User talk:Sethie/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archive moves

You appear to have moved a bunch of archives from Talk:Sahaj marg to Talk:Sahaj Marg by Copy&paste, rathe than using the move function. Thsi loses their history, which is supposed to be retained for GFDL attribution. am delting the copies, and moving the old archives. Please use the Move function in future. DES (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sahaj Marg

There's a reason the article is such a mess. I've seen it before when there's an editor who's only interested in one topic. Failure to follow core policies or to respect the input of the other editors is ultimately disruptive. I hope this editor relaxes a bit. I appreciate your involvement. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Overall it has been a pleasent experience... and a learning one, yet a good one. It is nice to be able to be firm about policy and civil- something Sethie was not so good at in the past! And there is a real feeling of progress, the article looks A LOT better then a week ago... though this is still a lot to be done. :) Sethie 06:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the article is looking much better, and your editing has helped greatly. Stability is a concern.
You wrote that ..[it] had Sethie pretty confused, since deleting talk page entries is generally a big no-no.[1] That isn't quite true; there are some occasions when talk page comments can or should be removed. WP:BLP violations should be removed immediately from talk pages. It's proper to remove discussions of the article subject instead of the article itself. That includes postings like: "I'm writing a paper on X. When did Y happen?" or "I think the ballot measure should pass because..." Personal attacks are sometimes refactored. OTOH, some people might revert the editing of a posting by a different editor, It's not as straighforward as it could be. All the more reason to stick to templated explanations that have been vetted.
I've noted your avoidance of the first person singular. Pronouns are powerful little words. I've been engaged in a pronoun-related strategy as well. When discussing editing I try to avoid writing "you", as in "why did you add this to the article?" Instead I try to us the third person plural. "Why are we saying this in the article?" or "are we interpreting this source correctly?" I have no proof of its success but I think it makes editing discussions less personal. (Hmm, I see I didn't follow my guideline in the previous paragraph.) ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey there Will.
thanks for the clarification on deleting things from talk pages, Sethie can see that there might be certain instances in which would be helpful.
Sethie really feel as you on the "you" thing. It feels like using the word you can make things a little more confrontational.... he'll ponder it and maybe give it a whirl. Sethie 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Sethie...

Read your bio...good for you...I feel the same about SRCM as you do about TM but in the case of Sahaj Marg, we now have had One group (Narayana formed the ISRC) schism, then Umesh (deceased son of Founder, Babuji) in control of one Ashram and President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur), as Chari was forming his California-based, SRCMtm (California) in 1997. They also registerd the Research SMRTI in Austin Texas and took that over also. They are now in court and documents have surfaced by the Founder that brought accusations of "murder" from the Family of the Founder, Babuji.

So I've seen many groups try and change the article and I have just been letting them "wear themselves" out and then trying to make sense of it all. You entered as one of Chari's group and Shashwat were into edit wars, and I had not yet finished the clean up from the previous "edit wars" one of which brought about the Sahaj Marg Philosophy page. So I have been laying back and "biting my tongue"...'-))

I believe in Pull and not push as per Wiki philosophy. I can state my personal opinions elsewhere and I respect and appreciate the WIKI project...I am a firm believer that NPOV information will set us free, not simply one's POV. That is where the traditional Media has failed to do because of the reliance on "advertising" and that WIKI can address so "spiritually" (as in the "cool" blue end of the spectrum (logic) as opposed to the 'red" end of emotions) .  ;-))

Thanks for all your efforts, your help and your "NPOV"..

Don--don 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sethie...

I hear you and I will try and go to the Sahaj Marg site more often than once a day.

I am disabled and have health issues so it is a little difficult for me but I will do my best. I have been trying to stay out so as not to confuse the issues with more than a few editors doing the amending at a time. I do not like pushing my POV on others and I am not without a POV also. ;-))

If, in the future, you want me to "stay away" more, so as not to confuse, then I will do so also...

Don --don 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Don-
What I am after is editors who will help keep things in line with wiki policy. If you're game for that, please come play! :) Sethie 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramesh Balsekar, Criticism

Dear Sethie,

it is stated that Balsekar was recently "subject of a smear campaign by a small Paris based group aligned with what they consider to be a more traditional Advaita guru - Ranjit Maharaj"

Is this associated in any way with the happenings at the Kovalam Seminar 2004?

If so, then you might consider to check out the reports made by shocked Germans who also participated at that seminar but took the incidents with a lot of humour of how they could build up such a perfect "Guru figure" in their own minds and project it on Balsekar, although Ramesh always states that he is like you and me, a perfectly normal human being and most of all a man.  :)

http://www.connection.de/cms/content/view/995/181/


greetings

Al

[edit] Third Person

Shashwat admits that talking in third person helps one observe things, rather then becoming a part of it, I did this long time back, whien i was in India and was with a guru in Rishikesh. Moment one becomes an observer, chances of getting attached to objects are reduced considerably.

--Shashwat pandey 09:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. :) It is currenlty one of Sethie's main practices. Sethie 04:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Shashwat has read Sethie's observation on TM, and here shashwat want's to share his experience of meditation now 10 yrs (Shashwat started his spiritual quest at the age of 17!!). Meditation is only one of the means towards the absolute, which cannot be expressed, it is not the only means, for people in famiy life, love dedication and commitment towards family results in same state that a yogi achieve's in forest doing Raja Yoga. same power's of mind can be manifested by numerous method's and those who sell, (trademarks, organizations claiming good for householders) are all fake, only way to achieve perfection or union with existance is by becoming one with the existance, which is present right in front of us, our family spouse children and society. more we become selfish, thinking if we do something we achieve something in spiritual practice is absured for householder's. actually we have to stop doing everything, and that moment when we stop is the moment of union. !! Sahshwat runs a community on orkut, if sethie is interested he can visit www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=24873318.--Shashwat pandey 06:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion page protocol

Sethie...

4d-don normally just posts at the bottom of the page but he can add a "category" if it confuses... I thought that Sethie and Wiilbeback were doing that by just posting at the bottom of the latest Message without a "category" but if that is what Sethie wants, then I will do that...

The "discussion" page was a lot more in order before the recent edit wars (Shashwat and others) and then Willbeback and Sethie's input.

Sthie can say what he wants and 4d-don will do it. Others may not but...

4d-don--don 02:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Sethie's strong prefference would be to reply under the existing category. Living dead stuff under living dead. Contradition under contradition. Video Question under video question.
Does that make sense?
Thanks. Sethie 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Shaswat

Shashwat is leaving for sethie's favorite destination Thailand for few day's for a change. Shashwat will countinue with discussion once he is back. have a nice time, and have great fun. --Shashwat pandey 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Shashwat will be in Pattaya and bangkok, will spend some time on james bond island as well, shashwat's flight will leave in 8 hrs from now, will stay there for one week approx!!! lets see if we can meet there, it will be gr8 to see you in person!!--Shashwat pandey 05:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pattaya, huh? It is a very, very, very wild town! As are certain parts of Bangkok.
Sethie spent 2.5 months in Pattaya last summer, doing volunteer work and hanging out. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Sethie won't be going to Thailand till sometime around June 21st or so, we shan't meet this trip.....
Pattaya. Wowsa. Have fun! Sethie 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I shall respond your message in some time, for the time being kindly refer to WP:AGF. we will get more people involved in this for sure. allow me sometime to return.--Shashwat pandey 05:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing Sethie to AGF. "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Sethie has no sense that you are acting with malice.
Sethie is quite clear that you are not clear about the core policies, and despite being pointed towards them, numerous times by Sethie and few times by Will, your edits demonstrate the same level of unclarity about how wikipedia works as when we started working together, over a month ago.
You haven't edited for about a week, and then you come back and your first edit is so flagrantly off, in what has become the usual misquoting of sources, in ways that serve your POV. Enough is enough. Sethie 06:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Sethie you have stated "Your continuous insertion of material that is not contained in the sources, yet linked to a source is very disruptive" here i assume you are refering to [2]. I would like to drow your attention to subsequent effect's, it was you who did not followed original research policy of wiki, whatever i had added was word to word from source itself. would request you to be polite in your communication, giving threat's for doing various action's will not result in any positive outcome. If you want to discuss any topic you must have patience to discuss, if you get irritated at every edit that i make, then i am sure we will have to approach [3] for your behavior and harsh language for another user. Kindly be polite and try to respect every editor on wiki. --Shashwat pandey 10:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting, that you feel this way, since your friend, whom you asked to come by and edit the page while you were away [[4]] agreed with the change I made! [[5]]
If you feel Sethie needs an RfC, feel free to instigate one. Sethie 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Banhammer

I hope you dont mind me fixing your comment on Talk:Banhammer. You wrote [[http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page|Uncyclopedia]] and while such format would be used for Wikipedia links (without http://) it can not be used for off-site links. Offsite links use single [ ] and description is separated with single space rather than with the pipe "|", so [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Uncyclopedia] would produce what I think you were trying to accomplish. Shinhan 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to neutrality of telestial kingdom from thewayandthelight

My apologies if this is not what you meant for me to do. Below is the article with my comments inserted.

The telestial kingdom /this is a belief being presented as fact/ is one of three "kingdoms" or "degrees of glory", in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. /this concept is presented by Swedish theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in his 1758 book entitled Heaven and Hell but isn't mentioned/ It is an eternal status in the afterlife to which some portion of humankind will be assigned following the Resurrection and Judgment Day. /again...a belief not present as such/

The primary source of this doctrine is a vision recounted by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon /the primary source is from Emanuel Swedenborg's book which was written prior to the 'vision'/, at Hiram, Ohio on February 16, 1832. The origin of the word "telestial", which does not occur in other contexts, is uncertain, although some claim it means "distant" (since this realm is seen as being further from the seat of God than the other kingdoms), citing the meaning of other words that begin with the Greek prefix "tele-" (such as telephone and television). Another possible source might be the Greek adjective "telestikos", which means "mystical," "consecrational," or "initiatory."

The telestial kingdom is the lowest of the three degrees of glory, in which the highest or celestial kingdom is compared to the sun, the middle or terrestrial kingdom is compared to the moon, and the lowest or telestial kingdom is compared to the stars. According to the Church's interpretation, the Bible also indicates that these three kingdoms are connected with the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:40-42). Also, "in addition to the degrees of glory, there is a place of no glory, called perdition (or "outer darkness"), reserved for those who commit the unpardonable sin." (Bible Dictionary: Degrees of Glory)/again...presented as fact, not belief/

People who will attain the telestial kingdom in the afterlife include those "who received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus" (Doctrine and Covenants 76:82) as well as "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie" (Doctrine and Covenants 76:103). These people, who will rise in the second resurrection, must first suffer for their sins in the Spirit Prison (similar to the Catholic concept of Purgatory - see Common Latter-day Saint perceptions) until the Last Judgement, at which time they will be assigned to the telestial kingdom. There they are to be servants of God, however they will not be able go to the place where "God and Christ dwell." (D&C 76:112). In LDS theology the telestial kingdom is not unpleasant: "the glory of the telestial...surpasses all understanding" (Doctrine and Covenants 76:89)./this tells of the judgement of liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie' and is not pertinent to the article./

It should be borne in mind, however, that the plan of salvation in Mormonism is centered on forgiveness of sins and redemption by Jesus Christ. Commission of the sins listed above does not automatically relegate the sinner to the telestial kingdom, but wilful refusal to repent of these sins may do so.


I would also like to see this article present some history on the subject. Show examples of the concept outside of the mormon religion that supports that other possililies. This article is solely based on a supposed vision by a man who benefited greatly from the fact that he was able to get others to believe in it. Now I know that is not how it should be presented to be neutral but it would certainly be historically correct. If this is not what you had in mind, I would happy to present my ideas in the format that you desire. Thewayandthelight 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded on talk page of article. Sethie 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The following article shows a compare/contrast opinion on this subject. [6] Could you review and see if you think that it is conclusive enough to represent my opinion on this matter? Thewayandthelight 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about this on the article talk page, ok? Sethie 00:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper articles vs news programs

Regarding [7]:

Why do you think that references 7, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21 and the others on the talk page don't count as newspaper articles? — Omegatron 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie only has an opinion about #11-18:

  1. ^ Craig Patrick reporting. Water Power (Youtube video) [Television newscast]. Fox 26 News. Retrieved on 2007-04-15.
  2. ^ Adams, David. "Florida's very own water fueled car", St. Petersburg Times, October 12, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  3. ^ "Water Could One Day Replace Gas", KSBI-TV 52 Oklahoma, May 23, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  4. ^ "Cars Running On Water?", KXAN, Austin, TX, May 24, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  5. ^ Flack, Eric. "Car Powered By Water A Reality", Wave 3 News, September 6, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  6. ^ Water-powered Car Technology Attractive to Many (Youtube video) [Television newscast]. Louisville, KY: Wave 3 News. Retrieved on 2006-06-30.
  7. ^ Flack, Eric. "Big Names Interested in Water Powered Car", Wave 3 News, July 12, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  8. ^ Flack, Eric. "Car Powered By Water A Reality", Wave 3 News, September 6, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.

His opinion is that none of these are: "popular science newspaper articles." Sethie 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok... So let's pick one for an example. Why is [8] not a popular science newspaper article? It's certainly an article, it's presented in an online newspaper, and it's written for a general audience about a science topic. — Omegatron 01:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Moving this to the talk page. Sethie 02:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work...

Great re-write - and damn fast. It's amazing how many obscure little problems there are in wikipedia, but it's good to see there our some out there were are bold and effective in fixing them. kind regards and happy editing. Merbabu 04:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


) Wow, thanks, Sethie appreciates your feedback. Lately Sethie has been feeling in the flow with wikipedia and your feedback speaks to that. Thanks! :) Sethie 05:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo O'Neill

An approach that is kinder than AfD is to first suggest to the author that the page falls under Wikipedia is not a directory - Genealogical entries. You then may suggest that he may wish to userfy the material for use outside of Wikipedia and then request to have the page deleted via Author requests deletion. -- Jreferee 17:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a gentler soul then I.... and I am willing to give it a try. :) Sethie 17:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanked

"... for example, kwork blanked his page and if he comes back I will revert some of it, because it was me specifically saying, please adhere to WP:CIVILITY. See you on the AAB page. Sethie 00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)"

Sethie: What do you mean, "if he comes back"? I have not gone anyplace. I blanked the page because everything that had been put on it was inane and worthless. If you think you can derive some good from reverting it, go ahead. I know perfectly it is still in the page history. If you think I am in violation of WP:CIVILITY, make a complaint about me. Or, if that is what makes you happy, just keep on kvetching (http://www.allwords.com/word-kvetching.html). However, if you have something intelligent to say, I would be very happy to see that anytime. Kwork 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie apparently incorreclty assumed that you being done on AAB page meant you were done on wikipedia.
Removing warnings is considered bad form, it is a way for editors to try and cover their tracks and repeat similar problematic behavior. Sethie has no need or desire to revert your whole talk page back, however if you get active on wikipedia again, he will bring back his requests of you to be more civil.... so if that behavior repeats itself, other editors can refference it.
Whoops, it appears you have been active on wikipedia.... okay, will do.Sethie 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cover my tracks? I was the only editor of the Alice Bailey article that with own name (and location) on my use page. Everyone else is hiding behind an alias. All the information I deleted is still there in archives for anyone to see, as you know perfectly well. (How is it you never complained about Jamesd1 not even having a user page till today? I suppose that is your idea of good form.) If you consider my behavior "problematic", you really should make a complaint about me. I invite it. Kwork 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie totally agrees that the information can be retrieved.
Sethie never complained about Jamesd1 not having a user page, because.... well what is there to complain about? It isn't a policy that Sethie is aware of.
You are saying, then, that if I followed the model set by Jamesd1, and I had no page where you could make your complaint, that would have been okay with you? It is because of this sort of silly stuff from you that I removed it from my user page Kwork 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disapoint you, you had nothing to do with "having" a page for Sethie to make a complaint, and neither does Jamesd. By registering an account, a "red" i.e. blank user page and blank discussion page is created. Anyone can make the first edit to it, it doesn't have to be the person who created the page. You could have left it blank and Sethie could have come along and said, "Hi." Or "Hey there, would you please cool you tone down." In fact, you did not "create" i.e. add the first entry to your talk page, Chriskid321 did [[9]]. Sethie 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to take any offical action unless your tone repeats itself elsewhere. The WP:CIVIL discussion Sethie placed on your page only will be relevant if you edit and dialogue the same way on other pages. Hopefully that won't be the case. Sethie 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


One of the former editors of the Alice Bailey article, exited Wikipedia with this statement: "I attempted to edit at Wikipdia from Febreuary, 2006 through May , 2006 but i am now leaving because the project is little more than a haven for cultists and special interest cliiques, many of them editing under anonymous screen names. I'm off to work on my own site. I may be back, and i may not, but if you are here reading this page, take it from me, don't trust any information you read at WP unless you also check the page's history, see who wrote it, and trust that editor. Cordially, Catherineyronwode 12:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"

This accurately describes the situation I found dealing with you, and others, editing the Alice Bailey article. But despite your own problematic behavior, you have the chutzpah to call my descriptions of your behavior as an insults. As I said, if you really think they were insults, and that you have any grounds for it, I invite you to make a complaint about me. Actually I would be happy to have administrators take a look at the discussion page. Kwork 21:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the invite and Sethie doesn't feel the need for anything official yet. Sethie 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You say that I have violated Wikipedia rules, but you are unwilling to pursue the matter; which suggests that you do not really believe your own accusation is true. An accusation that is untrue is often called a lie. Kwork 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sethie said, "Sethie doesn't think you have insulted him, just on wikipedia there is a certain tone and attempts at civility which, for Sethie, you have danced around the line and maybe crossed a few times." Sethie 00:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case the warning does not belong. Either prove I have done something wrong or keep the warning off my user page. So far all you have to say is that you go not like to receive criticism. Kwork 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie hoped that things could work out differently.... and ok. Sethie 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie needs to learn that a criticism of his behavior, on Wikipedia, is not an insult. I have heard a lot about WP technicalities of procedure from you, but nothing about ethical behavior. If you had behaved ethically in the editing process, none of this argument would have occurred. Kwork

[edit] TfD Nomination

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Abuse

Template:Abuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Andeggs 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sahaj Marg

Hi, Sethie. Got your message on my Talk page. I glanced at the article briefly -- I agree that there are lots of problems. I don't really have time to get involved, though. TimidGuy 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Wasn't sure which side you were on. But I agree, very ironic -- and lots of stuff there that is problematic. TimidGuy 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse template

Someone pointed out that when I called my vote "oppose" I should have called it "keep". I have changed my "oppose" to the word "keep" and I did the same thing to your "oppose" so others would not make the same mistake that I started. You can verify the change at the current version here, or by viewing this diff. I hope you don't mind, please let me know if you feel I should not have done this. Joie de Vivre 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

There are options for a preferred venue. Please review the choices and indicate your preference. Cheers! Vassyana 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] when to edit? when to defer to others?

Dear Sethie,

I would be happy to take a crack at editing the Sahaj Marg page but I don’t want to get in a daily battle of going back and forth with those who are trying to put across a certain agenda. Is this possible? Is the page ever done?

The few blogs on Sahaj Marg should provide an outlet for those who are angry about it or other things in their lives that they believe Sahaj Marg caused, but I hate to see this spill over onto a neutral encyclopedic site.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Renee --Renee 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heya Rene
Sethie appreciates you checking in... of course, Sethie does not own the page by any means, and his thought on the matter is, really get really grounded and clear on wikipedia policies, and then edit away.
As for the back and forth- well, it is part of wikipedia! :) Basically if you get really clear on policy, and work from there, if someone interferes with your edits, eventually the community will step in. Sethie 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Sethie,

Hope you are doing fine... I am not quite comfertable with procedure of mediation as this is first time i am involved with any such process, what will be the next step ? if you get some time kindly brief me about the process, Renee is very close to me. unfortunatly we come across each other quite often... but its fun!! didn't see any activity from your side for some time ? have you left for thiland ? --Shashwat pandey 07:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Shashwat-
Each mediation is different, depending on the mediator, Sethie's hunch is that this person is extrememly skilled and that we are in good hands. Sethie 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Shashwat, Could you please clarify that "Renee is very close to me?" I have no idea who you are and this is the first time our paths have crossed. Very strange. --Renee 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)



Dear Sethie,

Thanks for your response to my message above. Well, based on your and Don's encouragement I tried to do a careful edit this morning (especially based on what appears in the mediation -- things about redundancy, as well as on the sect issue). No sooner do I post it than Shashwat reverts it to his edits. I tried to re-save the page several times but he instantly reverted. Sfacets tried to revert it twice as well to my edits, because he thought we should start from the re-ordered page, but Shashwat reverted his changes too.

I've tried to post a vandalism complaint on Shashwat's site (it seems that we do it first, and then after three warnings we can report to an administrator?) but then he starts personally attacking me on the Sahaj Marg talk page.

If I'm doing something wrong please advise. The policies are confusing and I'm trying to follow them.

Also, how do we move forward if only one person is editing and he reverts to his edits immediately upon anyone else changing?

Thanks, Renee --Renee 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-prime

It occurred to me that since you find writing in the third person so interesting you might also find using e-prime (which I sometimes use myself) interesting. Kwork 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heya Kwork. Thanks so much for the post... one of Sethie's main interests in life is the way in which language creates suffering or happiness. E-Prime is on his "to check out list" and maybe next after 3rd person speaking explorations.
Peace, Sethie 08:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sahaj Marg and SRCM pages - problem with Shashwat

Dear Sethie,

Please see my post immediately before the E-prime about today's activities on the Sahaj Marg page. Earlier this morning I made some minor edits to the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page on the secte issue (after proposing we follow the TM site, after getting agreement with Don that we should use secte and not cult, and so forth) and I just checked it for the first time today.

I couldn't believe it but Shashwat had reverted that page too! He seems to think that he's the only one who can make any edits on both pages (minor or major). I'm not sure what to do? Advice is welcome.

Renee --Renee 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Renee
Of course you have the power to revert his reversions, and feel free to bring it up on the talk page. If you and Don support it, odds are, Sethie will support it as well. Sethie 01:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)



Dear Sethie,

Thanks for the reply. Don supported the changes to the secte text on the SRCM page (please see talk page) and I have put exactly the same text on the Sahaj Marg page, so any feedback you could give on that today would be good, as well as on the newly re-ordered Sahaj Marg page.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 06:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)



Dear Sethie,

Since writing this to you and posting a few messages on the discussion board to get people's collaboration, Shashwat was unblocked.

He immediately went into the article (WITHOUT any discussion or response to collaboration questions) and SIX unilateral edits in a matter of an hour.

I'm still not quite sure how to report abuse, so any advice is appreciated.

Renee --Renee 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Technically, six edits without discussion is not against wikipedia policy. Not participating and working towards concensus is.
If a user displays ongoing patterns of disruptive behavior, a WP:RFC is the way to go. Personally Sethie does not think Shashwat is there yet, though he is getting quite close.
Jossi and Sfacets are much more experienced editors then Sethie, feel free to ask for their help. Sethie 05:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Dear Sethie,
Thanks for your comments and work on this page. Jossi recommended that the whole piece be replaced with a stub, and that the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page be merged (deleted) into it. She pointed out that the sources are all either self-sources or biased sources (anti-cult groups) and that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for these types of sources.
After working within the spirit and intent of Wikipedia for just the short time I've been on it, I agree with her. Right now both pages read like propaganda pieces meant to promote a certain point-of-view. In fact, up until yesterday, when he received a warning from an administrator, Mr. Shashwat Pandey had on his user page that that was his stated objective, to promote an anti-Sahaj Marg/SRCM point-of-view (see his user page history and select June 22, 2007, for example).
I think this is why one cannot build consensus with Shashwat (and probably why you yourself are in meditation with him?), because his purpose in posting on Wikipedia is to promote a certain POV. He already has a blog for this [please see http://www.geocities.com/sha211_211/srcm.html]. I've really tried to build consensus with him and no matter what I say, he'll say the contrary (e.g., he wanted the word "claims" in, I put it in, and then he responded and said you can't claim that; or, he denies that Sahaj Marg is a meditation practice when the majority of the practice description in the article is on how to do the meditations; and so forth).
Currently, both pages are stock full of selectively chosen quotations to promote a specific point-of-view that is contrary to the literature as a whole. Please see the articles at the end of the Sahaj Marg article page, which were published in reputable national and international newspapers and magazines, for a third-party view of the system as a whole.
Actually, seeing your work, and Sfacets, Jossi, Vassayana's contributions has restored my faith in the intent and spirit of Wikipedia. I hope we can get a neutral stub and keep it at that, as these edit wars have been occurring for years now.
Renee --Renee 09:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Does this qualify as personal attack and exposing one's identity ? more-over it may also put me in threat of personal safety... where are we moving ? what should we do about it ? any advice will be highly appritiated, kindly respond on my talk page.--Shashwat pandey 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Shashwat... if you believe Renee violated WP:NPA please read the guideline and take appropriate action.
Where are we moving... Sethie doesn't know what you are asking.
What should we do about what? Sethie 01:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Sethie,
Have a look here [10] giveing a user's name on a page which she marked for deleation, not only seriously undermine the wiki community approach, but also show's lack of positive approach towards difference in openion aspect!! Kindly have a look at her contrib's, there you will find that she has continiously tried to influence various admins (including our mediator) and requested them to block me ! one of the admin even did that for a short while, this pattern is disturbing, just like to cionfirm if these actions violate WP:NPA if they do i will initiate an RfC. does this qualifies as such ? --Shashwat pandey 05:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sethie is not clear why you are posting this here? Sethie is not an admin. Please read the related guidelines and follow the instructions.
And both of you please take this fight elsewhere. Sethie 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Sorry Sethie - Will do! Renee --Renee 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Renee Sethie is sorry for snapping. He just was getting more Shashwat then he was wanting. Good luck! Sethie 07:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sethie. That was nice of you to write that (and your request was entirely reasonable too!). I got a little (okay, a lot) overheated myself. I'm amazed to have found that the self-organizing Wiki mechanisms for promoting fairness, balance, and civility really do work, and I like your idea of using an article as an exercise in remaining balanced, fair, civil under all types of circumstances with all types of people. Thanks for your work on these Sahaj Marg and SRCM articles. I have been watching them for years and just felt hopeless about them until recently (and your work actually gave me the courage to join and become active as an editor because I did feel some hope that they actually could become neutral). Thanks again. Renee --Renee 12:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

I just wanted to say thanks for keeping your head cool and your viewpoint constructive in the ordeal that the spoiler discussion has turned out to be. --Kizor 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a random nifty tip: You can manually change the amount of entries shown in contribution lists, whatlinksheres and the like by changing the number in the URL bar. The upper limit is 5000, though *that* will strain the browser and take several moments to finish. This can come in handy. --Kizor 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] from Shashwat

Is it possible to communicate via email ? --Shashwat pandey 05:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible and Sethie will pass on the invite.
Please Shashwat, leave me out of your arguements/problems with Renee. Sethie 09:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research and secondary sources

Brief explanation. When using only primary sources, it is very difficult to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research. A good example of this is the meaning of religious texts. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supposed by reliable secondary sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, of course, that makes perfect sense. :) Sethie 04:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc

Hi Sethie,

Thanks again Sethie. I just read about the Rfc and would be grateful if we could do it, the sooner the better. It looks like we have about one month to resolve the dispute, as the Sahaj Marg page is protected for that length of time.

I think you have listed most of the editors who've tried to work with him, and we might add Murathi Mulga [11] and maybe sfacets.


In terms of evidence for a pattern of long-term abuse, here are some links:

-> He's been blocked at least once: [12],

-> Had multiple 3-R warnings: [13] [14]

-> Been repeatedly warned against disruptive editing: [15] [16] [17]

-> Been repeatedly warned against POV editing (too numerous to list, just have to read the talk pages and archives)

-> Been repeatedly warned against WP:NOR, e.g.: [18]

-> Been warned against being a troll [19],

-> Been warned against canvassing [20],

-> Has violated WP:USER and WP:NOT [21], see his former user page [22]

-> Been warned for vandalism [23]

-> Taken to formal mediation [24]

-> Has engaged in personal attacks [25] [26]; also, he filed an AIV against me in retaliation for one I filed against him today and outright lied when he said I didn't try to engage him in discussion[27]

(*In all citations above, go to very end for exact instance.)


Would you like to go ahead and make the formal filing?

It looks like we need to notify the user, file on the Rfc page[28], and then provide some "diffs." Here are some from yesterday: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33].


Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Thanks. Renee --Renee 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Heya Renee.
Sethie is sitting with the email thing, he likes the privacy of it, and he also likes the openess and the recording of everything on wikipedia.... so for now let's stick with on wiki.
The above info looks fine, it may need some tweaking... when we file it, they will all need to be "diffs."
Oh my God, Sethie just looked it over, it is A LOT of work to start one. Sethie is willing to contribute and does not want to be one of the main people doing it... maybe ISPOS could be you other main person.... and man oh man Sethie is mostly over wikipedia. Sethie 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Sethie,
Boy am I with you on all accounts. But I'm willing to give one last shove to see if we can get people to a point where these pages are neutral.
In looking at it, it seems that starting it is the majority of the work. I'm willing to do that. Then, I think all you would need to do is endorse it with maybe a line or two. (As would additional editors, I'll definitely ask IPSOS too.) Do you have time for this? I think it would save time in the long run because we'll get neutral input and maybe even arbitration. I would prefer that to the huge text dumping go-arounds we've been getting.
So, if you're willing, I'm able to do it and I'll work to minimize your time and do the leg work (I have the summer off!). The pages read beautifully now and it'd be nice to wind down Wiki service knowing these can remain in good shape for the long haul.
Renee --Renee 10:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Heya Renee
Yes, Sethie is definately willing to endorse it, and provide plenty of diffs as well. Sethie 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay -- I'll get going on it. Thanks, Renee --Renee 17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ready for your endorsement

Hi Sethie,

This took a long time but I think it's done! Hopefully you won't have to do much work at all.

Please add your name and four tildas to section 1.6, "Users certifying the basis for this dispute." Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shashwat_pandey

  • As soon as you endorse please let me know and then I will post it on the appropriate page to finalize it, notify the user in question, and request other editors to give feedback. Please feel free to edit anything in the text or anything I did -- if you think it's too long feel free to shorten. I trust you to modify as you see fit.

Thanks again -- I truly hope this will lead to peace in our lives.

Renee --Renee 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiring about user's identities

It is generally considered impolite to request users to expose their real-life identities, or to confirm or deny guesses at such identities. Edits such as this in which you imply that confirmation of identity is required for an edit to stand clearly violate policy. The test of an edit is the contents, not the editor. WP:COI (a guideline, not a policy) exists because many people can not edit on subjects in which they are involved with sufficient neutrality. But if a particular edit is in fact neutral, it stands no matter who made it, and if it in fact fails WP:NPOV it should be removed no matter who made it. Demanding to know an editor's identity as a condition of not reverting an edit is simply unacceptable. Please don't do this again. DES (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up... though Sethie is a little confused.
Dseer added a link to author Michel Langford's work. Sethie removed that particular link to author, because Sethie felt did not fit in so well with the article. Dseer put it back in responded and said "You may absolutely not remove that link."
The editor then proposed editing an another article in such a way that Michel Langford's worldview and views would be highly represented on a subject in which ML is not considered an expert or has much notability.
Sethie, based this and a number of clues suspected that Dseer was ML.... he read WP:COI which says you cannot insert a link to your own site without discussing it firt. Sethie at first ask, "Are you Michel Langford?" then changed the question to something only ML would know, to protect Dseer's anonimity....
How could Sethie have procceeded differently in accordance with wikipedia policy? Sethie 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] okay to post?

Hi Sethie,

I saw you had a chance to endorse the Rfc. If it's okay with you I'll go ahead and post it tomorrow morning?

Thanks again for suggesting the Rfc and for your help on this. Happy Wiki editing elsewhere!

Renee --Renee 01:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Hey Renee
So glad you didn't post it yet! Sethie thought it had been posted already.
As it is written, Sethie thinks it needs some work.
For example Sethie would remove any claim against Shashwat which does not have a diff to back the claim up. Also Sethie would put the diffs right next to the specific claim.
Sethie wants to help, and he is really sick of wikipedia right now and sick of dealing with personalities on it.... Sethie suggests asking Will Babeck for some help, or ask for some help at the help desk.
Peace! Sethie 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Sethie,
Thanks. I asked Willbeback for feedback so hopefully we'll get some. I like the idea of putting diffs by everything but the way the user worked was to post over many separate posts, so if you do a diff between one editor and this user, there are sometimes 5-6 intermediate posts and it looks funny. However, I will definitely try to put some diffs next to the complaints. I noticed that the user already went in and changed something in the header (I'm not quite sure if what he did was correct or if what I did was correct) so I think we need to post it soon. I'll wait and see if Willbeback has any feedback and then post at the end of the day.
I'm really sorry to read your post and want you to know that your work on the Sahaj Marg and SRCM articles was like a beacon of light for me. Before, I felt it was hopeless and that only those with an agenda could post whatever they wanted, but you really engaged and focused on fairness with integrity and civility. Without people like you, Wiki will become just a trolling ground.
When I was doing the research for this Rfc, I came across this user, for whom a barnstar award is named, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RickK. Reading his despair and then reading his talk page really moved me, because it reflects how I feel sometimes -- that the trolls are given respect and that sometimes only one troll can ruin a weekend for multiple editors working together. If you read RickK's talk page, it also is really moving because it shows that there are many who have a high sense of fairness, integrity, and justice and who truly want balanced articles. It seems to me that in the end fairness does win, and this weekend is a case in point with IPSOS' work. So now, we have three really good articles and hopefully, assuming the Wiki system works, the outcome of this Rfc will help keep them that way.
So, this is all a long way of saying thank you, that you really did make a positive difference, that your efforts are appreciated more than you'll ever know, and may peace surround you always!
Renee --Renee 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Kudos

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your good humor, civility, and tirelessness in taking on difficult edits, you are GREATLY APPRECIATED! Renee 13:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)




[edit] Rfc/user for Shashwat pandey

Hi Sethie, Well, no feedback from everyone. Must be the summer? I tried adding some difs but as I mentioned there were so many successive changes that I didn't get far. But, I think the document makes the case that it is difficult to edit with the user.

I have gone through some of the talk pages and posted notices on recent contributers' pages, as well as on Don's, in order to give a fair hearing. Please feel free to post the item below to editors you know. It'd be great to get feedback from neutral parties. Here's what I posted:

Dear XXX,
Users Sethie and Reneeholle have filed an Rfc for user Shashwat pandey.
Because you have contributed to either the Sahaj Marg page, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page, or both, we would appreciate it if you could provide your comments of this user at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shashwat_pandey
Here are the guidelines for responding [34]:
  • Other users can endorse a view (under 1.7), by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
  • Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
  • You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement (under section 1.7), and/or the subject's response (under section 2).
Thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated! 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope the wiki processes work. I hope you are feeling rested! Renee Renee 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I will contribute a little each day.... peace! Sethie 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds perfect...I'm enjoying taking a break...I need serious homeopathy after that experience....thanks!

--Renee 12:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks so much, Sethie

I really appreciate your kind apology. No need to make it up to me. Your admission -- and your accurate characterization : ) -- suffices. TimidGuy 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


If the measure of a man is determined by the quality of his apology, you must be a most Amazing man. Renee 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vedas

I just replied to your question on the Vedas talk page and thought I'd drop you a note just in case it gets lost in all the back-and-forth there. Cheers. Abecedare 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sethie 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you sometimes edit the TM article. This recent evidence-based review of the quality of research in TM and other meditative practices, may be of interest to you:

Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP. Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 155. (Prepared by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0023.) AHRQ Publication No. 07-E010. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2007.

Abecedare 19:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hope you understand

Hi Sethie. I understand your concerns about FS (logic), but I think it is premature to conclude that any of the references are "fake" or that there has been any misconduct on anyones part, also the editor in question is not a new user — his first edit was on April 3, 2006. For these reasons, I have taken the liberty of removing your remarks from that user's page. I hope you don't mind. Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well....
From my perspective editing out any comment that is not a clear WP:NPA is just bad form.
We all have our ways of dealing with users that appear to be problematic, and time will tell if I was right, or you were.
Please don't edit my talk page comments again. Sethie 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)



[edit] The million dollar question

Okay, now that I've got your attention it's really only the 1 cent question. What happens if the focus of our Rfc/user fails to respond and he shows up after the page protection is lifted? It's been a nice peaceful month, hasn't it? I'm really glad that Don was okay with the piece too. Best, Renee --Renee 20:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

)

Seriously if he comes back and starts editing in the same manner, he will dig his own grave.

Having seen this happen before, my hunch is, he's gone. He was here for one reason, and that reason has been thwarted/removed.

peace! Sethie 20:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bailey again

I can certainly support my version with quotes from Bailey's books. But that will double, at least, the criticism section, and I am trying to avoid making it so large. I was not the editor who added the recent quotes, but it is clear that they are justified. Since the whole article is in bad shape I would rather avoid this argument, and reach some sort of compromise, but that can not be done via an edit war. If you are not willing to try to reach a solution through discussion, than I will do whatever is necessary to support the views I think are correct. Kwork 00:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Kenneth Wapnick Article Discussion

Hi Sethie,
          In case you might be interesrted, there is some discussion going on about whether or not Wikipedia should include an article about Kenneth Wapnick at: Requesting your opinion re reinstating the Kenneth Wapnick article... and at Request to rescind your decision to delete the Kenneth Wapnick article on July 6, 2006. Your input at the Admin's page would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
-Scott P. 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,
Thanks for posting at the admin's page. In case you might be interested, the discussion on the re-inclusion of this article has now moved to Reconsidering inclusion of an article on Kenneth Wapnick. Any further comments you might have regarding this discussion would certainly be most appreciated. Thanks, -Scott P. 03:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAB dispute

Sethie, I am writing this bold because I want to make sure you see it. If you continue to refuse to engage in dialog over our differences; I will, as a next step, request mediation.Kwork 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


KWORK. I have recieved your message and as the talk page of AAB shows, I am dialogueing with you. I would LOVE a mediation with you for a variety of reasons, the main one being that we would have an expert set of eyes looking at issue.'Sethie 17:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. What dialog? I guess its your idea of a joke.....right? Your deleting everything you want to delete from the article, than telling me it was deleted, is not what I would call dialog. Kwork 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hows the weather in your parts? Sethie 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Its a beautiful day! Kwork 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] log in

Okay, I am logged in... but finished editing. (I frequently forget.) Kwork 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Person Versus Third Person

You say that one will not be taken seriously at Wikipedia unless one signs one's name or at least makes a tilde-laden gesture toward IP-address pseudonymity. But being taken seriously is just another trap, Sethie. Look. You call articles you have written "Sethie's Babies." You are invested in them, as if they were human spirits. Simply writing in the third person will not diffuse that ego-load. Dropping all names may provide a way to write freely, without attachment to results.

Writing for Wikipedia is like writing in the sand at the beach. The tide washes in. The tide washes out. One day google reveals through its cached Wikipedia pages that Alice Bailey was antisemitic. Another day google cannot find a single page at Wikipedia in which the words Alice Bailey and antisemitic both appear.

The tide goes out. The tide comes in. Google finds a Wikipedia page in which there is no mention that Alice Bailey has ever been called a racist. The next day google finds a Wikipedia page that documents that Alice Bailey has been called a racist. In. Out. Here. Gone. Back again. Removed. Inserted. Deleted.

My name is just another figment of your imagination, like "Sethie's Babies" and "Alice Bailey" and the sand at the beach.

It is an act of will to return, again and again, to that damp margin between the anonymous sea and the teeming shore and to grab a stick and to carve in the sand, "Alice Bailey's writings have been called antisemitic and racist, and here's why..."

A name is unecessary to the process of writing in the sand. Only a dedication to the truth is needed.

[edit] dialogue mostly over

[edit] Why dialogue is mostly over for me with you

Why am I not really dialogueing with you about this Kwork.....? What more is there to be said?
Wikipedia works by citations.
I ask you for citations.
You are unable to provide citations.
Then..... you complain when I remove the uncited material.


Sethie: 1. this (above) belonged on the AAB talk page, not my user page. 2. I have always used sourced material.

If, as you say above, our "dialogue is mostly over", then keep your comments of my user page. Kwork 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. 1 Maybe.... it has to do with your inability/unwillingness to abide by wikipedia policy. The AAB page is merely a victim of this.
  1. 2 absolutely not true. Sethie 15:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] will work on it

Thanks Sethie. Just when I always begin to feel hopeless some unseen force pulls together on Wiki and reason appears. I'll work on finding diffs over the next few days. Renee --Renee 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I know how you feel... seriously.
Maybe it is our fate to go back and forth, helping each other tend to wikipedia! :)
I feel like I have documented things very well already and any help will be... helpful.
Btw I am in awe of the work you're doing on the Bhrama Kumaris article and the work you're trying to do the Alice Bailey article. Finding those sources... wowsa! Most of them are probably not scholarly 2ndary sources, but the fact that you went and looked. WOW! Sethie 07:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I think so! It really is a spiritual journey trying to keep detached and clean from the pages (and often I'm not successful but am learning).
I agree about the books probably not being scholarly (I think there are at least two that might be). Kwork just asked for secondary sources and was saying there was none so I was surprised myself to find so many.
BTW, you may be interested in this [35].
Take care, Renee --Renee 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Sethie, I have enabled my email but notice you have not. I have a quick question for you. Please feel free to email me; or, if you prefer, I can email you, but you have to enable your email (if you do enable your email, your private email address will remain hidden; whoever sends an email reveals their return email address [which can be an anonymous yahoo or hotmail or gmail account] but whoever receives does not reveal an email). Thanks, Renee --Renee 22:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Heya- I am happy to email you- where is the link/how do I do it? peace, Sethie 03:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Sethie -- if you go to my talk page, on the left-hand column where it says toolbox you can click on "e-mail this user" and there you have it!--Renee 09:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sethie -- did you send one? Nothing came yet. I have difs for you but have a quick question. --Renee 04:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Note on "Bad Form"

Heya Sethie, thanks for your contributions over at Alice Bailey, I think you've been a great help. But, I just want to point out something to you. (This is meant as a gentle suggestion, so here's hoping it comes out that way. :)

While it is considered "bad form" to blank one's user page(s) to hide comments, I'm pretty sure it's considered much worse form to edit some else's user page, for any reason. Also, as a side note, it's not particularly good form to remove comments from talk pages, even when they are off-topic, and even if the author himself might have decided to remove them a few hours later... ;)

But regardless, keep up the good fight! Eaglizard 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Heya Eaglizard- Yeah editing someone's user page is kinda a sticky one.
As for removing crap from the talk page, it is a pretty common practice, when the talk page gets off topic.
peace, Sethie 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yah, its increasingly common to do so. I should have been more clear and asserted that I consider editing other's talk page comments to be "bad form". ;) Talk to you soon in re: your RfC. Eaglizard 20:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by complete coincidence, I've just come across an excellent example of why I consider this practice dangerous (what it can devolve to): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2#Outside_view_by_DashaKat

Eaglizard 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Bailey

Perhaps it would be better to let Eaglizard have his or her way and not re-delete the tripe he or she put on the antisemitism talk page. I am both a jew and an atheist. I put the following message on the the antisemitism talk page.

I just read the Alice Bailey article and I couldn't help but notice that she is being treated as an alleged antisemitic. Why on earth would you anyone think that her antisemitism should be played down or that we should be gentle for the sake of editors who have been working hard to play down the racism of a dead historical crackpot ?? If I am missing something here then please feel free to set me straight. Perhaps that article needs a serious shake up. Ms Bailey is dead so wiki blp does not apply. So what is the big deal about calling a racist anti-semitic a racist anti-semitic ? Albion moonlight 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Albion.
I don't feel protective of Alice Bailey's reputation. I find some of her statements pretty yucky.
I do feel protective of wiki policies. Some of the sources people have been coming up with... internet discussion transcrips, self-published stuff, etc. Sethie 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly did you delete from the antisemitism page

I thought I Knew but Eaglizard says that he was not the one who put the Bailey quotes on the antisemitism talk page. Please help me clarify who did what. Was it KWOK ?? If it is him and his sources are unsound that is another thing altogether. And you can go ahead and redelete it for now if you like. Albion moonlight 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted nothing from the antisemitism page.
I deleted 3 posts, one by Kwork, one by anon-ip guy and one by Eaglizrd(sp) (who later thanked me for removing it, acknowledging that it was a WP:SOAP post). All of them were posts which said, "See Alice Bailey is an Anti-semite because she said _________." I deleted them after my 6th posting of WP:PSTS and I deleted them because the article already contained the idea "Some people have said Bailey's ideas are anti-semitic." Sethie 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kwork

It did turn out to be Kwork. I just spoke to him via wiki message. Perhaps it is still best for now to not delete his Bailey quotes I am going to try and find some more reliable sources. I do not go against a clear consensus and you 3 seem to have one. That does not mean that I will refrain from trying to change the tide of consensus. I hate edit warring. It is generally a bad idea...Albion moonlight 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you find good WP:RS's you have nothing but support from me. Sethie 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BKWSU History

As noted on the AfD page.

  • Actually I did add a Wikilink back to the main article.
  • It was removed by IPSOS.

I would argue that tells even more about "the whole story" as you say ... and your attention to detail, see [36].

I think you are owe me an apology. --Lwachowski 05:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason why I think it should be documented on a separate topic is primarily due to length.
I see the two complimenting each other perfectly. Whereas it is clear the the BKWSU editors are attempting to create an environment in which it is impossible for others to contribute by any means, I think the content on the page is fine.
Unfortunately, coolheadedness has been entirely lost in a fist fight of bogus policy and acronymn.--Lwachowski 15:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sahaja Yoga.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Mediation has commenced at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sahaja Yoga. Cheers, Daniel 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sethie...

Hey, I notice you haven't said anything on Bailey for a while. I also notice you've got a RfM going on elsewhere, so maybe you've been busy. Please drop me a note to tell me you haven't given up on Bailey, and (more importantly), that you're not mad at me for not supporting your RfC over there. Are you? If you are, please let me know that, instead. I hope you're not; I really considered you the best editor going over there, and if I made you leave, that will make me unhappy. Anyways, hope things are well for ya. Oh, and do please respond on my talk page, if you would. Eaglizard 05:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I understand about taking a break, just took one myself and I feel much better. Although this was a case of "Wikibroke", since I couldn't pay my cable bill. :)
Anyways, I was just afraid I'd pushed you away from the AAB article, not Wikipedia in general, I hope I'm not that deluded about my own influence on ppl here. :) Eaglizard 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, a further comment on Monica and Gershom, et al -- While I understand your objection to these sources, the rest of us reached a sort of consensus on this while you were perhaps paying less attention to the talk pages there. Were you taking that into account in your editing? Although I won't try to argue the point about those sources on your talk page, I would like to remind you that the sources themselves are their own best disclaimers -- if those are the "best" sources of criticism, I think Bailey supporters should feel fairly comfortable with it. Especially now with the massive expansions done by James. Anyways, that's my opinion on it. See ya round, mate. Eaglizard 10:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Heya-
Yeah I was convinced Sojo was a "reasonably okay source" till I read James' recent ideas about her.
And yeah, I agree the use of her as a source discredits critics more then Bailey! HA, the irony! :) Sethie 15:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consider it done.

Meat puppetry is a reprehensible offense. Why doesn't that Phil guy do his own dirty work ? Doesn't he know the rules ?? Albion moonlight 01:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree meat puppetry is nasty stuff.
Speaking of nasty stuff, your ranting about your conspiracy theories on the talk page really isn't helping things.
Your postings are so incoherent right now, I am not even sure who you suspect, or are accusing of being a puppet!
If there is a puppet on the page, I sincerly hope you find it. Sethie 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GREAT to have you back!

I laughed for a good 10 minutes after reading your band comment....--Renee 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

lol Your response was pretty freaking good too!
Baklavah! Oh I see the relevence, since one of the critics was Russian... :)
What can I say, I'm a wiki addict. See you around! Sethie 15:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still more about Kwork

I won't say much about Kwork, you may want to look at his user talk if you are interested in what else I have to say. As I told him there, the only person I feel the need to complain to about him is him. For now, anyways.

And I did look at some of those diffs, in fact I had already been over the editing history at that point and was familiar with them. My response now is roughly the same as it was then. I guess I should have been more explicit about it then. Recently I was planning to respond to a comment you recently made, where you called something "by and far the lowest and sleaziest wikipedia post I have ever seen". If that was, indeed, a factual representation then I feel you ... uh ... you need to get out more, my friend. :) Have you ever looked at pages like Freemasonry, or UFO or Nanking Massacre? Our little skirmish is positively nothing to what I have seen elsewhere; next to battlers like User: MSJapan or User: DreamGuy or User: IPSOS, our friend Kwork is downright genteel. We should be glad he's such a pussycat, compared to those stalwart gladiators. So, unless his behavior escalates to a new level, I don't think I can support any kind of action. Probably not. RfC maybe, but my experience is that more commentary from more editors just adds more fuel to the flames. (I dunno, though, so don't think my mind's made up, Kwork (sry Seth, but he apparently reads all my conversations now, so I thought I'd say hello to him)). Eaglizard 23:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NB: Having said that, do you really feel you have a consistent case that Kwork is violating policy? And I'm not talking here about contested reverts that you think are vandalism; I'm talking about real violations, like personal attacks, 3RRs, stuff that independent editors would perceive as needing arbitration? If you seriously suggest that you have a case for WP:RfArb then I will spend more time examining what you present, and I'll support it if it seems strong. It's my opinion his behavior doesn't rise to that level, but I guess I might be wrong. Eaglizard 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Post scriptum: And having said that, I must add that, because of something Albion said, I went and looked at those diffs more closely. In fact, I read every one of them (I believe your diffs #32-34 are duplicates of #27-29, btw). I'm not sure what to say here, Sethie, except you're mostly wrong. In fact, only a couple of the Civility ones (and all the "bad faith edits", its true) were at all clear violations of any policy to my eyes. If that's the worst you can do... Well, anyways, I've been making enemies left and right on this article it seems, so I hope this won't be another case of that, but I just have to be honest about this. Sethie, it appears to me that you are every bit as much to blame for your difficulties with Kwork as he is. You appeared equally intransigent and hard-headed, equally ready to assume bad faith. I can understand why, mind you. But really. Are you aware that some problem editors (see above) are fond of using edit summaries such as "rmv'd moronic drivel constantly inserted by clueless idiots"? Ok, I made that up, but I've read far worse, I promise. And none of them were from Kwork (or you, either, for that matter). Really, just because Kwork is obstinate and very occasionally insulting -- well, so am I. I'm not going to be the pot, here. Are you certain you're not a bit blackened yourself? (Things have gotten pretty heated at times, so it's no wonder if we're all scorched. :)

But listen. Can we try a little harder to see Kwork's point of view and not assume bad faith every time we see his signature? I'd appreciate it if you'd agree to at least make the effort for a time, see how it works out. What do you think? Eaglizard 08:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Do you think that Philip Lindsay the Meatpuppet Master will approve of the latest compromise ? I sincerely hope so.

I am thinking of doing a Wiki article on him would you like to help ? We could expose him as the racist pile epletive deleted that he most certainly is. I am asking you because your edit history proves that you are not a Meat Puppet. It is unlikely that wikipedia would enforce it rules on Blp once they realized that he was an enemy of wikis policy on Meat Puppetry,

I was actually surprised that you were not appalled by his behavior. You are such a stickler for Wiki rules one would have thought that you would have wanted to scold him personally. In retrospect it sort of seems that your love and respect for wiki policy is very selective. Albion moonlight 08:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


In the moonlight dim, how easily the rope becomes a snake, the snake a two-headed monster, the monster a dragon to be slain. But sheath your sword brother, for I am but a man who would save you trouble and waste. You there, the man, the child that was, the child that is, the great man that is to be--this precious life we share is not without its wonder, but do not waste it on a wraith of your own imagining. Do not waste a jot of your fine energy upon this end. The world is wider and more beautiful for all the good you may yet bring it, so have and eye for that please, and by that happier be. Kind Regards, James Lloyd Davis James 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds as if Mr Lindsay is happy with the controversies section. If he is he is a very wise man. Albion moonlight 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And your pleasure with Mr Lindasy's pleasure leads me to conclude that you, MONICA SOJO are happy with the section and the free publicity for your lagging book sales.Sethie 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange?

Isn't this strange? Endorsing one's own RFC? Subconscious wish to leave Wiki Jr. High School? I can relate! Hope you're doing well. --Renee 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Suspected Sock

I just wanted to notify you that it is my belief that "new" user Rushmi is user Shashwat_pandey. (I noticed in one of your edit summaries you referred to Rushmi as Shashwat.) If you have any comments on this issue, please review this. Best wishes, Renee 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

confirmed. --Renee 13:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi Sethie, What does salted mean (your post on the AFD page)? thx Renee 01:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] AfD nomination of Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Chennai)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Chennai), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Chennai). Thank you. Renee 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur). Thank you. Renee 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Institute of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness

An article that you have been involved in editing, Institute of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness. Thank you. Renee 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

My RFA
Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Major new update to the Bailey Biography

I've posted a major update to the biography. It contains new sections and a reorganizing of headings and subheadings in way that more closely approximates AAB's life and work. It is throughly referenced and with some new references throughout, together with quotes and paraphrases that closely matches the citations. It includes many new details and documentation on her life and conflict with the Theosophical. Kind Regards to all. James 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bailey article degrading rapidly

I figured the article would degrade over time, but I'm a little surprised at the speed of it. The Jewish theme continues to obsess the editors to the virtual exclusion of all else and conditions the editorial direction. The whole thing is a mind-boggling example of the failure of the Wiki system. There does not appear to be anyone with the time and interest to enforce Wikipedia rules. James 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bailey article about to be gutted

They've now come up with a reinterpretation of Wiki rules to support the hypothesis that AAB can not be cited at all. Imagine that... James 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Message for Kwork

I would like to say that I feel deeply regtetful that I was not able to be as cool, calm and civil with you as I would have liked. I really wished I would have slowed down more in our dialogue, chilled out and tried to work towards concensus as opposed to spending my time righteously trying to "educate" you about how I thought you should be behaving.

Sometimes I was really arrogant, convinced only I (or the people on "my side") were right and in our dialogues I wish I had focused more on content and less on contributor (i.e you).

If there is any way I can make this right with you, please let me know, or email me. peace, Sethie 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved your message to his talk page which is open, you could put the above there. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I see nothing wrong with editors getting passionate about things in which they believe. Bailey said that humanity is ruled by the 4th ray, harmony through conflict. Roberto Assagioli wrote that it is far better for people to have bad human relations than no human relations.

I did not leave because my feeling were hurt, but because administrators would not allow a process that was natural, and that was needed to write the Alice Bailey article. There is nothing you need to do to make things right because I am okay, and I knew that sooner or later an administrator would send me into wiki-exile.

Be well. Sorry if I was too rough on occasion.

Kwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.23.230 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degrees of Glory Merge

You were one of the last editors on the talk page for Degrees of Glory - so I thought I would give you heads up on the Merge proposal that I just made. Please respond with your thoughts on the talk page for that article. Regards - Descartes1979 (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cobi's RFA

In Cobi's RFA, you !voted oppose due to his low edit count, so I thought I'd let you know that he's added a few hundred edits (albeit most are vandal reverts) since you commented. I don't know if that'll make a difference, I'm still an opposer as well, but I thought you might like to know. Useight (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)