Talk:Mel Lyman

message: I disagree with the removal of Lyman from the category "Cult leaders". First of all, he was a cult leader, and his only fame is as a cult leader. To have him in category "Harmonica players" but not "Cult leaders" is misleading, as he is far more notable in the later category as the former. Second of all, there are very few sources about Lyman that don't describe him first and foremost as a cult leader. The Rolling Stone article for starters, amd any of the sources listed in the external link, including at least one book. If the assertion is being made that he isn't noted enough as a cult leader in major books and publications (which I don't think is true), then that would mean he isn't notable enough to have to have an article at all (which I think he clearly does). (Admittedly I wrote this article fairly early one and didn't cite sources for major statements, but they're all there in the external link). Herostratus 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like the whole Cult Leader category was deleted by a former administrator with a conflict of interest (jossi). Oh well, this makes WP less useful for the user once again. 24.4.132.165 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult Leader

message: in the late 80's around twenty young idealistic punks rented two houses from the remnants of the mel lyman cult.we wrote our rent checks to the enlightened realty trust and had our day to day interactions with a burned out jim kweskin.
during our stay at the compound we were only allowed communication with the male members of the landlord group as the women were shipped off in vans every day not to return until nightime.
at some point in our time there we broke in to a forbidden room in our basement.this room was the darkroom and archive for the avitar magazine.
more to came  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.38.44 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  i rented from the enlightened realty trust/jim kweskin 

message: An editor has objected to the characterization of Lyman as a "cult leader". It's not clear exactly what his objection but since she's not gone to the talk page I will.
*The word "cult" is a word of the English language. It has a meaning which can be looked up. The word "leader" is also a word of the English language. It also has a meaning which can be looked up. If the editor is making the point that either "cult" or "leader" are not English words, the onus would be on him to explain why there are entries for these words in most English-language dictionaries.
*The phrase "cult leader", composed of these two words, also has meaning in the English language. It is not an idiom but simply the combination of the two words in such a way as to support this description: a person who is the leader of a cult. If the editor is making the point that "cult leader" is an idiom the onus would be on him to demonstrate that.
*If we assume that the above points -- that "cult", "leader" and "cult leader" have common and easily accessible meanings -- the editor's objection may be that "cult leader" mischaracterizes Lyman. But this is not a valid objection, because if "cult leader" can be applied to anyone, it would be Lyman. Again, if "cult leader" has no meaning and can't be applied to anyone, that's one argument. But if it has a meaning and can ever be used, Lyman would certainly fill the bill as well as anyone else who has ever lived, I would say. And though Lyman did some other things, such as play music, these are entirely peripheral to his notability and his reason for having an article. And there's no need to imply otherwise in the lead.
*Or maybe it's something else.
But whatever, per WP:BRD it's up to the editor suggesting the change to make her case, and consequently I've restored the lead absent such a case being made and proven. Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is most one the bizarre rationales for anything I have see on Wikipedia. Basic WP:NPOV states Avoid stating opinions as facts  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummmm OK well I'm glad to have contributed to your experience of the unusual and grotesque, I guess.... =/  I'm not sure where the stating of opinion comes in here so I'm rather at a loss as to how to continue... I don't see any opinion offered from the editors to the effect of "Lyman was a blackguard" or "Lyman was a wise man" or anything even close to that... there are quotes to this effect (from both points of view) from people who knew Lyman, but this is allowed I think if it's not a BLP, the quotes are ref'd, the quotes cogently bear on the subject, and things are kept balanced, and... but anyway your edits aren't even to that material but rather to the lead! So.... hmmmm. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  cult leader 

message: A series of socks have been whitewashing this article and refusing to discuss it; when challenged, they create another one lie about it. They're all named things like , , and so on. I've started checkuser-blocking them, but does anyone have any idea what's going on here? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this is happening again. Blocked again. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  14:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "kotterdale" 

message: I want to submit an image for this page.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mel-Lyman.jpg Kotterdale11 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Can't just take a copyrighted picture, upload it to commons and then use it in an article. The image has to have the correct licensing for us to use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021 

message: Add this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evangelist_Mel_Lyman-RS_98_(December_23,_1971).jpg 2601:741:8000:1A80:7D18:54A3:FAD5:A701 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Still under copyright. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021 

message: Can someone, for the love of God, add a picture of this guy? I've tried seven times already, and each time it gets removed for no reason. Please, I am begging you to add a picture to this page. Kotterdale11 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , the reason is that we cannot use copyrighted images. You can't just search on the internet for a picture and then upload it, saying that it is licensed. Someone owns the rights to those pictures so can't use them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses tons of copyrighted images. 199.120.30.247 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point us to each one that is not covered by WP:FAIRUSE; they will be removed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This article is way too long. The man was not a major figure on the world stage. 2600:6C64:667F:DB94:903F:38D5:AE17:8888 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't have to be. As long as the subject is notable, we collect all encyclopedic information on it. At a WP:LENGTH of 23k, the page is far awy from any considerations of splitting or otherwise reducing it. Paradoctor (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloated article 

message: Add a photo. 2601:741:8000:1A80:8542:69D3:38E1:8C9D (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload.  Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Terasail II[✉️] 23:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2022