Talk:List of Discordian works/Archive 1

message: I just added a paragraph verifying that the discussion of the group's legal problems date back to December of 2001. That doesn't verify they actually happened, but that it's at least been claimed for five years. If it's true, it goes back that far. If it's a hoax, they've been at it for five years at least! MRN 16:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Stamps 

message: Lest anyone think me contributing to this article is a matter of vanity (of which I have plenty), note that my addition is about Novus Ordo Discordia and not my own work. I have corresponded with S. John Ross a few times after he first contacted me, for which I feel lucky. But I can take no credit whatsoever for S. John's work. Although as he does some damn good stuff, I'd sure like to. Reverend Loveshade 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novus Ordo Discordia 

message: I merged and rewrote this, as suggested by others in Talk: Book 5 (The Zenarchist's CookBook). I don't know much about zenarchy, but am going by what was written in the previous version and in the Zenarchy article. But I know if I got anything wrong someone will change it. MRN 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 5 (The Zenarchist's CookBook) 

message: I'm going to clean this article up over the next while. There's things that need adding, things that need sourcing, and other stuff which prolly shouldn't be here, as was pointed out in the recent AfD. If there's objection to any of my changes, please raise it here on the talk page first. Cheers, Drjon 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's start by removing all the unsourced material. I got rid of some of it but there is probably still a lot more to clean up. Ashibaka (tock) 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the process of cleaning up this article. That includes sourcing things. If you'd like to help, please tag things which you regard as unsourced. Please don't vandalise the article. Thanks. Drjon 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I call bullshit on your sources, they are all Geocities pages and random people's opinions on the Internet and none of them have scholarly weight. Ashibaka (tock) 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please list the sources which you claim are "mine"--I think you'll find that the sources I'm adding are good ones. As I've repeatedly stated, I'm in the process of cleaning up the article. Removing it out-of-hand whilst I'm trying to work on it is counter-productive, and seems to smack of bad faith in the list of recent history. I agree with you to a certain extent: there's content here which could use cleaning up. But if you're not going to help with the process, might I suggest you take a step back for a while? Drjon 00:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Is this request still necessary or can I close it?  --Ideogram 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can close it. Also, in case anyone else is counting, I am giving the editors above five more days until I redirect the article to something else for lack of reliable sources. Ashibaka (tock) 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be closed until Ashibaka stops threatening to get rid of the article even though the decision was KEEP twice! And I've added a lot of sources! Does Ashibaka have the authority to overrule everyone else? Binky The WonderSkull 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I just learned that cafepress, infotoday.com, Steve Jackson Games, 23 Apples of Eris, www.dia.net.au of Australia, Robert Anton Wilson's site, Wikisource, the site of a candidate for the U. S. Senate, and a U. S. Government site (firstgov.gov), and my own discordia.loveshade.org site are all free member sites!  Cool!  I'll stop looking for sponsors to make our payments!  And as Wikipedia itself has a large number of links to this article, we can assume that Wikipedia doesn't need any more donations!  And you can bet I won't be paying any more taxes now that the U. S. Government is a free site!  Gosh, thanks Ashibaka! Reverend Loveshade 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, I just reread WP:RS as Ashibaka suggested.  I found it very informative and reassuring.  I suggest you do the same.  Thanks again, Ashibaka! Reverend Loveshade 06:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I think I've basically reduced the article to sourceable claims now. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think you've basically reduced the article to where it's completely useless. And you don't need to call people jerks.  Is that something a sysop is supposed to do? IamthatIam 07:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the reliable sources for the stuff you're adding? Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why when you made your cuts did you only leave parts that had no sources at all? Binky The WonderSkull 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure about those, but they appear to be sourced to the Principia Discordia which makes them legitimately Discordian. Feel free to remove them. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not bureaucracy. WP:ENC Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Final warning Shii, if you continue to vandalize this article and ignore the decisions on the nominations for deletion of 5 June 2006 and of 31 Jan 2007, both of which were KEEP, I will file a formal complaint against you.  You've already ignored the informal one.  And before you respond, you might want to consider this.  I am a user here, you are an administrator.  I would imagine that means you are expected to live up to higher standards.  Think carefully: do you really want your actions reviewed by those higher up? IamthatIam 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Go do it, now. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: Please note that at the moment of this posting, there is an arbitration request initiated by User:IamthatIam regarding this article. Please see  for the case and provide statement(s) if you so choose to. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 07:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pertain to the RfAr filing, I have asked for page protection, which was granted here. Talk it out here. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]] 

message: Much of the debate on this article has been over whether or not we have reliable sources.  That and some other problems, some major and some minor, resulted in a request for arbitration.  As of right now, we don't know whether we'll get help that way or not.
But there's already been a quite significant victory for keeping this article and not hacking it up as has been done.  None other than Arbitration Committee member Jpgordon who, while not voting for our case for formal arbitration and saying we've had a lot of infighting, did say we have reliable sources!
: Reject. Pot, kettle, reliable sources. Hail Eris! But not like this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what jpgordon was saying in the slightest. What he was saying was that pots, kettles, and reliable sources are highly contentious topics - Hail Eris! - but that the he was not willing to turn that contentiousness into an ArbCom case. Hate to disillusion you. Moreschi  Request a recording? 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so we still have Moreschi, who we already figured out is either an alias or a friend of Shii aka Ashibaka (See Talk:Discordian_Works/Archive1#WP:3O).  Pot, kettle refers to the saying, "That's like the pot calling the kettle black." That is, person A complains about person B reverting when person A was also reverting. It's an old saying--check it out here on Wikipedia. But reliable sources is not an old saying--it means reliable sources. Check out what that means on Wikipedia. Hate to disillusion you. Rev. Bootie 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Either way, better start talking about fixing the article. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect to Penwhale, that's what people were trying to do when their work was continually thwarted. Rev. Bootie 04:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But Master, how may we war amongst ourselves over the meaning of your words when you explain them to us so clearly? And why do you praise the meaningless words, "Bold Text?"  Ah, I see. We may still fight against each other over the validity of the sources, as we did before. But meaninglessness still remains. Nothing has changed; Chaos remains. Reverend Loveshade 01:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't call me Master; I fnord for a living. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes We Have Sources

message: How about we actually talk about the changes, and when we gain consensus, we'll use . - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think this could do with addition of a few  tags, not to mention actual proper references for the vast bulk of this article, which at the moment just reads like NFT/OR supposition. Moreschi  Request a recording? 13:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It was rejected by the arbitrators, who didn't want to hear the case. Moreschi  Request a recording? 10:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative to unprotect 

message: I just came back from a Habitat for Humanity trip, so I wasn't able to respond to whatever sort of RfA happened here, sorry about that. Surprised to see that there are still no reliable sources for this article. If none are presented I will redirect the article to Principia Discordia as soon as it is unprotected. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To refresh everyone's memory of the discussions on the archive page, self-published sources (23ae.com, loveshade.org, Geocities and other blogs) are not reliable. Vanity publishing houses (cafepress.com, lulu.com) are not reliable. DrJon's "outroduction" tie-in does not make the Apocrypha Discordia notable because the people publishing the 2007 hardback Principia are not necessarily Discordians, and even if they are they are not the arbitrators of what makes a work Discordian, and if nobody has yet disputed that assumption, well, I am disputing it now. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How nice that you were off sacrificing yourself for the good of others.  But don't worry, your friend Moreschi has been filling in for you.  To refresh your memory, you nominated this article for deletion on 31 January 2007, and the result of the discussion was Keep.  If you'll check Wikipedia policy, that means the decision was to Keep the article.  If you want to mark this article or any article as unsourced, you may certainly do so.  As a sysop, I would think you would know this.  And note that just because the Arbitration Committee didn't take this case, there are other recourses on Wikipedia.  A number of us have posted complaints against you.  I would suggest you check Wikipedia policies and procedures.  Perhaps you can find a sysop who knows these who can help you. IamthatIam 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Shii, it's a bit much to expect people to provide sources while the article is protected. Why not unprotect it, decorate it with  tags, and then if no one provides sources, redirect it? Moreschi  Request a recording? 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you make a statement that anyone with access to Wikipedia can verify is not true? If we've been ignoring you, then how do you explain the slew of comments you've made about our edits and our sources? How do you explain the things we've filed against you?  Ignoring is not engaging in heated debate, and it is not adding sources that you happen not to like.  You put this article up for deletion before over a dozen sources were added; the decision was Keep.  Check Wikipedia policy--a decision to keep does not mean redirect the article, essentially deleting it. And the reason more people aren't staying for this battle is because they're worn out banging their heads against yours. If you want a source for that, read your own discussions.  Unless you don't classify yourself as a reliable source of what you've done. IamthatIam 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think fact tags would be a good idea. The Storm Surfer 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Storm Surfer, I agree that's what Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka should have done originally if he thought the article was unsourced. Instead, he nominated it for deletion right after two of his edits to the article were reverted.  Adding the tags would be proper Wikipedia procedure, and I wouldn't expect him to follow it.  He hasn't so far. IamthatIam 03:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi