Talk:Gary Renard - Knowledge (XXG)

449: 422: 1221:. Conflict of interest is having a close personal relationship with the subject of an article, or an employment relationship with the subject of an article. You are brand new to Knowledge (XXG) and do not know or understand its policies and guidelines. Continuing to insist that an article was written with a conflict of interest when it obviously was not, and continuing to attempt to delete, disrupt, and deprecate one article and/or its creator, constitute highly disruptive 552: 705: 631: 459: 621: 600: 1337:), and yet you don't see yourself as being disruptive. The fact that this page "passed" two deletion requests does NOT prove notability. The first deletion nomination was withdrawn, and the second one was only allowed to remain until it got three voters -- one from the man who created this page (a no-brainer that he'd want to keep this page) and is a student of ACIM, and the second from YOU (whom I suspect is also an ACIM student). And 564: 723: 303: 1161:. If it were, nearly every article on Knowledge (XXG) would be a conflict of interest, as articles are created by people who have in some way heard of or read about the subject matter. What is irrefutable is that all of your 50+ edits have been solely to attempt to delete this article, and when that failed, to deprecate or disrupt it. I have posted a formal warning to you about this on your Talk page. 352: 334: 2396: 190: 1044:. Failing to generate support in the Afd, he then simply deleted the article himself, regardless of the Afd result to keep. There was no discussion regarding the Afd or the actual article deletion on this talk page. User Ste4k has since been permanently banned from Knowledge (XXG) for his disruptive behavior. I have since reinstated the article. 1353:

speedily-deleted. Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean one has to be an employee of a given organization, etc. It means one has to have a close tie to the content of the article, which this page creator has admitted he does because he is an ACIM student, and most likely therefore a student of Renard as well. THAT is conflict of interest.

1745:

the view that if the outcome was some flavour of "not-delete" then another flavour of "not-delete" can be substituted ---- and that's a good rule, by and large. AfD is a big blunt instrument and talk page discussion can be more subtle and nuanced. I think it's established custom and practice that Unscintillating can do this. I think that after

2449: 362: 1090:, but that in itself doesn't qualify as notability, because ACIM has sold around two million copies and many people have written books on it and are dedicated to teaching its principles. Does every ACIM teacher/author deserve a wiki? In my opinion, the only two ACIM figures who truly deserve Wikis are 1777:

I would disagree about him not being wrong, as he said it was policy, and not sometimes the result of other discussion (which we have not had yet anyway, the the appropriate place, which is what he is being told). Also this is not about changing something to merge, but his opposition to the idea of a

1744:

Whether or not it's policy, strictly speaking Unscintillating is not wrong about the underlying principle. At Deletion Review, we have sometimes said that a "keep" or "no consensus" can morph into a "merge" or "redirect" based on a talk page consensus afterwards. Deletion Review has sometimes taken

1352:

being deleted, what that means is that RENARD IS NOT NOTABLE. The only claim to fame he had was that particular book (and its only claim to fame was that it went to #2 on Amazon.com due to Hayhouse "bundling" it with other items, a marketing ploy in itself), which was deemed so un-notable that it was

789:

Admittedly the central premise of Renard's book is highly controversial, however the book is proving to be extremely well received, and as such, I believe that Renard makes a good subject for a Wiki article. As always, any editors who may have any further verifiable published documentation regarding

2294:

Please not again, take it to DRV. As to content, editors who do not know the subject bring one valuable asset to an AFD, they will try and find sources unaffected by re-conceived notions. Maybe that is why they all (pretty much) failed to find any notability, they looked and could not. This is not a

1849:

What? I am sorry but again you seem to be playing wiki lawyer. Where are you getting these ideas about "admin tools"? The consensus reached at AFD was deletion, redirect and protection. Can you please drop the stick. This is not a content discussion, this is an article deletion discussion and trying

1828:

No, deletion in this context means the use of admin tools. There is a grey area here involving the protection, but except for the aspect of the protection, there has been no deletion here, so no admin tools are needed, so no admins are required, so no forums run by administrators are required. And

1181:. This is a conflict of interest. If you look at his edit history, you will see that he created many ACIM-related articles, thinking that many obscure aspects of the movement deserved pages. Most recently, he created this page about ACIM-based books, a page whose notability is also being questioned: 879:

The world has not yet experienced any comprehensive reawakening or rebirth. Such a rebirth is impossible as long as you continue to project or miscreate. It still remains within you, however, to extend as God extended His Spirit to you. In reality this is your only choice, because your free will was

2234:

The recent 4th AfD failed to reach a decision to delete. Some editors didn't give the discussion credibility as it was started on the heels of the previous AfD, ignoring the advice provided at the DRV (in which I was a participant) to wait two months before renominating. The closing also noted an

1941:

Now let me clarify that there are admins who allow themselves to be bound into subsequent content disputes after an AfD, so this leads to some lack of clarity and an occasional trip to DRV with a content dispute, but the alternative would be that AfD could always bind admins into subsequent content

1141:

and Gary Renard, and it is being maintained by said student (as well as other ACIM students). This is therefore a conflict of interest. I have reverted the maintenance tags which an ACIM student removed. This page serves only for advertisement for a product. The only reason the most recent deletion

1255:

Everything I've written has been written by others -- that this is "conflict of interest" and "not notable." I have not engaged in any "personal attacks." It is hardly an attack to note the truth: this page was created by an ACIM student, and others have questioned the notability of the pages he's

926:

As I see it, it's like the proverbial question: "If God is all-powerful, then would he be powerful enough to be able to create a rock so big that he couldn't move it?" Obviously even God's power must have its limits in this case. So it seems to me that ACIM teaches that our free will has certain

897:

My decision cannot overcome yours, because yours is as powerful as mine. If it were not so the Sons of God would be unequal. All things are possible through our joint decision, but mine alone cannot help you. Your will is as free as mine, and God Himself would not go against it. I cannot will what

888:

The acceptance of the Atonement by everyone is only a matter of time. This may appear to contradict free will because of the inevitability of the final decision, but this is not so. You can temporize and you are capable of enormous procrastination, but you cannot depart entirely from your Creator,

936:

ACIM states that "The decision (to forgive) has already been made for us by the Holy Spirit." Also, when ACIM teaches that the "Holy Instant" has already occurred, and that we just don't know it yet, it seems to me to be consistent with how Renard explains the Big Bang. The entire universe has

905:

Still more references were removing in the editing process, but this should suffice. If you say events are fixed from the moment of the Big Bang, you have two problems--you contradict most interpretations of quantum mechanics, and you contradict ACIM. Gary may not be inclined to worry about the

1185:

It is not a personal attack to note that the fact that Scottperry is a student of ACIM has created a conflict of interest that makes him think things about ACIM are notable when they are actually only important to the small community of "students." There are only two books on his list that are

1934:

The closing also noted an influx of outsiders, but deletion specialists are not content experts on all topics in the encyclopedia, so this is not generally a good thing. Whether the result was merge or redirect, AfD content decisions are not binding, as this is a decision left to the content

870:

In this sense the creation includes both the creation of the Son by God, and the Son's creations when his mind is healed. This requires God's endowment of the Son with free will, because all loving creation is freely given in one continuous line, in which all aspects are of the same

1559:

Ohhh, bold and imperative language from someone talking as a beginner and engaging in edit warring. No, that was an AfD, and merge and redirect outcomes from AfD are not binding, and not generally actionable at DRV. The problem right now is that you are engaged in edit warring.

2138:

Given two changes to the closing, an editorial dispute regarding off-topic material, and confusion regarding the sequence of edits in this RfC, as well as the absence of discussion on the topic of the RfC, I have removed the RfC tag from this section and started a new RfC below.

1929:

1298:

is clearly explained in the edit summary: they were redundant. There were two refimprove tags, I removed one; the article has already passed two AfDs, therefore notability has already been established. Unless you can prove that the creator of the article has either a

1312:

deleted via a speedy deletion tag (an edit which does not show up on your edit history because of the deletion) further proves that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but are here solely to delete, disrupt, and deprecate anything to do with Gary Renard.

1264:

based on my "speedy deletion" nomination regarding the fact that that page only served as advertisement. My contributions have been acknowledged as constrictive by everyone but you and Scottperry … which brings me back to the issue of conflict of interest.

1957:

Updates: (1) S Marshall requested page protection and the closing admin revised the closing to page-protect the article/redirect. (2) I asked the closing admin to refine the closing, and it now consistently states, "Protect redirect and merge".

948:

No matter what appears to be going on for you, the choice is really very simple and immediate. Whenever you remember that, you'll know which interpretation of the dream you should listen to -- even after your body appears to pass

1010:

Also, some readers have expressed qualms over the fact that some of what is presented in the book is currently unsupported by standard consensus scientific and historical notions....even though it is quite in keeping with Quantum

1850:

to find back door ways to keep it is not going to work. As to notifying the targets, please provide a link to policy on that (and do not say "content dispute", there is an obvious answer to that, please think about it).

1194:

itself. Both books have pages already, so the list is not necessary; but due to the fact that he's an ACIM student he is apparently unable to realize how entirely obscure the other books are to the general reader.

1233:, and as I have mentioned on your Talk page, if you persist in this direction of disruptive and POV editing, including persisting in irrelevant attacks and accusations on this Talk page, you will be reported to 1796:, which is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow; and you avoid discussing your experience with BRD even though this has been a discussion that has a core element in BRD. See also 153: 1260:) have just been redirected to the ACIM page. You are the one who is engaging in attack by misrepresenting my contributions. My contributions have not been disruptive, as another editor deleted the page about 1305:

with Gary Renard (i.e., is a relative or close friend), or an employment relationship with Gary Renard, there is no conflict of interest. The fact that you admit to getting the article on Gary Renard's book

2498: 1251:

You are the one who is engaging in harassment and intimidation and disruption. You removed many tags from this page (tags by other editors) without explanation or regard for the contribution of others.

2199: 1698:

Time wasting theories aside, if discussion results are not binding, bold edits have standing. The result was not "redirect", the result was "merge", with secondary text stating "redirect and merge".

1534: 230: 220: 210: 960:

It seems to me that both books appear to contradict free will in some ways, but both books also support the idea that we are free to procrastinate on our choice to accept the Holy Spirit, or not.

1814:

I am not the subject of this article, thus anything about me is irrelevant. Yes I have failed to support your misaplication of policy. This is not a content dispute, it is a deletion dispute.

489: 1344:. (You even claimed on the second nomination page -- before the deletion discussion was over -- that this page was notable because it had already passed a previous deletion nomination. 2268:

There is a process for challenging XFD closes, as you very well know. I'm confused as to why you're not pursuing that avenue and instead hammering this talk page with this question.

927:

limitations too. It seems to me that both books teach that the only real choice we ever have is the choice between fear and love, or procrastination and awakening to the Holy Instant.

2278:

WTF? I expected there to be problems especially if the outcome was delete or redirect but I expected that to be a contentious DRV and ill feeling, not yet another bite at the cherry.

1833:. One of the editors noted that merge discussions should not proceed without notifying the editors at the target, and since this didn't happen, this is something else to consider. 2423:

Regardless of the above (I was uninvolved), this redirect is current without Rcats. I propose the following: {{Rcat shell| {{R with history}} {{R from author}} {{R to section}} }}

282: 506: 2031: 1416:

Please avoid wholesale removal of text. Tag the material as uncited if needed, but please do not remove huge relevant chunks of text, especially when an AfD is in progress.

1753:

doing this until we reach a formal consensus that he shouldn't. I think the minimum-drama way forward will be to have the conversation rather than trying to shut it down.—

1067:

circles, which is a very narrow circle of people cloistered around the Unity subculture. This article therefore serves only as promotion. No claim to notability is made.

898:

God does not will. I can offer my strength to make yours invincible, but I cannot oppose your decision without competing with it and thereby violating God's Will for you.

542: 147: 2086:

What is inappropriate is stating at ANI that the result of the 4th Afd was "redirect". The result was "Merge", with secondary text stating "redirect and merge".

287: 2508: 2503: 2493: 2488: 582: 532: 687: 496: 240: 1341:

noted on the second nomination that notability for the topic has NOT been established because the only "news" one can find about this topic are press releases

79: 2478: 1749:

discussion, doing this is really poor editorial judgment, but in my experience Unscintillating isn't a conflict-averse editor and I think he is unlikely to

2528: 2518: 2513: 677: 270:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 501: 2538: 2483: 1086:

I've listed this page for a deletion nomination. No claim to notability is made. The only claim made is that he is devoted to teaching the principles of

2235:

influx of outsiders, but deletion specialists are not content experts on all topics in the encyclopedia, so this is not generally a good thing. As per

380: 262: 2543: 751: 653: 85: 1142:

nomination failed is because two ACIM students voted to keep the page, and the discussion was quickly closed thereafter (by a non-administrator).

840:

I don't see where ACIM teaches anything that is clearly contradictory to the DU/ Big Bang claim. Could you possibly explain this to me? Thanks.

384: 1634:

If you check policy, you will find that any one edit can be edit warring. Why are you associating yourself with a refusal to follow WP:BRD?

1295:

Please be sure to indent your Talk pages posts with colons; I have done that for your post above. My removal of the tags that you noted above

577: 472: 432: 427: 2533: 2523: 30: 1712:

So then you should have merged it, not reinstated it. And again please link to the policy that says that AFD discussions are not binding.

379:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 44: 1377:

If we can find third party (seconday sources) which discuss this author and his works, interesting information that could be provided:

1222: 730: 710: 644: 605: 858:

Free will does not mean that you can establish the curriculum. It means only that you can elect what you want to take at a given time.

484: 388: 375: 339: 99: 1684:. The underlying thing here is that the redirect was the result of a community discussion, and you cannot overturn that yourself. 1218: 104: 20: 1987: 1766: 1237:. I strongly urge you to desist in this approach, as your agenda clearly prevents you from editing productively on this subject. 480:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

74: 1116: 314: 974: 65: 2347: