Talk:The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc./Archive 3

message: It is patently erroneous and factually incorrect in the extreme, that I. Regardie initiated Charles “Chic” Cicero into the Golden Dawn. Thus, I have edited forthwith, all spurious claims that Cicero’s order (HOGD, Inc.) holds initiatory lineage to the original order through I. Regardie’s lineal transmissions.  Cicero has even admitted himself that he has never received any form of initiation from I. Regardie.  In support of this, I offer the following original documentation, which has also been widely published on the Internet and is unquestionably signed by Cicero himself.  
 
The astute reader may note from the supra documentation, that Cicero clearly states that he ‘self-initiated’ himself into the 0=0 Neophyte degree of the Golden Dawn.  However, Cicero was only thereafter physically initiated by Adam Forrest, who was a Regardie initiate, from the 1=10 degree of Zelator onwards.  Hence, Cicero was never physically initiated by Adam Forrest as a Neophyte and Cicero’s non-traditional and significant irregularities exhibited in his grade initiations in the documentation supra, does indeed confirm that all of Cicero’s subsequent initiations from Adam Forrest are, in fact, invalid.  Cicero made a critical error in judgement in not getting Adam Forrest to initiate him from 0=0 upwards, as Cicero can not now claim to hold any lineal affiliation from I. Regardie as his initiations by Adam Forrest are, by virtue of this irregularity, null and void. The supra documentation specificially details this and is undoubtedly signed by Cicero himself. MA'AT 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need any organizational squabbles like this on Wikipedia. An email, which can be easily forged, does not conform to Wikipedia reliability requirements. Also, you can't upload PDF files to Wikipedia, they will simply be deleted. GlassFET 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't be insulting. "Fetpeg" didn't revert without comment. I gave clear comments explaining my edit. GlassFET also gave a comment, although he wasn't quite so verbose. If you don't like the edits, then please explain what your problem with them is, and we can have a fact-based discussion of their merits. Now I not from above regarding the PDF: yes the US federal court may use emails as evidence, if it can track them back to some server and authenticate the source. Wikipedia is different in that every reader needs to be able to authenticate the source, within reason. The file you uploaded cannot be authenticated by me or anyone but yourself. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurious lineage claims edited

message: Please be respectful to the other editors of this article. Do not revert multiple changes just because it is the easiest way to get back to "your" version of the article. Any non-controversial changes, like changes to style, headings, outline to conform to WP style standards, should not be reverted. It is rude. GlassFET 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting non-controversial edits 

message: There's a whole bunch of you who have taken to rudeness and insults right from the get go. This is not acceptable in Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a pleasant and collaborative community of adults, so please help us make it that. The fact that we each hold different opinions should be no obstacle to this, as long as we are interested in establishing truth in the article. There are clear Wikipedia policies regarding attribution and neutral point of view, as well as guidelines on etiquette, but the basic things to bear in mind are:
#Always assume the best intentions of other editors, and graciously answer their queries and concerns. Words like "spam", "lying" and "vandalism" are highly insulting, and if there is the slightest doubt that someone's contributions are "spam", "lying" or "vandalism", then don't accuse them of this.
#All statements in the article must be attributable to a reliable source. That is, non-controversial statements don't necessarily need any attribution (citation) as long as it would be possible to easily supply attribution if it were requested. Statements that are challenged must have attribution. The simplest way to challenge a statement is to add a  tag following the statement, and explain the nature of your query or concern. Don't demean the other editors' contributions though.
Phrases like "snarkiness", "vandalised", "angry bias", "bullshit", "vanity", "prob. forged" are absolutely out of line, and are unwelcome in this community. Either improve your manners or go somewhere else. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maturity please