User talk:TimidGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, TimidGuy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -THB 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hello TimidGuy and welcome to Wikipedia.

On your user page you indicate that you've come here for the purpose of working on the Transcendental Meditation article. It may help if you read the Wikipedia page on WP:SPA single purpose accounts. People who join the Wiki community for the purpose of editing one article or articles on only one issue often are not regarded as seriously as editors who work on articles from a variety of subjects. Edits and comments made by SPA users are often not respected as highly as those from editors who work on articles in a variety of subjects. The best way for a newbie SPA editor to gain respect and support from the community is to contribute to Wikipedia in more than the one subject for which he/she joined. With that said, welcome and happy editing. Askolnick 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the oldest version of the Transcendental Meditation article, [1] which you say you wrote and gave to an (apparently anonymous) editor, who put it up. The article reads like an advertisement for Transcendental Meditation. Even worse, it was entirely unsourced. Not one statement was attributed to areputable source that readers could check. There is no way that the article could have been left like that and not be completely rewritten. In addition, that article defined only one meaning of TM - the basic meditation technique that the movement teaches to initiates. But TM is far more than that. It's a moderately large organization, which some authorities consider to be a cult. It is also a registered trademarked name of a large variety of products and services, including the Transcendental Meditation-Sidhi technique and program. An article titled "Transcendental Meditation" therefore needs to address all its associated meanings - not just one. Wiki editors would never leave an article on "Honda" which only discusses motorcycles. As for having criticisms that are not "answered," "answering" criticisms is not the role of Wiki editors. Their job is to include the most important facts and opinions they can find. If they find "answers" to critisms in a reputable source (see WP:RS), they may included them. But bear in mind that all facts and opinions (except those that are well-known to most people - ie. sun rises in the east, sets in the west), must be backed up by citing a reputable source. Adding unsourced material is called "original research" and is not allowed in Wikipedia. I hope this information explains why the TM article is so different from what you asked an editor to put up. I also hope this information will help make your future contributions to Wikipedia easier and more rewarding.

However, keep in mind. As the article's history and the templates on top of the article indicate, it is a highly contentious article. You say that you are shy and "don't have the stomach for slugging it out on the discussion page." But that's exactly what is necessary when editing such contentious articles. Simply making changes in a hotly fought over article will often just be removed. If those changes are put back without sufficient discussion, it may likely lead to an edit war. This is not a good way for a Wiki editor to start. Perhaps you might consider first working on some other articles of interest to you, which are not so contentious. This will give you experience to help you avoid making errors that could lead to angry responses and disruption. Heaven knows there's too much of this already in Wikipedia, with this article seeing more than its share. Askolnick 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Askolnick. I'd been hoping someone would appear on my Talk page. I didn't know about SPA, but at this point it's my only option. Thanks for letting me know. I did know about the need to make comments on the discussion page to justify changes to the article. And I very much want to avoid edit warring. I also understand about no original research and citing reputable sources. But I do appreciate your pointing it out, and any other guidance you can give.
I agree that the original entry was inappropriate the way it was approached. (It was fairly early in the days of Wikipedia.) My point wasn't that it was good, but simply wanted to say that our intention was to have an entry just about Transcendental Meditation.
I've been involved with the organization that teaches Transcendental Meditation for 32 years and understand all its facets. But I've never heard anyone use TM the way you do, both within and outside the organization. Yikes, I don't want to get into it now, but as I understand it, Transcendental Meditation, as a registered trademark, refers to a very specific technique for meditation and isn't "the registered name of a large variety of products and services." Each of those has its own service mark. I do want to take this up soon on the Discussion page, in part to question the correctness of the sentence in the first paragraph of the article that says "[Transcendental Meditation] is also the name of a movement led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi."
In any case, your tone here is so much kinder than in the discussion. I appreciate it. TimidGuy 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

TG, I really welcome your contributions and discussions. Wikipedia needs good editors from all sides of the issues covered in its articles. While very close involvement with an issue can give an editor a great advantage, it can also seriously impair his or her editorial judgement. Such involvement gives them hard-to-recognize and control biases as well as first-hand knowledge. Like you, I have had personal involvement with the TM organization. As a trained science journalist, I have learned to recognize and control my emotional baggage (for the most part) when writing articles. That doesn't mean I never make mistakes, which is why it's good to have people like you (and even Sparaig) working on the TM article. But keep in mind that I have been compared with a bulldog who sinks his teeth into a fact and will not let go. The harder anyone tries to get rid of that fact, the harder I chomp. In other words, I'm no timid guy. You said you agree with my suggestion to work on adding new material rather than deleting or changing other editors' contributions, at least until you gain more experience. I do think this is a good idea. You will discover that it's generally easier to get new material accepted than it is to remove or change the work of other editors. That doesn't mean you may not find resistance, but it's only natural that editors want to protect the fruit of their hard work. I, for one, am reluctant to accept any change, unless it improves the article. One mistake many single purpose editors make is to try to achieve "balance" by removing or obfuscating points they don't like. If they want more balance they should leave accurate and well-sourced information alone and provide accurate and well-sourced information that they believe will add more balance. So have a good respite and see you back soon. Askolnick 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you. Askolnick 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TM

I have Transcendental Meditation on my watchlist, but I check it very rarely. Feel free to contact me if there is ever a particular issue that needs additional input. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. -Will Beback 06:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly why WP:AGF is so importsnt. If we assume good faith, even by those who've seemed to make a messs of things, then a good outcome is easier. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome!

It's my pleasure to help out, even with such a small thing! I think you've done a great job on the TM article, it's greatly improved since I last saw it. Your talk page dealings with one difficult editor in particular (who now seems to have left Wikipedia - for the best, I must say) were stellar. You handle yourself very well and are a very good contributor! Keep up the good work! Dreadlocke ☥ 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] American vs. British English

See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Little wars do occasionally break out about it, especially on articles like Biscuit. -THB 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My appologies

I want to appologize for the post I put on the TM talk page, saying the article had been stolen again. I was not specifically reffering to you, yet I was also not excluding the possibility that you had taken out the material was I upset to see gone.

I want to appologize, because if you did that material out, it was not "stealing the article." :) That phrase was my expression of frustration over all I have been through with that article, including, but not limited two users who were on the verge of being banned from wikipedia and leaving.

I would have liked to have been more honest and direct and say, "I am frustrated as fuck to see that material gone! I am frustrated to be going through this again." That would have been honest. And not blaming or exagerating the situation.

love, Sethie 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


If we keep working together, I will probably be making these every now and then. I often do things I later regret.


I would like to appologize for some of my languaguing here, specifically: "It is an open and shut case for me," "so next we move," and "the information is in"

  It is a pretty open and shut case for me. The affidavit is on the same level as any interview, except the person is swearing before a judge that they are telling the truth
  So next we move to wp:V. I don't know if trancenet meets it or not... but, the Skeptics Dictionary certianly does 6 and the affidavit is reported there. So unless someone can convince me that a published book, that has it's own wiki article is does not meet WP:V, the information is in.


I would have liked to have been more open and less ridgid, less dogmatic. I would have liked to have expressed what I was thinking with more respect and consideration for the fact that you had expressed a different viewpoint.

I was using such language to try and intimidate and get my way. If you'd like me to re-write it, let me know. mea culpa Sethie 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problemo!

Hi TimidGuy. Of course I accept the apology, it's very gracious of you to make one.

And thanks for your comment about my experiences. Tanaats 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freezing

I'm in a hurry, but the short answer is "no", we don't lock articles due to routine editing disputes. If necessary, you can go back (revert) to an older version of the article. Just make sure you are discussing things on the talk page. -Will Beback · † · 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism

I saw your question about a guideline on Wikipedia regarding structuring criticism in an article, here's a good essay on the subject: Wikipedia:Criticism. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Dreadlocke, for checking in on the TM article and for pointing me to the Guideline on Criticism.TimidGuy 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Glad to help! Just remember Wikipedia:Criticism is just an "essay" and not an enforcable policy or guideline. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
While the essay recommends against them, in some topics the bulk of the criticism has been moved to a separate page. This is particularly true with new religious movements. See Wikipedia:List of POV forks. The advantage is that all notable criticisms can be included while not unbalancing the main article. -Will Beback · † · 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
True, and the TM article is over 52kb long - well over the recommended 32kb size - and it makes for a loooong read! Perhaps it's time to move the criticism to a separate page. Also, the talk page is huge, over 100kb long - probably time to archive that puppy again. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that!

Sorry about deleting all of that text! I'm glad you were able to recover it all. Tanaats 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dismissed lawsuits

I’m not sure if it got straightened out and a good source was found (there’s so much to read on the TM talk page!), but as far as the inclusion of allegations from a dismissed lawsuit, I’m not entirely comfortable with material like that, especially when it’s used as criticism of the subject of an article. The simplest reason is: what if the suit was dismissed because the allegation was found to be false? In this particular case, the affidavit was superseded by his court testimony – how do we know it even matched? You’d need a court transcript to be sure on either of those. I’d suggest posting the question about citations from dismissed lawsuits on the Village pump or even on the Verifiability talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You can also ask for an advocate at the WP:AMA, they're backlogged, but are very helpful. If problems between editors get to be too heated, then there is the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process to help with mediation and arbitration. Looks like you've got several very helpful editors who assist you from time to time, but it's also nice to have a forum and a process to go to for more information and assistance. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the title of your last message, thank you very much for that <blushes>. You are a very a polite and good editor, and I enjoy helping you where I am able. 22:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ever need to take action against serious ongoing personal attacks (see WP:NPA), you can check with one of the administrators you know or you can post a complaint on WP:PAIN - read the instructions there very carefully before submitting anything. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:COI

I would ask that you stop editing any TM related articles immediatley and stop your discussion, until you answer a few questions about your identity. I honor your desire to remain anonymous and I believe there are easy ways for you to answer some questions without breaking that.

Given a few statements you have made: one refferencing that you knew who the proper legal counsel was for the TM organization, that he was "our legal counselor" : "Yes. I'd check with the General Counsel for Maharishi University of Management, licensee of the mark Transcendental Meditation. He also is an attorney for Maharishi Foundation, LTD, the U.K. charity which owns the mark."TimidGuy 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"I don't think it would be appropriate to take this through the dispute process, since it's a legal matter. It would be better if you do whatever you want. Then I'll send that to our legal counsel, and if he feels it violates the trademark, he'll then send a letter to Wikipedia, as he's done before. It's a matter for the U.S. legal system, not Wikipedia's dispute system."TimidGuy 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Also, your knowledge about the Canter and Ernst study: "In addition, I would note that there are valid research designs that show causality in addition to randomized controlled trials. I would also add that Canter and Ernst didn't include some studies that might have been included. For example, there were two that they thought might have been randomized controlled trials but it wasn't clear from the abstract. Also, they left out a randomized controlled study by So Kam Tim that used students as subjects. In this case, rather than randomizing according to individuals, the study was randomized according to class. That is, one class did TM and another class was the control. This is common in education settings, because it's difficult to have students within a class doing different things."

None of this is available information from the abstract you cited.

I have a copy of the study.

So I ask you:

~What is your relationship with the TM organization?

I'm on faculty

~Are you being paid to edit this article?

No

~Were you asked by a member of the TM organization to edit this article?

No

Sethie 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your honest answers. Hearing that you are on faculty, I feel pulled to ask you if your department focuses in on research on TM, i.e. do you actively do, produce, review, write about TM research? and/or is your department PR related, or involved in promoting the TM movement in anyway?Sethie 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've said enough. I'm on faculty. And I have a strong interest in making sure this article is accurate. I feel like I've done a good job and have gotten good feedback on my work, including from an experienced editor and administrator. [2] And from other editors.TimidGuy 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't deny that you have recieved that feedback. And, from your initial answer it appears that WP:COI definatley applies to you... the question now is, how much? If your department focuses in on research on TM, i.e. do you actively do, produce, review, write about TM research? and ESPECIALLY if your department is PR related, or involved in promoting the TM movement in anyway? then there will be a very strong WP:COI. So are you willing to answer my question? Sethie 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm on faculty, with a PhD in the humanities, and I have a passionate interest in science. According to the guidelines, I do have a conflict of interest because I'm a member of the organization. But I'm still allowed to participate. I've always posted on the Talk page and have tried to work through consensus. And if I weren't involved, who would catch the serious errors, like the misrepresentation of the Canter and Ernst study? I've improved the article. I've corrected numerous half truths and errors in the past few days, correcting or balancing points. These changes weren't contested. I assume our goal is an accurate, well-written article. I've helped to achieve that. And if Wikipedia ever decides that I shouldn't participate, fine. I'd be happy to spend my time reading about science. But Wikipedia would be the worse for it, as the article gets filled with half truths and inaccuracies. You should be grateful for what I've contributed. I've helped work toward our common goal of an effective, accurate, well-written article.
Dang, I was sure that your primary field was in science! Tanaats 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
And now, I've got work to do. I've really gotten behind on it this week. Most of my editing, you'll see, until a few weeks ago, was done in the mornings between 6 and 7 am. This was outside my regular job. And it still is. But I've let my other work slide so I can contest the things that you've put in. I regret that I haven't had time to add things that I want to add, such as the research on individuals experiencing cosmic consciousness. Be back later or tomorrow.TimidGuy 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I myself believe the article is better off with your participation as well... and I would only push for a strict adherence to COI if you were in fact in the PR or promotion branch of the movement, or if editing this was somehow a part of your work.
In terms of civillity, I'd rate you as a much better editor then me. Sethie 18:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. As I noted on your Talk page, I really appreciate your kind words.TimidGuy 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

TimidGuy, I am very happy to have you as a contributor to the TM article, as it said on the now-removed expert tag: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." You are definitely an expert and have made incredibly good contributions to the article - without any apparent bias. I see no signs that your close association with TM in any way compromises your ability to edit the article. I think you are an excellent editor and an asset to Wikipedia. .Dreadlocke ☥ 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/User_talk%7ETimidGuy_27ac.html"