs) (→Errors at the Report - duplicate citation - defined refname, replaced second cite with refname tag)
(cur) (last) 20:49, 2 April 2007 Crockspot (Talk | contribs) (removed full ref, replace with previously defined refname tag. I also disagree with Arbustoo's charactarization of the ABC article. On reading it, the book isn't mentioned until halfway through.)
20:35, 2 April 2007 Arbustoo (Talk | contribs) (ABC News NEVER said such a thing, the article is about the book that makes the claim, WP:ATT)
(cur) (last) 20:06, 2 April 2007 Arbustoo (Talk | contribs) m (→External links - sisterlinks)
(cur) (last) 20:05, 2 April 2007 Arbustoo (Talk | contribs) (format per WP:MOS)
(cur) (last) 19:57, 2 April 2007 Arbustoo (Talk | contribs) (→Origins - being bold and removing long uncited claims)
(cur) (last) 19:51, 2 April 2007 Arbustoo (Talk | contribs) (→Errors at the Report - remove uncited)
(cur) (last) 19:50, 2 April 2007 Arbustoo (Talk | contribs) m (→Errors at the Report - McCain heckled by CNN reporter)
(cur) (last) 19:15, 2 April 2007 Arbustoo (Talk | contribs) (→Errors at the Report - CNN reporter)
(cur) (last) 23:35, 1 April 2007 67.171.24.183 (Talk) (→External links)
(cur) (last) 00:03, 1 April 2007 Skoppensboer (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 119106303 dated 2007-03-30 19:31:26 by XVreturns using popups)
(cur) (last) 21:58, 31 March 2007 70.22.48.196 (Talk) (→Charges of bias)
(cur) (last) 21:29, 31 March 2007 70.130.144.112 (Talk) (→Charges of bias)
(cur) (last) 19:31, 30 March 2007 XVreturns (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 119106058 by 190.9.74.139 (talk))

Arbustoo 23:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is a revert, who did I revert? Arbustoo 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, you've had me blocked for over an hour because SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) set the up the diffs in a deceitful, POV manner.

Please explain where is the revert? WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." According to WP:Revert: "To revert is to undo all changes made to an article." Can someone explain what this reverted? Arbustoo 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed some context in the part you quoted from WP:3RR:

However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.

A partial revert is accomplished either by an ordinary edit of the current version, or by editing an old version. The former is convenient, for example, for a partial reversion of a recent addition, while the latter is convenient for a partial reversion of a deletion. (emphasis mine)

In this case, that's how it was done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A friendly word, Arbustoo. I'm now finished wikifying, copyediting, cleaning up references, and otherwise trying to get the article to more closely conform with WP:MOS. It doesn't matter that your first revert wasn't a revert of Crockspot while the others were; what matters is that you reverted four times in only an hour and 20 minutes, and your edit warring was disruptive while I was trying to get some work done. (See WP:3RR: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.") You can do what you will with that one sentence now, but if you feel so strongly about one sentence that you must change it four times in less than a few hours, it may be time to re-think your approach to Wikipedia. When you see that another editor is doing a lot of cleanup work, is it really necessary to edit war in the midst? You're not a newbie, and you should know the policy. Hopefully the article will now stay in a somewhat tidier shape for a while; you might want to work on filling in the missing citations (for the good of the Project) which can be more productive than focusing so much on one sentence. Please think it over. And please refrain from making charges against me like I "set the up the diffs in a deceitful, POV manner", which borders on a personal attack; I reported the diffs in chronological order. I'm sure admins will view your actions better if you dispaly some remorse for edit warring. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You called it a REVERT! Who did I revert? It does matter that the edit didn't revert anyone. No you did not "report the diffs in chronological order." That is incorrect. Correct yourself.

The fact that you and I have had issues in the past, such as Chris Shays, and you won't correct your claim above doesn't make this look good for you.

Why didn't you mention anything on the talk pages about the subject? Why did you revert and then report me with the fourth diff being a early clean up edit before anyone else edited it? Arbustoo 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that your intent with that edit was to undo. A revert need not necessarily be to an exact copy of a previous version, if it is done with the intention of undoing another editor, it is a revert. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I'm a bit concerned by the fact that you seem to think your conduct was entirely alright if you only reverted three times. The idea of 3RR is that it is never acceptable to revert more than three times, not that it is acceptable to revert three times or fewer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The "intent with that edit was to undo". Undo what? I removed a claim that wasn't supported by the quote. In the two places where I discussed with other editors they agreed with my reading of the article. Arbustoo 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's as may be, but that's a content dispute. In that case, it was to undo whoever put the quote there in the first place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And that material was not added within 24 hours; the time frame of the 3RR. Arbustoo 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, if you can show me what you want corrected, I can ask if I can alter the report after the fact. This report looks to be in chronological order to me: what am I missing? Do you want me to reverse the order? What will that change?

1st revert: 21:55
2nd revert: 21:30
3rd revert: 21:23
4th revert: 20:35

Why didn't I discuss on talk page? If you had made four reverts in, say, 10 hours, that would be a calm, logical approach. You made four reverts in an hour and 20 minutes, while I was trying to work; that's why I suggest it may be time to rethink your editing approach, push back some times. I would appreciate you retracting the claim of "deceit". Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How could the 4th revert be the one that was made before the editing war? Arbustoo 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if your argument here is based on the fact that the report was made in the wrong order, and a very technical attempt at redefining what a revert is, I'm afraid I have to stand by the decision. However, as you have the unblock request up, someone else will review the decision made as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, my point was I did not exceed 3RR. Sandy improperly referenced to my first clean up edit, a good faith edit, as a revert. Arbustoo 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, shall I re-do the report to reverse the order, or will that just muddy the water now? Four reverts in an hour and 20 minutes are four reverts, whether you report them backwards or forwards. <confused> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I am not doubting that the first edit was made in the best of faith, or for that matter any of them. However, once it became clear that the edit was contentious, regardless of whether or not you intended it to be so, it was time to stop and talk, not to continue making it. Content disputes never get solved by revert wars, they get solved by discussion, and if necessary, dispute resolution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That is why I started the discussion in two different places. Why didn't Sandy want to discuss it in these two places? (three if you count my talk page) Arbustoo 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As to doing the report again, I am capable of reading timestamps, and noticed at the time the report was backward. It makes no material difference to its outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did refer to that edit as a revert and I'm just trying to find out who I reverted. Arbustoo 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone, at some point, added that material. When you removed it, you reverted them. In some cases, that's alright, cutting is part of the editing process. However, if someone contests the issue, stop reverting and talk to them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if it was added six months. Removing a claim that isn't back up by the source, and moving the source to the proper citation I don't think is a revert. Arbustoo 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree regarding the 3RR, that's why I stopped reverting after my third revert(there is no fourth revert), and was engaging on the talk page. That's why there is no fourth revert. That is why I am aksing to be unblocked. Arbustoo 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it strange that I reverted Sandy, who knew I was engaging people on the talk, put the original claim back in the article without discussion and then reported me. Sandy still hasn't communicated her reasons for restoring that. I gave my reasons for removing it on the talk though. Arbustoo 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do still believe my evaluation was correct. However, someone else will be along to double-check, and they'll note this discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If need be a warning would be sufficent in a case where I did not make 4 reverts. A warning to a long experienced editor is surely be more productive. Especially considering how the person reporting fits was the one who reverted without discussion. When the person who was blocked explained the reasons for removal on the talk. Arbustoo 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It has recently come to my attention that you are under ArbCom sanction for edit warring. Considering two prior blocks for 3RR, and an ArbCom ruling, I am concerned about your lack of remorse or understanding of 3RR; I have filed a report at Arbcom enforcement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Once again you filed a report without reading. Feel free to explain how the Drudge Report ties to those articles(Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which...). Your maliciousness will not reflect properly on you. I think you should withdraw your complaint to save face. Arbustoo 20:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been notified that your filing was a mistake, and cannot plead ignorance later on. Arbustoo 20:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, "proper" notification would be to leave this message on that person's talk page. And from my observations of ARBCOM, they are sort of like Ken Starr; Once they get ahold of a user, they can expand their investigation anywhere they please, including off-wiki if relevant. Just some friendly advice, though I doubt it will still be here in five minutes. Have a nice day. - Crockspot 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, I think you should either apologize for this comment or stop posting on my talk page. Especially since it is you that is wrong concerning Talk:Drudge Report. Your first ever edit to me was "Are you being deceitful, or just obtuse?" So don't expect me to be friendly until to you make amends. I do not take your advice as "friendly" concerning your other posts about my character. Arbustoo 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for asking if you were "being deceitful or just obtuse" in the edit summary. Frankly, I do not understand how anyone could have your novel take on the issue so strongly without purposely ignoring the face value of the reliable source, so I suspected that you were "playing dumb" in order to push a point. You seem to "know" that I am wrong, but I have full confidence in my interpretation. Hopefully, we will get some outside participation in the RfC, and then it will not rest on your "knowing" vs. my "knowing". If you could point out my "other posts" about your character, I would be happy to address them. Crockspot 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not just "me" who considers you to be wrong. Everyone who has commented on it and you refused to acknowledge being wrong. Others, such as, stated "You make a good point, Arbustoo. The ABC article (and book) are potentially misused here as puffery quotes for MD..." Was it you who originally put in the claim 6 months ago? Arbustoo 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment about that other user except to say that I am not at all surprised at the position he takes. There is some history there. I don't recall, but it is very likely that I did indeed add the statement to the article originally. Another editor seems to disagree with your take on AN/I, so it will be interesting to see how the RfC plays out. - Crockspot 02:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In the diff you supplied, that user commented simply on part of the title, and seemed devoid of the content of the article. Correct me if I am wrong. Arbustoo 03:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I kept everything but the cited case as agreed that your section isn't relevant to the law school. Why don't you cite every single case the is applicable to Regent's newsletter and even the cases argued against the supreme court that are more applicable involving alumni. Why do you think this is so applicable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidash (talk • contribs)

I'll respond on that talk. Arbustoo 03:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo -- I added a couple of other articles criticizing the school's influence in the bush admins to the talk page, fwiw. I came across these while writing the Kay Coles James articles. Therefore 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Arbustoo,

Please advise how I can make my entry (Tolly Burkan) acceptable. I am a "newbee" to this and do not understand much of the jargon that dictates how to document, etc.

Thank you, TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.124.180 (talk • contribs)

Sure, read WP:BIO. You need to add sources that prove notability. Referenced press mentions, reviews, appearances, and so on prove notability. This should be sources not tied to the subject's webpage or publisher. Arbustoo 17:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Arbustoo,

As a true computer dummy, I am a bit overwhelmed by the process of creating an entry that has appropriate symbols, credits, references, etc. Are there any commercial services that can make my entry (Tolly Burkan) acceptable. I do not understand much of the instructions.

Thank you,

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.124.180 (talk • contribs)

That's not how it works. Give me the references (NY Times, Wall Street Journal mentions, book rankings), and I will improve the article. Leave the links (or article titles, newspaper names) here or on the article page. Arbustoo 23:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

USA Today 4-2-90 Page 1, Section D Philadelphia Inquirer 5-1-02 (http://www.firewalking.com/glasswalking_article.html) Wall Street Journal 4-18-89 Front page Los Angeles Times 4-11-84 Front page

Author of: Extreme Sprituality (Amazon rank 116,000) Let It Be Easy (Amazon rank 109,000) Dying to Live (Amazon rank 865,000)

Mentioned in the following books: THE FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS OF PROSPERITY by Edwene Gaines Rodale Books 2005 MIND GAMES by Michael Powell Barnes & Noble 2004 IF YOU MAKE THE RULES, HOW COME YOU'RE NOT BOSS? by Elaine Smitha Hampton Roads Publishing Company 2004 SECRETS OF SUPERSTAR SPEAKERS: WISDOM FROM THE GREATEST MOTIVATORS OF OUR TIME by Lilly Walters McGraw-Hill 2000 LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH IN SPIRIT by Alan Cohen Hay House 1996 QUANTUM LEAP THINKING by James J. Mapes Dove Books 1996 HARPER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MYSTICAL AND PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE by Rosemary Ellen Guiley Harper Collins 1994 THE WORLD ACCORDING TO DAVE BARRY by Dave Barry Wings Books 1994 THE NEW AGE CATALOGUE by the Editors of BODY, MIND AND SPIRIT Dolphin Doubleday 1994 FIREWALK: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PHYSICAL IMMUNITY by Jonathan Sternfield Berkshire House 1992 FIREWALKING AND RELIGIOUS HEALING by Loring M. Danforth, Ph.D. Princeton University Press 1989 RETURN TO THE GARDEN by Shakti Gawain New World Library 1989 TOO MUCH IS NOT ENOUGH by Orson Bean Lyle Stuart 1988 DAVE BARRY'S GREATEST HITS by Dave Barry Ballantine Books 1988 HEALING STATES by Alberto Villoldo, Ph.D. and Stanley Krippner, Ph.D. Simon & Schuster 1987

Web Site: Firewalking.com

Founder of Firewalking Institute of Research and Education in Twain Harte, California Over three million firewalking graduates worldwide

Created global firewalking movement by training 3,000 instructors on six continents.

Again Arbustoo, thank you very much.

Tolly Burkan

PS Some well-known corporations that use firewalking in training seminars: American Express, Microsoft, U-haul, Coca-Cola, Re-Max International, Met-Life, Colombo Yogurt

Hi again Arbustoo,

I am learning my way around and greatly appreciate your guidance. You deleted the external link I placed in firewalking for the Firewalking Institute. You were under the impression that the site was either a personal site or a commercial site. However, it is neither. The Firewalking Institute is a non-profit research institute - IRS 501(c)(3). Although I am the founder, I am not paid and the entire staff is volunteers. We are a public-benefit institution whose stated purpose in our charter is to research the phenomena of firewalking and fire immunity and to educate the general public and professional community regarding applications and uses. While conducting this work, we have made relevant discoveries in the fields of medicine and psychology. During our exploration into the nature of the mind/body connection, our discoveries in the field of psychoneuroimmunology have broadened our work to include other areas of immunity beyond fire immunity. Our expanded purpose encompasses research into all aspects of stress and its effect on the immune system. Also, our expanded purpose is serving to educate professional and lay people so they can effectively cope with stressful situations, such as work-related challenges, physical challenges or psychological problems, including: low self-esteem, depression, fears, phobias and psychosomatic disorders affecting health.

Arbustoo, anyone seriously researching firewalking should have easy access to our site. It seems appropriate to list www.firewalking.com as an external link in Wiki's entry for firewalking.

Also, since you re-posted an old world record from 1998 which was 150', why not add the next two records before the one just set in China... Gary Shawkey 167' and Amanda Dennison 220'.

Thank you for your consideration, Tolly Burkan

I do see it listed as a non-profit, but, however, my concern is while your website has very interesting educational material you do offer seminars for $15,000 plus expenses and solicit the media. For example, while there are many cancer charities (non-profits), we don't link them on the Cancer article. The cancer charities do very important work and education for the public and promotion of cutting edge research, they just aren't applicable for an encyclopedia article about disease.

I agree that the previous world records should be included as well. As you undoubtedly know more about the subject please add it. Sometimes other editors remove material if it isn't CITED so as long as you give sources, records and claims are more likely to stay on the page. Please contribute to wikipedia, your expertise will no doubt improve our articles.

Also you should sign your posts made on the talk pages, by using four ~ at the end your message. Thanks for your patience. Arbustoo 04:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arbustoo,

Thank you for assisting me in making appropriate contributions. We are indeed a non-profit institution, and even charging $15,000 for corporate seminars has resulted in us losing money for many years. 2006 was the first year we broke even. Our financial resources are very small, and the cost of producing corporate events is huge and involves many people. We do not solicit media, but want media to have access to our archives, since we have the largest compilation of photos, research and firewalking information anywhere to be found. Also, we can produce media events safely and want to discourage irresponsible media from causing injuries by using inexperienced people to produce firewalking events. I hope this will allow you to repost our site as an external link. Tollyburkan 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Tolly Burkan

The point is thw website offers services for a fee. As I explained, about cancer research this is an encyclopedia. Again, we should open the floor for other views. Arbustoo 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Firewalking is not a hyphenated word. How can the misspelling be corrected in title "Fire-Walking"?Tollyburkan 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)TB

At the top of the article, when you are logged in, click "move" then change the name. Arbustoo 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How can I add my own picture to my bio? (Tolly Burkan) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Tolly11.jpg&diff=next&oldid=117519041#file I had tried this before, but obviously I did something wrong.Tollyburkan

Make sure to put a tag that you own the picture and release it to wikicommons. If not it will be deleted, as a copyright violation. Arbustoo 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arbustoo,

I certainly understand that you must follow established guidelines, and that is why you deleted an external link to www.firewalking.com--however, since you know the guidelines better than I, I am asking if there is any way you can include a link to one of the most useful sites on firewalking, in the WP Firewalking area? The way I understand it, you are saying that WP will not include a non-profit cancer site that offers patients referrals to doctors if the site also has T-shirts for sale that say "I survived cancer!"? Am I understanding the rules correctly?

Tollyburkan 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Tolly Burkan

This is getting tiresome. Last friendly warning don't add your personal website to any more articles. Arbustoo 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for oversight

Tolly Burkan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollyburkan (talk • contribs)

The community does not tolerate those who come to wikipedia to add their links and self-publish material. Science, whether you know about firewalking or not, must be presented properly. If you want to argue against physics professors, get a PhD in physics then publish your material. Until then do not change a wikipedia article to reflect your personal bias.

Also I was truly disappointed in seeing you add a source that did not back up a claim. Arbustoo 05:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo: I wanted to take this directly to you because you seem fairly adamant about deleting the article. If you would rather take this discussion to the talk page of DBTS, I understand, and it's fine with me.

First of all, I want to apoligize to you personally for accusing you of making a personal attack. It sounded like you were debating the article based on the fact that I started it and made some incorrect assumptions, instead of debating the article based on the article. I was wrong to accuse you, and I apoligize.

Secondly, why are you so bent on deleting this article? It is about a notable private independent conservative Christian institution which has generated loads of pastors in the area, and indeed all over the country. The fact that it is independent is what makes it notable. It has no ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Association, or any other group or organization. It has a strong tie to a local church (Inner-City Baptist Church) which, in turn, sponsors the school. This also makes it notable, in that this is the way that a Baptist institution is biblically supposed to be run - with the church being the sponsor of the school, instead of the other way around, which is the way many other "notable" larger Christian colleges and universities are run.

Articles that do not contain WP:RS are inherently POV. Thus, are no use as an article, and it then serves as simply an advertisement of the orgainzation's webpage. It's the same reason why a person who independently publishes a book should not have a wikipedia article. It might be important to a small number of people, but not enough for an encyclopedia article.

A-ah, OK! Now I get it! (the little light-bulb is finally lit!) I really didn't think of an article as an advertisment, but I can see how it could (and, I suppose in this case, without the citations of notability, how it DID) become nothing more than an ad. - NDCompuGeek 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this clear. I am not "bent on deleting this article." I am bent on deleting unnotable, nonaccredited schools. Show it is notable and the article will be kept. Arbustoo 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm preaching, but because this institution is following conservative Baptist precepts and convictions fully makes this seminary very notable, and indeed very important, to the Christian community.

Fine, add sources that prove it is notable and I will withdraw the nomination. Arbustoo 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you should prove that your claim in your nomination about "no gnews hits" is valid, or withdraw the nomination. You might want to check the links I provided in the AfD, since I have already proven that this claim is inaccurate. - Crockspot 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for my delayed response, I'm still laugh at your claim that there is 500 sources on this subject. Go to news.google.com and type in "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary." Not a single source comes up. If on the other hand you search there archive... well, I thought another editor's comments best describe your claims.

Here an idea, instead of trying to insult people with false claims, add sources to Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and prove its notability. If you do that, I will withdraw the nomination. Until then I suggest you change "strong keep" to a delete because a mention in a local that so-and-so attended a school its not enough to write an encyclopedia article. Arbustoo 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: how do I prove this without referencing the Bible and putting forth a "sermon in a box" teaching and preaching (and let me tell you, I am NOT a preacher!) the foundational beliefs of Christian schooling? In a related line, would this line of "notability" automatically disqualify the article as too much POV? These are honest questions - I've only been on WP for a few months, and the entire AFD process is still kind of new to me. I must say though, your arguments are very persuasive. Even got me thinking that, if this article is to be kept, it needs a thorough revamping and going-through.... - NDCompuGeek 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Foundations for school have nothing to do with the notability of the article. To keep the article you must add WP:RS that show it is notable. Read the guidelines at WP:ORG for details. In sum, you need to show how this article would be useful to those not directly tied to the school. Such as, if the school had a famous graduate or some special research was done there. Arbustoo 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, and, in spite of the fact that we obviously disagree on the above article, I hope we can keep this discussion calm and polite (as it has), and maybe even develop into a friendship! - NDCompuGeek 07:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Arbustoo. The cite on the sentence leads to a webpage that does not talk about LBU. The cite is incorrect then. That is why I put the fact tag on. If you know of a cite for this, please added it and remove the fact tag. I suspect it somewhere on the website where the current cite points, but I cannot find it. This is in the spirit of something you wrote to another user: "Also I was truly disappointed in seeing you add a source that did not back up a claim." The claim in the article is not backed up by the source provided. (I don't think you added the claim or the source, but I do think maybe either you or I are not seeing the same page referenced in the same light.) ImprobabilityDrive 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confused.

The sentence in question is "ACCTS is not a recognized accreditor." The source does not belong to LBU because the link is to Council for Higher Education Accreditation. That is organization that approves accreditors.

Why would the source be related to LBU? The sentence is about recognized accreditation associations of higher learning, and would have NOTHING to do with LBU. Thus, I am removing the fact tag, and other comments should be made on that talk page. Arbustoo 02:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, I just wanted to let you know that I moved a section from the Louisiana_Baptist_University to the Talk:Louisiana_Baptist_University page for further work. ImprobabilityDrive 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN ON WIKIPEDIA FOR OVER A YEAR. Discuss it on the talk first. Arbustoo 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, I appreciate your concern to prevent any kind of whitewash, but material isn't sacrosanct because it's been there a long time. See WP:V and . Properly sourced information should stay, provided it fully complies with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If not, majorities or longstanding consensus don't trump policy. .. dave souza, talk 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to? It is WP:V it is sourced. The person is arguing that criticism of the school isn't relavant to the school. Arbustoo 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, I sympathize with what you're going through with this editor. I noticed that your questions went unanswered on ImprobabilityDrive's talk page. Curious. Orangemarlin 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Other are watching too. Arbustoo 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo..I'm going to delete your two additional users that you added to the ImprobabilityDrive RfCU. Fishing will not help this case. Unless you have good evidence, such as an IP address error like ID did, or something else, adding more does not make the case better, unless the evidence is clear. You just can't list names. State the case, then re-add more sockpuppets if necessary. But admins do not take kindly to false accusations, and I will not be a party to one. Orangemarlin 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. They seem like throw away accounts. The new checkuser process will fine them, and the Admin, if he thinks its important, will mention it. Arbustoo 20:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you modified my comments. Would you kindly remove those modifications. Thank you so very much. Infinite Improbability Drive 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Modified your comments is fairly misleading. I will remove the tags; for now.

I still want to know:

1) Have you had a previous account. 2) How did you learn to sign.

The person who unblocked you thinks your are a sock. Arbustoo 02:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I know how to use computers, read instructions, and so on and so forth. I know how to learn what I am going to do before I do it. Sincerely, my contributions to the LBU article were in good faith, and while I may have used the protocol incorrectly, I am not a former nemesis of yours. When you sign, there is a message at the bottom. Also, I see from diff logs that peaple get their posts on talk pages signed for them if they forget to. I know how to read instructions. I know this is uncommon, but I do it. Also, I have been lurking for a long time, and tried to learn enough to not get into the kind of trouble most newbies (including yourself) get into. Lastly, I know a lot about computer programming, and many of the features here are very similar to tools we code monkeys use. I realize now that you honestly thought I was some other user who was disputing you; but in reality, I was just trying to improve the article. If you would like to seek mediation, I would like to come back and deal with some remaining synthesis issues. You seem to trust Dave. Maybe he can help us work together on some articles, so that I am able to learn how to best handle conflict on wikipedia. You may be able to convince me that I am wrong on the synthesis, btw. Infinite Improbability Drive 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are Gastrich. I think you have had an account before. You still haven't answered my questions. Arbustoo 03:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing those tags, Arbustoo. Note that Infinite Improbability Drive answered "No." above, which I would hope is the answer you're requesting – to avoid confusion it would be helpful if IID could restate it more explicitly. You may think I'm trying to whitewash LBU, but it's actually something I'd never heard of before this current dispute began, and my first interaction with IID was to meet his request to change the lurid welcome added by User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea. I learnt to sign posts before making any, and to me IID's explanation above is entirely plausible, Having good quality citations about LBU accurately presented is going to be a lot more convincing than unexplained indirect references, in my opinion. ,,, dave souza, talk 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. However, signing a username is not the only issue. That by itself is not a big deal. Arbustoo 05:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave souza, note how you pointed out he said "no." Read what ImprobabilityDrive's mentor wrote about their correspondence through email: "I don't doubt that he has edited here before, probably extensively. But that does not automatically make him a sockpuppet, nor does it mean that he was previously banned. I-Drive has indicated to me the reasons why he would prefer not to comment on the issue of previous activity, and that is his perogative." Interesting: ImprobabilityDrive said "no" here, but told his mentor he doesn't want to comment. Even his mentor thinks he had a previous account. Arbustoo 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my hope that was what it meant has not been followed by the explicit statement I suggested. In my opinion his questioning of sources / OR at LBU has had some merit, but the POV additions and edit warring elsewhere were either very naive or disruptive editing. Just my opinion, .. dave souza, talk 21:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And my problem is advanced knowledge of wikipedia does not mesh with being "very naive." Arbustoo 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Its confirmed that most people knew all along. According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive, ImprobabilityDrive is likely a sock puppet of VacuousPoet. Arbustoo 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This question: It is possible, but I have no information that would confirm of deny that allegation beyond I-Drive's obvious editing proficiency. It seems unlikely, though not impossible, that an new editor would have such skill, hence why I indicated my assumtion he has some prior experience. However, as long as he is not evading a ban, or editing from multiple accounts at the same time, it doesn't matter to me, and neither should it to you.

If I may offer some advice: there is little point trying to force another editor to tell you information they do not wish to. The checkuser will answer the question for you, why not just wait and see? Rockpocket 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It matters to be because if he has had previous accounts while failing WP:CIVIL and WP:POV then he is violating WP:GAME and wasting all of our time. Arbustoo 21:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, you didn't put the request at the right place. Your request is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pending. By the way, your other edit removed the whole IP check section, please be more careful when editing pages and when in doubt, don't hesitate to ask. Regards, -- lucasbfr ^talk, checkuser clerk, 23:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for fixing it. Arbustoo 23:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to the List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America, I agree that the page needs work, but I'm wondering what you think the AMA and FDA have to do with determining what "medicine" is and is not. As you may know, the AMA represents the allopathic medical student and docs and has nothing to do with the licensed and accredited ND's in the states. The FDA has even less to do with medicine except they control food, drugs and supplements... Also, I saw that you tagged my school, NCNM as unaccredited. It many be a simple oversight, but truly a mistake. Please check your resources before making such edits. --Travisthurston 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The supposed "cures" aren't proved. Making claims such as being against immunization is not based on scientific evidence (double-blinded tests). Thus, without proof the claims are questionable. Anymore comments like this should be made on the talk pages of relevant article for more editors to see and comment. Arbustoo 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it that a crusader like you has repeatedly allowed the Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College to be removed seeing it is not accredited by UGC India, NAAC India, and that is is absent from the UNESCO list. The name itself shows that it is not an accrediting agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.231.136 (talk • contribs)

I noticed that you added the Esalen Institute to the list of unaccredited institutions of higher learning , and I'm wondering why. I have provisionally removed it pending your answer because Esalen does not seem to offer degree programs at all, and the continuing-education programs they host seem to be accredited by all the right people (the American Psychological Association , the California Board of Registered Nursing, etc. ). Let me know if I've missed something major here. --Dynaflow babble 07:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the United States Department of Education, it is not accredited. 1) The California Board of Registered Nursing is a governmental agency, it is not an accreditor. Accreditors are private organizations. 2) While it might appear on the APA's "sponsor" list, it does not appear on the APA accreditation lists (1), lists (2) lists(3) (or again see the USDE database). Please provide a link that says it is ACCREDITED. Arbustoo 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid running parallel conversations, I've responded at, and watchlisted, the Talk page. --Dynaflow babble 19:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do, is everything ok? JoshuaZ 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything's fine, but I can spend my time more productively elsewhere. Arbustoo 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AnEncyclopediaofClaims.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ConjuringRandibook.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Faithhealers.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Flimflam.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Even though we were on the opposite side of the debate, you proved your point through your diligent, persistent, and ultimately good debate practices! - NDCompuGeek 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also hope you don't leave the project - Wikipedia (and Wikia in general) needs all the good authors and editors they can find, and after my little head-butting incident with you, I am firmly of the opinion that you are definitely an excellent editor!!! - NDCompuGeek 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Magicofgeller.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Secrets of the PsychicsVideo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:The Mask of Nostradamus.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Thank you. --Dynaflow babble 04:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just on the off chance that you're looking in, your comments are invited and welcome. Ravenswing 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Thetruthuri.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:WeAreTheirHeaven.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it appears you were involved in the deletion of the article on the band 'Dryve'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dryve_%28second_nomination%29

I was a founding member of this band and would occasionally add current information to the page. It seems the two main points of contention were first, the involvement of a banned wikiuser named Jason Gastrich, and second, is the article's information is unverifiable. I would like to request the article be reinstated on the following grounds-

I can fully verify any and all of the information in the article.

There is sufficient verifiable information to meet the WP/music requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.

As far as this Jason Gastrich character goes, I do vaguely remember him frequenting the Dryve performances in San Diego and I do believe he briefly played with former Dryve bass player Michael Pratschner after Dryve had disbanded. If he in fact did start the page as one admin claimed, his personal character deficits do not negate the validity of the subject matter of which I looked over quite a bit to insure it's accuracy.

Please contact me if you would like more information.

Keith Andrew Kickstar1@hotmail.com--Kickstar1 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:MagicworldofRandi.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ConjuringRandibook.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:JREFLogo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. 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 description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Global Publishing Services, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Global Publishing Services is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Global Publishing Services, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JayLeno&DavidWilley.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Ellie Murdoch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you're no longer using this puppet account Paul. Dwain (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Evangelical Times, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It is in the way of an Article for Creation move.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 16:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:National Association of Schools of Music, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 05:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:New England Association of Schools and Colleges, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 06:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Southern Center for Human Rights requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.schr.org/about/accomplishments. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Alternative Medicine Research Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable organisation lacking independent sourcing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2006 California's 4th congressional district election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 California's 4th congressional district election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2006 Minnesota's 6th congressional district election, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Minnesota's 6th congressional district election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Golden State School of Theology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden State School of Theology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SL93 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hyles etc.

Your removal of Disputed Tag

Minor edits

MfD nomination of Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1

U of N Accreditation

Indiana Christian University

Peter Ruckman

Email

Adminship

Kennedy-Western University

Kennedy-Western article

Arbitration Committee Referral

Buxton University

History of diploma mills

Thanks

Smith Wigglesworth article

"Arbusto"?

Arbustoo's Edit Summary

warning

Image copyright problem with Image:Patriotuniversity.JPG

Arbusto, Don't Censor My Topics!

User talk:JJay and WP:AN/I

Stay calm.

Bob Cornuke

One for a bit of detective work

Canbourne University

Wikipedia:Civility

A couple of issues

Kennedy Western Private Licensed

Preying from the Pulpit is now an article for deletion

Jesus as source of A Course In Miracles

Alice Barnham

Paul Powell

Diploma mills

Blnguyen's RfA

Vince Foster

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

Diploma mills

Thanks for your vote

Ref conversion

PMRC

striking votes by others

205.157.110.11

John D. Hannah

American

Email

St. Clements University

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

biography

Offended

Re&nbsp;: B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Email

Swen Nater

Christ's Church Cathedral, Hamilton and Donald M. Kendrick

Meta and Aphaia

Stalking

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Nishkid64's RfA thanks

George Allen

What precisely is the issue?

Re: Non consensus

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 2

Megatrend University

Re: 9 warnings later

Hovind

Preston

What did I do? huh?

Do you read edit summaries&nbsp;?

Diane Farrell

George Gollin

Ginny Brown-Waite

Your message

The Final Jihad edit

Hello, again

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Geneva Theological Seminary

Vandalism?

Andrew Jackson Jihad

Barnstar

SPA

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paranormal

Re : B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Do you read edit summaries ?

Fair use rationale for File:JayLeno&DavidWilley.jpg