Welcome!
Hello, Anacapa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme))
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
-- Paul foord 02:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I am engaged in an edit war with people who IMO commit POV by ommission, who state falsehoods as facts, who refuse to recognize their POV and who make statements with no sources. I also face blatant character assassination of the history pages which I have been calling as such with invitations use facts and thoughts instead. These people are Mennonite, a church of secretive Anapbaptists who can get away with this because most people do not have the knowledge to balance their biases. I grew up inside and later outside their control so I know how to detect their deceptions, patent falsehoods and ommisions with relative ease here. I also have a hard science background so I am quite comfortable facing fact with fact in an objective fashion. However, all they do is rv with no alternatives and call me 'obsessed' etc. I inserted a NPOV and a fact check on the Excommunication section related to Mennonites. Note, I have sound causes to hate some Mennonite conduct (shunning) and to hate some aspects of Mennonite theology/dogma, but I do not hate Mennonites as people or these particular editors as people, I just hate how they squelch all other points of view especially POV's from people they choose to excommunicate (such as my relatives). Please suggest ways I can succeed here at attaining a complete NPOV article with facts as sources and contain/eliminate this edit war.
Thanks Anacapa 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The article/section now in question is Excommunication/Amish and Mennonite. There have been issues in the main article Mennonite (see talk page which I was too blunt on) and I expect more there because this entire main Mennonite article is packed with self-serving all positive POV and much POV by ommission too. It does not reflect reputable secular histories of these people very well. I also expect possible issues with Shunning and Anapbaptist/Mennonite theological articles later as I begin to associate statements such as 'the one true church' and 'abominable' people who 'nothing can grow from except abominable things' to Tolitarian or 'Mind Control' articles. Thanks for the instant response!
Note the Mennonite talk/history pages contain a fair sample (beginning 11/05) of the kinds of character assassinations I faced there (before I became a wikipedian) and what I did to call such tactics and welcome facts rather than emotional assaults back. I will note that these tactics are similar in form to what about 5 of my closest relatives also have been enduring for decades in orthodox Mennonite shunning situations. This is what I expected to and I cannot succeed against a secretive group that can easily overwhelm me with all-against-one edit wars and totalitarian tactics. To me, the church POV is no more or less valid than a single excommunicants POV. For centuries now, the voices of those who the church shunned have been silenced allowing the church to commit terrible pyschological torture and appear 'nice' too. To me wikipedia is one place to begin to shed a little light on this topic. That said, there IS much that IS good and nice about how Mennonites do relate in other situations that also needs to be studied here too. Anacapa 04:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Commander Keane, Thanks for your help. You made many good points here. I want you to know I did not/will not lose my temper against mere rudeness. However, there has to be some control of this (his and no doubt his perception of my) rudeness here to complete these articles in NPOV. Today's SF Chronicle article How Google Censors It's Chinese Portal shows what I am up against here. The are many non-smiling Mennonites whose stories would never be seen if the official Mennonites could get away with similar forms of totatilaritian censoreship here on Wikipedia. I will use your suggestions above although I might need a little assistance with how. I know better than to assume good faith here since I can READ the theological confessions on which these people base their faith (See Main Mennonite article and the original confessions). That said I can separate people from their dogmas and I mean no personal offense to rbj or any other person here. However, I do becomed offended by false, hateful, or biased statements. I have the dubious priviledge of having been raised inside Mennonite control so I can see and call things here that are invisible to non-Mennonites. These people are quite secretive and often use Mennonite-related 'social scientists' to write about and speak for them in POSITIVE POV to the mass media. This is what I want to balance here. I am not, I repeat NOT, obsessed with showing all Mennonites to be terrible people. I am focused on hateful theologies, terrible totalitarian tactics and false forms of mind control in Mennonites churches, from extreme to mild.
Here is how I ask you to help me/us in what is, indeed, a 'tricky', situation. I added and rbj added comments on the discussion page. Would you review those from a NPOV with no axe to grind and call anything ugly or inppropriate you see there in both our statements? I am also going to move forward with meticulously documented edits. Will you review my edits for fact/sources and tone to make sure I do not in any way demean or insult rbj, as a person, or use unsourced POV to push my agenda? Will you also review (or ask rbj's 'Commander' to) review his edit comments to eliminate his personal character assassinations, personal innuendos and false, slanderous comments about his view of my motivations/'condition'. Will you ask him to stick to the point with sourced statements and reason-able facts and recognize the difference between Church POV and other POV's. Please glance at the External links in Shunning to see other POV's including one feminist's POV about orthodox Mennonites. I am trying to include facts here like 'A dress code was required of all female church members and those who departed from the orthodox style were shunned and exiled from the community.' "She was ill, spiritually ill. She was expelled for having 'foreign spirits'. We could all see it in her behavior and dress: she was just out of ('our', added by me) control"
Will you also suggest ways to include all POV's (Church and Non-church) in these Mennonite related articles? I was successful at adding a 'loaded' paragraph on the Feminism page with relative ease and only minor edit warring because they do have a place for criticism of feminism on their article and because they do welcome sourced material that differs from their POV there.
Google Scholar shows about 80? articles on Mennonite/shunning, yet I see almost no genuine study about shunning or Mennonite social control in the Main Mennonite article. This is blatant POV by ommission. I need your backing to help complete a balanced NPOV study of Mennonites in Excommunication, Shunning, in the Main Mennonite article.
Please suggest/comment. I welcome, ALL focused feedback on my conduct here too. I am doing what I can to follow Wiki protocols here.
Anacapa 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Anacapa, most people create or edit articles, and lots of people just use the encyclopedia. There are a number of communities and informal groups. You can see what editors interests and activity by looking up their contributions at: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree (I find this ability a bit daunting!)
There are a range of other activities - meetups, collaborative projects, etc - the community portal has some pointers. -- Paul foord 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Anacapa, the user page is where you introduce yourself - i.e., your public profile. Your talk page where you and others conduct dialogue (about anything). -- Paul foord 11:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Say, a few tips. If possible, can you condense all your edits into one as much as possible, I keep getting edit conflicts when I try to edit the article. Secondly, try not to insert adjectives like "bestial" or "poisonous" in there, perhaps you could say that is the view of Western culture, but certainly is not a concrete view shared by all peoples. Word the statements so that it is compatible with other views (ie. view A says this, view B says that, rather than just stating both views as uncontested fact, otherwise the article will contradict itself). Just a suggestion. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 29% for major edits and 14% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 7 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)
This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess you wanted me to take a look at the merge idea. I have no knowledge in the area, but the merge isn't going ahead so I think that's ok. Your latest comment seems to put the pressure on others to provide rebuttle sources. However, make sure you provide sources yourself when you introduce new ideas.--Commander Keane 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You've hit the "save" button a lot today on the Mennonite article. Yeah, not many words, but they seem to be well-chosen. So many people confuse "typing" with "writing" and don't realize that research and GOOD writing is hard work. I seem to be running into a lot of them lately; it's nice when I happen across your work, instead. ClairSamoht 04:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your offer to assist with Anapabaptists/Mennonite facts/data. Could we begin with just getting the Population section complete and somewhat representative of the data? What would help me is a figure for the 2003 total US Mennonites. Also do you have a breakdown on how many US Mennonites belong to what conferences (versus automonous churches) so we can eliminate opinion based arguments here? I am going to try to discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages so no one feels blindsided...so please source these there or on a link. Also I welcome your sourced edits to clean up statements that may be false so long as we keep moving toward a more specific and complete picture there. Maybe with more facts we will be able to associate specific practices with specific groups so no ONE group feels unfairly steoreotyped through association with other groups. Anacapa 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You've made 15 edits on this article since the last time I looked at it; I can't possibly go through them all right now. You asked for discussion on the talk page before any reversions of your edits, but then you kept on editing even though others had not had a chance to participate in the discussion. I respectfully request that you refrain from editing this article until we've had 1-2 days to discuss the use of the term "gender feminism" and other issues on the talk page, to give time for users other than you and I to participate in the discussion (one other user has weighed in already, but since you've continued editing, it will be hard to rewrite the article to reflect any consensus that gets achieved). I will refrain from editing it, as well. Catamorphism 08:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your assumptions about my gender that appear to be implicit in your accusation of "relational aggression". I'm holding off on all other commentary in the hopes that others will comment on Talk:Feminism. Catamorphism 00:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Forget it. Your comments, both on my talk page and on Talk:Feminism, are so long-winded that it's just not worth my time to be involved in this particular dispute. Radgeek has handled this well and I hope he and others will be able to reach some sort of consensus with you. I note that if you wish to persuade others, you won't find much sympathy when you compare them to Stalinists and mention at every opportunity how horrible they are for not being members of the cult of Camille Paglia. Catamorphism 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Since I've disclaimed any further involvement with the article during the period in which you are editing, you're free to edit as you like. You'll have to work it out with other editors who are continuing to watch the article. Catamorphism 05:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi User:Anacapa, I'm wondering if you can help me. Are you the user who identifies themselves as (drop in editor) on gender studies pages?[1][2][[3]An inquiry into the (drop in editor) has led me to believe you are. A community noticeboard discussion was started about this. If you want to respond to this please do so. If you think you need advice (or advocacy) asked an admin for help. If I'm wrong I do apologise for bothering you--Cailil talk 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please respect Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. I have confirmed reports of serious problems coming from this account. DurovaCharge! 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Rape, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I added a statement that reflected the following [4] and tried to clean up the incorrect reverse sexist statements about rape. This is merely being bold in an article that panders to gender-feminist pov. Anacapa 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be selectively deleting existing material, and adding unsourced material, original research, personal opinions, and mis-characterized references with the intention of introducing anti-feminist bias into articles. Replacing one perceived bias with the opposite bias is not allowed.
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to rape, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This account has been blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat. DurovaCharge! 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to present your side of this matter you may post to this talk page while the discussion is ongoing. I have notified two other editors of that thread, Jehochman and Cailil since they were both involved in the investigation. For the sake of fairness, if you know of editors who may be sympathetic to your position and you wish them to be notified, please post their usernames here and someone will contact them (I'll do it tomorrow if no one gets to that before me). If you wish you can also join the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program while blocked by posting a template to your user space. Formal mentorship could have a positive impact on the outcome of that discussion. DurovaCharge! 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference at misandry, if indeed is was you who provided it. Reliable sources are very helpful for Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
((helpme))
I need to talk to arbitors who know how to handle wikipedia's 'hive mind' abuses. Please respond if there is anyone within Wikipedia who cares about free speech and due process. Anacapa (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
((helpme))
Please provide a knowledgeable and THOUGHT-FULL arbritator, who I can consult with on SYSTEMIC Wikipedia "hive mind" abuses. I need someone who knowledgable about how wiki rules (like 'consensus') can be misused and abused to systematically censor content that is 'uncomfortable' or 'problematic' to goon-gangs of editors who dominate certain politically correct articles. I am willing to abide by the rules and to correct mistakes I made, but only if I have a fair chance to pull in well-sourced but politically incorrect content without being systematically bullied by totalitarian goons on this site.
I have no interest in fighting with specific goons unless the basic systemic issues are resolved somehow. I need someone "in the know" to show me how to secure myself from these thugs. Is Wikipedia a totally totalitarian tool or there a few administrators who care for good ole First Amendment protections? For those of you unwilling to take my word on this systemic threat, I ask that you review some cases on FIRE's online compendium to see what happens all over the US in our universities. Please respond if you care at all about free speech here. I am unwilling to be Wikipedia's 'Peter Schiff' (YOUTUBE) before the coming (credibility) collapse. I need a few good people to show me how to secure myself from SYSTEMIC abuses that I can not handle alone. >Anacapa (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
((helpme))
Is Mr. Ten Pound Hammer the biggest 'wise one' wikipedia has today? How about about addressing the core issues I (and many others) have posed? Are there are ANY arbitrators out there who really know how to create genuine 'good faith' in situations polluted with ugliness disguised as 'good faith'. If so please contact me so I can discuss how I can resolve some of these systemic issues without wasting time and energy fighting gangs of goons who impose false consenses...good sources notwithstanding. Anacapa (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)