User talk:Sethie/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] About immortality
Hello!
I noticed that you have edited the article on spiritual immortality. It appears that you have removed Maum mediation as a possible form of spiritual immortality. While I agree with you that Maum meditation is not a popular culture, I don't think it had to be removed. Was there a particular reason why it was removed?
Shushinla 16:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
From Sethie
I agree with you that it didn't HAVE to be removed. :)
I chose to remove it because I am unclear why: A) one practice of one particular "small" sect would be included in a section listing the beliefs of major world religions about immortality B) one practice of one particular "small" sect would be included in an article about humanity's ideas of immortality.
I mean, if you are genuinely wanting to contrubte to the article and not use it as a place for a sales pitch, create a section on smaller sects or alternative views of spiritual immortality and list 5 or so, not just one group!
xo,
Seth
p.s. I guess the other reason I removed it was that the only information it shared was ____ thinks immortality is possible if you _____. If you do create a section for alternative sects, give us maum's CONCEPT of immortality.
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police officers and donuts
Would you please return to this AFD debate and consider changing your vote to a merge to Donut as reasoned by Gazpacho? - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
If someone wants to cut and paste it- cool. However, don't see a need for some official action nor a redirect. peace, Sethie 09:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] TM Chat
(I origonally took out this discussion, I considered in TM propaganda, and did not want to have anything to do with spreading what I believe to be even more insidious then lies- but distortions. However, with reflection, I have decided to keep it here and let people make up there own minds. I have not edited it at all, minus taking out some idents which made it unreadable. it is taken from this version of my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sethie&oldid=29894842)
Hi Sat,
With regard to #1 and #2 in your last point, you should consider the intermediate situation:
3) they [the mantras or sounds] have good effects when they are used correctly. You need a trained teacher to learn the method of using the mantra properly. There is no need for the blessing of anyone. If you have the correct technique and the correct mantra, it works by itself because it is the nature of the mind.
I mean, I hear what you are saying, and I don't agree or disagree. Hinduism has MANY different ideas about Mantras. You have now presented another one, the TM view of mantras.
Some schools disagree. Some schools say that there is power inherent in the mantra, and repitition evokes it. Some schools say without the blessing of a guru, the mantra is nearly powerless. Some schools say, as does the TM school, just focus on proper technique, and it will work out.
Hi! So, the issue here is whether (1) the success of TM requires the blessing of the teacher or (2) only the correct practice with the correct mantra is needed. I simply feel that the most natural explanation is that it works because of the nature of the mind together with the correct practice and the correct mantra, not because of a blessing. It looks strange to me that a blessing could interfer. We might not be able to disprove the blessing theory, but in science we usually go with the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that the mind experience more settle state of the thinking process because of its own nature, not because of an external blessing of a teacher! Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me recall why is it that we deal with this issue? I was arguing that the technique must be learnt with the help of a teacher. You suggested that it implies that I meant that the blessing of a teacher is needed. I replied that the teacher is not needed for a blessing, but only to teach the technique. It is hard to learn it in a book -- just the ordinary thing. It so much easier when you deal directly with the person. It makes a big big difference -- something that is well known. Certainly, it is not correct to say that I implied that a blessing was required. Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
>Disclosing the formula would not work because you need a trained teacher to learn the method. Moreover, people will start to confuse this self-learned TM, which actually would not be TM because it would be self-learned in book, and the TM that is learned with a qualified teacher. It would confuse people about the value of TM. So, it does make sense that the TM organization does not want to disclose the formula.
I don't know what you mean by "formula."
I just mean whatever is used by a teacher to pick the mantra. The formula may take the form of a table or anything. Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
>The situation is actually very clear: the TM organization does not disclose the formula because it will not be good.
Maybe, I can't confirm or deny that.
Normally, we do not give bad intention to people when their actions can be simply explained by good intentions. Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
>There is nothing deeper than that to find out about this issue. There is certainly no matter for a law suit -- it is all perfectly legal and even good.
The reason for a lawsuit would be for fraud: ~Are the mantras individually picked, for each person as the organization claims? ~Are the mantras meaningless as the organization claims?
I see that you have the impression that the TM organization does not tell the truth, and you don't like it at all. First, you cannot bring someone in justice just because of a lie. A lie is not a crime that can be brought in court unless you can prove that there was direct negative consequences. Otherwise, all parents that have their children believe in false stories (Santa Clause, etc. ) are criminals. In the case of TM, the main issue is whether the technique is as good as claimed to reduce high blood pressure, anxiety, increase academic performance, etc. If these were false claims, with falsified data, etc., then you could sue the TM organization, but you cannot sue the TM organization because they did not disclose the possible meanings of the mantra in all possible languages! Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
However, I agree that we prefer when someone says the truth -- we are not children. So, I admit that my argument in the above paragraph is beside the point. It is important whether or not the TM organization says the truth, irrespectively of any legal issue. I am with you on that point. So let us see. Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The first point is whether or not the mantras are individually picked for each person. You already understand that never the TM organization claimed that there is one new mantra for each new person. So, I guess your concern is the fact that ex-TM'ers say that the same person will have a different mantra if he gets initiated twice. First, I don't know if that is true. So, let us consider all possible cases. If it is not true, there is no problem: the ex-TM'ers are to be blamed, not the TM organization. If it is true, I don't see where is the big issue. It would not be such a big deal that the mantra depends on the situation of the student when he starts. It would not at all be in contradiction with the statement that it is adapted to the student because his situation when he starts is an important variable. Perhaps, it is the location of the city, his age, etc. -- I don't know, but the details doesn't matter. The important is that it logically makes sense that the situation of the student when he starts is considered. This take care of the first point. Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Still, we can say more about the first point. Maybe you feel that some variables such as the age are not important. This is a different issue, which has nothing to do with whether the TM organization lies or not. It has to do with whether the method used is adequate or not. My answer is why should we assume that we know better than the TM organization what variable is important. If we pay the TM organization for a service, it is because we trust the TM organization that offers it. If later we are told (say from ex-TMers) which variables are used and it is not what we first expected, it is either that what we expected was incorrect or that what we learnt from ex-TMers is incorrect. In both cases, it does not mean that the TM organization who offered the service lied to us. Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The second point is about the meaning. Your main point is that Maharishi himself said in the early times of the movement that the TM organization only picks mantra that somehow are related to gods. Gods and deities have always been part of Maharishi teaching. Even today, he speaks and TM tearchers are invited to speak in terms of "will of god", etc. Never Maharishi argued that he does not have devas, gods, deities, etc. in his teaching. His point is only that you are not required to believe in anything. Devas, etc. in Maharishi's teaching are impulsions of intelligence that lie within our consciousness. They are not the gods of any specific religion. They are the fabric of our consciousness, a field of intelligence. They can be equated to fundamental laws of nature. However, the technique works by itself without having to intellectually understand these laws. Note that unlike the situation in a religion, the benefits are not from understanding these claims. If I go in California and come back in my city and say to people that the weather is very nice over there, I am not expecting them to get the benefits of California from understanding what I am saying. It is the same situation. Originally, when Maharishi came out of the Himalaya, he might have discussed the effect of the mantra in terms of deva (sometimes called gods), etc. In his tradition of knowledge, it is like explaining the mantra in terms of the most fundamental laws of nature. However, soon he must have realized that the terms gods, etc. have very bad connotation for many people in the west. This must have been a shock for him. The religions had made such a mess of the whole thing. He realised that for many people religions were equivalent to false beliefs, etc. In contrast, for him, his tradition of knowledge had nothing to do with beliefs, lack of science, etc. It was a systematic approach to knowledge, with a deep theory and a powerful technology to verify it. So, he started again with a new angle, and disassociated the TM movement from the religions. There is no lie there. Simply, he did not realize first that the gods of the religions were totally non respected by scientific people. He still speaks of God, the allmighty creator, and perhaps of devas too. This is because he has the technology to unfold the full potential of all human beings so that they can gain the full support of all the laws of nature (the devas), the laws of the allmighty. However, the emphasis is always on the technology, the practical knowledge, which can be verified. If the mantra have a meaning in the Hindouism religion or in any other religion, this is not his business. It is not a lie. Clearly, the mantra have nothing to do with the unsupported beliefs of any religion. Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I know that it was a long explanation. To make the story short, when you judge Maharishi, try to see his view point. If his behavior is consistent with his tradition of knowledge, a very ancient and yet scientific tradition of knowledge, then realize that it is only that you do not accept his tradition of knowledge. You do not believe in it. Fine, but you cannot think bad of a Master of a very old tradition of knowledge because he wants to have the whole world benefit from it. Also, you do not have to believe in it, but you are invited to consider it with a neutral attitude. Consider the logic, the scientific research, the experience of many people that have enjoyed the benefits of TM. It is a simple thing: the mind naturally goes toward the deeper levels of the thinking process and the body gains a deep and revitalizing rest. The field of pure consciousness is a reality that can be a living reality. When it happens, the frontal area of the brain, which is well known to be responsible for the higher cognitive function, is particularly active. There is more coherence in the EEG, especially in this frontal area, but also over the whole brain. It is a unique state of consciousness. Subjectively, it is conciousness knowing itself. It is well documented in many scientific journals. The good effects of this experience are verifiable. It is not a religion. It is a reality. I hope you don't mind my long explanations in your talk page. Bye bye. Amrit 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I started to reply- and....
I don't mind you posting a "long" explination, however, as for replying....
If you want to dialogue with me, please pick ONE idea or sentence amd we can actually dialogue. Have some back and forth. I want a genuine connection and exploration- not you giving me 1,000 words and me scrambling to give you a 1,000 back.
sat! Sethie 06:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a long explanation, but I looked back at it and what I see is that I answered most of your points by one or two reasonable paragraphs. For example, you raised two main concerns, which you even consider as frauds, and I provided two normal paragraphs to reply to the first one and one long (equivalent to two) for the second. I considered the legal aspect as a separate issue. I also concluded with one additional paragraph. So, it is breaked down in small parts. Consider that it is easy to raise issues, and that it is normal that each issue might require one or two paragraphs. If you had raised only one issue, you would have had only one or two paragraphs to consider. Please decide yourself which of the issues that you raised is the most important for you, and start from there.
Amrit 12:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Issue #1 the TM organization tells people who learn the technique that the mantras have no meaning. This is not true.
Tell me your mantra and I will tell you what it means!
Sethie 17:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi!
I think that it will be more efficient if we talk. I created a skype address just for communication about Wikipedia. It is amrit-on-wiki. You can do the same, and then we can talk if you have a mike and speakers on your computer. It will totally anonymous because no personal information need to be disclosed at registration and skype is a well known and trusted software. If you don't have it, it is free on the internet.
Amrit 01:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite.... and I will pass.
I really like the slowness that comes with conversing via email or in this case wiki, especially when two people disagree about things.
I am however open to other alternatives.
Sat! Seth Sethie 02:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Which alternatives? Anyway, I will provide an answer here. There are two aspects in this issue. The first is whether or not the mantra have a meaning in the Hindouism religion and the second is whether or not the TM organization should be concerned about that.
Actually, I will stop you right there, since neither of those is the issue I am raising.
The issue I am raised is: the mantras DO have a meaning, and the organization tells all newcomers that they don't.
I don't know how you got to: There are two aspects in this issue. The first is whether or not the mantra have a meaning in the Hindouism religion and the second is whether or not the TM organization should be concerned about that.
I thought it was my turn to pick the issue!
Anyway, I have realized that there are other ways I would like to spend my time and energy, so, I wish you well.
SAT! Sethie 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I can make it short, and consider directly your issue as you will see in the last sentence of this paragraph. The essential of my argument is that it is irrelevant that the mantra have a meaning or not in the Hindouism religion because the mantra in TM are not taken from this religion. They may appear in this religion, I don't know, but they are not from there. They are taken from a tradition of knowledge that stands by itself independently of any religion. If I teach you the french language and a french word as a special meaning in spanish, even if I am aware of that, I do not have to mention the meaning in spanish, which might just be confusing. In the same way, even if it was the case that "the mantras DO have a meaning [in the Hindouism religion]", it is perfectly ok that "the [TM] organization tells all newcomers that they don't [in the tradition of knowledge that is the source of the teaching]". You see, I am considering exactly your issue. If you want more details, I will be happy to discuss it further.
Enjoy! Amrit 07:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Amrit-
Ahh- I understand now, you believe TM did not come from Hinduism.
Ok.
Thank you for sharing your perspectives.
Hi Set|
Actually, the argument only requires that you accept that the TM organization has the following sincere viewpoint: the vedic tradition of knowledge that has been restored by Maharishi in our time is not the modern Hindouism religion. Note that this viewpoint considers the modern Hindouism religion Vs the Vedic Tradition as restored by Maharishi in our time. The past is irrelevant for the argument. Back to my analogy, the old spanish and the old french are irrelevant to explain the behavior of a teacher that teaches french now. Moreover, my argument does not require that you adopt this viewpoint. It only requires that you accept that it is the sincere viewpoint of the TM organization. The point is that the TM organization is not lying if it only acts in accordance with this sincere viewpoint. Of course, it is interesting to see the details of this restored vedic tradition, and I am open to discuss it.
Amrit 08:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Amrit-
Sorry that I was not more clear above.....
Now that I understand where you are coming from, I am not interested in hearing your ideas. Please post them elsewhere.
My plan is to clear this entire discussion from my talk page. I will wait a day to give you time to copy any of it if you would like.
SAT! Sethie 08:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh I see. You have the strong belief that TM is derived from Hindouism, nothing more, and it was with some sarcasm that you wrote "Ahh- I understand now, you believe TM did not come from Hinduism.". Well, we would have saved a lot of time if you had told me right from the beginning that your starting point in your logic was one of the essential points that need to be discussed. I tought that one the main point that had to be discussed is whether TM is a religion or not. Oh well, what a lost of time... since you were not really open to a discussion on the subject, and just wanted to expose your unconditional belief that the TM organization is lying.
Amrit 08:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, I don't blame you to remove this discussion from your talk page. I was going to suggest it. However, can you remove it from the history? If you cannot, then I do not have to worry. I will just pick it up from previous version if I need it.
Amrit 08:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand your desire as well. CIAO!
Sethie 20:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I know that I put a lot of edits, and it becomes impossible to follow them. It is because the way I do my edits it is more convenient to save often, and also I try many options. At the end, there is not much change. You can see the change with the diff function between the first and the last of a long sequence of edits -- often there is not much. Amrit 22:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no comment. I have spent enough time dialogueing with you, I am ready for some support from other editors in the task of dealing with youre behavior.
SAT! Sethie 17:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
When we cannot attack the content, we attack the person. Amrit 17:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] TM
Your RfC seems to be misplaced. You've posted in the archive. It should be at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. I've placed a couple of notes on the IP user's page, as has BCorr. Also, I'll keeping watching the TM page. -Willmcw 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thanks, I have moved the RfC. Sethie 05:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] More on TM
Hi Sethie -- I just wanted to say that I actually meant that you should post an RfC for the article content, to resolve the dispute between you and Lumiere that led to the POV tag -- not about the anon IP.
Please go to Wikipedia:Request_for_comment#Article_content_disputes and after reading it see if you'd like to list Transcendental meditation there to get some additional opinions -- usually a productive and helpful way to go. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Juba (sniper) article reverts without discussion
Hi Sethie, Regarding your revert of this artcle at 2:15 UTC, you posted the comment tha you had no idea where this newer (and I hope, better) article had come from. I did post a comment at the bottom of the talk page prior to and after writing the article, saying that the quality had gone downhill. Did you disregard this or have a problem with the content? I have rewritten (rather than reverted, in case the problem is the content) the article, but it is essentially the same article. Please read my comments and add your own before just reverting a page. --The1exile 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Sethie, I did take into account the discussion regarding neutrality, and I have not changed any names of links. I simply took off a tag and removed a list of templates under "See Also" which was followed by text that should have been in the section above. Please, I am only trying to obsrve everyones views, and I do not wish to display any POV at all. Thank you for your comments though; feel free to edit the article if there are any issues, just please post comments on the talk page. --The1exile 11:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Theosophical Segragation
I have finally offered a suggestion on the theosophy discussion board that they should persue information pertaining to it's potentially racest origen and it's possible utilization in establishing and supporting segragation, slavery, and dictatorship.
I must also admit that I have been thinking about the flaws in some of my beliefs too, since I have been striving towards platonism but Plato makes observations that could obvioussly subvert individual rights and argues that only a certain type of individual can rule, though, then again, he argues that the whole population should be educated, so there is a definite loophole if anyone wants to suggest a type of fixed social stratafication (this raises something very interesting about what you said when you edited the varna comment from the Creme article. The Varna system, if it is not utilized along racial lines, could relate to societal Forms as described by Plato and his devision of labor as recorded in Republic). Also note: My great interest in Platonism stems not merely from Judaeo-Christian sensibilities (Though, in the case of both, if everything where ideal, then there would be no need for God to take rather pragmatic actions, especially incarnate as a man named J'hushuah and get killed in a particularly pathetic, demasculizing, blasthemous way so as to shame Himself for the ammount of shame we have accrued just living on Earth) but also from the writings of Lyndon LaRouche (who himself has faced charges of racism and anti-semitism, he certainly has socio-cultural biases, particularly concerning family, sexuality and the media, many of which would infringe on First Amendment rights, though, upon close reading, LaRouche does not express any definitively racest or anti-semitic views, though he seems to be a misogynist in personal outlook, and is definitely homophobic and feels pornographers and distributers should recieve CAPITAL punnishment). So I myself have been re-evaluating my loyalties throughout this year.
To See some of my most significant works on this site. See:
Also see my comments on Jeff Rense in that Talk board and in history, since they somewhat relate to this subject with Theosophy (he does seem a bit suspicious at first glance, when one studies him though he seems to hold honorable motives, irregardles that he seems to be spending inordenant time on the controvercial 'numbers game', considering, especially if it where true, it proves to be wholly irrelevant in any contexts, wrong is wrong, no matter how many are effected, nor should it interfere with the main geo-political issue).
Thank you,
69.248.43.27 (RoyBot). 08:20, 24 December 2005
[edit] Skeptics Annotated Bible
Hey, there! Made a change after reading your comment. Take a look and let me know if you think it's a good compromise. WarriorScribe 20:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lumiere's Complaints about User sethie
To the best of my knowledged, Lumiere has not filed a RfC on my edits or actions, hence his complaint does not belong in the above section:
~Sethie's insertion of POV tag when she did not intend to discuss Lumiere 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Sethie 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to respond to this accusation, except to say that if Lumiere is unable to understand something as solid and tangible as my gender (I'm a guy) how can Lumiere claim to understand something as subtle as my intentions? Sethie 18:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is a previous comment of Sethie about Lumiere:
- "In the hear and now, not talking about specifics, it is easy to feel some camraderie and connection with you. We have been argueing for almost a month now, and so I understand why you expect my next set of words to be biting." Sethie 00:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the gender, you know that I did not meant to insult you. The Sethie's I heard of are all women. I added my Rfc, and feel that it will be most useful for the visitors that come to help up to have all issues in one section. Also, you should know that an Rfc is requested to be anonymous and neutral. Lumiere 20:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
My supposed intention to not discuss is not listed in your RfC, hence it does not belong under ANY RfC.
You also raise a different set of issues then I do, hence start your own RfC comment section Sethie 20:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. Obviously, we only have two different sides about the same issues because otherwise there would be no dispute and no need for a Rfc. I do think it is better to put the two sides of these issues together. Lumiere 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, note that an Rfc should be anonymous and neutral. Compare my Rfc (see here) with yours (see here). Lumiere 21:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TM RFC?
I am not aware to which page you refer. Note, however, that unlisting an RFC does not mean that any discussion cannot continue, but that if an issue has been listed on the RFC page for over a month, then listing it longer is not going to attract more interest than it had already. Radiant_>|< 21:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, for lack of time, and because my method usually gets it right. I am mainly unlisting RFCs because nobody else does; if someone steps in regularly to ensure that the list on WP:RFC is kept up to date with the status quo of actual discussions, I'd be happy to step aside. As they say, {{sofixit}}. Radiant_>|< 23:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging Image:Yogicflying.jpg
 |
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Yogicflying.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrboltz (T | C) 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for the heads up. I especially like the use of bold text to show how important the information was. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess Wikipedia is like a house, it requires constant cleaning! :( Sethie 15:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TM
You may be interested in revisiting Transcendental_meditation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus Christ as source of A Course In Miracles
Hi. The article Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles" has been nominated for deletion. Earlier, you made a statement on this article's talk page about how you think it should remain and not be merged back into the main article. I was wondering if you'd be interested in posting your comments on the vote page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles"Andrew Parodi 05:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maharishi
If you look at the history of the page and my edit summary, you will see that I merely replaced information that had been removed by an unknown vandal. I don't care if the information stays or goes, so long as it isn't simply removed on the whims of an anonymous quack. Sfacets 11:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Got it. I would love to see that info in an article, we just need a good source. Not sure Maharishi is the place for it. I do like having the two conflicting quotes right next to each other about the mantras, wish we had a source for the Maharishi's quote. Sethie 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Denied request; Ambalal Ambalal Muljibhai Patel
Hmm, did you do a copy and paste page move (i.e. just copy the content from one article to the other?). Petros471 17:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well looks like it, so I've done a history merge. It is important to use the 'move' tab when re-naming an article, as this preserves the page history (a licensing requirement). Also it leaves a re-direct behind, which is often useful. Let me know if you have any more questions. Petros471 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeh, that's ok. There's always something new to learn, and at least that one wasn't a very hard one to fix (it gets really messy if an article has been copied and then a load of edits are made to both articles!) Cheers, Petros471 08:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re your comments on my talk page
:I'm sorry if you took offense but I never wrote "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason" on any deletion post. That phrase is automatic in the tag. That message is placed on the Prod. If you would like to know how prods and AfD nominations work then please consult the relevant Wikipedia policies. I will try to look them up for you in a little bit. The article was not improved when the prod was taken down so I nominated it for an AfD discussion. --Strothra 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Also, a further note: you may not wish to display your "posse" above as that may get you into some nasty meat puppet accusations later on. Regardless, welcome to Wikipedia. --Strothra 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:The prod isn't a deletion per se. It can be taken down for any reason. If, however, one wishes to bring it to the community in order to discuss the deletion they take it to the AfD process. See WP:PROD and WP:AFD. For some articles which I believe can be deleted without wasting the time of the community, I put up a prod but if it's removed I subsequently put it into AfD because I feel that it is sufficiently controversial enough at that point and merits a communal discussion. --Strothra 15:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Urgent Request
Dear Sethie
I would like to bring something to your attention (a proposed deletion of a wikipedia article) and would like to request your help.
I have seen some of your contributions on Hinduism and India, and I think you might have a good understanding of the issues involved. Please look at the article: India_Basher and views about its proposed deltion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_Basher. I am hoping to save the article.
I believe that those supporting deletion of the article are not familiar with the subject. Also, they may have made a decision while the article was still in its beginning stages. With your knowledge of India and its interaction with the world, you can probably make an informed decision about value of the article, and its accuracy. I will appreciate if you can share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_Basher.
You can my my contributions to Wikipedia at Special:Contributions/Cardreader --Cardreader 00:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry for posting to your user page
Hi Sethie, half-asleep last night, I replied to you request for material on NIH and TM by posting a request for clarification on you user-page by mistake. Sorry. Please delete it. And give me some more info about what you need. Thanks. Andrew 24.48.99.235 12:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- ) No problema. I remember you put in some material about how it was "controversial" and how it had maybe lost some funidng or maybe was not all it was cracked up to be. I wish I had a more clear memory! Sethie 14:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your position on the TM issue
Hi Sethie, I agree that there is alot of pro-TM biased editing, however it is important to let them contribute to the article for it to grow (after all followers are logically the ones who would know the most about the organisation). Of course the edits made should be monitored, but I they should nonetheless be allowed to contribute creatively to the article... total censure is a little harsh.
I take note of your "Favorite Insults thrown my way" section :D I also have a section like that on my userpage under "fans" ;) There are some nuts out there... (I liked the pot analogy - it is inspiring to know that even nutters have a creative side ;) Sfacets 10:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Heya.
Thanks, I concur 100%. Since Peterklutz, 186. has been around, I believe the articles have improved, a lot... I am definatley opposed to totally censuring anyone, unless every edit is absurd... have I done anything to let you believe that this is my position? (further note) ahhh, just read the talk page.... yeah, I not sure what to do. I see about 15% of his edits as really helpful... we'll see how it unfolds. peace, Sethie 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppets
I have copied the following from user_talk:Peterklutz --Alphachimp talk 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Numerous time I have asked you to use one account and to sign your posts correctly. You just made an edit to the talk page of MMY, using one of your numerous 213. ip's and signed not as Peterklutz, but PeterKlutz [1], you did the same on the TM page [2]. You are using 4 accounts- 186., Peterklutz, PeterKlutz, plus numerous rotating IP under 213. You have commented using three seperate user names, all in one day here! [3] Please stop. If any admin knows the proper course of action, please chime in. Sethie 17:07, 18 June 2
- Sockpuppets are a serious concern, and certainly against Wikipedia policy, providing that their owner does not clearly state that they are sockpuppets in their profile. I'm not an administrator, but in order for an indefinite ban to be issued (the standard fare for sockpuppets), you have to request "Checkuser" at the following page WP:RCU.
- I have copied this onto your user talk as well. --Alphachimp talk 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I requested a checkuser... Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Peterklutz please contribute any evidence such as aliases and/or ip addresses you suspect he has used to edit articles...
Sfacets 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About the "CMC"
I think that the page you referred to in the Anderson page may not be the same "Master Teacher" that it looks to be. The problem is, at this point in time, it doesn't actually say. What I do know is that the site itself appears to be the "third group" that we believe exists and which nobody has explored yet research-wise (or at least nobody that has done any research has been willing to divulge). Please note that the owner of that web site is Rev. Tony Ponticello. The third group, has been informally referred to as "jcim". Please don't misunderstand me to be saying that it is not Anderson, but that it doesn't actually say that it is Anderson. If I mis-read the page, please let me know. The next step in the research (which I haven't had the time to follow up on) was to investigate and find the trial records of Penguin when they sued this jcim group. The reason for believing that such a trial took place are the leads pointed out by the new christian church of full endeavor on the page that discusses their "stance" on the results of the trial where they themselves were sued. I'm adding your talk page to my watch list and will respond here, but would prefer not to use my talk page anymore for anything at all. Please feel free to e-mail me if you feel it necessary instead. Thanks. ( for your reference: http://whois.domaintools.com/miracles-course.org ) Ste4k 05:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect, they are the same. You can easily verify this by searching the Endeavor Sites and you will find the same book titles by "Master Teacher."
There is no such group as JCIM. JCIM is a version the Course in Miracles. Penguin did not sue any JCIM group. They sued Endeavor Acadmey.
Third group? What third group? "We believe exists." Who is "we?" What group are YOU a member of.
Who has informally reffered to it as JCIM?
Having spent time at Endeavor Academy, met "Master Teacher," and chatting with the Academy from time to time, along with being both a critic AND a supporter of the Academy, I am rather well informed on the subject.
Rev. Tony is the pator of the church which hosts the bookstore, I linked to, and not that it matters, has not affiliation with EA.
I admire your zeal for truth. I do not admire the pace at which you are proceeding and the incorrect assumptions you are making. Sethie 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Admiration hasn't anything to do with the truth. :) Sorting out the truth, though, is the work of the encyclopedia. You asked, what group that I am a member. WP! And whom has informally referred to the book? Others who have been trying to figure all of this out. The first time I had ever heard of the Course was about three weeks ago. Since that time I have asked quite a few questions in discussion. The first question, however, to date has yet to be answered. I think that the main problem with most of the articles is that they fail to inform people that haven't ever seen/heard about these topics before what the topic is actually about; i.e. why is it important. JCIM is one version of the Course, but there is another version that is associated with EA, listed on the bottom of their web site that points to what appears to be another group, but several of the photos used on that other group's pages are also used on the EA site. There was such a company in Wisconsin at one time. It might have changed its name but I would have to do more research, like I said before. The JCIM version, though, is discussed by theCourse in Miracles Society, and shown on that page, which is owned by Thomas Whitmore of Omaha, Nebraska, who states that "...a series of lawsuits were brought by FACIM and FIP against a number of organizations (including CIMS)...", and claims the source is from the Hugh Lynn Cayce version of the original book. The COMMUNITY MIRACLES CENTER sells the version from the Foundations (FIP/FACIM), the version from the CIM Society, some various related material by "Master Teacher" but never say whom "Master Teacher" is, nor do they reference the version offered by the New Christian Church. They do, however, sell two cassettes of "passages from the Course" by Pamela Galadrial, but it is unclear what passages are contained there, nor any further mention of what version Pamela used. There are fourteen language translations, of one of the versions published by the Foundations (FACIM/FIP) listed on that site. Notice that the FIP name is printed on the cover and that there are only three sections within the translated book compared to the five discussed by the publisher FIP who state "...the version of A Course in Miracles that contains the Clarification of Terms and the Text Preface, we want to make sure that people understand that this version of the Course has not been placed into the public domain". So you see, there are at least three, possibly four, perhaps even more published versions of "the source" (page 6) of the work created by Helen Schucman and William Thetford. I suppose we could say that there are at least four versions of the Course:
- "the source" of the work.
- the FIP version with five sections.
- the EA version with Aramaic Gospels.
- the JCIM version sourced from "an earlier version of the manuscript" (page 8) provided to the Association for Research & Enlightenment (the "A.R.E.")
Ste4k 07:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your origonal research, four versions of the course? Please write a paper, get it published, and we'll site you!
Don't feel the need to help you sort out all your erroneous thinking, for example, ACIMI is an outgrowth of EA... and the text they are selling is either the Urtext or JCIM.
Please learn more, THEN make edits. Sethie 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
ACIMI is an outgrowth of EA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethie (talk • contribs).
Don't read into my statements what isn't there. I don't write between the lines, reading between them won't work. "outgrowth" is not the word I used, and groups and factions are not versions of books. There is a big difference between authoring, shaking hands, distributing, and paying royalties. If you haven't read all of the court documents yet, I think you really ought to. Hope that helps. Ste4k 08:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to be polite, but it sorta backfired- so I'll just be open, honest and direct: at this point in your research. level of wikiexperience, and misconceptions you are using as justification for your edits, I don't take your edits seriously. In a couple of months, if you haven't been booted by then, I'll be happy to dialogue with you. I have carpal tunnel and must limmit my keystrokes per day, dialogueing with you is not a satisfying use of my limited amount of wrist strength. That's all for now. Sethie 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine. Your opinion of me is noted. I still haven't any clue what you make of the article though. Ste4k 09:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BKWSU
Hi Sethie.
I removed the citation notice from the BKWSU topic. If you want to raise specific questions, please first read throught the discussion archive and quoted references. Then, where there is serious lack of citations that has not been covered, raise it on the Discussion page first where it will be answered.
It is not at all clear whether your objections are philosophical, i.e. that this is not orthodox Hinduism, or specific to the BKs. If they are specific to the BKs, it would help to know what your knowledge of them is based on.
Frankly, given that your comment comes after a page of "easily checkable" references in line with Wiki policy, I must admit that your action has made a negative impression. Let's discuss this first. If your POV is on a passing acquaintance or mutual self interest, be cautious.
- Please spend a little time becoming acquainted with Wiki formatting and convention.
- When you want to sign your name, use 4 tilda signs ~~~~ and the software will automatically generate a name and date stamp.
- When following a thread of discussion, please indent consequent comments using colons at the start of each line. I have done so here as an example. If you have a look at the "edit this page" option above, you will be able to learn how to do so.
Thanks. 195.82.106.244 12:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the BK, and don't feel like debating wiki policy with you, I'll let someone else handle that. Sethie 02:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peterklutz escalating his TM-promoting advertorializing
Sethie, Peterklutz is conducting an editing war and demanding that administrators put a stop to what he calls a sinister conspiracy of underhanded subversives. Your help is needed. Askolnick 12:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
