User talk:SecondSight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

SecondSight: i see you have previously taken up the task of lobbying for a Seduction Community page. I have just added it in the requests for undeletion page. any assistance/thoughts/comments/advice greatly appreciated. Streamless 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • wow, you've done a lot in not a lot of time. perhaps you can help me out: i'm reading 'the game', and i'd like some background info, such as a copy of the original 'layguide' and also descriptions of some to the techniques that are mentioned but not described in the book (such as october man). any direction would be welcome. Streamless 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude - just want to say, appreciate your efforts in getting this all sorted :-) WoodenBuddha

Just saying the same as some of the others, good work! Recently had looked around to see if there was anything related seduction here and found nothing much worth reading. Looking better now, and I'm going to take a look at it all and read (and edit too perhaps...) it all.... cheers. Mathmo 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Seduction Community

After a little mistake, I have moved your article from your userpage to the article page, keeping its history with it. I've left only the original "I am" edit on your userpage and in its history. The deletion log makes this look worse that it is: I deleted it one time too many! Anyway, it's done now. -Splashtalk 00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


  • I agree Ross and David should be included in any decent definition as well, but you can't talk about the Game and Neil without recognizing that Mystery Method was the throughline of the entire book.

Neil's success and entire skillset at pickup is simply Mystery Method and he would be the first to admit that... The Game doesn't exist seperately from MM. The tactical pickup portions ARE all MM. - Mooff

You are absolutely correct on all of these points, Mooff. Unfortunately, many people on wikipedia are ignorant of the seduction community and its history, so they will see your links to Mystery Method stuff as an attempt to spam. This may be unfair and unreasonable, but my point is that from a pragmatic standpoint, I think it's best to wait before talking about anything that could be construed as spamming. I don't want to give people an excuse to attempt to delete the current seduction community article, because that's what happened to the old version of the article, and I only just got the article up. Eventually, I will write up a section on the gurus in the seduction community, which will have to prominently include the Mystery Method, and I will attempt to do this in a way that makes it clear that mentioning the gurus is an important aspect of the history of the seduction community, and not just an attempt to spam. --SecondSight 07:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Game doesn't exist separately from MM" ?!!! And you agree with him, SecondSight? Wow, where did you get this idea? Can we see a reference or two? What about BB, Juggler or Pickup101? There are many more examples and references completely separate from MM! DutchSeduction 09:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. You'll see a lot of controversy coming from two sources:

1. Competition / commercialism which makes these pages a hot spam target for the internet marketeers and their boy fans. See the change history on DeAngelo page, which various meatpuppets have been sanitizing for example.

2. Objections to the material itself. Sex and seduction are controversial subjects with various points of view. This situation leads to argument and conflict. As a result it becomes difficult to maintain NPOV. Watch for the spammers and meatpuppets.

In any case, good job. Let's see if we can keep neutral information available on this subject without too many commercial slants in it!  ;^) DutchSeduction

Thanks, DutchSeduction. And I am no stranger to controversy over the community, from both outside and inside. --SecondSight 22:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to improve the information and to make it as objective as possible. However, you seem to be involved in efforts to whitewash David Deangelo. Like I've said many times, if you can find more objective -- and non-commercial criticial references -- for David Deangelo PLEASE ADD THEM. The reason the P&C reference requires free registration was to prevent spam attacks, which the site has experienced, primarily from Nightlife/Shark, but also from DeAngelo. DutchSeduction 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the story with Formhandle? What is he angry about? I noticed someone has added an external link to FS.com's own "Seduction Wiki". Does he see Wikipedia as competition, or a way to attract more traffic? It's not clear to me what his objection really is. Do you know? DutchSeduction 00:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some history with Formhandle+mASF and the Seduction Community article: when the article was marked for deletion, there was an announcement made on mASF to see if people would be interested in contributing and saving the article. I think Formhandle was negative about WP at that time, and it appears as if he still is. I was surprised to see that he now has his own seduction wiki on his site. I personally don't have any political issue with him at all, and can't understand what is making him angry. DutchSeduction 10:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Formhandle was angry about a comment made next to one of my edits where I suggested advertisers were asked to pay $30,000 for an ad. I can imagine why he wouldn't want people to publicize information about his ad rates, although I didn't realize it at the time. The comment is not part of any article, and hopefully my reply to him will calm him down. DutchSeduction 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Social Dynamics

I spotted your message on user:Ryan Delaney's user talk page regarding this article. Having looked at the history I've semi-protected the article. For future reference the place to request protection or unprotection of a page is at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 15:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Social Dynamics vandal

Unfortunately this vandal (whoever he is) has been hitting the Mystery Method article as well. In my opinion it's not frequent enough to justify protecting either of these articles though. I'm watchlisting them both.

If he comes back, please leave {{test}} messages on the vandal's userpage. More information on how to do this is at WP:RCP, I think.

Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ross Jeffries Talk Page

Thank you for your concern about the page in question. However these are published material made by Ross Jeffries that are sold and used by Speed Seduction users, and is relevant toward understanding Ross Jeffries and his materials toward the understanding that it is not a cult. Thus cannot be considerated as advertising only as an opinion due to the lack of information concerning pricing, or means of obtaining such material. Please do stop vandalising my opinion pieces and deleting my writings, as it is only supporting the other parties negative views unjustly. This is your first vandalism warning. --Masssiveego 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Product listings for the purposes of discussion their existance, and what effect they have is not about having a soapbox, or advertising. It is the product by product reflect the facts in question that must be brought up as evidence that each product in question only reflect a non religious, dating only means for each product in question. As to refute the claim by the other person that Speed Seduction is a cult. As so the next reader will not be misled by the claims of the former, that Speed seduction is a cult, for determining what is factual and encyclopedic in nature for entry in to the main article itself. The standards above only apply to the main article for editing. Everything listed in the talk page is more for expressing question, comments or opinions for discussion as to determine what should be edited into the article, or side notes about the article.

The article itself is about Ross Jeffries, and as you will note about I give an opinion of what I think is Ross Jeffries products are. The later gave the opinion of against that they would not buy Ross Jeffries products. I give the opinion of for that I probably would buy Ross Jeffries products. The two opinions must balance correctly with facts being presented by both sides until we come to an agreement as to what facts should or should not be added to the article in question. I obvious disagree about adding the above to the article and am refuting the formers arguements by proveing product by product what each product is with a brief description, and obviously noting highlighting the no religious connections.

Would you like to enter mediation to determine a coarse of action for the talk page to better clarify this position? --Masssiveego 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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/Talk:Ross Jeffries, 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] MM neologisms

Well, I think that all three are neologisms, regardless of the amount of content on them. I hope you don't take offense to this but I nominated them all for AFD already. However if you can persuade AFD that the page should be kept, I'll not object. Also, if any of the pages do get deleted, I'll be happy to use my administrator power to copy the article content out of the deletion history so you can copy it elsewhere. Cheers --Ryan Delaney talk 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at the Wiktionary rules on neologisms. Maybe we could put these definitions over there. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

Hi SecondSight.

We'd like to thank you for your help with setting up and defending the seduction community on Wikipedia.org. Please contact me at dstone@mit.edu from your stanford address and we'll talk further. Look forward to it.

STONEDMIT 23:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstatement of RSD Criticism

SecondSight, I posted the following to the RSD talk pages but would appreciate your feedback since any alteration to the RSD page results in instant edit wars these days. The RSD article has become more of a focus for commercial ends than an information source serving the community. And frankly, that kinda sucks.


Per Wikipedia's guidelines:
'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.'
There will be a reinstatement of the Criticism that was removed yesterday. Whether in whole, part, or slightly modified. I am opening up a discussion prior to making any changes to minimize possible edit wars (which is what some of you actually seem to want). Wikipedia's spirit of inclusion would be violated if facts which are available from published sources are prevented from finding their way into an article. Just because they do not present facets of an article in a good light is NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to exclude them. The issue is relevance and verifiability.
Some of you found the following too disparaging to RSD, while others favored its inclusion:
Criticism
RSD is criticized in Neil Strauss's book 'The Game'. Strauss, who goes under the pseudonym 'Style', lived among pickup artists in his two-year odyssey to document the inner workings of the seduction community. Together with Erik von Markovik (Mystery), Stephen Nash (PlayboyLA), Herbal T, and Papa, they founded the Project Hollywood mansion where key seduction concepts were field-tested and disseminated. Strauss writes of the founding members of RSD, Tyler and Papa:
"There was a lesson here, perhaps the last one this community would teach me. And that was always to follow my instincts and first impressions. I hadn't trusted either Papa or Tyler Durden when I'd first met them. I found Papa spoiled and robotic, and Tyler Durden soulless and manipulative. And though they'd made great leaps forward when it came to fashion and game... The scorpion can't deny its nature." [1]
What, if any, changes to the above would you like to see? More importantly, how should criticism be presented? In researching the RSD article, I found quite a bit of criticism directed at the company from weblogs, forums, and various online sites. Of course, these do not conform to Wikipedia's best practices policy and will not be used. Whether the controversy is fair or not, they exist. And the prevailing company ethos from these unofficial sources does seem to be echoed in Strauss' statement. Again, should a critique of the company even have a place here? And if so, how should it be presented? Wikifly 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seduction community neutrality

In general I like to assume good faith but this is just too obvious. It seems that the Real Social Dynamics people have figured out that it doesn't work to blatantly skew articles and that they have to register and act like editors (gasp) if they want to get anything done. Check out this diff: [1]. I don't know if you've been following these articles but before this sudden string of newly registered users stared editing seduction community articles, the Real Social Dynamics article was repeatedly replaced with an advertizing copy bio of the company, and other bogus criticisms of Mystery Method were added by anons.

I think these users should be dealt with fairly but there is no reason to suppose that their views should apply to "community consensus". User:Keepitneutral, for example, has never edited outside of Real Social Dynamics and Mystery Method; that he is so impassioned about neutrality in just these two articles, well, smells. It appears that they figured out that being blatant doesn't work and that people are actually watching these articles, so they have to try to scare us off. I don't see much point in compromising and discussing article content because any time spent with criticisms of RSD removed or links to the Mystery Method website delinked is possibly thousands of Google impressions that aren't giving readers the information they need. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

Some time ago, you and a few other users placed a mediation request for Talk:Ross Jeffries. Some time ago, I offered to mediate in the case. Anyways, I wasn't sure if you hadn't noticed my offer, or if you were still deciding whether to accept or reject me. In any case, watchlisting the page might help expedite matters. Please don't feel rushed to make a decision. Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The following (in italic) was copied from User_talk:Armedblowfish#MedCom. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I am fine with you mediating. This is just my first time in mediation and the process is new to me. Thanks for offering. --SecondSight 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your confidence in me! : ) I noted your acceptance on the Mediation page, which is where the discussion will be carried out unless you all decide you want private mediation. Please feel free to ask questions about the mediation process at any time. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Average Frustrated Chump

It looks like this article has now been deleted, and since it is a neologism, that is probably the best fate for this article. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

wwwhhhaaaattt?!?! Why did it get deleted? Surely not because it is a "neologism", because as you ought to know that is not in itself anywhere near enough of a reason for an article to be deleted. Mathmo Talk 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, SecondSight

I really appreciate your informed, conscientious (and largely Sisyphean) efforts to keep these seduction community articles lucid and accurate. It's much harder than it looks. Keep up the good work! AlisonPlunderland 01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Nice_guy

Being a nice guy (or hopefully not being a nice guy - your article now makes me uncertain), I placed some comments at Talk:Nice_guy that you may want to look at. -- Jreferee 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

Updated DYK query On 27 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article nice guy, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive (comment moved from above)

I just find the stuff you do offensive, You seem to have anti victim of bullying agenda. You write offensive drivel suggesting that shy quiet men are dangerous usingt spurius rubbish. You wrote a load of pro bad pro bully stuff. You claim you are 20. I cannot believe that. You seem to fancy abisve vuiolent men. The stuff you write is just offensive chepa trash. It is not a high form of literature. or of any academic merit. Every article you wrote is supportive of abusive men. If you stop this Who are you really. Iyouyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iyouyou (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 November 2006.

http://www.geocities.com/xaacacacacacacacac/Abbc.htm Argument for "The seduction community cartel" to be chucked of wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iyouyou (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 November 2006.

lol, the comments of "wow, you've done a lot in not a lot of time." applies too iyouyou too! meh, I will assume good faith that secondsight is indeed 20! Why not? After all I'm 22 myself, there you go iyouyou. Take that info in your pipe and smoke it. :-p Personally I'm flattered that he listed me second in the axis of evil, thought there are other more worthy people who would be ahead of me. At least it put me in stitches laughing for ages, still am.... Mathmo Talk 06:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
Hi, Iyouyou, I'm sorry you don't like my work. I think you are taking what I write completely the wrong way! I don't think shy quiet men are dangerous. Where have I said anything like that? I was once a very shy guy myself, and I am still relatively quiet. As for being against victims of bullying, huh??? I am a victim of childhood bullying myself. This bullying caused me to become very shy around people, and it really sucked. I don't think shy men are "terrible people," though I do think that if they are unhappy being shy like I was, then society should help them become more social (however, there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy being shy). The people who are truly against victims of bullying are those who pretend that bullying isn't a problem.
I write a lot of pro bad pro bully stuff? Like what? Just because I write articles on the seduction community, it doesn't mean that I agree with everything the community says. No way in hell!! In my opinion, some of the tactics advocated by the community are unethical, and arguably abusive (though I can't just slap my opinion right on the articles, because wikipedia doesn't work that way). My hope is that after reading the articles, people can decide for themselves whether it is a good thing or not. I really chuckled at your idea of the "seduction community cartel." You make me feel like I am some kind of evil mastermind. I almost wish there was such a cartel, because then I would have more help instead of having to do so much writing by myself. Instead of cooperating, I actual end up arguing a lot with other people familiar with the seduction community on wikipedia.
You are right, I am not 20. I am actually 21 now; I just haven't updated my userpage yet. You say that you oppose bullying, but then you turn around and threaten that you are going to find out who I am. That's bullying. I despise bullying. I looked on your website, and I completely agree with you that it is ridiculous how some people support abusiveness in men, or see "nice guys" as a waste of space. Now that I have clarified my motives, I hope you will realize that I am not the evil person you think I am. --SecondSight 09:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
drat, shouldn't have been such an innocent little pure white flower that I am (*cough*, *cough*..) in believing you to be 20. Liar, you are 21! omg, the world is going to collapse. Mathmo Talk 10:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project seduction community

After the debacle of a "seduction cartel" it made me feel perhaps a project page could be a handy way for the "cartel" (and any other new members to strengthen the "cartel"! lol) to organise themselves and assist each other in improving as a whole the related articles here on wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An AfD you might be able to comment on

SecondSight, given your interest in both WP:V and the seduction community, I think you might be able to contribute some insight to this AfD. Cheers!--Kchase T 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, noticed you voted delete. Was thinking perhaps if the article was renamed as something more general (such as "forbidden patterns", or perhaps "NLP patterns"?) then you would change your vote to keep? Mathmo Talk 09:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misandry draft

Thanks for acknowledging in Talk:Misandry my paltry contributions to the Misandry draft. It was especially decent of you, considering the backlash it could have produced. If at some point you feel a need to mention that edgarde has had no hand in the content of the article, please go ahead — I'm hoping my reputation in Talk:Misandry won't be held against your work.

And thanks again for your work on the draft. / edgarde 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Why was the Real Social Dynamics page deleted?

Well, someone forgot to inform you or you didn't do your homework before you came into the discussion. AFD is explicitly not a vote. It is a discussion to help establish consensus. From what I saw from sources, one links to amazon.com (which is a violation of the external links policy), one to a blog or personal page or something, which is also against the policy, and one which seemed to have nothing to do with the article. Blogs don't meet WP:RS or WP:V. Corporations must have multiple non-trivial independent sources, and the one in the Times looked trivial at best. Basically, the arguments for deletion outweighed those against deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page; if you feel the deletion was out of process, what you'll want to do is list your arguments at deletion review instead of on the talk page of the afd. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 05:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi SecondSight, I was about to mention to you too that you ought to use deletion review. If you don't feel confident about listing it properly I'm willing to help, just let me know. Mathmo Talk 07:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That quote from the Times is a trivial in passing about a person, nothing mentioning RSD by name. The second one appears to be about the company. The third one is another trivial mention in passing. One souce doesn't meet WP:CORP, which requires multiple non-trivial sources. You seem to get mixed up between "mentioned" and "about". Sources need to be about, not just mention a company. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The article was in a sense a combined personal and company article, in that it was about the company and the person Tyler Durden with many "Tyler Durden" links going to it. Perhaps it could have been renamed to Tyler Durden once again, because I doubt you would have liked the other alternative of splitting the one article up into two. Either way you must remember that generally always whenever an article is discussing Tyler Durden that is the same as discussing what the company does (being that it typically always about his teachings). Mathmo Talk 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the article was deleted for sourcing issues, I have restored the article after you and others have now found more sources that were not talked about or on the article during the AFD. I hope this has settled the issue. Please incorporate the newfound sources into the article so that it will pass WP:V. Have a good day. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please put new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not an old archive. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent AfD vote

Surprised to see you vote that way, mind explaining why? Consider for a moment if both are deleted, then what you said isn't good grounds for deletion. Mathmo Talk 07:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On an almost totaly unrelated point... send me an email sometime, my address is (my username here) at gmail. Mathmo Talk 07:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New seduction community template

In light of the recent nomination of Template:Notable Members of The Seduction Community, I've began work on a new, broader template in my namespace (here). The intention is that it is placed at the bottom of the page. — Sasuke Sarutobi 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hey - can you set a real email address in your preferences? I'd love to drop you a line. WoodenBuddha

[edit] David DeAngelo AfD

The David DeAngelo article is up for deletion. Your unbiased views are appreciated. --Amit 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/c/User_talk%7ESecondSight_89a9.html"