Jump to content

User talk:Iconoclast.horizon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iconoclast.horizon (talk | contribs) at 08:34, 27 August 2012 (Remove info/Talkback comment to Hobit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spurious article

Please take a look at my comments on Talk:Shirdi Sai Baba movement and contribute your thoughts thereof. Thanks, Ekantik talk 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Freemasons

Thanks for your useful and, quite frankly, welcome edits to List of Freemasons. It would be nice, though, if you could add something to the Edit Summary as it helps prevent your edits from being assumed to be spam. And thanks again. Your work is appreciated. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will be sure to leave proper Edit Summary notations. Thanx.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of Freemasons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genesis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

David R. Hawkins

I have better things to write about than Hawkins. He may be notable enough for an article, I really don't know, but a lot of the things you put on my page don't help with WP:NOTE, from his mail order PhD to the " Physicians Recognition Award" which isn't a big deal at all. I don't know why you don't want to put the time in to find out what might meet our criteria and use that in your userpace, but if you don't, I can't see why you'd expect me to. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that the knighthood might help, but avoid all the trivia, don't overload it. Stick to only the things that are going to clearly meet our criteria at WP:PEOPLE, etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have little interest in the man, but I can clearly see that he is notable. That is my argument to your objection. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and I have far better things to do as well than write about the man, but he has clearly met the notability requirements for BLP, for which you have placed in notes as for admin reasoning for deletion. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Iconoclast.horizon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
LadyofShalott 01:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you have no doubt noted, the article has been deleted. I personally find your last edit to the AfD page, which you in a grossly misleading and frankly clearly dishonest way described as correcting typo here indicates rather clearly that regarding this particular subject you as an individual are apparently not willing to act in accord with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As you also no doubt noted, the article has been locked and recreation at that page has been prevented. It is actually quite simple. All you would have to do to have the article recreated is, perhaps for the first time, clearly establish that the subject meets notability standards. I also should note that I have the [[David Hawkins][ page on my watchlist now. If, for whatever reason, I find that there is an attempt to create the page under another name without clearly meeting WP:BURDEN, I will have to consider perhaps seeking some form of disciplinary sanctions. Also, I think you should know I have contacted a wikipedia editor very fluent in German regarding the German-language article. If you considered its existence as being the means of establishing the notability of the subject, I think we will probably find, unless sources are added there, that it may well be deleted too. Unfortunately, as you said, it is hard to establish this individual's notability. That is not, and never will be, grounds for not meeting WP:BURDEN and notability requirements. John Carter (talk 01:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Carter, in response to your above post: "frankly" I personally find your tone and threats of disciplinary action "grossly" offensive in this context; not to mention your not so subtle implications that I might 'attempt to re-create a similar article under another name' and further suggestions of lack of integrity. On most of my short edits, I address "clarification" or "typo". Try to start using some WP:Good Faith in such questionable cases. In this case it should have read "clarify" as you can see that was what was happening in regards to AfD communications in response to Melanie's remarks. You are aware, hopefully as an Admin, that this is an open forum for all to see? Strange I would have to mention these simple basic facts to you. ALSO, you seem to have missed the majority of the issues regarding this article, you keep suggesting and directing me to recreate the article again, by your overuse in referencing me in your above rather dictatorial rant; when I do not have any interest in putting further work nor subjecting other editors to further headache regarding the ongoing issues with this article. An attempt was made to establish the article after I discovered it had once existed and to keep English Wikipedia informed about the dealings of Dr. Hawkins and that effort failed. Your admitted conduct here in contacting German Wikipedia is also rather unethical for an Admin and seems somewhat done more out of spite, and could be construed to some degree as inappropriate WP:Canvassing with intent to influence a given outcome of content, even across language projects. I also do not really see why you 'think that I should know that you have contacted a very fluent German Wikipedian', its is not your place to tell me that information here nor do I care and is simply inappropriate posturing on your part, especially from an admin. You feel free to watch that David R. Hawkins like a hawk but keep yourself "in check". This article has been hashed out since nearly the time I came onboard with Wikipedia in 2004, and has been argued over far too long as I found out once it was reinstated. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied error over in your reference

Good morning. I see that recently you made quite a few additions to List of Freemasons. I have checked two of these (as they are two people with whom I am familiar) and have found your references to be incorrect in both cases. Firstly, Thomas Taylour, Earl of Bective; and secondly, Annie Besant. In both cases you cite the book "History of the Lodge of Assistance 1899-2002", but that book makes no reference to either of these people. (As it happens, I am the author of the book, and have several copies on my bookshelf.) The book, specifically at page 24 (which you quote), does give a reference for the masonic activity of Geoffrey Taylour, 4th Marquess of Headfort, who was the half-brother of Thomas Taylour, Earl of Bective. He had no connection (as far as I am aware) with Annie Besant. I haven't removed either of your entries, as they WERE both Freemasons, but you will need to provide correct references for them both. Thank you. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Timothy. I will double check those two. It is most likely just a copy error on my part. My primary effort over the weekend was to link the articles to this page and a Masonic mention and cites within those articles, and in addition get them linked to the category:freemasons. (With as little fuss from those page monitors as possible.) I had little intention of adding more to this page but could help but add a few as I went along. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not really sure of the use of category:freemasons, if that was still suppose to be moving forward but I went ahead and added a hundred or so to page articles themselves simply to "get the foot in the door" for a Masonic mention within the body text of the article. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - and yes, I'm sure they were just copy errors (easily done), as I realise that your basic facts are correct. Many thanks for your work! Timothy Titus Talk To TT 11:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins

I agree that he is notorious, but until someone undertakes the job of writing a reasonable article about him clearly stating that he is a kook or a snake oil peddler (basing on good sources), the article will be nothing but a promotion of his kookery, and as such it has no place in wikipedia. Of course, page deletion is a sloppy and lazy solution, but <sigh> there are so many kookery around, and we cannot write critical articlers about every fortune-teller who may easily spam media to amounts unsurmountable. I did try to find somethig usable (i.e., critical) about they guy, but gave up after 4 minutes of web surfing. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Is this yours? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been attempted on several occasion in various non-bias ways. It gets hacked down and then the carcass gets deleted. There is plenty of criticism out there about the man and many reviews of him both good and bad. I try not to judge his "kookery" but I disagree with you regarding that not being a place for it on wikipedia. Promotion of it is one thing, giving clear non-bia awareness is.

This has been brought up before in a variety of wiki forums:

No I am afraid that calendar is not mine nor anything I am aware of. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cite lots of wikis. The question is can you cite any reliable sources about the man? Also, different Wikipedias have different standards of inclusion. He may meet the German WP's standards (or not, I don't know), but his inclusion there bears little relationship to whether he meets our standards. LadyofShalott 01:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than wikis listed here. Other languages wikis may not be exact to English wiki but it does show that he is KNOWN in other places outside of the US and his own native language source well-enough be to be provided an article. I don't have George Washington's birth certificate either nor ever have I seen it but we have his birthdate up there (which was actually brought up with Hawkin's at one point that his birth certificate wasn't known or verifiable). This article's deletion simply smacks of more than a little bias and that is really the issue here. People should be allowed to see both the bad and the good about what he promotes, plain and simple, and Wiki is the best collective for that type of delivery. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD edit

I've restored it as you say that you did this during the closure and didn't know that the closure had taken place when you saved it. Seems a reasonable explanation. I also deleted the article talk page you restored as we don't have orphan talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable error, regardless of the hours of lag from then until now. And I assumed that you, most likely, would remove the Talk Page. I was advised it was not worth my time at this juncture to pursue DVR, which I was in the process of taking place. Too many things happening at once but I have decided to let it be and let others deal with the good Dr. and all of his issues. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gracy Title Company for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gracy Title Company 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/Gracy Title Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article.. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your targeting of this article is simply an "act of retribution" for reprimanded you about your comments on my User Page and uncalled for this inappropriate behavior. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to be honest with you. Your comment above is a rather clearly irrational and unfounded statement, which has no clear basis in fact. Your claim that the nomination of this article for deletion is "harrasment" is in no way warranted by the reality of the situation. Please take this posting as a clear and unambiguous request that you refrain from any further editing of my user talk page. If you can show that the article in question qualifies for inclusion, by all means to do. I have looked in the databanks available to me, and I find no reason to believe that it does. Therefore, I am perfectly justified in requesting that the content adhere to policies and guidelines. Your frankly irrational and unsupported allegation that my looking to see whether an editor who has to my knowledge created at least one article which does not meet notability may have also created others with the same problems is in fact perfectly acceptable as per guidelines. In fact, one could reasonably say that, if one believes that someone has recently made one mistake, he may also have made others. Also, honestly, given the comparatively little material on your user talk page, and the frequency of discussion of this article here, that article rather stood out. So please refrain from making any further comments on my user talk page, particularly if they involve such poorly founded allegations. I honestly believe, if you think the content does meet notability requirements, that your time would be better spent in demonstrating that than in making aspersions on others, such as your now-deleted comments on my user talk page. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, I am taking this for what it is and not what you wish it to be seen as here, a mask you are trying to hide behind "by the guidelines". I may not have a written statement from you and a link to a website stating that you are targeting, but you are targeting me and that is clearly observable. I am asking you to "leave me alone" and stop singling me out for this kind of harassment simply because you didn't like what I had to respond to your post with. Your comments and actions are NOT APPROPRIATE. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to go beyond what was proper yesterday with the unprovoked and unwarranted threats over actions that had not taken place. That is what is "frankly" irrational behavior from an administrator. Threatening disciplinary sanctions for an action the administrator implies might take place? Poor judgment on your part. Nonetheless, I have never retitled an article that was deleted to have it re-created. Now you are choosing to target and single out, that is out of line. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologetic Post Removed From UserPage JohnCarter

John Carter talk: Though I may disagree with the way that you chose to address me, my apologies for my assertiveness in response to your comments on my UserPage from yesterday. I was quite offended by the assertions you made implying deliberate dishonesty which was not the case; nor would I have recreated the article through a dishonest method, which I also took personal offense at. I admittedly took offense at several things you implied and your means of overly-expressed verbiage at me. I do not feel they were warranted nor do I agree with your methodology and tone, but that is my issue to be more clear over in the future. It is obvious you have taken offense at me as well, yet I feel it is appropriate to bid apology when such instances arise, so I am taking a moment to do so. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

This is a warning. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins is not a sandbox you can use to attempt to build an article. Should you continue to indulge in such behavior, I will have no choice but to request the page be protected and/or seek some form of sanctions against you. Please stop now. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I again, I request that you please "'deescalate your abrasive tone"' with me. The information should be archived other than my sandbox, I was not aware one could not continue discussion on a Talk Page of an AfD, as I see it in places, and other editors were involved. Message received. Thank you. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I again repeat, I am not attempting building an article, and have no intention to, but that has been stated repeatedly to which you seem somewhat to be denying. This article is bound to be addressed again in the future and information should be archived somewhere other than a sandbox. Feel free to take the information and sandbox it personally as you each see fit. Sincerely. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I clearly stated, I was not aware of a Wikipedia Policy prohibiting further discussion on an AfD Talk Page, it was not my intention to violate such policy. As I also stated, I am not intending to write the article. Several editors contributed and since this notability has been difficult to pin down, taken collectively it is apparent to at least me that he meets notability; someone else can figure out how to put that together for your consensus. I have this data in my own files but do not wish to sandbox it. Thanks Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins#Possible Source Connections for future Article is an attempt to resurface the article. Please strike through such content so as to avoid being reported for wp:de#Rejects or ignores community input,WP:REHASH and other violations that Carter may hold against you. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 02:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Jason, I agree. It was not my intention to have Carter to continue to have things to hold against me; thanks for your suggestion. I appreciate your courteousness in the matter. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had all of this semi-spurious information up yesterday from yesterday's AfD discussion and wished to 'dispose' of it without seeing it entirely go to waste if the notability issue came up again on Hawkin's. I really see more immediate "bad faith" than "good" here which leads these discussions down negative roads. Regardless, it was not intentional here. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. The involved wiki community appreciates it.   — Jasonasosa 02:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Carter, again I am sincerely requesting no further presumption regarding my edits. Try a different, more WP:Civil approach. Try asking first, you seem to have forgotten how to do that. And I am requesting this out of sincerity. You're an admin here, I wouldn't presume to do your job; do not assume my intentions based on others past motivations, nor that I have even half of all of the Wikipedia policies committed to memory. There was no such intention to "indulge in such behavior". In other words "relax". Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTE. I am amazed I would have to tell someone who purports to be a professional researcher to look over the relevant policies and guidelines, but, then, I was amazed to find out someone who purports to be a professional researcher would produce content which is found to violate copyrights, considering that at the university libraries I frequent there are numerous fliers regarding fair use and copyright violations. And speaking for myself the people in my classes were informed about such things in junior high school. I would have assumed most competent researchers would have at least made a token effort to understand the policies and guidelines of this site before engaging in editing. In fact, I know of even a few non-professionals who specifically said they read through policies and guidelines before they created an account here. But, then, some people are much more impressed by themselves than others are. Basically, all you need to see is in the notability guidelines. Multiple significant discussions in independent reliable sources is what is sought. The rules here are basically no different from the rules of research in comparatively early levels of school. You find the people who are most qualified to express opinions, experts of some sort, like those in academic or professional journals, find what they say about the subject, and place the greatest emphasis on that. The fact that a small, select number of people who have little if any knowledge of a subject are impressed by a book honestly does little if anything to establish notability.
By the way, given the fact that your other article facing deletion is itself based on only one reliable source as per WP:RS, it is virtually certain for deletion as well, unless you can find non-local sources which cover it to any extent. Also, in general, the rather obvious hysterics you displayed during and after the Hawkins deletion very, very much call into question whether the matter of bias in your case. Honestly, I would think anyone who actually has had a background in research would have noticed the significant gaps in even the basic coverage of some major topics which still exist, and gone to correct some of them first. But, then, the actions of this purported researcher have been rather surprising from the beginning.
Now, I have much more significant things to do. User:John Carter/Religion articles and its subpages are one list of things covered in basic reference works on the topics of Africa and the African diaspora, religion and mythology, and you will see how many redlinks they still contain. Pardon me for saying, but I do think one of the most ridiculous requests I have ever had was to advise someone who claims to be a good researcher of matters of how to engage in the kind of basic research even many kids know how to do. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One is entitled to their opinion, from his particular point of view here on Wikipedia. The author in question is notable in a larger context than this source and I have specifically sought assistance from "other" users in order to maintain a healthier editing environment here other than that persistently promulgated by the postings over the last week; it would appear that the primary compulsion and pattern of involvement in all correspondence from the above, has been of persistent demeaning of my character, integrity, honesty and motivation. I personally see no call of the continued over-use of abusive negative etiquette. Quite specifically, your personal opinion is not being requested. Good luck in the significant editing work today. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability with Hawkins was shown and sourced, by the contributors of the previous article, myself and other involved editors, and admins agreed a month ago that those sources were reliable. Regardless of current "consensus" at the time the article went to AfD, the author is properly recognized in accordance with general notability guidelines here and by overall acceptance outside of Wikipedia. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not proprietary, they are community articles and your phrase "your other article" implies that I wrote and created both articles; let me clarify, I did not write either article. I restored one article that had already existed and assisted in edits and trimming of an article in process on another, leading to its creation. Continued beratement of character, writing, sourcing and editing is based merely on the observation from your online perspective and presumptions and rather negative bias, since none are representative of "my professional work" with those articles. But your repeated disrespect for proper etiquette policy here is more than clear. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Points of Notability

Dr. Hawkins is a questionable and rather contentious character, particularly when contrasted with his contemporaries in the area of spirituality/pseudoscience. Personally, I do not promote nor standby the majority of the volume of his lifework, save possibly some clear points in his primary seminal work Power vs Force. This outside article is a good comparison of his less than postive issues in the fields he lectures and writes in today. http://pathstoknowledge.com/1022/a-critique-of-david-r-hawkins-and-kinesiology/. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article of a nice fellow I found here, a local New Zealand homeless man, sadly just recently deceased, Ben Hana seems less notable than the good Dr. Hawkins. I was curious if there may be some bias "against" Dr. Hawkins by some involved Wikipedians based on various opinions of his character and his work, not simply some subjective WP concerns. Also, the one umbrella web source promoting stories about Hana seems vaguely indulgent of making a character of a local itinerant man for web-copy, if nothing more. I should see if that's actually the consensus. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDITING: Advice to new Wikipedia members engaging the Wikipedia editing process

First, don’t try to pull one over on other users, with fluff articles and edits, it’s all been done before and there are some very knowledge and fastidious people here who will happily put a stop to that and have fun doing it. Things like, writing an article about your favorite local band because you are certain they will eventually become famous or about yourself for the same reason. These things should always be put into perspective when preparing articles and making contextual edits.

Second, in your work, always be diligent with your edits and be alert to abusive users, “violation-ists” and “deletion-ists” who may dedicate themselves in large part to only taking issue with you and your edits wherever they possibly can; this is common place here among overly detailed-type people that are regular users and things can sometimes get bogged down in some rather subjective and sometimes ambiguous overlapping concepts of bureaucratic policy, in the name of “improving Wikipedia”. But don’t let that discourage you. It’s Wikipedia not the World, and don’t let it take over your life! Just exercise your wit and learn together with them.

Third, do your best not to be harsh with people here having their Wikipedia experiences, especially those engaged in specialized topics and subject areas. One thing you should learn right away, there are established patterns here, and right or wrong, they are fixed in many ways that you may not agree with or they do not make sense in a “real-world” concept of documented information, and there is usually some policy that tries to pertain to that. This is both an asset in some areas of Wikipedia and it can be one of its more fundamental flaws as well. It's a case-by-case basis here, and involved users do the best they can but outcomes don’t always apply equally between articles, that is why it is considered a democratized consensus of information, “wikipedic” not encyclopedic. Consensus isn’t always sensical and its best to remember that for your Wikipedia experience!

More fun things to come…!

Have you considered...

Have you considered that the horse is well and truly dead? LadyofShalott 19:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have conceded it to be unworthy death indeed. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...but being dead, it doesn't excuse those who killed it from being wrong, treating others with disdain and generally acting like asses.....  :-) --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is... from my perspective (which is that I don't care about a Hawkins article's existence or not), you appear to be engaged in a crusade, but without providing the requisite sources needed to demonstrate notability. You keep saying he's notable, but I'm not seeing it in the sources that have been provided, and clearly the other people involved in the AfD, including the closing admin, didn't see it either. That's why I bring up WP:STICK. It would be reasonable to continue this after appropriate sources are found, but I don't see the point in what you are doing now. LadyofShalott 19:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And from this point of view, some editors, well one admin has taken up the club to beat the wrong horse... The article had sources which a previous admin and editors agreed upon, and though I can't go back and look, and I believe you even felt that was the case after the article was re-created. From where I stand, the crusade is now against me and not the just the currently dead article. There seems to be a lot of pointing at me in the issue of sources on that article; I didn't actually attempt to source it, if one would have bother to go back and check. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you have my take on that wrong. What I said was that it was not completely unsourced, and therefore, I didn't think there was a policy-based reason not to reinstate the article when you contested the prod. I did not think the sourcing looked good at all, and said so, advising you that AfD was likely without better sources. I know you haven't tried to source the article, which is much to my point - you are arguing an article should exist, but you aren't giving proper sources for it to do so. LadyofShalott 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to a point, I believe a few days after the article was reinstated and edit by myself, Jason, another admin and I believe another editor, that I was told by the admin that the sources that remained met suitable guidelines. Other editors assisted in that process at that time. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iconoclast, what you are saying is irrelevant, because everything was already hashed out on the consensus page. If there was issue, it should have been brought up there and if it was, it was rescinded. You've been overruled. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iconoclast.horizon, Wikipedia:Deletion review might offer you an opportunity to dispute the deleted article in a more wiki-fashionable sense. Please review this page and see if it works for you so that you do not feel that the wiki-world is against you. It might offer you a last stand and at least allow you to use all viable options wikipedia has to offer. Before you proceed with this, make sure that you are familiar with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jason. Since this has been a bit of contention on several points of what is reliable and what is notable, I am getting a consensus of other wiki-editors familiar with books and bios of spiritual-psuedo-science authors and their works. I don't intend to initiate another article and will just forward the information to someone else to create one if they see fi to do so. I am simply learning the finer points of what is an "acceptable consensus" regarding these issues. It's merely an exercise to see what is right. Dead horse or not! --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the Zombified Horse

In fact, I pose this question to you both, and whomever: Though as Lady states, she is not seeing the information in the sources that were previously provided, which is an honest opinion to hold in this circumstance, I should add, does his level of "recognized notability" outside of Wikipedia indicate that sources agreeable to Wikipedia policy and opinion could be partially subjective here? Several independent sources both for and against him were pulled at various times, and possibly the mention of notable endorsements would lend credence to such notability. Are there 'less notable' people here with biographies that are sourced yet merely not notable? --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to address the last question at this point. Yes, I'm quite sure there are biographies that are sourced (to low quality sources) but do not meet our standards of notability. If you find them, first doing WP:BEFORE, then take them to AfD. LadyofShalott 20:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do and have, always when engaged here on Wikipedia. But it is the more difficult questions I am attempting to find answers for. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had the opportunity to edit the article before opting for its deletion, as I had with Prema Sai Baba. At the time of my editing, there were no wp:reliable references to work with and only one questionable Skeptic weblink to barely work with. And that is just the bottom line. If someone before my editing had removed valid references, it should have been contested at that time and posted on the talk page. However, no such proceedings took place. So its your word against consensus at this point. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree. I wasn't monitoring the article nor did I care to. I was surprised though, to see that you had sent it to AfD and I wasn't notified. I just caught it near AfD closure. I don't recall the edits/sources from the first of July --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though, I personally have no interest in writing an article, I may turn the collected information over for an article to be eventually re-written, suggesting they use this as a basic source template David R. Hawkins-Barbara Walters Show Bios, if it were to be a consensus among those editors, Where would that, supposed new article, need to go first to be submitted? Suggestions? Its the principal of the thing. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see these things were mentioned and made reference to in the deleted AfD article, but does something like this give rise to notability, or I am still confused?
The audio is Oprah interviewing Hawkins for about half an hour about his book and works. The mention was made in the the now deleted article. As was his other TV appearances about his work. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Henceforth, an editor shall not interpret the audio of the interview to create a wiki-article. You would either need to obtain a published documented version of the interview, or obtain a published recap of the interview in order to create a new article. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent that you are not familiar with wikipedia guidelines. I am tired of this banter. Until you familiarize yourself in depth with WP:NOTE and WP:RELIABLE with every letter of wiki law, I am discontinuing communication with you. Consider this my last word of note to you until further notice. Thanks and goodbye.   — Jasonasosa 23:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to keep my communications with the current engaged wiki-users, on my own talk page just as I have done, I am just posting things on my talk, it would appear. Too bad neutral ground is not easily held, when what is so obvious is ignored. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wiki letter of the Law"...hmmm, policy is not "law", that is delusion here. It is more likely that this is about someone pointing broader issues out in context, something that no one here wishes to be made aware of. And I am sorry that it is making "your eyes bleed like the stigmata", but as I do seem to recall, it just might have been you who initiated the process and had it sent it to AfD after editing it down; it could have just remained an article to improve, and improved. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From where I stand, it appears some people are over-confident of their application and interpretation of the guidelines. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRVE Clearly states; "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet..." if contested "..if it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.". --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Talkback

Hello, Iconoclast.horizon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley Schillaci.
Message added 04:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Goodvac (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"delete per nom"

Hi, I've noticed you've had a rash of delete per nom comments at AfD, some of which don't make a lot of sense given the context (for example they don't address any of the keep issues raised). This seems a bit out of character for you from what I can tell. Just thought I'd ask you to provide a bit more detail at AfD. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will check back over the deletes I suggested, there was only one that I can recall as being even vaguely arguable. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iconoclast.horizon&oldid=509391339"