 |
 |
If you find this site useful or just support what I'm doing, I'd really appreciate if you could donate. To cover server costs and for the hundreds of hours I've put into making this happen.
|
 |
If you spot content on this site that is genuinely illegal or actually puts someone in real danger, contact [email protected]. We have multiple agents reviewing tickets 24/7. Note that we try to maintain as much transparency as possible, both about ourselves and of the actions of Wikipedians. For example, if we removed a live link to CSAM content that was posted by a Wikipedia admin, we would replace it a placeholder like "<link to CSAM that was posted by Demiurge1000 redacted by Undersight>". Note that "I don't like it" is NOT a valid removal reason. If instead you are a Wikipedophile trying to get all the dark secrets of Wikipedia censored, please follow this guide instead.
If you would like to contact the owner of this about something else (e.g. press inquires, feature requests, bug reports), e-mail [email protected] or [email protected].
|
Revision 55534068 of "Talk:Brianism/VfD Jan 2004" on enwiki==From VfD==
* [[Brianism]] - nonsense, exists only in this article and on the website cited. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 18:48, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** No vote, FYI: Our [[Google|God]] says 92 hits for "Brianism". A number of these hits come from Wikipedia and sites that use Wikipedia as a source. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 20:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** Keep. I know a bunch of Brianists and my brother claims to be one. As a Christian I think it is not to be encouraged, but it seems to exist and there was a film about it. [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 11:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*** That film (if you're thinking of Python) is NOT linked with the Brianism discussed in this article. BTW, the Brianists are essentially the only religion I find I can agree with that actually holds beliefs (unlike the Unitarians or Taoists, who really have none) [[User:Pakaran|Pakaran]][[User talk:Pakaran|.]] 05:25, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
****The real Taoists are very advanced mystics and are respected. However, most people who label themselves Taoists are just stupid and have no idea on what Tao is and how to work with it. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 06:19, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** Keep. I am a Brianist and Skeptic. We do exist you know! I'm not that interested in Wikipedia. It's main claim to fame as far as I am concerned is that it appears at the top in Google when you search Brianism. It would not be a problem for me if Brianism did not appear in Wikipedia at all. Much of what you have about Brianism (and other subjects) is not particularly accurate anyway, and Wikipedia is not nearly as important as you seem to think it is. [[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 14:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** Delete. Inconsequential nonsense. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 15:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
***Vote as you think fit. That is your right. But please do not call my religion ''Inconsequential nonsense''. That is fighting talk. What is ''your'' religion and in what way is it more sensible?[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 15:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
****Save oyur breath BRother. HTese are not the righteous.[[User:Jethro|Jethro]] 16:13, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**And what then should we do with all the remaining inconsequential nonsense on Wikipedia? I say keep, it's a serious, if small, movement. [[User:Bmills|Bmills]] 15:29, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**Keep. Can I just chip in to say that I am a member of a Brianist community with 120 members. And that's just in a small town. we may be samll, but we ain't THAT small. I woul dguess we easily outnumber Wikipedians for instance. [[User:Jethro|Jethro]] 15:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
***No vote. Comments: Can we have some verifiable factual information or references, please? http://www.beliefnet.org does not report anything on "Brianism". I doubt this movement outnumbers Wikipedians. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 16:10, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**Note: [[User:Jethro]] has 2 edits (both to vfd) and is proabably a sock puppet.
**Note: [[User:BrianGuidesUs]] has 2 edits (both to vfd) and is proabably a sock puppet.
**There is no salvation except through our Lord Jesus Christ. All traces of this cult should be deleted. [[User:ChristianSoldier|ChristianSoldier]] 16:24, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** Okay, let's have a look at those Google hits.
*** #s 1,2, 5: "Brianism"s own websites.
*** #s 3,4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19: Wikipedia and copies thereof
*** #7: a tek-tips member page with nothing on it
*** #s 8,9: links on a link-farm site back to "Brianism"s main site
*** #s 12, 13: a comment on a forum linking back to... "Brianism"s own website
*** #15: Wikipedia article about the Monty Python film
*** #16: a Dalnet user-id, apparently unrelated to anything here
*** #18: an article about "Brian From Edinburgh", unrelated
*** #20: a tripod blog page
** and so on... I would also note that two sock-puppets are voting in favour of this page, a strong sign of a spoof. I say the burden of proof lies with those who assert that "Brianism" exists. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 16:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** Notice that [[User:ChristianSoldier]] ''also'' apears to be a sock-puppet, presumably of the same individual posting as [User:Jethro]] and [[User:BrianGuidesUs]]. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 16:51, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*** Just a thought. How do we know these are sock puppets and not just users who created accounts for the first time to make their feelings known? And didn't Christian Soldier vote ''against''? The only sure way would be to know the IP numbers. Can a sysop retrieve these please?
****Sysops can not check IPs. Only developers can do this. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 20:28, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
***** If this anon contrib'r is not another sock puppet (who already knows the IPs are carefully dispersed), they should now retroactively sign that comment, indicating the time stamp to make it easy to verify. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]] 20:07, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
*****It was me. Sorry, forgot to sign. What do you mean by "IPs are carefully dispersed"? How would one set about doing that? I would be interested to know if they all had the same IP, the same ISP, or perhaps were in different countries completely? A sock puppet must ahve a hand in it and I see no evidence of said hand. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 20:22, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**Keep. The apparent sockpuppetism and mischief not withstanding, Brianism certainly exists and has many followers. Whether or not it is popular enough to merit an article in WP is a judgment call. I think it does. I can verify that I have been a Brianist for many years and know many other Brianists, in many countries. There is a regular electronic magazine. The main church has offices in Britain in the Empire House building in Mayfair, London. (Any Wikipedians living near there may like to visit and confirm.) I understand that the church also owns other property in the UK and elsewhere. Brianism is represented - very unfairly - as a New Age Cult in the film Bubble Boy. At least this is recognition. The "cult" is grouped for ridicule along with Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. (Islam escapes mention. Probably they did not dare.) The WBF publishes accounts and had a turnover in the millions last year. The WBF runs its own server farm, together with its own name servers. The WBF provides free hosting to skeptic websites "as a service to humanity" and free e-mail addresses to skeptics and Brianists. The WBF claims 18,000 followers. Personally I think this is a bit high. It may have been true 10 years ago. For some years, Brianists have been lobbying the skeptic movement to adopt the term ''bright'' instead of ''skeptic'' or ''debunker''. ("Bright and Shiny" is the first sentence in the "Book of Brian".) This has been accepted to some degree by noted skeptics including James Randi and Michael Shermer [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=skeptic+brights&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search]. Here is a link to a very well respected website [http://www.skeptic-links.org/brianism.htm]. I'll find some more when I get a moment. Contrary to received WP wisdom, not everything is in Google! All of of the above can easily be verified with a little research - or you can take my word for it based upon my previous behavior and ethical conduct at WP. In conclusion, this harmless little article on an admittedly small movement is accurate and does no harm. It seems an inappropriate target for VfD when so many nonsensical and minority articles are tolerated in WP. Do the right thing people. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 17:32, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** Ah. That would be the domain with the apprently false domain registration information then, unless the admin and tech contacts are really called "Rex Mundi" and "Gloria Mundi"? Note that the "very well respected website" you are citing, http://www.skeptic-links.org/, is hosted at the same IP address as http://www.brianism.org/, apparently by the "WBF". Rather than running their own server farm, they appear to be customers of Affinity Dedicated, according to RIPE. The address and telephone number given is of a "business centre" (http://www.mayfairoffice.com/contact.html) which offers mail redirection as one of its services. Please let me know if this has become a temple, so I can go there in person and check it out. For a "cyber religion", Brianism is remarkably absent from Usenet or mailing lists. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 18:02, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
***I stand corrected on the London office. Certainly that is the address we use. I did not know it was a business center, but the use of such is surely evidence Brianism exists, rather than that it does not? Affinity Dedicated owns the IP addresses, which is not surprising, since they own the data center where the servers are located. Don't confuse network IP ownership with hardware or domain ownership please. Since WBF offers free hosting to skeptic websites, why would you be surprised to find one hosted there? I know the persons Rex and Gloria Mundi. Rex was my mentor when I joined the movement. I must admit these names are aliases, but then so are Anjouli and The Anome. You do not address the other matters, which I find telling. Perhaps you think they are also spurious? Please check them out and tell me what you find. There is a regular mailing list, but it is not public - and Usenet is for nerds and perverts. There are likely many Brianists who would rush to the cause to defend the movement, but no doubt they would be dismissed as sock-puppets unless they were already long-standing editors. If we are judging by numbers, how many of the world's many millions of Muslims got involved in the Mecca/Makkah argument? Perhaps three or four? I'm amazed so many (apparent) Brianists have already jumped in to this argument. It does not particularly matter if WP deletes Brianism whilst retaining many trivial and nonsensical articles - Brianism will carry in as before - but it would be a great shame.[[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 18:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**Keep. Despite the sockpuppetism and rediculousness of the article, this seems legit. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 18:32, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**'''User Anome has now vandalised this article by deleting it in its entirety before going through the proper VfD process.'''' Somebody please revert. I think it is better if that is not me as I do not want to start a personal edit war. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 18:56, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*** No vote. Comment FYI: [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] refers AsFarAsIUnderstand to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Brianism&diff=2139721&oldid=2139615 this edit by The Anome]. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Brianism&diff=2140233&oldid=2139721 edited it again] to optimise it for NPOVness, as long as the article still exists. .'. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 20:42, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'[[User_talk:Optim|.]]
**Delete. Wikipedia exists to document things that already exist, not to advertise things that somebody hopes would exist. When the world at large notices Brianism, then it will be time for an article. ''If'' article survives VfD, I think the recent heavy-handed editing (as of today) is right on; don't restore previous version. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 19:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** Del --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]] 20:09, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
**Would those voting on this article please do so on the basis of [[User:Wik|Wik]]'s revision of 23 Nov and not on the current revision which seems deliberately designed to ensure deletion? May I place it on record that I consider the deletion of the entire text of an article, whilst under the recognised process of peer review on VfD to be unethical and duplicitous. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]]
**Excluding the sites skeptic-links.org and brianism.org and sites using Wikipedia content, I can not find anything that verifies this information. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 20:28, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
*** the same here. I cannot find any independent review on "Brianism". [[User:Optim|Optim]] 20:42, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**** [http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/ Religious Movements Homepage Project] also has no information on Brainism. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 21:06, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
***** I meant Brianism. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 21:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**This is a reasoned viewpoint. It may well be that Brianism is too obscure to merit a WP article and that is a view I would reluctantly accept if held by the majority. However it is not "Inconsequential nonsense", nor do I accept the forcing of a viewpoint by proactive and unilateral deletion of the material under discussion before the prescribed time period has elapsed. I am sickened by the lack of support for this point of view. I would have thought even those who felt the article should be deleted would have supported me in this. Is this what passes for reasoned discussion in WP? I seriously consider whether I want to have further involvement withthis project.[[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 20:38, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**No evidence that it exists 'in the wild'. Delete as vanity. [[User:Salsa Shark|Salsa Shark]] 23:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**Keep. This is just the sort of BS I like to see. Needs editing for NPOV and accuracy of course. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wiki is not paper]] [[User:JackLynch|Jack]] 09:38, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
--------------------------
Anjouli, I'm just seeking evidence, as any good skeptic would.
* Point one: "For some years, Brianists have been lobbying the skeptic movement to adopt the term bright instead of skeptic or debunker." You appear to be claiming that the "Brianist movement" is behind the use of the term "Brights"? Evidence please?
* Point two: the "Book of Brian" is not available online, as far as I can see. Not on the "brianism" website. Not anywhere on the web (based on searching for "book of Brian" and the text published as a "sura" from the "book". Not on Usenet. This is pretty strange, for an organization that claims to be promoting this world-view, "claims 18,000 followers" and claims that the electronic text is the primary text. Most belief systems seek to publish their works widely. Can you show evidence of this, or explain why this is not the case?
* Point three: the site says "Each month we publish a verse from the book of Brian, together with a commentary on its meaning". Not according to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, which finds the same text cited for February 20 2003, June 21 2003, and today. For a worldwide organization with thousands of members, there's apparently not much activity on their website. Can you explain this?
* Point four: You state that the Brianism organization is ten years old, i.e. dates back to 1994. That's strange, because the domain name ''brianism.org'' was only registered in 2000, according to the .ORG registrar. Evidence please?
* Can you explain what kind of legal entity the "World Brianism Association", cited in the registration for ''brianism.org'', is? Is is a company, a trust, a charity, a limited partnership, or what? Does it exist at all under UK law? What about U.S. law? What relationship does it bear to the "World Brianism Foundation" that claims copyright on the website?
Please feel free to satisfy me on any of these points by providing checkable evidence. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 00:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Why bother, since you are clearly going to delete it anyway? But just for the hell of it 1) I have heard this said and it seems a bit of a coincidence if it is not true. I would be interested to hear if you have any alternative theories on the origin of "Bright". Or don't you think that is a real term either? Suggest you ''ask'' somebody. If you don't know any skeptics, e-mail a skeptic group. Oh, but not anybody using skeptic-links, because you you don't trust them either do you? 2) The answer to that is on the website. Did you even look at it? There is a clear procedure for releasing verses and you have to move up the tree. 3) WBA is a load of crap anyway. Most serious Brianists have nothing to do with it. Like skepticism (or Christianity) Brianism is not something you ''join''. It is about what you believe. 4) For a long time there WERE no websites. The first one was a Yahoo group, but it dried up after getting a lot of attacks from "Christians" and "Muslims". 5) Don't know and don't care. I have nothing to do with them. I am a skeptic. I believe in transhumanism. I believe in space exploration and the advancement of the human race. I have nothing but contempt for conventional religion, pseudoscience, bigotry, terrorism and nationalism. The label I and others use for that is a Brianist. It's got nothing to do with websites, links and petty bickering over Wikipedia articles. Who cares about Wikipedia? It's full of inconsequential nonsense anyway, and far to unstable to be used for any real research or reference. [[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 12:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
* It's not a registered charity in the UK [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/], nor is anything brianist incorporated in the UK [http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/]. I think I may be taking this too seriously ;) [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 12:16, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
The reasons for deleting this article are very similar to the ones I suggested for deleting [[Libertarian National Socialist Green Party]] and that didn't get deleted (see [[Talk:Libertarian National Socialist Green Party]]) so if one get deleted than the other one shouldn't either. [[User:Saulisagenius|Saul Taylor]] 05:02, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
* [http://www.nbsdc.org.uk/gate.html], [http://www.mycgiserver.com/~s1382248/SculpturalUrns/aboutUrns.html]. My covern and my urns, not that I expect it to make any difference! [[User:62.3.32.34|62.3.32.34]] 05:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
'''Brianism''' is also a [[mock religion]] described by the website http://www.brianism.org
---
Underlited boved here as this is talk about the article, not a contribution to the article itself. Hope that's correct. [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 07:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Some facts about Brianism:
* They call the circle-with-a-centre-at-its-point, a [[solar symbol]], '''Circumpunct''';
* It makes many claims;
* A number of people argue that there is little or no independent evidence for Brianism, other than claims made on the website.
* Other websites hosted at the same IP address make similar claims.
* The registration details for the site's domain ''brianism.org'' are also listed on another web page as the main telephone number and address of a mail-forwarding and office services company in [[London]].
* "Brianism" on [[Google]] gives only 92 hits, as of [[January 12]] [[2004]]. Most of them seem to be from sites that use this article as a source.
* The University of Virginia's [http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/ Religious Movements Homepage Project] has no entry on Brianism.
* [http://www.beliefnet.org BeliefNet.org] also has no information on Brianism.
* Nor does Rick Ross's cult web site [http://www.rickross.com/sg_alpha.html] [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 12:08, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
---
I'm not sure what a [[sock puppet]] is in this context. I assume it means somebody pretending to be somebody else to get a double vote. I assure you I am an individual. I have been browsing Wikipedia for a long time, even doing the odd edit. This is the first time I have felt the need to create an account, since it is not possible to vote on VfD without one. I am a Brianist. I have nothing to hide. I am quite happy to talk to anyone - by phone, MSN or whatever, and nothing about me is a secret.[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 11:56, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)And this is me again, logged-out so you can see my IP address. [[User:213.209.162.252|213.209.162.252]] 12:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC) Hope a developer will be kind enough to compare it with the IPs of other parties to this discussion so that I can establish my bona fides. [[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 12:03, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Great! Now you're online from
route: 213.209.160.0/19
descr: Skylogic Italia Network
origin: AS29286
Very good! I'm in Rome. Now all you need to do is locate the other "sock puppets" and you will know if they are all the same person![[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 12:39, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
you can help me by answering some of my questions above. In particular, the article claims that the "The First Testament of the 'Book of Brian' consists of 6 books of 6 chapters of 6 verses. Each verse is of 4 sentences containing 3, 7, 10 and 18 words" Can you point me to an online copy, or post one here, containing all 216 verses. It shouldn't take long, as you surely have a machine-readable copy, since the ''brianism.org'' says that "An interesting attribute of the Book of Brian is that it exists primarily in electronic form. Printed copies of the Book of Brian are considered secondary representations." It's time to show the evidence. Please reply ASAP to dispel any suspicions that you have written the document subsequent to this request. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 12:22, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There is a clear procedure for the revelation of verses. But just to shut you up I will break a few rules:
Bright and shiny.
Out of our chrysalis into the world.
We must transcend our past and move forwards into tomorrow.
We are the noble vanguard who by our efforts and example will save the universe for the righteous.
[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 12:50, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Fear not death.
Time is relative and we live forever.
The void before is the same as that which follows.
Never forget your life is a very precious gift which permits the proper operation of the evolutionary mechanism.
[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 12:53, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Science uses resources.
Knowledge eats gold and comfort eats gold.
Pure research is a noble enterprise that must be supported.
A little discomfort is the price of acquiring the wisdom to deal with events in the distant future.
[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 12:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Brother, NO NO NO. This is sacred text. Do not take the bait!!!! What is oyur house? [[User:62.3.32.33|62.3.32.33]] 12:56, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My house is Kronstag.[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 12:58, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Then you know better. My house is Albion. [[User:62.3.32.34|62.3.32.34]] 12:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nevermore.
Nevermore.[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 13:01, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:You are both taking this a bit too seriously. Please e-mail me privately. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 09:41, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
---------------
Ah. I see: you claim to have evidence to prove your assertions, but you can't show it to anyone because ''it's a secret''. At the same time, no mainstream information source, or Web search demonstrates any proof of the widespread movement as claimed to exist on the website: indeed, the most common Web-based information is this article, a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Unfortunately, this puts "Brianism" in the class of idiosyncratic, non-encylopedic information that does not belong in Wikipedia. See [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] for more information on this. -- [[User:217.37.214.121|217.37.214.121]] 13:02, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have nothing much to add to the above. Most of what I would say has already been said by others. I'm quite prepared to accept the deletion of [[Brianism]] if the majority view is that it is not well-known enough. No hard feelings to anybody. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 15:48, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
----
If you really take Wikipedia seriously then you should delete Brianism.
I have analysed all references to Brianism in Google and Yahoo Search, and have arrived at these figures of individual websites referring to B. are:
Websites referring to and acknowledging Brianism.org: 3
Websites referring to and acknowledging Wikipedia: 10
Websites which are jokey (not by any means satirical or skeptical as such but that have pseudo encyclopedias referring to Briangrad capital and Brianism as main religion, or about art events in the 10th millennium, or even discussing various isms such as sandalism, brianism and one-bare-footism and pseudo discussions about brianism in relation to dress: 4
Website totally irrelevant (sex page): 1
Websites of or about people called Brian or O'Brian: 8
Website about anti-Brianism: 1
Website which is commercial, that of a broker quoting one of Brianism's alleged sayings: 1
Frankly, as a Brianist, I'd be a bit embarrassed in the company of some of these people who also call themselves Brianists.
I am sorry but I can't see how Brianism can do Wikipedia any good.<br>
Please delete. --[[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]] 23:28, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
----
Delete. Dude! What a row. I'm changing my vote to delete because I can see which way the wind's blowing. I'm a newbie and don't want to get a rep as a trouble maker. All the "What's your house" nonsense sounds just like my brother and his stupid friends. If we believe the people here who say they are Brianists that makes BrianGuidesUs (who can count words and type pretty fast if he's making that up as he goes) , Anjouli, Jethro, BMills, 62.3.32.34 and I expect R and M Mundi who own the domain name. My brother and his 3 mates make another 4 I know about. That's ten Brianists. If there are only ten of them, then that's 17,990 missing! My brother says I should join if I want to find out, so I have signed up on the Brianist site this morning but no reply from them yet. (So I guess that's only 17,989 missing!) It's not a bad idea and seems to be about being against pseudoscience, the supernatural and religion and in favour of preserving intelligent life and scientific progress. There is nothing they say that I would not support, but I think they make a mistake in trying to be funny and "cultlike". Might get more support if they were more serious. Hey, Im a Brianist! Don't ask me what my house is, or I can only give the postcode :) [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 07:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:Whatever you think, pro or anti, you should say it. Don't just follow the herd! Forgive me, but you seem a bit confused. Didn't you say you were a Christian and against Brianism when you voted to keep the page? Now you say you are a Brianist and are voting against? Very strange. But perhaps not as strange as some who have been on this page! [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 09:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
::Ok keep. Well I don't think it does any harm to keep it if you keep some of the other crap. Can't see it is any less interesting or valid. How many Brianists do you need? There seem to be at least a half-dozen of them. I'm a christian on paper, but when you think about it it's really a load of pants. I just don't like the way www.brianism.org mocks christians. My Mum goes to church and I don't like the idea of them making fun of her.[[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 12:11, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
----
Does this link have any weight as independent evidence -> [http://www.nbsdc.org.uk/gate.html]. It was already posted by somebody long back, but everybody seems to be ignoring it. My point is that it seems to be a Brianist website but does not contain the word Brianism. I have tried searching Google with some of the text on this site but got no hits, ''not even this site''. My point is how do we know there are not hundreds of sites like this? Any Brianists watching would do well to list them here and somebody could also e-mail the owner of the site that the above page is under (seems to be a pet club in Belgium). Also did anybody watch the film Bubble Boy [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22bubble+boy%22+%22bright+and+shiny%22]? Can't get a copy here, but there seems some link. Might of course be the people who made the film also made the Brianist website, but probably not. The film is 2001 and The Anome says the site was the same as it is now in 2000. Anybody want to vote again? [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 07:12, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
'''[http://www.brianism.org/wikipedia.htm An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism.]''' In view of this, I change my vote to Delete. Link has apparently been e-mailed to participants in the discussion, but should properly be posted here, which I am doing. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 13:29, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:Apparently, Brianists live in the future, since their letter is dated 20 Jan 2004. *grins* - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 13:43, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
::Well if it hasn't been written yet, you should not be reading it :) [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 14:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:::Perhaps. But after following this discussion, I am affirmed that Brianism should not be deleted, and I think I want to convert! - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 14:33, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
== VfD ==
* Keep. Copyedit n' generalize. [[User:Reddi|JDR]]
* Delete. From [http://www.brianism.org/wikipedia.htm]: ''"we are just a group of skeptics trying to have some fun"'' and ''"We make no claims to being a huge organization, to being worthy of, or even desiring, an article in Wikipedia"'' and '''''"We would prefer it if the article on Brianism were removed from Wikipedia"'''''. .[[Mike Cameron|:]]. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 17:39, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) .[[Wassily Leontief|:]].
* Keep. Would we remove a NPOV article on any other religion, organization, or movement just because they don't want to be listed here? We document. We record. We remain as neutral as possible. (However, the Heisenberg Uncertainty applies: an observer changes the entity observed.) - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 18:15, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** Except from their declaration that they prefer the article to be removed, we should delete "Brianism" because there is no such word. Of course this problem would not exist with an article [[World Brianism Foundation]] is created, explaining not what Brianism is but what the World Brianism Foundation does. In this case of course there should be some discussion on whether WBF is important or famous enough for inclusion but this is another issue[[AMORC|.]] [[User:Optim|Optim]] 19:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*** Uh huh. I understand that, but I disagree. The word now exists for all of us who've read the article. And for those Brianists of the world who happen to find Wikipedia. I'll grant that it's a [[neologism]], but that doesn't mean it is not worthy of being an article. I think it is a meaningful article, documenting a new phenomenon. Once we all just settle down and get all the facts straight, that is. *grins* - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 19:40, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. The article is comprehensive enough to to warrant an article. Wikipedia's advantage over traditional encyclopedia's is potentially having more articles on just about anything. I don't think keeping this is any problem. - [[User:Lord Kenneth|Lord Kenneth]] 23:26, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
**It is a problem as long as the article is named [[Brianism]] and not [[World Brianism Foundation]]. Now, in case the article is renamed [[World Brianism Foundation]] we will have another problem because they are generally unknown and unimportant. Also, the WBF has clearly stated that they would prefer the article to be removed. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 23:42, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
* 7 to keep ([[User:SpellBott]], [[User:BrianGuidesUs]], [[User:Bmills]], [[User:Jethro]], [[User:UtherSRG]], [[User:JackLynch]], [[User:Reddi]])
* 8 to delete ([[User:The Anome]], [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch]], [[User:ChristianSoldier]], [[User:Jerzy]], [[User:Salsa Shark]], [[User:Anjouli]], [[User:Dieter Simon]], [[User:Optim]])
* Humbly submitted - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 22:28, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
----
* From deletion log: ''19:25, 16 Jan 2004 The Anome deleted "Brianism" (deleting, been on VfD for 5 days, and a 2/3 majority for deletion (according to my count))'' I suggest not to delete this talk page in order to save it for archival purposes. - [[User:Optim|Optim]] 19:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
==More from VfD==
*** Posted some new evidence we may have missed. Please review. [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 07:31, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
****There is no new evidence. This is simply and purely a propaganda article on behalf of a small movement called "Brianism" without any independent assessment by people other than "Brianists". This voting page should never have been moved from Vfd after a number of people had already voted for or against deletion. Please keep this on "Votes for deletion but do not try to befuddle everyone with your pseudo talk. I am going to try to move the actual votes back here and leave the irrelevancies of the chat among the Brianist members at the Talk:Brianism site. --[[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]] 19:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
***** Please define pseudo-talk. Or better still, create a Wiki article on it. I don't understand what you mean.[[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 11:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
****Trying again later as system very slow. --[[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]] 22:33, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*****FWIW, things with lengthy discussion are often moved to keep this page of a manageable size. The discussion can still continue elsewhere until a decision is reached. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 00:47, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
**Re Brianism, I just don't want things to be lost sight of, Del, and the whole page has become so large mainly because of pretty irrelevant and inconsequential items and chat among some members of this group. We are not here as a mouthpiece for a new movement, worthy or otherwise, as an encyclopedia we should be describing what has been created elsewhere and is already in existence as a solid theme independently observed by other people. We should not be assisting the creation of it. That way lies POV and an ''unfree'' encyclopedia --[[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]] 01:31, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*** Assume you mean chat among some members of this group which ppl say does not exist and therefore can have no members? [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 11:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**'''[http://www.brianism.org/wikipedia.htm An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism.]''' In view of this, I change my vote to Delete. Link has apparently been e-mailed to participants in the discussion, but should properly be posted in WP. Am posting here also, since the discussion seems to have strayed back here. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 13:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
** Keep. Copyedit n' generalize. JDR
* My current tally of votes:
* 7 to keep ([[User:SpellBott]], [[User:BrianGuidesUs]], [[User:Bmills]], [[User:Jethro]], [[User:UtherSRG]], [[User:JackLynch]], [[User:Reddi]])
* 8 to delete ([[User:The Anome]], [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch]], [[User:ChristianSoldier]], [[User:Jerzy]], [[User:Salsa Shark]], [[User:Anjouli]], [[User:Dieter Simon]], [[User:Optim]])
* Humbly submitted - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 22:28, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Update, based on discussion below:
* 5 to keep ([[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]], <s>[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]]</s>, [[User:Bmills|Bmills]], <s>[[User:Jethro|Jethro]]</s>, [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]], [[User:JackLynch|Jack]], [[User:Reddi|JDR]])
* 7 to delete ([[User:The Anome|The Anome]], [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]], <s>[[User:ChristianSoldier|ChristianSoldier]]</s>, [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]], [[User:Salsa Shark|Salsa Shark]], <s>[[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]]</s>, [[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]], [[User:Optim|Optim]], [[User:Angela|Angela]])
- [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 06:15, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
----
Anome has now undeleted this. I suggest it be left on VfD for a longer period so that people may change their votes in light of the letter if they want to. Regarding the count - it should be noted that BrianGuidesUs, Jethro and ChristianSoldier had not made any edits previously, and the suggestions that they are sock puppets would lead me to want to discount these from the vote count anyway. Reddi hasn't given any reason for wanting to keep this. Simple keep/delete opinions without reasons aren't very helpful when the aim is to come to some sort of consensus on whether to delete it. This reduces the delete votes to 4. My comment that it violates the verifiability policy should also be taken as a vote to delete, which does bring the % to delete above 66%, though any consensus is still lacking, so I think the vote needs to be left longer than five days. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 23:15, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
I would be interested to know how I can prove I am not a sock puppet. I have done everything short of post my street-address address and a blood sample. Perhaps there IS no way and Wikipedia=Salem, sock-puppet=witch. I say that The Anome, Optim and Salsa Shark are the same person. Disprove please? See what I mean? Not so easy, is it? Burn me if you must. [[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 10:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:And you don't think the fact that your first ever edit to Wikipedia was [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|Votes for deletion]] is a little suspicious? Right. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 10:55, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
::Well said. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 23:22, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:::Agree[[Confraternity of the Rose Cross|!]] [[User:Optim|Optim]] 23:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
::Ok ... some depth needed? "''Copyedit''" to reduce the www.brianism.org influence and show the various other application of the term ... "''n' generalize''" to Monty Python and the RPG ... IF this is not possible, then deletion may be the only option (but I fear the article will come back @ one time or another [ie., another brianist may come; odd things tend to reoccur)... Sincerely, [[User:Reddi|JDR]] (BTW, isn't there a bible according to brian? IIRC, there was ... mabey not [more later])
::::Everybody is complaining about what these "Brianists" might do and what they have said on Wiki, while at the same time saying they do not exist. Fascinating! [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 11:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:Probably making a fool of myself, but I'm sick of this argument and don't wish to be involved further. Please disregard any previous vote I have made, or call my vote an 'abstain'. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 06:08, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
::You said I was illogical because I changed my vote. You have now voted to keep, voted to delete and now abstained. *grin* just teasing! [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 11:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Notice we are keeping [[World Church of the Creator]]. I'd rather join Brianism thanks.[[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 12:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
== Guidance for non-puppets ==
"BrianGuidesUs" writes: "I would be interested to know how I can prove I am not a sock puppet"
Go to your homepage at [[user:BrianGuidesUs]]. Tell us your real name. Upload a photo of yourself so we know what you look like. Scan your library card or student card or similar, and upload that. Tell us your email address - a proper one, not some disposable yahoo address. If you have a homepage on any other online communities, or a blog, or whatever, link to that place, and edit it to link back to [[user:BrianGuidesUs]]. Tell us your snail mail address - work address or home address, either's fine.
You don't have to do that, of course - but if you don't you forfeit your right to complain about being regarded as a sock puppet. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 16:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:The only thing somebody who posts his picture, e-mail address, street address and scans of his personal documents on a public website will be proving is that he is a complete idiot! May as well ask for credit card details while we are busy. Do you want to see a scan of my pension book? :) [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 17:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
<nowiki>*Ahem*</nowiki>, I don't mean to suggest that someone does ''all'' of that - it's just options. Telling someone your email address doesn't breach your security. I don't know about yours, but my library card has nothing remotely personal on it, not even a signature, so that's no security risk either. I've never heard of any risk from posting a self-photo, unless you have something specific in mind. A street address is perfectly harmless if it's a care-of address, and even most home addresses are fairly low-risk, depending on your personal circumstances.
The long and the short of it is that it's trivially easy to prove who you are online, by any of a hundred different methods. While BrianGuidesUs apparently ''won't'' tell us who sie is, we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that this is because sie ''can't''. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 18:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
: It would also be trivially easy to fake any of the above. [[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 07:19, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Look, you wanted to know how you could prove that you weren't a sock puppet. I've told you how. You can sit here and debate the underlying nature of "proof" and the theoretical ease with which one can create an entire virtual life out of whole cloth... or you can prove that you're not a sock puppet. Doesn't bother me either way, but again, if you don't put the effort in to make yourself appear as a real person, don't be surprised if people don't treat you as a real person. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 15:37, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
=== Puppet isn't the issue ===
BrianGuidesUs - Being a puppet isn't the issue. As per [[Wikipedia:Deletion_Policy#Voting_Policy]], the rules for voting are that you have to have a minimum of 25 non-minor edits before voting, and that you have been a registered user for at least a week. You don't meet that criteria, so your vote doesn't count. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 17:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:A more informal reading of the policy would actually imply that any votes/comments made in good faith would be taken into consideration. The 25 edits rules was implemented as a way of trying to weed out obvious sock puppets who are clearly not voting in good faith, but there's more to making a deletion decision than a simple vote count. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 17:18, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
::I agree with Angela on what should be done - but a rigid interpretation of the wording agrees more with what UtherSRG says. Perhaps the policy needs re-wording? Do we really count how many edits each user has to determine if a vote is valid? It does not sound very practical. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 17:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ahem: '''The remainder of this section (up to the "Candidates for speedy deletion" heading) is a proposed change to the policy'''. It's a proposal. It's not policy. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 18:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
== The "Sock puppet" speaks==
I have my own suspicions Angela. Some statements follow. Those marked FACT can be independently verified. Those marked DEDUCTION are my deductions based on the facts. Many people here will object to the deductions. I expect that some will also deny the facts. That is human nature. These are my honest opinions and observations given as a Wikipedia outsider. If you disagree, then I hope you will discuss things in a calm and intellectual manner, and not avoid the issue by calling me a troll or sock-puppet, or by simply deleting them because you are embarrassed that others may see them. I leave you to discuss these things between yourselves as I feel Wiki is a lost cause.
FACT A. Wikipedia has a clear policy on votes for deletion. [[Wikipedia:Deletion_Policy#Voting_Policy]].
FACT B. Martin claims on this page this is just a "proposed change".
FACT C. It did not ''say'' that. It does now, but that is just because Martin changed the policy yesterday [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&action=history]
DEDUCTION: The Wikipedia elite change the policy as they wish to force their own opinions.
FACT D. Quote: "At the end of five days, if 2/3 majority vote to delete, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." The article [[Brianism]] has been on Votes for Deletion for over 5 days and has never reached the 2/3 majority vote, whether "sock-puppets" are counted or not. Certainly if only votes that ''very strictly'' meet the criteria are counted (and I have counted everybody's edits) it is well short of 2/3.
FACT E. Instead of removing the article from Votes for Deletion, the voting period has been extended. [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion]]
FACT F. The above is a violation of Wikipedia policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&oldid=2175002#Voting_Policy]
DEDUCTION: The Wikipedia power elite plan to extend the period as long as requied in the hope that the required 2/3 majority is reached. The moment this happens, they will immediately delete the article before the vote swings the other way again.
FACT G. The person who extended the voting period was Angela. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion&action=history]
FACT H. Angela has also voted to delete the page. (This page)
DEDUCTION: Angela is not impartial and has done this to support her own point of view rather than to reach a fair result.
FACT I. Anjouli has questioned Angela on her user page about her disregarding votes because people did not give a reason. Anjouli said there was no policy on this. [http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angela#Voting_on_VfD]
FACT J. Instead of backing-down, the power elite just changed the rules by adding ''or vote on'' to the policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion&action=history]
DEDUCTION: The Wikipedia elite change the policy as they wish to force their own opinions.
FACT K. Angela has said on this page that "there's more to making a deletion decision than a simple vote count" which obviously means that the deletion decision will not be based on a 2/3 majority of votes.
FACT L. Policy states otherwise: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&oldid=2175002#Voting_Policy]
DEDUCTION: Angela advocates the violation of policy.
DEDUCTION: If the decision is not based upon the number of people voting each way, then it can only be that the some votes are given more importance than others. For instance The Anome's vote may count for more than UtherSRG's. Or vice-a-versa, which I doubt since The Anome is a member of the power elite and UtherSRG Is not.
DEDUCTION: This is manifestly undemocratic and unfair. The Wikipedia elite change the policy as they wish to force their own opinions.
FACT M: Both Angela and Martin have both voted against the article on this page and, as referenced above, changed policy that might bias the outcome towards their opinions.
DEDUCTION: This is at best a major conflict of interest and worst a manipulation of policy to suit personal opinion.
SUSPICION: Who will be the person who tallies the votes and decides on the outcome? One of those involved above, or one of their close friends? I expect so.
FINALLY: I believe that a small Wikipedia power elite of some half-dozen users (some of whom I strongly suspect are single person with multiple long standing identities) will delete this article whatever the vote. If policy says it should be kept, as seems to be the case at the moment, they will either disregard or change the policy. I may be proven wrong, but I will be very surprised.
Decision making on Wikipedia has all the integrity of a Zimbabwean election.
I put it to you that my opinion will have prevailed if the above posting is simply deleted to hide it, or an attack is mounted on me personally, rather than on the facts and deductions.
If Wikipedia has a structured policy and if talk pages are for dispassionate intellectual discussion of facts, you can now demonstrate that. I do not expect that to happen. I now leave Wikipedia for good. Based on this discussion, it is a lost cause as an intellectual achievement. Have fun kids. [[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 07:03, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
: Your "FACT C" is incorrect - I merely clarified the point, which had been inadvertantly obscured by the addition of a header by "UtherSRG" on 17:09, 17 Jan 2004 UTC. Please see the [http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&oldid=2174466 revision as of 04:13, 16 Jan 2004]. It was also obscured in part by my careless creation of [[wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion]] on 00:43, 10 Jan 2004 UTC - see [http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&oldid=2121559 Revision as of 16:22, 22 Dec 2003] for the prior version.
: Your "FACT C" is a fairly fundamental error, and invalidates the following subsidiary "FACTs": A, C, D, F, I, L, and M. I suggest you remake your argument in the light of this new information. Thank you for your thorough analysis of Wikipedia procedures. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 14:18, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
----
Ok, I've known Angela, particularly, for several months, and I don't think she's emotionally involved with this article at all. There is no wikipedia "power elite". There's a group of over a hundred "sysops" who have the ''power'' to do a few things, but '''no''' additional ''authority''. I'm one of them. I happen to like Brianism as a philosophy. Angela may or may not. This is not a factor when we decide which articles to keep - and no one person decides this. This is also NOT the first time in WP history that a deletion discussion has been continued beyond the usual week. [[User:Pakaran|Pakaran]][[User talk:Pakaran|.]] 07:46, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:Hi Pakaran. Is that a vote to keep? This BrianGuidesus is one rude dude but I must say that it confuses me when the rules keep changing or when the rules ppl follow seem to be different from whats written. Can anybody change rules? Can I change them? If not, who is allowed? Why not just kept brianism like he says? I don't really understand that. Not a problem for me because more people see to be voting to keep it as time passes. Angela is cool by the way, but I can see she is in an exposed position if she votes and then counts votes. Sure she is honest like you say, but it cvan give a bad impression. [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 08:01, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*I don't think there is some problem with Angela, she is a very good user and admin. [[Brianism]] should be deleted because: 1) World Brianism Foundation doesn't seem to want this article; 2) There is no "Brianist" [[philosophy]]. They clearly state that they are just a group of skeptics who make some fun; 3) The word "Brianism" does not really exist outside the World Brianism Foundation and Monty Python's film and EOW role playing game, AFAIK; 4) They are not important/famous. For these reasons an article [[Brianism]] is not good. However an article [[World Brianism Foundation]] would be OK, but only if they have enough publicity or if they are important enough. When they become important we will certainly include them in the encyclopedia. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 08:36, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nothing I have said on Angela’s talk page or elsewhere should be construed as an attack on her integrity or used to support an attack on her integrity. We may not always agree, but that does not mean I do not respect her ethics and her differing point of view. [[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]] 08:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Del. Brianism -wikipedia -> 68 Google hits. Irrelevant. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 14:44, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
== Today's count==
Not counting the sockos I now make it:
* 7 to keep ([[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]], <s>[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]]</s>, [[User:Bmills|Bmills]], <s>[[User:Jethro|Jethro]]</s>, [[User:Pakaran|Pakaran]], [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]], [[User:JackLynch|Jack]], [[User:Reddi|JDR]], [[User:Saulisagenius|Saul Taylor]])
* 8 to delete ([[User:The Anome|The Anome]], [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]], <s>[[User:ChristianSoldier|ChristianSoldier]]</s>, [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]], [[User:Salsa Shark|Salsa Shark]], [[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]], [[User:Optim|Optim]], [[User:Angela|Angela]], [[User:Wik|Wik]])
* 1 to abstain. ([[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]])
That's 7 days gone and it is only 8 out of 16 to delete. Needs 11 out of 16 to reach 2/3. Do we keep it now or what? I really do not understand how this works. [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 09:09, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:Just a quick note on how to count votes: Abtentions don't count. '2/3 majority to pass' means that at least twice as many votes must be in favor of an issue (deletion here) as there are votes opposed. With 7 keep votes, there must be 14 delete votes in order to delete the article (or 2 keeps switch to delete, or 3 keeps drop support). (I'm a polity geek in another life.) - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 20:01, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
::Oh sorry. Think I got it now. Thanks! But think we need to rewrite the rule a bit to make it clear that "abstain" votes are not counted towards the total of which we must reach 2/3. Right now you could argue it says the contrary (if you were a troll!). [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 05:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
== What links here ==
Would [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] please stop deleting all links to [[Brianism]] from other pages until it is decided whether or not to keep this page? It will just be a lot of work to be redone if the page is kept. I'm not shouting "vandal", but deleting valid links to a page that still exists on Wiki is a bit naughty, you must admit. [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 13:09, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
----
I am so tempted to move this talk page to [[Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense]]. But, let's waste some time instead...
I dispute fact B (see [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]]) – this should no longer be regarded as merely a proposal and no one has opposed that yet. Martin's right about fact C. The first deduction is nonsense as there is no elite, and a change of policy only means anything if the community accept that change. Fact D does not apply. This is not part of the policy, only the proposal. See the talk page. When citing facts E, F and your 2nd deduction, you fail to take into account the fact the letter that was sent. Such extenuating circumstances need to be taken into consideration as it is quite possible people's views will change as a result of this. Regarding facts G and H and your 3rd deduction, I only suggested it be extended. Anyone is free to edit VfD and say it hasn't been, but then anyone is free to re-list it on VfD. How is fact I relevant to anything? That issue was aboyt RickK being silly, not about deletion policy or this page. Fact J is unrelated to this and was made to clarify the policy which has not previously been expressed clearly in the wording on VfD. It was not a change of policy. Hence, your 4th deduction is a non sequitur. Fact K is my personal opinion and does not mean that a deletion decision will not be based on votes. Fact L is part of the proposed policy, not the accepted part. See the talk page. Hence, your 5th deduction is also wrong. I don't see how your next 2 deductions follow this. Fact M is clearly untrue. No policy has been changed, so your next deduction is also flawed. Your suspicions of some elite are adequately refuted above by Pakaran et al.
I do not regard myself as emotionally involved with this article. If I was that against it, I would have listed it for deletion months ago when I first saw it and asked Anjouli to provide further references to verify the existence of Brianism (see the first revision of her talk page).
To clarify, no one is changing any policies. I believe that the discussion period should be extended to take account of the letter. If someone disagrees, they can remove the listing from VfD if they feel that is justifiable.
[[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 18:34, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
:This is a very nice reply and I agree with it. I would only say that if you need to read [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]] to understand deletion policy, then maybe [[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy]] needs a bit of an edit. I certainly thought it was just off the list after 5 straight days without 2/3 valid votes to remove and I was confused when that did not happen. But I (think) I understand the policy better now. [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 05:36, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I will not have anything said against Angela either. She is one of the hardest working people you can find on Wikipedia and uses pretty sound judgement. It is becoming high time that we should be deleting Brianism now, instead of letting it spin out into all eternity, because it doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. The only sources discussing Brianism are the Brianism. com site and the various pages in Wikipedia, and as far as independent observers are concerned, they do not exist. So, are we going to be seen as totally partial to a new movement and spread their word, or are we going to present a Neutral Point of View and let the world have a look at this movement and its new philosophy? The idea of a new movement is always that they write their own books and articles and expose their views to independent observers and reviewers who then will offer critique and discourse, and that encyclopedias take it from there and describe the various points of view impartially. --[[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]] 01:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
**for these reasons an article titled [[Brianism]] is POV, while [[World Brianism Foundation]] is (at least) NPOV. Delete. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 02:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
== Today's count==
Not counting the sockos I now make it:
* 8 to keep ([[User:Lord Kenneth|Lord Kenneth]], [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]], <s>[[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]]</s>, [[User:Bmills|Bmills]], <s>[[User:Jethro|Jethro]]</s>, [[User:Pakaran|Pakaran]], [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]], [[User:JackLynch|Jack]], [[User:Reddi|JDR]], [[User:Saulisagenius|Saul Taylor]])
* 8 to delete ([[User:The Anome|The Anome]], [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]], <s>[[User:ChristianSoldier|ChristianSoldier]]</s>, [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]], [[User:Salsa Shark|Salsa Shark]], [[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]], [[User:Optim|Optim]], [[User:Angela|Angela]], [[User:Wik|Wik]])
* 1 to abstain. ([[User:Anjouli|Anjouli]])
And it's 50/50 again. [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 05:26, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
==What SpellBott plans to do==
Angela says "If someone disagrees, they can remove the listing from VfD if they feel that is justifiable."
I did not know I could ''do'' that. I though it had to be an admin.
As a newbie with only 500 edits, I'm not quite brave enough to do that without some feedback. This is the plan:
i) I think it should go off VfD because the article has been listed over 5 days without 2/3 consensus to delete, and because it was extended 8 days over the letter, again without a 2/3 consensus to delete - in fact it has moved the other way after the letter and is now 50/50. I don't see why the letter writer gets a vote. He is not a Wikipedian. We would not remove a NPOV article about a racist site because they said so.
You might also say the VAST size of this page and the various deletions of the article and its links by one user and reversions of the article and links by multiple users easily show that there is no consensus to delete.
ii) I will remove from the VfD list and remove the VfD notice.
iii) Remove the stuff from the article the letter says is not true.
Is this okay to do?
NB. I am not asking if you ''agree'' with keeping the article or not. Even if you want rid of it, please tell me if what I am doing is an acceptable action from someone who has a different opinion from you. I am still ''very'' confused about what is normal friendly discussion and action between people who respect each other but have different views and what is vandalism or trolling. I don't want to get walked over, but I don't want to break the rules either. [[User:SpellBott|SpellBott]] 05:59, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I suggest step iv) archive VfD discussion from this page to [[Talk:Brianism/VfD_Jan_2004]]. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 17:23, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what the vote is or the "consensus". They will delete it anyway.
:If you do what you say, one or more of these things will happen.
::A Your changes will be instantly reverted. If you put them back, there will be an edit war and they will lock it in the other person's favour, or you will be banned.
::B Somebody will suggest it again for deletion within days or weeks.
::C The Anome, who seems to be able to do what he likes without anybody stopping him, will vandalise it again or change it into something that is highly biased.
:Is it worth the trouble?
:Anybody looking on Wikipedia on February 1 will find the article long gone or changed to rubbish. Wait and you will see I am right. I wil repost this comment on Votes for Deletion on Feb 1 - but of course it will be deleted instantly. [[User:BrianGuidesUs|BrianGuidesUs]] 10:47, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
::Why so negative? That doesn't seem very Brianist. As a fellow Brianist, I think you have a severely misguided understanding of how Wikipedia works. There is no power elite: we do work by consensus. Do you understand what consensus is? A decision made by any group of us is as real a decision as any decision made by the power elite in any other setting. Decisions made are generally left alone until they prove to be untenable. I think SpellBott's got the right idea on what to do next, and the time is right for it to be done. If he has't already done it by tonight, I'll go ahead and implement his plan. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 17:09, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
To SpellBott: Given that opinion is split 50/50, I feel that the article should currently be retained, with a [[wikipedia:inclusion dispute]] on it. It may well be that by careful editing you can convince others that it deserves a place in the encyclopedia, and at such a point the notice of dispute may be removed. If opinions go the other way, perhaps we could move this into your user: space, so that you can republish it on another site at your leisure. If you republished it elsewhere, we might still wish to link to it from one or another Wikipeia article. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 18:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*The article must be moved to [[World Brianism Foundation]]. Do you agree? Then, we continue discussion on whether to delete it ot not, etc. But for now, let's move it. [[User:Optim|Optim]] 20:33, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I am a Brianist and the movement does exist. [[User:193.122.47.178|193.122.47.178]] 22:48, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It seems to exist, even though it appears to be denying it's belief system in an effort to get the article removed from here. [[User:JamesDay|Jamesday]] 16:32, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-----
Delete. Nothing wrong with parody religion but unless Brianism has gained a proven, big popularity the article doesn't belong in wikepdia. Wikepedia should not be a place for internet jokes or to advertise personal hobbies.
[[User:Andries|Andries]]
------All content in the above text box is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license Version 4 and was originally sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=55534068.
  This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|