Hello there. In case you don't know, this is a Wiki, thus there is no such thing like "your article". The article belongs to everyone, and everyone is free to edit it. If you want to have an article only for yourself you have to put it on your private homepage, there noone will edit it, revert it. But here you have to accept it that others might have a different view of the topic and add that one, to make the article more neutral, see Wikipedia:NPOV. Note that I didn't followed anything about your dispute, I just wanted to make sure you know about this inherent feature of Wikipedia. andy 20:10, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello there, Andy!

What was meant by "my article" was that I am the "expert" on the topic, as I actually am a COSMOTHEIST and I have read most if not all of the relevant material on the subject.

Thanks for reminding me of the inherent feature of wikipedia, but, I have also been noticing alot of reverts and censorship based upon a cabal of pc bigots that do not adhere to the NPOV, whatsoever.

I don't mind any "good faith" editing to improve the article or to add any relevant links that are NPOV, whatsoever, but, I am quite annoyed by any of those that refuse to abide by the NPOV and that insist on reverting the Cosmotheism article based on nothing but ignorant POV's.

Thanks,

Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Dear Mr. Vogel,

You have put a large chunk of text on my user talk page, claiming that I expunged or altered your work somewhere. I have communicated with a couple of administrators about what happened, and they have suggested that I remove your materials from my talk page. Besides not having ever done anything to any article on Cosmotheism, the presence of your materials on my user talk page is the functional equivalent of burying your materials in a hole that nobody is interested in digging up. P0M 04:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! :D

You seem to be making some bizarre edits to The Turner Diaries article, changing what the book says. You can find copies on line by doing a web search for the title. The book you try to portray is quite differnt from what the book actually says. Please stick to the facts. From this article alone I see you are skirting on vandalism, for which your isp address could be blocked. -- Infrogmation 22:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What "bizarre" edits have I ever made that "change" what the book, The Turner Diaries, actually says?

Be specific in what the actual differences have ever been when you do make any such false allegations.

I have always been sticking just to the NPOV "facts".

Your false claims for me "skirting vandalism" are without any merit and this is really only your own biased POV.

I also really don't appreciate your "threatening" to block my isp address on any such erroneous and factually unsupported grounds.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

I'm talking about the changes trying to make the book look much more moderate than it is. Quite possibly there are many White Seperatists who do not advocate the extermination of all the world's people who do not fit into their ideas of racial purity/superiority, but that is what is portrayed in the book. Have you read it? A web search will easily locate several copies on line. -- Infrogmation 05:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No book, whether fictional or not, is likely to be "moderate" in any accurate description of any "racial civil war". Most White Seperatists do not advocate the extermination of all the world's people who do not fit into their ideas of racial purity/superiority, and that is NOT what is actually portrayed in the fictional novel or book. Have you yourself actually ever read it?

Where exactly in the book does it ever actually say or actually advocate "the extermination of all the world's people who do not fit into their ideas of racial purity/superiority?"

Please give me the specific page number, and chapter, or specific quote?

Thanks! :D

Yep, I plowed through that book some years ago. One online copy is here; read the "Epilog" to get the drift of what the book fantasizes about. Also please do not get into revert wars, as I notice you've been doing at Homophobic hate speech. -- Infrogmation 18:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing pages, or leave useful comments on the Talk pages of articles.

Your putting "neutrality disputed" messages on all these articles without edit summary, or discussion on the Talk pages is considered vandalism. Please stop and explain your point.

Stop vandalizing pages, or leave useful comments on the Talk pages of articles.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Is NOT vandalism and they are useful comments on both Talk pages and within articles.

Your putting "neutrality disputed" messages on all these articles without edit summary, or discussion on the Talk pages is considered vandalism. Please stop and explain your point.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

The point of that statement is that those articles are NOT WRITTEN with any NPOV, whatsoever.

Even if that's the case -- knowing your mistaken ideas of NPOV, I doubt that it is -- you have to explain why the neutrality of the article is disputed; you can't simply add the header and walk away. --No-One Jones 18:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

YOU, of all people, Mirv, have no business talking about "mistaken" ideas of NPOV! YOU and YOUR reverts are always tainted with your POV and rarely with any NPOV. Besides, why should I explain anything "why" when jerks like you automatically and reactively hit the revert button, SSEE reflexively, anyway? Curious.

That's nice, dear. You still have to explain why you dispute the neutrality of the article: see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute for all the juicy details. --No-One Jones 18:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ESAD, dearie. :D YOU already KNOW WHY the neutrality of those articles ARE DISPUTED, because they are strictly Marxist-PC POV. Don't be so coy...:D

If you won't explain it, you'll just be reverted. The orders I have from the Learned Elders of Zion are quite specific, you see. --No-One Jones 18:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mirv, why should I bother to explain anything "why" when jerks like you so automatically and so reactively hit the revert button, so SSEE reflexively, anyway? Curious.

It is quite obvious that you have learned quite well from them, and whether forgeries or not? LOL! :D Lying hypocrisy is your forte', Mirv, so what else isn't new? :D

Sorry, my Marxist brainwashing has made me incapable of anything but lies and hypocrisy. Nevertheless, unexplained NPOV disputes cannot and will not stand. --No-One Jones 18:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I know. It's not entirely your own fault. You were likely just born that way. :D

In any event, I will only "explain" when I am not being Marxist-PC POV "reverted".

Anyone can see what a lying hypocrite you are being Mirv. Nothing new there. :D

When you're through reading Wikipedia:NPOV dispute -- take your time -- you may want to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --No-One Jones 18:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(cur) (last) . . 18:39, 20 Feb 2004 . . Mirv (rv Vogel vandalism)

More lying hypocrisy. LOL! :D

Take your own time to read it:

"Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article.

If a Wikipedia:administrator must protect a page for neutrality protection, this label should always be added. Just because the first person to challenge a page's neutrality can't do so within polite protocol, doesn't mean that the dispute can be ignored or sidestepped. Sometimes, just to acknowledge that we take the dispute seriously cools things down, and lets the more aggressive editor think through their objections.

A suggested alternative NPOV boilerplate: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please help Wikipedians restore neutrality by cut-and-pasting disputed phrases into Talk:Article SuchandSo, so that issues of neutrality can be solved and this notice eventually deleted."

Mirv is falsely crying "vandalism", yet again, and always whenever any NPOV by me is being insisted upon.

Put up or shut up when you so falsely cry "vandalism", Mirv.

You are the one that seems to revel in "personal attacks" by always falsely calling me a "vandal".

Before "reverting" anything, ask here first! Thanks! :D

Vogel Vandalism???? What Mirv just removed was NOT vandalism. Actually, I think it was a quality edit. If you are going to persecute Mr. Vogel, I am going to have to ask you to do it carefully. It is unacceptable to revert a quality edit, and even worse to put an innaccurate, slanderous flame into the edit summary. Sam Spade 19:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He deleted valid information without explaining why he did so. That is vandalism. If you consider undoing his damage to be "persecution", well, I'm sorry. --No-One Jones 19:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider what he did to be "damage" I view it as a quality edit. What he removed was clearly (in my eyes) POV. What he did was make a quality, NPOV edit, IMO. You may disagree, but calling what he did vandalism was frankly not only innaccurate, but not a good sign for your case against him. I am looking into his case officially now, as a members advocate. If I continue to find examples such as this, rather than actual vandalism, I will become increasingly displeased. You may have a valid case against him, don't let this become a witch hunt. Nazi or no, he must be treated fairly. We cannot allow our pursuit of truth and justice to become mired in mere ideological conflict. Sam Spade 20:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Strange, because you also reverted the particular change Vogel made that you are now talking about. (i.e. him deleting "thereby assuring the ultimate demise of his Monistic Alliance.") And what does this have to do with Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates? - snoyes 20:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I made a revert, apparently an erroneous one. I did so based on numorous other edits thruout the article which were innaccurate (look to my edit summery). As to what this has to do w my being a members advocate, I assume you are contesting my role due to Paul not being a member. Unless you clarify, I am going to disregard the second question as spurious. Sam Spade 20:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Membership is open to anyone who wishes to help members who are faced with the quickly developing mediation and arbitration processes that are being implemented on Wikipedia in the last few months (since the fall of 2003)." There is no mediation or arbitration going on here, so why do you feel the need to point out the fact that you are "officially" looking into this in your role as a member of Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates? - snoyes 20:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because I reccomended to Mirv elsewhere that he take his complainst to wikipedia:conflict resolution. Also, I don't see what you are quoting above as in any way limiting my abilities to be officially helpful in helping Paul. To be frank, I feel there is a valid case against Paul, but I also feel he is being treated unfairly, and is redeemable. Sam Spade 21:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stop trolling or you will be blocked from editing. --mav 15:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting the article to a Marxist-PC POV one verses a Wiki NPOV one.

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs.

A supremacist, in contrast, demands a multiracial society, since it is the supremacist's express wish that he dominate or rule over other races in such a society, such rule often being justified by a doctrine of racial superiority."

You are being the troll and POV bigoted censor and reverter and not me, Maveric149!

You were warned, now you are blocked. --mav

You may have blocked me, but, you are really only revealing your own lying hypocrisy and bigoted censorship, mav. What else isn't new?

Obviously Wikipedia is not an ideal soapbox for you. Have you considered a different venue? Hadal 16:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, Wikipedia has too many people like you that do not understand what a NPOV actually is, and only their own Marxist-PC "soapbox" POV has any venue here?

"Hadal (I don't suppose there'd be any point in protecting this redirect?)"

NO, there isn't, and you ALL KNOW IT!

The "re-direct" is only to enforce your own non-NPOV verses the NPOV of the article.

Curious. Meanwhile, the truth and objectivity and credibility of the entire Wiki project, goes out the window, here, as well. What else isn't new?

We've been through this before, evidently. You've been warned countless times. I suggest you cease and desist; otherwise another block may be in order. Hadal 21:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, and almost NONE of YOU have actually stood up for the NPOV, either! You can block me all you'd like, but, I will always insist upon the Wiki NPOV in any articles of interest to me, unlike yourself and your pc-censorous ilk.

I'm trying to uphold Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, actually. Maybe you should peruse this policy, as it is evident that you have yet to do so. Hadal 21:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We have a rule against making more than three reverts on the same page within 24 hours. Consider this a warning - if you continue to revert Carl Sagan, you may be temporarily banned from editing.—Eloquence 19:49, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)