User talk:Headshaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Contents

[edit] Deathwish

Deathwish has been proposed for deletion. Please review WP:WINAD for relevant guidelines and improve the article if possible. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Same for Red mist. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Janis

I nominated this article for deletion.TheRingess 14:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Janis dies again

Another summary dismissal and a lockout on top! I will not be so easily dissuaded. Is anyone prepared to go into head-to-head debate with me on this? There is one good thing about this issue, which is that I have had to learn a lot more about how Wikipedia works. It is beginning to feel like a faceless bureaucracy. Is there the equivalent of the supreme court that you can appeal to? I continue to learn and fight on for my cause. User: Headshaker 14 July 2006

Go to WP:DRV and we'd be more than happy to debate the issue -- Samir धर्म 07:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Revising it is certainly fair. What I suggest is putting the page up in userspace as User:Headshaker/Sharon Janis and putting up the comparison to your old article on WP:DRV when you've completed it. I'd also suggest citing as many references as you can, as that tends to sway toward notability (see WP:CITE for details on how to reference citations in footnote format). Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A copy of my case to the deletion review

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I make another appeal for my article. Since the previous deletion review was defeated, I went back to the article and modified it, then re-entered it. My understanding was that I was at liberty to do so. I may have been erroneous in this, as it was summarily deleted twice by separate administrators. However the talk page apparently remains and I also welcome discussion there. I would like the modified version restored, at the very least so it can be fairly judged. I will post the modified article at the article's talk page (if that is allowed) for evaluation. Here are my arguments for restoring it: 1. The content has been purged of exaggeration and is now 100% accurate. All content is verifiable either from the links I provided or contacting individuals and bodies directly. 2. The person who proposed deletion in the first place changed his vote, undermining the credibility of the whole process. 3. The subject fully satisfies criteria for conclusion on the grounds of being a widely publicised author in several languages as well as making a significant contribution to internationally successful television shows. Both the above are fully verifiable. 4. Exclusion would demonstrate inconsistency. I have entered far more obscure rock bands who have had much less success and recognition or influence, yet far from being also deleted, these were improved by others even more knowledgable than me. 5. The content of the first version was successfully challenged. The new version has not, nor to date even given an opportunity for challenge. (Refer to talk section of article if it isn't removed. On a personal note, I have no direct connection with the subject, but I am a fan, (even though my beliefs do not fully agree with hers) both of her television work and her books. But for the books being widely available and on which I stumbled on in a bookshop in the north of England, I would not have heard of her or realised shows my own kids enjoy were video-edited by her. I urge that future generations are not denied the opportunity to be aware of her existence

[edit] Deletion review for Sharon Janis

The previous deletion review for Sharon Janis has not been closed yet. There are still a few more days to go before it is closed. Opening a new review for the same article is not necessary. I have moved your latest commont to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Sharon_Janis. --Ezeu 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I left some notes, more like thoughts, on the material on the Janis talk page. They are just the thoughts of one particular editor. TheRingess 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's in and what's out

I am making some consultations about the Sharon Janis article before making my next move. Whilst this is the only contribution I've ever had disputed, it's been a very upsetting experience. Whilst this is undoubtedly the encyclopedia everyone can edit, it's not the encyclopedia everyone can be in. I am not convinced that reality matches policy. The policy is sound, but what happens in practice is personal prejudices feelings pride and emotions inevitably come into play. What is happening in reality is articles that are rubbish but no one cares about could survive, but those where someone has a prejudice get nominated for the chop. The victims in this are articles which whilst not perfect have merit but have the misfortune to be read by someone with a bee in their bonnet. Fortunately, those curious enough about deleted articles need only go to Google and find out about the subject that way, but I am sadly left with a sour taste in the mouth. Headshaker 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think that what your article was missing was references. For example in the sentence "As well as winning the local Los Angeles Emmy, she has won regional awards from the New York International Television Festival, National Associated Press Board of Directors, and the Los Angeles Press Club," the thing that is missing is [1], a url that we can click to verify the statement. Another example of an unreferenced sentence is " The following year she embarked on a new career as an author of books on Spirituality, writing the books "Never to Return: A Modern Quest for Eternal Truth" (1997)," I think that the sentence should be rephrased to demonstrate the book's notability, and put a url that someone can click like [2] so that it's verified information rather than an unsourced claim. Dionyseus 14:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Janis

Hi, thanks for leaving me a message. After searching for evidence I'm convinced Shraon Janis is notable, and I have now changed my vote in the DRV from Endorse to Overturn. Dionyseus 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to invite you to participate in the 2nd discussion about this article. TheRingess 01:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I feel I owe you an apology. I feel that I did not assume good faith on your part when I initially nominated the article. This was a terrible assumption on my part, and contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning respect for all fellow editors. I should have done that one simple thing. TheRingess 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Janis speaks

I have now made the necessary consultations. The conclusion to my own research was that my revised article was 100% accurate. I have now made my final comments to the deletion discussion. My last word on the whole unpleasant business is a copy of an e-mail sent to me by the author.

Hi Gary,

Thanks for sending the info and links for the Wikipedia pages -- it is funny to see people debating whether I'm notable or not. I've never even thought about this question before, and I'm glad to see that it is as perplexing for others as it would be for me. Feel free to share this response with whomever might be interested. I think that if the professionals don't think I should be included at this time, then that is fine. Although I also think you are like a valiant knight in fighting for what is right. It looks like I probably meet some of the qualifications in terms of writing and film work, but you know, I'm a monastic at heart, and haven't really made too much effort to be in the public eye.

The main reason I might want to be included would be to help people find their way to our very nice and uplifting website, which is filled with all-free multimedia spiritual resources -- in fact, just today we added an hour-long realplayer rendition of the Buddhist Diamond Sutra sung in English (I think for the first time ever). Already, 500 guests a day already come from around the world, so I don't think a Wikipedia listing would make a big difference there.

I looked through the various links you sent and it appears that a fellow devotee of my guru is the one who created this big mess around my name. This is not too surprising, since I've experienced this kind of behavior before from devotees. I don't know who this ring person is, but people like him/her usually fall into one of two categories: 1) They think I'm a heretic because they've heard some false rumours that were spread about me, and they think they'll get brownie points for striking me down, or 2) they are a frustrated artist devotee who is upset to see another artist devotee receiving any kind of benefit or recognition from their long and arduous service.

Either way, it would be great to resolve this, so if people want to delete the article, I think that would be fine.

Many blessings and thanks for your enthusiasm and care,

Sharon

[edit] Sharon Janis the "Originator's Cut"

Permanently preserved, the article how it should look:

Sharon Janis is a video editor and subsequent author. She is well-known in the Hollywood television industry for her work in a variety of internationally successful shows, and has won many regional television awards, most notably the Los Angeles regional Emmy. She has gone on to write books on Spirituality, of which the most successful is SPIRITUALITY FOR DUMMIES, (a part of the famous FOR DUMMIES series of instructional books) which has sold well in both the United States and Europe. She has also returned to video-editing for her own company.

She was born in Detroit in 1959, to parents who were Jews by birth but atheist in belief. Growing up in an affluent but dysfunctional family situation, she became interested in psychology, photography and cinematography in childhood. In 1977 she enrolled at the University of Michigan studying neurophysiology and film/video, achieving a double major. During this period she spent long periods experienting with self-hypnosis and dabbled in a variety of mind-altering drugs in order to explore the power of the sub-conscious mind.

Having adopted her parents' atheist views from childhood, in 1979 she visited the newly-established Shree Nityananda ashram as part of an educational course and over several visits was so proundly influenced by the resident guru Swami Muktananda that she became converted to the Siddha Yoga form of Hinduism and joined the ashram as a full-time member, remaining there for ten years. Whilst there she was known by the Sanskrit name of "Kumuda" (night-lotus).

In 1989 the succeeding guru Gurumayi Chidvilasananda instructed her to leave the ashram and find a career in the world to further her spiritual development. Employing her experience gained at the ashram in the video department she secured a job as video-editor in the Hollywood television industry, developping a strong reputation and editing high-profile shows including Hard Copy, Candid Camera, Disney's Prime Nine News, The Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, and X-Men. As well as winning the local Los Angeles Emmy, she has won regional awards from the New York International Television Festival, National Associated Press Board of Directors, and the Los Angeles Press Club.

Her career came to an abrupt halt in 1996 after developping chronic fatigue syndrome. The following year she embarked on a new career as an author of books on Spirituality, writing the books "Never to Return: A Modern Quest for Eternal Truth" (1997), "Spirituality For Dummies" (2000) and Secrets of Spiritual Happiness (2003). She has also returned to video-editing and has produced a documentary on Mildred Lisette Norman

In 1998 she founded her own production company, "Night-Lotus Productions", which specialises in spirituality multimedia. Though Hindu in central belief, Janis is relativistic inclusivist in approach (see inclusivism) and her career is now devoted to promoting this worldview.

Janis has never married or had children and leads a celibate lifestyle.


[edit] External Links

her company's homepage

Image of her awards

Entry in internet movie database

UK amazon page for SPIRITUALITY FOR DUMMIES

Credit in Peace Pilgrim newsletter

[edit] My own beliefs

I have been deeply influenced by Sharon Janis' works on spirituality and find her philosophy immensely uplifting and thought provoking. I remain unashamedly a fan. However, this does not mean my beliefs entirely match her own. In particular, I disagree with her interpretations of her experiences at the Siddha Yoga ashram. What she describes in her autobiography as challenging incidents that were for her purification (my paraphrase) are to my own perception nothing less than exploitation and mental and verbal abuse at the hands of her guru and some of her devotees. After doing some further net surfing I have sadly drawn the conclusion that the leadership of the SYDA foundation, (the organisation espousing Siddha Yoga) is morally corrupt and their behaviour repugnant. The Siddha Yoga article has good links to sites exposing the true nature of this organization. Janis' unquestioning continued devotion to this organization seems to me sadly misguided.

All that said, it is important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The philosophy of Siddha Yoga per se is based on tenets of Hinduism that are wholesome and attractive. It is based on ancient writings and principles that to my perception make good sense. The spiritual practises endorsed by Siddha Yoga are useful techniques in exploring the spiritual. The problem is the flawed humanity of the leadership, not the philosophy.

My own spirituality is the story of a long evolution that has passed through extremes of atheism and protestant evangelical Christianity, and can now be rather clumsily titled liberal Christian relativist/inclusivism. I am an active member of the Christian church but believe there are many paths to God. Put another way, I believe that a commitment to the Jesus Christ aspect of God is beneficial but not unconditionally vital to your soul.

The only part of the Nicene Creed that is my "bottom line" is the first line: We believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of all that is, seen and unseen. How God as "Father of All" operates is beyond my comprehension. I do subscribe to the New Age concept of oneness. I believe that everything is an aspect of God, including you and me. For me there is no true separation between God and creation. I believe everything has an internal tension between identifying with itself as a distinct entity and as a role-player in the universe. All created things ultimately return/are re-absorbed into the divine being. All things are therefore eternal in essence but not in form. Your current life is like a wave on the ocean. The wave as a distinct form ceases but it was only ever a temporary expression of the ocean. So if you're looking for God, just look in the mirror! You are not God Almighty, but God Almighty is you as well as everything else. When you die, you don't cease to exist, you "remember" who you are, in the same way all the characters in a dream were really just your consciousness. You were one role in the dream and there were several others but in reality both you and all the other characters were products of your mind. They were really all one.

Why God the "Father" (meaning the part of God from which all the other aspects originate) has manifested in this multifaceted way I cannot as such a tiny part of it comprehend. In the form I am currently manifest I believe I'm here to make a contribution to the overall picture and to learn things, passing on that learning. Every individual's role however is unique.

I find the concept of Jesus Christ attractive as a complement to/escape from karma. If you make bad decisions, there is inevitably consequences, but you are still "redeemable". For mainstream Christianity, belief in the person, life and resurrection of Christ is crucial. As a liberal, I find this issue irrelevant. The real issue/message is that God loves you as you might cherish your own injured leg. You are loved completely as you are whatever you're like, because as an aspect of God, God can do no other than love himself.

I see issues of good and evil as part of a wider balance of forces as espoused in Yin-Yang. Only because there is bad do we know good. Conflict, competition and evil play an important role like the villain in a movie - an essential part of the plot. Like most movies, all things reach a conclusion - a resolution. As I am still playing a role in the movie, I will not see the resolution until I stop playing the role and become "me" again - an aspect of God. I do know that I have choices to make, and I believe that choices that prioritise benefitting my environment over gratifying my base instincts will make me "happy", ie enjoy a sense of being what I should be. But happy or not, good or evil, I will return to the Father. I therefore reject the concept of a permanent hell and damnation. I am not yet sure what will happen next. Whether there is reincarnation of the same soul or a straight reabsorbtion/recycling/eternal bliss I do not know, but don't feel I need to. All I need to concentrate on now is to identify myself as an aspect of the universe rather than as little fish in a big pond trying to carve out an empire where there is only enjoyment. I will go on playing my role and learning my lessons until it's time to leave the stage and the dreamer awaken.

[edit] A II Z

Another article of mine under attack! Here is my counter - argument for keeping it:

Keep : The statements No awards, it looks like they only had one album are correct (Simon Wright was a notable member) but overlooks the fact that the band was influential within the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal. I suspect that the above two gentlemen are not authorities on this genre of music. If they were, they would not be making their arguments. Indeed, the origin of this disputed article was an attempt to add to and expand upon the list of bands including bands even more obscure than A II Z already cited as significant NWOBHM bands in the List of NWOBHM artists, written by someone (not me) who is an authority. I would add that another NWOBHM band not yet on that list and with even less success was a band called BLITZKRIEG, who no less than Metallica cite as an influence, and who covered their one significant track (also called "Blitzkrieg"). I intend to create an article about Blitzkrieg in the near future. To summarise, my argument is that this band was a significant force within the NWOBHM, which in general launched heavy metal as a major musical genre, and therefore historically represent along with contemporaries a turning point. The article actually needs upgrading by NWOBHM experts, not deletion, which I would view as the censorship of knowledge. I would like to read the views of genuine rock historians on this issue, particularly NWOBHM eyewitnesses and former NWOBHM journalists.

I won! Thank you to those editors who voted in favour. This is a victory for knowledge in general. Headshaker 05:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reasonable?

I quote " I am open to all reasonable discussion". ok, so i made a mistake in editing Fastway (band), how does calling me a dingbat constitue anything reasonable? insulting others on wikipedia is not constructive what so ever. --Tainter 19:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It was only a light-hearted adjective, no offence was intended. Headshaker 07:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 81.153.143.33 (talk • contribs)

This user might be Leyasu (talk • contribs) who was banned per ArbCom ruling. You might want to request a checkuser and have her blocked if she continues. Bryan 15:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nemesea listed at AFD

Hi, I have listed Nemesea for deletion, because I feel the article does not currently meet WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please feel free to join the at AFD discussion. Regards. --Muchness 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like I lost this one. I will bide my time for now.--Headshaker 08:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Leyasu on Symphonic Metal

Take it to WP:AN/I, I'm trying to take a wikibreak at this moment, so I don't want to get into something as involved as sock hunting. --Wildnox(talk) 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/a/User_talk%7EHeadshaker_a207.html"