Talk:Carolyn Meinel

message: Indeed, I was struck by the same thing the above comment noted.  In fact, how strange that two paragraphs / three sentences about the topic of the article, are followed by a looonnng paragraph of seven sentences about other people.  Including attacks on those other people.  And the first edit by the most recent contributor removed "... the drama ... seems to have faded ...", followed by more edits to, umm, put the drama back?  Shenme 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When does bio ... become attack? 

message: Wikipedia has a policy of higher standards when it comes to living persons (See: WP:LIVING). For that reason I removed this as it comes from a single individual (also seems to hid his or her identity). Lots more evidence would be needed to indicate a longer term trend. Jeff Carr 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the removal of the accusation of slander 

message: Since this is a biography of a living person then I can somewhat agree that her daughter's views of Keith Henson are not a RS. After all he is a critic of the Church of Scientology, which his daughter is a member. It would not be the first time a church member made such "repressed" comments. I still somewhat believe that the source is clear (not that type of clear), and should be included, all be it cleaned up a little. Yet the rules are firm, an RS is an RS period, even someones daughter. 142.161.175.102 (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you're talking about reliable sources makes me wonder if you've ever read what Wikipedia means by "reliable sources".  You talk about "someones  daughter" being an RS but I do not even know if it is possible to say that a person is an RS. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  May not be a RS, due to scientology brainwashing, but source is clear. 

message: One of the first things I noticed when I read Meinel's bio is that it says her style of hacking is 'script kiddie.' The person who wrote this must have never actually looked at her website or read her books. If there was one thing she was against it was script kiddies.
24.155.22.84 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can say I'm against Creationism until I'm blue in the face, it doesn't change the simple fact that, if I'm saying human beings are the product of intelligent design, I'm promoting a Creationist ideology. Badger Drink (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Since When does Meinel Support Script kiddies?

message: I received wikitext by email from Meinel's ex-husband as a suggested improvement for the article. Unfortunately, I have not had time to carefully review it, but have replaced the article text with it, then self-reverted. The received version was this. The new version looks better to me. If there is no objection within a reasonable time, and on further personal review, I intend to restore it. (I'm seeing some strangeness with the wikitext. Maybe it's tornado weather. Obviously that would have to be fixed.) --Abd (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only real difference is the list of books and publications. I have added it with a few tweaks. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose alternate article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carolyn Meinel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051016095309/http://www.happyhacker.org/ to http://www.happyhacker.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified