User talk:Hele 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To keep discussions in one place, I will reply here unless you request otherwise.


Contents

[edit] Ongoing discussions:

[edit] Request for Mediation: Ascended master

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/Ascended master, 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. - Richfife 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABuresz / Sock Puppets

I request a sock check on the newbies in Ascended Master and they came up clean in that they aren't posting from the same IP addresses. Either they aren't ABuresz (I suspect he put them up to it, though) or he's clever enough to disguise his tracks (which I doubt). Here's the check page: ABuresz Sock Check - Richfife 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably he has activated his sect. However, they are clearly single-purpose accounts, see [1]. Hele 7 10:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi, I have sent you and the other members involved in the dispute at Ascended master an email using Special:Emailuser/Hele 7. Once everyone has responded, mediation will begin by email. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive: discussions ended before Nov 9 2006

/Archive 1

[edit] Artistic inspiration

Thanks for catching that self-promotion. When it was inserted, I was trying to avoid violating WP:OWN, so I simply assessed the quote for its appropriateness to the topic. It was apt, if unnecessary, so I left it alone. I didn't want to bite the newbie, etc., so I was polite, figuring, so long as it didn't have a link to the book's sales sheet, it would do no harm. I suppose I should have been more rigorous in checking out its provenance. Geogre 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. The issue has shown tendency to reappear, so it would be useful to check it periodically, to clean again if needed. Hele 7 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Ascended master, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] Ascended Master

I'm trying to decide what the best approach is here. There seem to be four kinds of ways people relate to this idea:

1) I make money from it and I need to protect it to keep the money flowing. 2) I believe in it and I need to protect it so I don't look foolish. 3) I used to be emotionally invested in it and now I'm emotionally invested (and non-neutral) about debunking it. 4) It's a marketing gimmick dressed up in flowery new age BS and I don't want to waste any time on it.

Ideally there should be a group 5) I'm interested enough in it to research it and write scholarly papers on it.

Unfortunately it's too minor a thing for a group 5 to appear. Group 3 is out there, but they can't seem to write about it without going off the deep end. So how do we present their views in a neutral way without arousing the tireless ire of groups 1 and 2, who are obviously ready to carry on for years. As a card carrying member of group 4, it's hard to keep my motivation up. - Richfife 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition there might be group 6):"this place (e.g. Wikipedia) is important for me and I need to keep this place clean of it". I think that things falling under description of group 4 should not be represented at all in Wikipedia, especially if they are "too minor a thing for a group 5 to appear". This is a general problem in Wikipedia that a small active group of supporters of some weird thing is strongly motivated in having this thing presented their specific way, but majority of normal readers/editors are not so motivated to keep this thing out of here or get it presented in balanced way. As a result, Wikipedia will have many strongly biased articles on various favourite subjects of such groups. The question is whether we accept this tendency as a fatality of try to change it somehow. A vote could help in this case if it gets attention of sufficient number of regular editors. Hele 7 12:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)