OrionK

---

Yoism Dialogue

I have rolled back your edits to the Yoism AfD discussion in my user space. You are more than welcome to leave comments, but please don't change mine. Wikibofh 23:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about the placement of my comments, but do you have any thoughts in response to the content of my comments? OrionK

• I'll say the same thing I've been saying the whole time. You all could be right, and if that is the case then WP:VfU is your recourse. The votes I discounted were not signed within the wikicontext or had very few contributions. I almost didn't close the vote because I thought it might cause this sort disagreement, but no reason to shift the conflict to a different admin. I wrote up my reasons just so you would have something to cite at VfU, but for some reason have chosen to avoid. Trust me, being an admin is not the glamourous life you might imaged.  :) Wikibofh 20:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Hardly assumed it is a glamorous job -- you have a lot of responsibility to exercise your authority for the benefit of the wikipedia community, and I hope this would include taking the arguments made seriously and not simply reducing the process to an in-group/out-group popularity contest, no? Where does it say how many edits one must have before their voice counts? Honestly, I'd like to know the cutoff number. All of the votes you discounted are from people who are avid wikipedia boosters, most were registered users with several edits -- why are they IGNORED by you? OrionK 20:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • There is no hard and fast rule, but my personal is about 20. It helps if they are unrelated to the article being voted on. If you see 10 edits and they start with AfD that shows a strong likelyhood of sock/meatpuppets. When most people start off on Wiki, their first things aren't going to be to AfD. Wikibofh 22:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 Just for the record, I was editing wikipedia as an unregistered user long before the Yoism AfD debate (made several edits to articles on Global Politics, Global Goverance, and related topics)-- I am getting more involved in wikipedia, and the AfD debate is what inspired me to finally register, but I would have registered eventually anyway.OrionK 17:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Your concern is that people participating in the debate might be puppets -- but in this case it was clear there were no sock puppets (individuals with few edits, yes, but they were still separate individuals). And how could there have been meat puppets when everyone identified their affiliation (or lack of it) up front? "Puppetry" refers to the fact that some "participants" are actually not real or authentic people (sock puppets) or that they are pretending to be unbiased disinterested participants (meat puppets). So while 20 edits may be a good 'rule of thumb,' it is not an official standard to applied without reflection or consideration of the case at hand. I honestly don't think the concern is "puppetry" -- that is a red herring. The concern is that the people who wanted to keep YOism were mostly self-identified as Yoans. But no one has ever explained why this is an issue?? OrionK 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt he is monitoring your talk page. You need to leave your message on his talk page, no? Kriegman 00:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am. I don't care what their religious affiliations were. Meat puppets aren't pretending to be disinterested. In general they tend to be people who show up on a heated topic and their only edits are there. They also generally show a lack of wiki skill, socks show wiki skill. In this case, the lack of signing. Wikibofh 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Why Call them "Puppets", 'fans' seems like a more obvious term. What is the problem with fans arguing for the inclusion of a page if their arguments make sense? It seem dumb to dismiss them simply because they are fans. In this case that is what seems to have happened, i.e., the prejudice against fans lead to ignoring their actual comments and reflection on the value of the article. The article was nominated for deletion because it was accused of being a vanity page -- but it ended up being deleted because of the prejudice Wikipedians have against fans getting involved in the discussion. Clearly the Yoism article is not a vanity page. And the fact that the US Government has recognized it as a religion and that it is part of a new phenomena of open source religions, and that there is an undetermined yet growing number of adherents, makes it seem quite notable -- not jus to me and other Yoans, but to several non-Yoans who found the page interesting. If the goal of Wikipedia is to help organize human knowledge, than what is the benefit to wikipedia of deleting the page? It was a legitimate article, written with NPOV, and following all the wikipedia standards. I am actually quite disillusioned with the wikipedian community. --OrionK 15:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Welcome!

Hello OrionK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KTC 04:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks KTC, I've looked at some of these pages already and will take a closer look at some of them again. --OrionK 15:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yoism deletion review

I have requested a deletion review for Yoism. You can find the discussion here. Respectfully. Wikibofh 15:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

OrionK,
I saw the debate at Deletion Review regarding Yoism. I looked at the statement on your user page, and I've noticed a comment of yours above that you're disillusioned. I'd like to offer some moral support to you.

Your second edit under this name was to one of the most rough and tumble areas of Wikipedia, and one whose written guidelines are complex enough without the layers of tribal law that floats above them. It's also one of the areas that sees the highest levels of conflict, the most polarized debate, and the sometimes seemingly arbitrary and capricious disregard for how important an article may be to those closest to it. So I'd be suprised if you weren't feeling a bit bruised.

Please understand that, despite outliers with some more divergent views, Wikipedia is a very conservative object. When it comes to deleting an article, for example, policy requires not only that a supermajority want it to be deleted, but that they provide a compelling argument for doing so. It only undeletes when there has been shown to be a good reason to do so. Deletion review is even more conservative. It's scope is purposely quite limited, and the decision to overturn an outcome is very rare. Even the decision to have the discussion again is not that common.

I understand that you feel that your arguments are not being examined. The problem is that in this venue they aren't the applicable ones. However, I have taken the time to review not only the process that Wikibofh used in making his decision but also the arguments of those in the origal debate. Having done so, I would be very suprised at any outcome other than "endorse".

So here's some unsolicited advice: let it go. Ask someone to Userfy the article for you so that it can happily live in your personal space. Then get out and mix it up with the rest of the wikiworld in areas the have nothing to do with Yosim. Create some articles from the requested list, find an article that needs a little help, see what other editors are talking about, or just close your eyes and hope. You will almost certainly not only have fun, but feel good while doing so.

brenneman^(t)(c) 05:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, I will continue to work on wikipedia, but the Yoism debate definitely reduces my enthusiasm and belief in the honesty and transparency of this community. As in any community there are politics and unspoken cultural barriers, cliquishness, and all the rest -- its just done in the name of "open source collaboration" and that stinks. On the other hand, its better than anything else going on at the moment. OrionK 17:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

World Citizen userbox, {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}}

Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}} to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

cosmopolitanism

i reverted the article to the last full version, which was before your last edit. sometimes if you double click save change, wikipedia doesn't get all the data for the update, other things happen. when this sort of thing happens when you are editing, just go to the last full version, and resave it as original. --Buridan 11:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- I couldn't figure out what caused that, guess I'll have to redo my edits. -O

Global justice

Hi. We seem to disagree about including the 'great transition initiative' in the external links for the above. My view is that this site doesn't meet the criteria in Wikipedia:External_links: it's not an authoritative source on the subject of the article, and it doesn't contain material which would be included in the best possible encyclopedia article on the topic. So, although it looks interesting and worthy, I don't think it should be listed. I'm happy to be shown how I'm wrong, though, if you'd like to discuss at the article's talk page. Cheers, Sam Clark 18:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I respond on the talk page. OrionK 20:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of Outreach for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Outreach is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outreach until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)