User talk:ForrestLane42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedian Philosophy

I have looked at all the different wiki philosophies, while I lean towards deletionism, I see merits to exclusionism. So I would say I am a Mergist, who believes wikipedia is not paper, but that a tool of knowledge must have certain standards such as relevance, notability, and anything I think of along the way! :)

My interests on Wikipedia match what I am passionate in life areas of focus: • psychology - Maslow, Rogers, etc • philosophy - humanism, existentialism • pseudo-philosophy - integralism • sociology • religion from Wicca to Buddhism to Judaism • cultural studies

[edit] Minor edits

Hi ForrestLane42, in going through old Ken Wilber edits, I couldn't help but notice a large number of edits marked "minor" by you, however, many of these edits were not "minor" according to Minor_edit:

A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.

I would appreciate it if, in the future, edits not conforming to "minor edit" were not marked as such. Thanks! Pro crast in a tor 02:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your comments on minor/major edits - I honestly thought I had been overall tagging it right, but I will try to be more careful on this. ForrestLane42 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
Hi ForrestLane42, here is an example edit, the "minor" tag and a comment to "see talk page" was a dead giveaway that the minor edit was, perhaps, controversial: [1]
Also, it is customary to respond to talk pages in the location they occurred to keep the talk together. i've added your page to my watchlist so i'll see any new comments you make, and moved your comments to here.
Finally, I've noticed that you are the only one on the Wilber pages that does not indent. It's customary to precede newly added paragraphs with colons (:,::,:::, etc) to indent making the discussion more readable. Cheers! Pro crast in a tor 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diane Stein

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Stein, it actually doesn't seem like there's much of a consensus at all… not even a rough consensus. I see 3 votes for keep and 3 for delete. However, it does not seem that the article has any citations. Most of the Google hits from "'Diane Stein' review" turn up vendor pages for her books (e.g., Amazon, eBay, etc.). Since there seemed to be no consensus, I am going to close the debate as "keep (no consensus)," but with a mandate that citations be added, proving Stein's notability. If, in the next month or so, these citations do not appear (or insufficient citations are given), feel free to relist the article on WP:AFD, noting carefully that there was a previous AfD, and that the article has not improved since then.

A few notes on AfDs in general:

  • The edit history for the Stein AfD shows that you replaced your initial comment. You really should avoid this practice because it goes against established Wikipedia policy. Changing your comments places subsequent commentary in a different context, even if no one has directly referred to your initial text. For instance, your current response has no argument; it looks like you just voted delete without a reason. Technically, administrators reviewing AfDs are supposed to ignore comments like yours because they don't add anything to the AfD discussion. If you wish to change your response, it is best to use strike-through tags (like <s>this</s>) and append your new response, like that this. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and specifically this, for more information.
  • Regular Wikipedians don't have the technical permissions to actually delete pages; only administrators have that ability. In addition, only administrators can determine consensus, or lack thereof, and close AfD discussions (except in rare cases when there is overwhelming consensus to keep). If an AfD has a clear outcome, an admin will come along at some point and take care of it.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

Minor note: The information you have at the top of this page seems like content that would be better suited for your user page. The talk page is really for discussions only. FYI.

Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, five days is really just the general length for discussion, after which debates are moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. There isn't any wrong with people commenting six or even seven days after the initial nomination: "You can still add your comments to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time" (from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old). This is also linked to another theme behind AfDs: They are not polls. Comments are not "votes"; it's not a matter of simple majority. An admin has to look at all sides of an argument and come to a conclusion about whether consensus was achieved or not; this may or may not coincide with the keep/delete "vote." See Wikipedia is not a democracy. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Goethean

I have advised Goethean to try and take the high road when he suspects harassment and assume good faith, rather than simply attack your integrity.

My advice to you is to make more extensive use of talk pages. Engaging in more discussions will minimize the chances that someone will misinterpret your actions in a bad-faith light. Feel free to ask about Wikipedia policy and procedures, so that you can correctly begin processes and not make errors that may lead others to assume bad faith. If someone does begin to escalate a debate, follow the advice given at Wikipedia:No angry mastodons to try and defuse angry debates. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be a good idea to stop demanding an apology from Goethean. He thinks he is in the right and is therefore reluctant to apologize; this is understandable, since in demanding an apology you are implicitly accusing him of erring. Whether or not he has erred, it would probably be best to cease the finger-pointing and try to start fresh. And don't worry about your reputation; if you continue to be a productive editor and collaborator you will build your own positive reputation. Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I previously doubted his stubborness, but you seem to be right—apparently rational discussion doesn't fly with this guy. I'll start looking into more drastic measures. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not notice his response on his own talk page, which was actually quite rational. I am going to ask for the opinions of some of the editors you've been working with, so I can get a better overview of the situation. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, I am not goethean. Just do a quick Google search for my full name and you should find a meticulously designed web page for my business and maybe even a blog or two of mine with photos that prove I'm a real person and should give you enough information about me to realize that I'm not even the "real" goethean finally coming out of the closet (so to speak). So please give it a rest. Is it so hard to believe that there's more than one person out there willing to defend NPOV on the Wilber article? --Grey 09:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Wilber, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Request for comment

I have filed a request for comment in regard to your conduct. — goethean ॐ 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dallman

I thought you might find conversation with an allegedly 'integral' blogger amusing: [2]. — goethean ॐ 01:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the weblog post which the discussion was regarding. The author of the weblog is Matthew Dallman, who considers himself an integral writer. I find it bizarre that a self-described integral writer can support this administration, even now. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] levin and Music

Thanks for the message. I was primarily interested in discussing on talk, as this page in particular has been the target of serial edit wars, incivility and unilateral deletions. There was a major mediation held in the fall that resulted in the page as it stands. I appreciate you taking it to Talk and acting civilly in response to my request. Happy to keep the section out. See my more detailed thoughts on the matter on Levin article Talk page. See you aroundNYCTommy 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Wilber.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] quotes in bell hooks

Please do not add long lists of quotes to Wikipedia articles, as per what Wikipedia is not. You may wish to contribute to Wikipedia's sister project, Wikiquote, which is (as you might imagine) exclusively for quotes. Natalie 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as what other pages do, that isn't really a good reason, since those pages could also be contrary to policy. If that's the case, I'd urge you to move those quotes to Wikiquote as well. As far as the hooks page, specifically, perhaps we could put one of those boxes that say "Wikiquote has a collection of quotations about bell hooks". I don't know if you've seen those boxes on other pages, but they are a handy way to provide people with quotes without overwhelming the page. Natalie 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do ForrestLane42 04:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] reply

I see your point goethean, but I dont think "drawn on" a variety of disciplines makes sense. I think it can imply that Wilber has a good grasp of each of the listed disciplines, it gives the reader the false impression that he is in command of these disciplines which I think is far from true.

I don't think that the current wording implies any particular level of expertise of the various disciplines. For example, one might say that Adi Da's ideas are drawn from Hindu Vedanta or German philosophy. That doesn't imply that he has achieved any particular level of scholarship or expertise in these areas. I am open to other compromises in the wording, but I think that the current wording is ok. — goethean ॐ 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying (when I say, above, I am open to other compromises in the wording, but I think that the current wording is ok.) is that if you come up with a different wording that is better than the curent wording, I will consider it. But I do not think that your current proposal is better than the current wording. I'm sorry, but I couldn't figure out what your other comment meant. — goethean ॐ 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to imply that I own or have control over the article. I just wanted you to know that I am not tied to the current wording. — goethean ॐ 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/r/User_talk%7EForrestLane42_6867.html"