User talk:TimidGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, TimidGuy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -THB 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hello TimidGuy and welcome to Wikipedia.

On your user page you indicate that you've come here for the purpose of working on the Transcendental Meditation article. It may help if you read the Wikipedia page on WP:SPA single purpose accounts. People who join the Wiki community for the purpose of editing one article or articles on only one issue often are not regarded as seriously as editors who work on articles from a variety of subjects. Edits and comments made by SPA users are often not respected as highly as those from editors who work on articles in a variety of subjects. The best way for a newbie SPA editor to gain respect and support from the community is to contribute to Wikipedia in more than the one subject for which he/she joined. With that said, welcome and happy editing. Askolnick 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the oldest version of the Transcendental Meditation article, [1] which you say you wrote and gave to an (apparently anonymous) editor, who put it up. The article reads like an advertisement for Transcendental Meditation. Even worse, it was entirely unsourced. Not one statement was attributed to areputable source that readers could check. There is no way that the article could have been left like that and not be completely rewritten. In addition, that article defined only one meaning of TM - the basic meditation technique that the movement teaches to initiates. But TM is far more than that. It's a moderately large organization, which some authorities consider to be a cult. It is also a registered trademarked name of a large variety of products and services, including the Transcendental Meditation-Sidhi technique and program. An article titled "Transcendental Meditation" therefore needs to address all its associated meanings - not just one. Wiki editors would never leave an article on "Honda" which only discusses motorcycles. As for having criticisms that are not "answered," "answering" criticisms is not the role of Wiki editors. Their job is to include the most important facts and opinions they can find. If they find "answers" to critisms in a reputable source (see WP:RS), they may included them. But bear in mind that all facts and opinions (except those that are well-known to most people - ie. sun rises in the east, sets in the west), must be backed up by citing a reputable source. Adding unsourced material is called "original research" and is not allowed in Wikipedia. I hope this information explains why the TM article is so different from what you asked an editor to put up. I also hope this information will help make your future contributions to Wikipedia easier and more rewarding.

However, keep in mind. As the article's history and the templates on top of the article indicate, it is a highly contentious article. You say that you are shy and "don't have the stomach for slugging it out on the discussion page." But that's exactly what is necessary when editing such contentious articles. Simply making changes in a hotly fought over article will often just be removed. If those changes are put back without sufficient discussion, it may likely lead to an edit war. This is not a good way for a Wiki editor to start. Perhaps you might consider first working on some other articles of interest to you, which are not so contentious. This will give you experience to help you avoid making errors that could lead to angry responses and disruption. Heaven knows there's too much of this already in Wikipedia, with this article seeing more than its share. Askolnick 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Askolnick. I'd been hoping someone would appear on my Talk page. I didn't know about SPA, but at this point it's my only option. Thanks for letting me know. I did know about the need to make comments on the discussion page to justify changes to the article. And I very much want to avoid edit warring. I also understand about no original research and citing reputable sources. But I do appreciate your pointing it out, and any other guidance you can give.
I agree that the original entry was inappropriate the way it was approached. (It was fairly early in the days of Wikipedia.) My point wasn't that it was good, but simply wanted to say that our intention was to have an entry just about Transcendental Meditation.
I've been involved with the organization that teaches Transcendental Meditation for 32 years and understand all its facets. But I've never heard anyone use TM the way you do, both within and outside the organization. Yikes, I don't want to get into it now, but as I understand it, Transcendental Meditation, as a registered trademark, refers to a very specific technique for meditation and isn't "the registered name of a large variety of products and services." Each of those has its own service mark. I do want to take this up soon on the Discussion page, in part to question the correctness of the sentence in the first paragraph of the article that says "[Transcendental Meditation] is also the name of a movement led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi."
In any case, your tone here is so much kinder than in the discussion. I appreciate it. TimidGuy 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

TG, I really welcome your contributions and discussions. Wikipedia needs good editors from all sides of the issues covered in its articles. While very close involvement with an issue can give an editor a great advantage, it can also seriously impair his or her editorial judgement. Such involvement gives them hard-to-recognize and control biases as well as first-hand knowledge. Like you, I have had personal involvement with the TM organization. As a trained science journalist, I have learned to recognize and control my emotional baggage (for the most part) when writing articles. That doesn't mean I never make mistakes, which is why it's good to have people like you (and even Sparaig) working on the TM article. But keep in mind that I have been compared with a bulldog who sinks his teeth into a fact and will not let go. The harder anyone tries to get rid of that fact, the harder I chomp. In other words, I'm no timid guy. You said you agree with my suggestion to work on adding new material rather than deleting or changing other editors' contributions, at least until you gain more experience. I do think this is a good idea. You will discover that it's generally easier to get new material accepted than it is to remove or change the work of other editors. That doesn't mean you may not find resistance, but it's only natural that editors want to protect the fruit of their hard work. I, for one, am reluctant to accept any change, unless it improves the article. One mistake many single purpose editors make is to try to achieve "balance" by removing or obfuscating points they don't like. If they want more balance they should leave accurate and well-sourced information alone and provide accurate and well-sourced information that they believe will add more balance. So have a good respite and see you back soon. Askolnick 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you. Askolnick 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TM

I have Transcendental Meditation on my watchlist, but I check it very rarely. Feel free to contact me if there is ever a particular issue that needs additional input. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. -Will Beback 06:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly why WP:AGF is so importsnt. If we assume good faith, even by those who've seemed to make a messs of things, then a good outcome is easier. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome!

It's my pleasure to help out, even with such a small thing! I think you've done a great job on the TM article, it's greatly improved since I last saw it. Your talk page dealings with one difficult editor in particular (who now seems to have left Wikipedia - for the best, I must say) were stellar. You handle yourself very well and are a very good contributor! Keep up the good work! Dreadlocke ☥ 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] American vs. British English

See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Little wars do occasionally break out about it, especially on articles like Biscuit. -THB 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My appologies

I want to appologize for the post I put on the TM talk page, saying the article had been stolen again. I was not specifically reffering to you, yet I was also not excluding the possibility that you had taken out the material was I upset to see gone.

I want to appologize, because if you did that material out, it was not "stealing the article." :) That phrase was my expression of frustration over all I have been through with that article, including, but not limited two users who were on the verge of being banned from wikipedia and leaving.

I would have liked to have been more honest and direct and say, "I am frustrated as fuck to see that material gone! I am frustrated to be going through this again." That would have been honest. And not blaming or exagerating the situation.

love, Sethie 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If we keep working together, I will probably be making these every now and then. I often do things I later regret.

I would like to appologize for some of my languaguing here, specifically: "It is an open and shut case for me," "so next we move," and "the information is in"

It is a pretty open and shut case for me. The affidavit is on the same level as any interview, except the person is swearing before a judge that they are telling the truth So next we move to wp:V. I don't know if trancenet meets it or not... but, the Skeptics Dictionary certianly does 6 and the affidavit is reported there. So unless someone can convince me that a published book, that has it's own wiki article is does not meet WP:V, the information is in.

I would have liked to have been more open and less ridgid, less dogmatic. I would have liked to have expressed what I was thinking with more respect and consideration for the fact that you had expressed a different viewpoint.

I was using such language to try and intimidate and get my way. If you'd like me to re-write it, let me know. mea culpa Sethie 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problemo!

Hi TimidGuy. Of course I accept the apology, it's very gracious of you to make one.

And thanks for your comment about my experiences. Tanaats 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freezing

I'm in a hurry, but the short answer is "no", we don't lock articles due to routine editing disputes. If necessary, you can go back (revert) to an older version of the article. Just make sure you are discussing things on the talk page. -Will Beback · † · 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism

I saw your question about a guideline on Wikipedia regarding structuring criticism in an article, here's a good essay on the subject: Wikipedia:Criticism. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Dreadlocke, for checking in on the TM article and for pointing me to the Guideline on Criticism.TimidGuy 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Glad to help! Just remember Wikipedia:Criticism is just an "essay" and not an enforcable policy or guideline. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
While the essay recommends against them, in some topics the bulk of the criticism has been moved to a separate page. This is particularly true with new religious movements. See Wikipedia:List of POV forks. The advantage is that all notable criticisms can be included while not unbalancing the main article. -Will Beback · † · 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
True, and the TM article is over 52kb long - well over the recommended 32kb size - and it makes for a loooong read! Perhaps it's time to move the criticism to a separate page. Also, the talk page is huge, over 100kb long - probably time to archive that puppy again. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that!

Sorry about deleting all of that text! I'm glad you were able to recover it all. Tanaats 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dismissed lawsuits

I’m not sure if it got straightened out and a good source was found (there’s so much to read on the TM talk page!), but as far as the inclusion of allegations from a dismissed lawsuit, I’m not entirely comfortable with material like that, especially when it’s used as criticism of the subject of an article. The simplest reason is: what if the suit was dismissed because the allegation was found to be false? In this particular case, the affidavit was superseded by his court testimony – how do we know it even matched? You’d need a court transcript to be sure on either of those. I’d suggest posting the question about citations from dismissed lawsuits on the Village pump or even on the Verifiability talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You can also ask for an advocate at the WP:AMA, they're backlogged, but are very helpful. If problems between editors get to be too heated, then there is the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process to help with mediation and arbitration. Looks like you've got several very helpful editors who assist you from time to time, but it's also nice to have a forum and a process to go to for more information and assistance. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the title of your last message, thank you very much for that <blushes>. You are a very a polite and good editor, and I enjoy helping you where I am able. 22:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ever need to take action against serious ongoing personal attacks (see WP:NPA), you can check with one of the administrators you know or you can post a complaint on WP:PAIN - read the instructions there very carefully before submitting anything. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:COI

I would ask that you stop editing any TM related articles immediatley and stop your discussion, until you answer a few questions about your identity. I honor your desire to remain anonymous and I believe there are easy ways for you to answer some questions without breaking that.

Given a few statements you have made: one refferencing that you knew who the proper legal counsel was for the TM organization, that he was "our legal counselor" : "Yes. I'd check with the General Counsel for Maharishi University of Management, licensee of the mark Transcendental Meditation. He also is an attorney for Maharishi Foundation, LTD, the U.K. charity which owns the mark."TimidGuy 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"I don't think it would be appropriate to take this through the dispute process, since it's a legal matter. It would be better if you do whatever you want. Then I'll send that to our legal counsel, and if he feels it violates the trademark, he'll then send a letter to Wikipedia, as he's done before. It's a matter for the U.S. legal system, not Wikipedia's dispute system."TimidGuy 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Also, your knowledge about the Canter and Ernst study: "In addition, I would note that there are valid research designs that show causality in addition to randomized controlled trials. I would also add that Canter and Ernst didn't include some studies that might have been included. For example, there were two that they thought might have been randomized controlled trials but it wasn't clear from the abstract. Also, they left out a randomized controlled study by So Kam Tim that used students as subjects. In this case, rather than randomizing according to individuals, the study was randomized according to class. That is, one class did TM and another class was the control. This is common in education settings, because it's difficult to have students within a class doing different things."

None of this is available information from the abstract you cited.

I have a copy of the study.

So I ask you:

~What is your relationship with the TM organization?

I'm on faculty

~Are you being paid to edit this article?

No

~Were you asked by a member of the TM organization to edit this article?

No

Sethie 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your honest answers. Hearing that you are on faculty, I feel pulled to ask you if your department focuses in on research on TM, i.e. do you actively do, produce, review, write about TM research? and/or is your department PR related, or involved in promoting the TM movement in anyway?Sethie 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've said enough. I'm on faculty. And I have a strong interest in making sure this article is accurate. I feel like I've done a good job and have gotten good feedback on my work, including from an experienced editor and administrator. [2] And from other editors.TimidGuy 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't deny that you have recieved that feedback. And, from your initial answer it appears that WP:COI definatley applies to you... the question now is, how much? If your department focuses in on research on TM, i.e. do you actively do, produce, review, write about TM research? and ESPECIALLY if your department is PR related, or involved in promoting the TM movement in anyway? then there will be a very strong WP:COI. So are you willing to answer my question? Sethie 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm on faculty, with a PhD in the humanities, and I have a passionate interest in science. According to the guidelines, I do have a conflict of interest because I'm a member of the organization. But I'm still allowed to participate. I've always posted on the Talk page and have tried to work through consensus. And if I weren't involved, who would catch the serious errors, like the misrepresentation of the Canter and Ernst study? I've improved the article. I've corrected numerous half truths and errors in the past few days, correcting or balancing points. These changes weren't contested. I assume our goal is an accurate, well-written article. I've helped to achieve that. And if Wikipedia ever decides that I shouldn't participate, fine. I'd be happy to spend my time reading about science. But Wikipedia would be the worse for it, as the article gets filled with half truths and inaccuracies. You should be grateful for what I've contributed. I've helped work toward our common goal of an effective, accurate, well-written article.
Dang, I was sure that your primary field was in science! Tanaats 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
And now, I've got work to do. I've really gotten behind on it this week. Most of my editing, you'll see, until a few weeks ago, was done in the mornings between 6 and 7 am. This was outside my regular job. And it still is. But I've let my other work slide so I can contest the things that you've put in. I regret that I haven't had time to add things that I want to add, such as the research on individuals experiencing cosmic consciousness. Be back later or tomorrow.TimidGuy 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I myself believe the article is better off with your participation as well... and I would only push for a strict adherence to COI if you were in fact in the PR or promotion branch of the movement, or if editing this was somehow a part of your work.
In terms of civillity, I'd rate you as a much better editor then me. Sethie 18:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. As I noted on your Talk page, I really appreciate your kind words.TimidGuy 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

TimidGuy, I am very happy to have you as a contributor to the TM article, as it said on the now-removed expert tag: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." You are definitely an expert and have made incredibly good contributions to the article - without any apparent bias. I see no signs that your close association with TM in any way compromises your ability to edit the article. I think you are an excellent editor and an asset to Wikipedia. .Dreadlocke ☥ 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Askolnick wrote a negative article about TM and then was sued for $100 million. Does WP:COI apply to him and his contributions? Sparaig 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see "possibly carrying a grudge" as a category in WP:COI. And it says "Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." Tanaats 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I thought I was on the TM talk page. I don't know if intruding in a discussion on someone else's talk page is good etiquette. Sorry if not. Tanaats 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
According to a comment by Admin Will Beback on the TM Talk page, we all have a COI and the guideline applies equally to all of us. We're either fer it or agin' it. The only really neutral editor who's showed up here and made substantial changes has been Jefffire. Would be nice to have him stop by again and take another swipe. TimidGuy 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of town

I will be out of town for the next 5 days or so... while I don't expect everything to come to a halt while I'm gone, I would ask that you show some restraint in major changes made during that period. Thanks for the investigation into truth! Sethie 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your AMA case

I just had to take this. I would go to WP:TINC and file a mediation case as that is generally the first step of DR. (plus it looks good if you have to go to Arbcom) Geo. 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would file a Medcab case first, because an RfC isn't binding per se. Geo. 05:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have been thinking over the last couple of days. From what you told me, this may be a Medcom case. Mediation on Wikipedia is the first step in DR. There are two forms, Formal and informal. Informal mediation is conducted by the Mediation Cabal(Medcab). Medcab mediators try to get get both parties to come to a reasonable compromise, generally this works. Most cases are filed in Medcab . Medcab cases are usually small disputes that wrap up quickly. Formal mediation is conducted according to the Mediation policy by the Mediation Committee (Medcom). Medcom cases are big disputes that take longer to resolve. I am not that familiar with Medcom, because Medcab is generally more popular, but you can read the Mediation policy or Medcom page to learn more about it. I think that you may need to file for formal mediation, because of the magnitude of this dispute. Geo. 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
After reading the Mediation policy, I believe that a Medcom case is preferable in this situation. You don't need to get another advocate. Geo. 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
File a Medcom case, I guess. Geo. 16:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I will be around for further assistance as needed. Geo. 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Computerjoe. A few more days won't hurt. Plus if a solution can be reached, the dispute is ended. If not then you just proceed to Mediation. Geo. 00:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
i have been speaking to Computerjoe (Sethie's advocate). He thinks that we should have one place to discuss this dispute, possibly a subpage of Talk:TM, personally I think this is a good idea. Do you agree? Geo. 23:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see my message above. Geo. 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
My advice is to ask Computerjoe what he meant by a informal solution and go to mediation if you sincerely feel it won't work. Geo. 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble in TM paradise?

I haven't been as watchful as I probably should have been, I didn't realize you were having trouble over there. I'm glad you're getting an advocate and mediator. I'll be glad to assist you as well, I don't like seeing editors being ganged up on like you seem to have been. I'm very good at helping deal with edit wars and warriors, not to mention abusive editors. Dreadlocke ☥ 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What can I begin assisting you with? Where to start? Did you file for a mediator? If not, I can help you do that, I've been in several. Read this over and we can start from there: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. As a matter of fact, I'm part of a fairly silly mediation right now, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John_Edward. A bit silly, but still a basic mediation request. And here's a more serious one that was rejected because one of the editors refused to participate: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/4#Natasha_Demkina. Those should give you some idea of how the requests are put together. - Dreadlocke ☥ 02:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TM article size

How many court cases are being referenced in the TM article? If it's a lot, and it looks like there is a lot of material there, we may want to consider creating a "TM lawsuits" article to reduce some of the material. The article had been reduced in size to about 45KB, now it's growing and is now 56KB in size. This reduces the readability of the article. What are your thoughts on that? Dreadlocke ☥ 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The website by David Orme Johnson used as a reference for the TM article looks like a personal website to me. Does it meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia policy on self published sources? Dreadlocke ☥ 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreadlocke. I count five -- two suits by the TM movement, and three against. And these sections are only going to get longer. I'm going to be adding material about the JAMA suit. Interesting idea to move to a separate article.
David OJ has published nearly 100 peer-reviewed studies on TM. As I understand Wikipedia guidelines, personal web sites of experts are allowed. I don't really like referencing his web site (because I feel it's better to reference the published literature), but it may be necessary in one or two instances.


It's great having your feedback.TimidGuy 12:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the kind words

TimidGuy, thanks for the kind words on the TM talk page. Tanaats 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC review

TimidGuy, thank you for the comments on my talk page, I appreiate your thoughts. I've just had a glance at the RfC and will respond to it. I just need to get my thoughts together on it first. Best regards. ALR 12:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I've added as much as I can to the sourcing debate, it looks to me like there is a lot of vested interest in some of the sources so I'm not convinced that any more discussion will actualy add much value. Best of luck. ALR 13:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA

As Computerjoe has said, this means that Sethie has complained about his conduct. Anything else I can assist you with? Geo. 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA investigation

Hi TimidGuy, I'm Wikiwoohoo, one of the deputy co-ordinators.

It has been brought to my attention that there have been problems and accusations of improper conduct that have arisen within the case of yourself and Sethie, with Computerjoe volunteering as Sethie's advocate.

What I'd like to do is find out all the facts behind this case and solve this problem as soon as possible. Would it be possible for you to provide me with a full statement of your version of events and once I have gathered the same from the two other users in question, I will be able to investigate fully.

I appreciate you may be busy outside Wikipedia so any reply in your own time will be very much appreciated, either on my talk page or if you prefer, my email address: shown on my user page. Many thanks for your time; I hope to be able to solve this problem as soon as I can. Wikiwoohoo 19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing me with your statement on this matter. I have now received other statements from the two other users involved and will provide my report within the next few days. I will provide you with a link to it once it is active. Wikiwoohoo 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your co-operation in my investigation. My report into the matter can now be found here: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Sethie#Investigation.

I hope this concludes the dispute that had been ongoing. Wikiwoohoo 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your case

Okay, I would leave Sparaig out for now. Filing a Medcom case will of course be the next step. Geo. 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Making the case broad is fine, feel free to contact me for further help. Geo. Talk to me 18:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll be monitoring mediation and be around for further assistance. Geo. Talk to me 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Sorry for the little dig

In my respons on the TM tag page, I put in a jab towards the TM movement, which includes and was partially directed towards you. I have remedied it here [[3]] and all I can say is I am working hard to reduce and eliminate such behaviors, and I am sorry if you felt uncomfortable reading it. Sethie 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maharishi University of Management

  • Hey do you happen to have any pictures of the University? I have been trryying so hardd to find some good ones, yet I dont seem to have any success hehe (most of the pictures I find are really small dimensions and low quality) (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait how did you gain access to the Unversity Records and how can I accesss it?? I have had so much trouble trying to find it! (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, if you find a photo, let me know I can help you with the licesning or just send it to me and I will put the licensning on (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack?

I totally disagree with your claim that I am personally attacking Vijayante by refering to him as a zealot given his excesssivly zealous, rigid and confrontational editing style. He has been repeatedly told and shown in great depth by many editors that his rigid interpretation is wrong, yet he refused to listen, and still refuses to listen or recognize simple logic. He even asked one Admin for support a while ago, but failing to get a favorable reply, took it upon himself to act as arbitrator, and defied the rules, resulting in his being blocked. As he has stated:

"The website that is negative is self-published by the author who created it. He uses very strong statements that seem unbalanced... I like to help TimidGuy who has been trying to improve on the level of accuracy Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's biography. The other editors did allow some libelous material in the biography itself to be cut out, but they seem to feel that libelous material in a link is ok, although they do acknowledge it is a very negative link. Somehow I disagree--links also to a living biography should be balanced and not so somewhat deranged sounding as is the case with Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole Criticism of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM by a former TM teacher..."

As I told him on his talk page:

"...By the way, your statement that the former TM teacher is deranged is your unprofessional opinion, and without providing sufficient evidence confirming your diagnosis, IS unsourced and libelous. And that is an example what BLP is referring to, not criticism..."

"...As a TM advocate, you should pay attention to what it says in WP:COI. And, your intepretation of Wikipedia policy about what is acceptable criticism is flat out wrong. You should refer to WP Criticism [[4]], and specifically the example they give of what is reasonable in criticism, (Sample Stravinsky Criticism) [[5]], in which it is said about the subject, for example, that he was: "...an acrobat, a civil servant, a tailor's dummy, hebephrenic, psychotic, infantile, fascist, and devoted to making money...", and that his "...rhythmic procedures closely resemble the schema of catatonic conditions. In certain schizophrenics, the process by which the motor apparatus becomes independent leads to infinite repetition of gestures or words, following the decay of the ego...". That quite harsh criticism should give you a better idea of what is permissable in criticism of public figures as long as it is reliably sourced..."

TM associated folks with COI issues need to be very careful about excluding criticism they don't like against the wishes of a majority of editors, rather than simply providing what they think is a rebuttal. There is no agreement among scholars that ex-followers and critics are inherently less reliable on their groups than current followers, for various reasons, and no such presumption is found in Wikipedia policies. Those who stick to positions without Wikipedian basis can, IMO, be considered zealots with respect to their editing. --Dseer 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TM mediation

Im glad things are progressing. -Ste|vertigo 07:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maharishi University of Management

Just email me the picture and I will put it online (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maharishi University of Management

welcome (:O) nah it didnt take much time, I have gotten used to wikipedia's interface so things run pretty smooth for me know hehe -Nima Baghaei (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Likewise, TG...

I appreciate your collaborative approach as well. It may not be obvious, but it is Vijayante and the "true believer" approach that I find hard to deal with, not your approach. What I meant by "cuts both ways" is that in cases like this, the material from a group has to taken as skeptically as that from ex-followers. Claims of a "Maharishi effect", "world enlightenment" and of "yogic flying" and similiar siddhis are exceptional claims without exceptional evidence, and without understanding what is involved are more reminiscent of suggestion and maya and not traditionally indicative of well prepared spiritual aspirants. I do not say the TM mantras do not generally work. There are also reasons why I would not discount accounts of ineffectiveness or harm in some cases. But if they work for someone, and that is the level of practice they want, that is just how it is, fine. I would be more concerned about the levels beyond that.

Regarding your questions, I suppose that given the efforts TM has taken to avoid being considered a religion and to concentrate on the basic mantric practice itself, MMY may not commonly be seen as a guru in classical terms by many of those who use the technique, although obviously Vijayante considers him as such. Most people probably find it a useful relaxation and mentally refreshing technique. Technically, you are correct, MMY isn't really considered a guru in the lineage of his Guru Dev, but rather an agent, but he's really acting as guru by proxy, and the mantric science is well known. My concern is primarily that the practice is designed to draw some futher into the more questionable aspects of higher level teachings. I should point out that MMY is a model for the first image many of us now growing older had of a guru figure, and has been commonly called a guru since the 60s, so it isn't totally a stretch in common terms to refer to him as a guru.

I'm sure there are editors involved with a given guru who criticize others for various reasons. MMY is pretty tame compared with many gurus, but if you are associated with a guru that requires a guru-disciple relationship, service and worship and believing claims some special status for themselves, particularly as you get deeper in the organization, then other gurus must generally be inferior and critics are seen as evil. Look how many would be Avatars there are now. I think after years of study in such areas is that genuine gurus are rare (as are ripe aspirants), and that most gurus are incomplete or false in the traditional sense of what a guru is supposed to do, that being, facilitate enlightenment. I criticize what I consider to be false gurus, because I've seen a lot of modern living gurus, but find them generally inferior to the ones now departed; and I've seen lots of cults, and unfortunately they are more alike than different. But when I do criticize I criticize them on common, traditional grounds, based partly on the logic behind the partial opening referred to in the intermediate zone theory, which is exactly where the higher levels of TM with the "siddhi" programs and hype regarding a spiritual mission for MMY seem to be headed. If somebody is personally stable and just doing a mantra because it helps, and that is as far as it goes, they wouldn't really need to worry about this. --Dseer 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As a followup to my previous comments on MMY

TimidGuy, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the other issue I mentioned, that MMY's teaching and lifestyle is signficantly different from that of his guru and that MMY may have been a bhakti psychically attuned to his Guru Dev to an extent but was never an official successor to the lineage or the most esoteric initiations. I've provided a number of quotations supporting that assertion for discussion in the talk section. I submit that partly explains what you referred to, that the traditional role of the guru is not that apparent in the outer TM organization and the method has a more secular component actually at variance with MMY's guru's traditional hindu teaching. The fact is that the traditional elements associated with mantric practice like attunement to the guru or Ishta are deemphasized, yet the use of traditional seed based mantras still do have an effect on the mind, thus popularizing a practice designed for householders rather than a more esoteric practice, IMO accounts for the popularity of TM. However, just as an aside, technically the question of whether the mantras so given by one who admits he was never initiated into the higher levels of his guru's teaching actually aid in the higher levels of spiritual practice as MMY's guru intended in his instructions or whether there is something missing in the popularization and selling of a simplified version of a more esoteric practice can be disputed. That discussion is far too abstract for purposes of the article, I'm just mentioning it because of your previous questions about my interest in the subject. What I would like to do is simply yet concisely state that there is a documented controversy over the key differences between MMY and his Guru Dev, while acknowledging that MMY sees himself as carrying on Guru Dev's work. --Dseer 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Since only the 2 of us are engaged on this topic, lets discuss here first.

Ironically, I've been feeling that you're the one who's improperly framing things (which is why I referenced your POV).

I see that you don't understand my point, but that doesn't mean it is trivial

You keep casting Maharishi into a guru role and focusing on lineages, etc. But Maharishi is simply a person who was a disciple of Guru Dev and who subsequently began teaching a form of meditation that he said would have many immediate practical benefits, as well as a long-term cumulative effect. And research and the experience of people who take up the practive have verified his claims.

Actually, although technically ineligible in his tradition, he is widely considered as a guru, and he claims to be acting as an agent for his guru, and your position itself is a well known controversy, over whether MMY is a religious leader or not. Your position might make sense from a western perspective, where the secular nature of the practice is emphasized, but not to those familiar with the Indian tradition and not in the biographical context of the tradition which MMY claims to represent. In other words, you can hold your position but it in itself is part of the controversy.

He has subsequently sought to revive various facets of the Vedic literature and, in general, to re-enliven the Vedic tradition. He didn't represent himself as a guru, didn't ask people to be his followers, didn't claim any authority based on lineages, etc. In a sense, Guru Dev was his inspiration.

Just how familiar are you with the Vedic tradition? That gets right to the heart of the controversy, what you term "revive" and "re-enliven" can also be seen as revising and distorting by comparison with the actual Vedic tradition and the teachings of his own guru. I am disappointed that you can't see that you are operating from your own assumptions here, that just because you believe something like that makes it true, when it is just a belief like many others.

The only people who worry about this are the people with other gurus. They have to find a reason to delegitimize Maharishi.

Again, an assumption at the heart of the controversy. Isn't it possible that some are legitimately concerned about the integrity of the Sanatana Dharma and the Vedic tradition, and that MMY might not be faithful to his guru's teachings? Even if MMY's practices are beneficial, how does that prove that greater benefit is not gained from a more traditional approach?

This is an invented controversy by a tiny group of people. It's not notable and doesn't belong in the article.

It isn't an invented controversy at all. It's actually pretty self-evident if you are more familiar with the traditions from which MMY comes. And it is relevant based on the article. How can you honestly ignore the religious claims MMY has made and that are being made about him?

And Mason's book is self-publshed and not scholarly. No scholar, for example, would cite Charlie Lutes as an authority on Guru Dev.

It is not "self-published", it has independent reviews, and it is on Amazon where it has been reviewed, and scholarship is in the eye of the beholder. I'd say for example, he's gone to great lengths to get exact transcriptions of what MMY's guru actually said from actual copies of the works, including MMYs own work from 1952. And his quotes are sourced. And I did not say that he cited Charlie Lutes as an authority, that was your assumption, I was using that statement from another one of the links [6] as an example to show the level of respect MMY's guru had, what that indicates is that you are not even reading where I suggested so you can even understand the controversy. In fact, the links to the material you are so opposed to are found at Guru Dev's Wikipedia article.
In summary, as a westerner it is fine if you take a secular position with respect to MMY and his practices because that is what you are interested in, but it is hard to believe that you don't know very well that in itself is controversial, and if there was any doubt about that, a simple web search would prove it. Just take a look at this interview, for example: [7].

I urge you to be more open minded in considering that you have space for the rebuttals you have provided, including claims the controversy is trivial and motivated by hostility, but not to totally deny the controversy has any relevance. My latest proposal is very minimal, there is room for your rebuttal, and I would hope we could come to some sort of agreement without getting back into the conflicts we saw over with the Beatles. --Dseer 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The refactoring is OK but consider the dialogue over. Your position is clear as is your apparent COI which I believe can be demostrated beyond doubt, and that means we will get nowhere on the issue of whether there is a religous element to MMY. I intend to pursue the COI issue in due course regardless of what you do. Do not bother to reply on my talk page--finito. --Dseer 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Report of COI

One final courtesy comment before I say goodbye, TimidGuy, I have reported your editing as an apparent violation of COI due to your known association with the Maharishi and unwillingness to accept a known controversy already outlined in Wikipedia. Sorry it had to come to this but we were getting nowhere, and after all this time the matter needs to be resolved once and for all by those not involved in TM. I will continue to pursue whatever action is needed to resolve this once and for all to prevent the kind of pro-TM editing I have been seeing by associates of the organization. As I said above, no need to respond, I will let the record speak for itself as it is, I am proceeding regardless. Based on Arbcom decisions in similar cases, I am very hopeful, and now intend to pursue this until final resolution. After that, maybe we can collaborate again with clear ground rules. --Dseer 06:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Once again, stop reframing!

Once again, it would help for you to stop reframing for an audience, TimidGuy. Rounding up "allies" for what, and where are they? Philosophus, etc. had already abandoned the COI discussions, and the only outside comments since I started on COI other than admins was two character endorsements of you while attacking me. Again, it isn't personal, and it isn't about piling up character endorsements, being seen as a nice guy, etc., if you simply comply henceforth with COI as has now been clearly explained and start being collaborative on that basis, none of this drama is necessary. I am taking my time, patiently going through Mason's book and the online copy of books like Beacon Light of the Himalayas, the frameworks of critical issues about the Maharishi and his organization, etc., and in the meantime I suggest you realize that partisan sources like the TM website are not the gold standard for reliability. --Dseer 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your response and reaction to the comments on COI, I understand how it might have appeared to you. But what I asked various editors who had edited the article or who were familiar with similar articles for was attention to the article and your interpretations on relevance and sourcing. There was no attempt to orchestrate a flood of comments on the COI noticeboard and it did not happen. I am not saying you are paid to formally speak for the group, I know such groups have paid public relations and legal staffs for that. I'm saying you have a financial and personal interest in employment with the group, in advancing the group and a close relationship with the group. Thus, my contention is simple. That you have a prima facia COI. And that a neutral editor would not be using the criteria you are to assess critical and controversial material and sources and the proper balance in the article, and the result is a type of indirect information suppression. I did not suggest you should abandon work on the article, but only that you acknowledge the COI and respect the guidance relative to that, particularly with regard to critical and controversial material. Until you are able to demonstrate that despite your beliefs you can help craft the best arguments for the critical and controversial position (which is what NPOV requires and what I originally requested) instead of taking an apologetic and defensive role, you simply can't be the good, neutral editor that you claim, even outside of the appearance issue. --Dseer 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have both editions of Mason's book, it only takes a week to get the new one from the UK publisher, it isn't self published, and I still wonder why you refused to talk to Mason himself. Not only are the books of high quality, everything is well sourced. Coming from your perpective, as opposed to more serious students of the traditions, I can see why you were not impressed with his logic or his authority to speak to the issues, whereas he made perfect sense to me, because I already know enough about how mantras work myself and Guru Dev is a real gem. Guru Dev said what he said, Maharishi said what he said, the sources are there, and there is a big difference between the original Guru Dev teaching, and the teaching from 1955 which is much closer to what Guru Dev said, and today's dogma. Maharishi is controversial within his own lineage, which means nothing to you but a lot to scholars of such things. You can interpret that in a number of ways. The comments about Ramana Maharshi only make sense to one who doesn't understand such things either and sees this as a conflict between gurus. There is no need to join an organization or see Ramana Maharshi as an exclusive source as you think, and no need to hide what little controversy there might be since there were no scandals or less than saintly behavior at all times. Those who are considered enlightened and of the highest class, as referred to in Tripura Rahayasa, are one, there is no real conflict other than some semantic and cultural issues between the historical Dattatreya, Krishna, Buddha, Adi Sankara, and modern authorities widely accepted as enlightened like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Anandamayi Ma, Ammachi, etc., and Guru Dev's teaching and manner is as would be expected far more consistent with that tradition, much less so with Maharishi's reinterpretation. From that perspective, it's really a conflict between the source traditions and the Maharishi's reinterpretation of his guru's teachings, not between him and some particular guru increasingly widely respected as being enlightened, but by no means the only one so recognized in basic conflict with Maharishi's reinterpretation. You can and apparently do dismiss that tradition as irrelevant, but that does not mean there is no controversy. --Dseer 02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your welcom

your welcome (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for heads up

Thanks for heads up concerning the response to the comment I made about Mason. For the record, here's my response to the response:

My comment about Mason was not along the lines of inclusion or not inclusion, but merely to point out that he has biases against the subject [Maharishi] he wrote about. Whether or not these biases crept into his bio on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, I couldn't say but it seems to me QUITE clear that anyone who allows themselves to be identified as "part of the team" on a blog called "TMFree" is not pro-TM, and that anyone who writes the following about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, has a definite bias, justified or no, about the topic:
Q. In conclusion then, isn't it true to say that the Maharishi is nothing other than an opportunistic, self-promoting maverick who, although probably well-meaning, wilfully misleads his supporters and anyone else who has the time, the inclination and the money to listen to him?
A. Some say the TM method is a good one, some say not. --Paul Mason

-Sparaig 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new Time magazine reference

  • http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947229,00.html Oh my god! I found this Time magazine article on TM and maharishi! Its from Oct. 13, 1975, its a classic! i tried posting it in maharishi's discuss but no one ever responded so not sure if anyone knew about this article hehe, i figured i would let you know given you have a better understanding of the topic in the Time article (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies and guidelines

Thank you for your note, TG. The feedback is very much appreciated and makes the whole thing worthwhile. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] favor

  • wow wierd, well i took them out, dunno why they were there, i guess we wait and see what the response is hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Heya

At some point maybe we can chat about what went on between us... and in the here and now Sethie felt the pull to share that he thought you might be amused by the goings ons at the Sahaj Marg article.

Basically one user is seeking to use the article as a place to heavily criticize a spiritual movement, using whatever source he can get his hands on and another user is trying to keep the article neutral, fair and balanced.

If you feel the pull, let Sethie know what you think. :) Sethie 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Heya-

Thanks for the message, yeah sorry Sethie wasn't more clear.

If you want to be involved, GREAT, and basically Sethie just wanted to share with you the irony of the role reversal...

be well, Sethie 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey TG!

I was on wikibreak dealing with real life, now I'm back! Just thought I'd check in with you to see how things are going! Dreadlocke ☥ 07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep

Thanks so much for the compliment on my work in the Bleep OR dispute! Hard work, but worth it to better our Wikipedia! Dreadstar † 16:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] a huge apology

dear timidguy --

Sethie would like to offer the biggest apology possible. He feels deeply humbled, having bumped into another user who reminds him of how he behaves on the transcendental meditation page.

Sethie is deeply sorry that he would spend hours and hours and days and days hunting for any reference that would make transcendental meditation look bad,without really thinking about whether or not the particular idea was Encyclopedia worthy or not.

Sethie is deeply sorry that he tried to use the TM page as a place to vent oversome of his issues with the transcendental meditation movement.

mostly, Sethie is deeply sad to think about all the frustration you went through in dealing with Sethie's behavior.

And lastly Sethie is really sorry for the times when he was outright rude and mean to you.

For what it's worth, Sethie thinks he has some idea of what you went, having gone through it himself now, having bumped into another user behaving in similar ways as Sethie. :) Wasn't the Beatles who said "karma's gonna get you?"

If there is any way that Sethie can make this up to you, please ask.

Warmly,Sethie 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep poll purpose update

Due to continued confusion around the scope of the Bleep OR straw poll, I’ve added a clarification note to say that the poll is primarily meant to see if everyone agrees that a majority of that content identified as unsourced or improperly sourced OR in the Bleep sandbox, is indeed OR. Please feel free to change your vote if necessary. Please post a message on my talk page if any of this is unclear. Thanks for your patience! Dreadstar † 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Oh, thank you so much for the Barnstar! And thanks for the kind words...it really makes the whole effort worthwhile! I really appreciate it! And let me thank you for you effort and support in getting that article into shape! Your comments and insights were invaluable..! – Dreadstar † 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for you

It doesn't look like you've been awarded one, and I think it's about time you were! You have make incredible improvements to the Transcendental Meditation and related articles, and have done it with unfailing civility and good cheer.

The Original Barnstar
I hereby award you the Original Barnstar for your outstanding contributions to TM articles everywhere! – Dreadstar † 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chopra quotes

Hi, Dreadstar. I did a quick search on the first quote and found that it was from Quantum Healing. Then used Amazon's "inside the book" search to find the page number. Do you think these quotes merit being in the article? If so, I may add one or more back in with citations. But it does seem sort of unusual encyclopedia style. Thanks. TimidGuy 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey TG! Sure, interesting or notable sourced quotes from the subject (or about the subject) would be a nice addition to the article. Check out the quote templates to see if they might helpful in adding a nicely formatted set of quotes:
– Dreadstar † 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairfield, Iowa

I've reremoved the links that you restored: not because I don't think they're interesting or relevant, but because Wikipedia isn't a directory of links, and because I believe they're not the most important of the links that were there. Nyttend 21:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I decided to drop it primarily because I don't know much about Fairfield; the only reason I came to the page in the first place is that it's part of my placement of county templates, like the one I added. It's good to have a person with more understanding of the place improving the content of the article :-) Nyttend 15:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My fault Dr TG :-)

I didn't mean to be condescending - and hope thats not the way it came across.

I can understand your confusion, my writing style seems to have deteriorated strongly and the odd grammar check would not go amiss. In my defense, just arrived back from London, I am not in my own home at the moment, but staying up here with friends and to be honest its a tad chaotic at the moment. Plus, I'm tired. 200 miles traveling in the USA may not seem a lot I know, but here - using Virgin Rail - you end up with jet-lag :-)

Crowleys Aunt 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I'm happy to discuss changes. I have made quite a few. Why don't you point out the ones you disagree with? Rracecarr 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile:)

SJP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

It is my duty to help further any project that makes knowledge easy to get to and free. Wikipedia is doing that so that is why I am helping it the best I can. Spreading wikilove is one of the ways I try to help out wikipedia. I hope that my good actions at wikipedia will cause a ripple effect of good actions by others, and thus make wikipedia a more friendly place. If wikipedia was more friendly, than less editors would leave, and that would be helpful towards building the encyclopedia. Have a nice day:)--SJP 05:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

Thanks for your support and the congrats, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Thank you, my friend! Dreadstar † 04:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Arbtitration Report

Thanks for the correction - nobody seems to be able to spell it! I did think about whether the word was appropriate, and decided that it probably was, given the unprecedented nature of the proposal, and the fact that, regardless of its merits, it's certainly extremely outlandish. David Mestel(Talk) 14:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Hi TG, I'm out of town on a business trip, so my Wikipedia time is limited. Check out WP:VANDAL for information on vandal fighting and warnings. Dreadstar † 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey TG, I watch Dreadstar's talk page, so saw you're query there. I also suggest checking into WP:TWINKLE; this is a great tool that makes vandal-fighting a heckuva lot easier, giving you the ability to quickly revert vandalism with informative edit summaries, to apply warnings with the correct warning templates on user pages (you'll still want to be familiar with what those user page warnings are); reporting persistent vandals to WP:AIV, requesting page protection, etc. I also wrote about it here (includes links to edits showing the kind of edit summaries it produces on reverts). I've been a lot less frustrated dealing with vandalism since I started using it. Best wishes. --Yksin 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Because of the areas you are interested in, I though you may be ineterested in joining two very good projects. I know that in any of them you will be a great help, I have seen your contributions :) Give a look into WP:TIMETRACE and join in any category if you want to help. Visit WP:UPDATE and keep the templates at hand (you don't need to specifically join but you can certainly help . Kind regards JennyLen☤ 07:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] State Children's Health Insurance Program

I'm still not back full time yet, but I'll try to assist in protecting the article against vandalism. Dreadstar † 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looked pretty calm. Luckily..;) Have you seen what's been happening with JennyLen recently? Dreadstar † 01:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SCHIP

No problem. If I don't remove it (and it doesn't get a citation), I'm sure someone else will eventually. But it's not like that's the only missing citation on Wikipedia.... Superm401 - Talk 10:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Warnborough College. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Jauerback 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but if you feel like the page should be protected until the two of you have resolved your dispute(s) on the talk page, you can request to have it protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Jauerback 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Becky Garrison

FYI: That "source" you just added to the Warnborough College article turns out to be nothing other than a mirror of Wikipedia! --Orlady 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cromag/Neanderthal

Looks like there's been nothing since yesterday, so I've watchlisted them for now. I'll keep an eye on them, but let me know if it starts up again. Dreadstar † 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For TimidGuy who is not so Timid when it comes to unfailing kindness and civility no matter the provocation

(olive 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, we so much appreciate all that you do; your kindness and civility are an example for us all. Roseapple 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

You may want to check on your report to AN/I, as it has been marked as resolved. Tiptoety 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected Neanderthal as well. Dreadstar † 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome! Tiptoety 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NIH

Hi TimidGuy. Is the date right on your update on NIH grants for MUM?(olive 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Ok. Sorry. I see what you are doing. I really can blame that mistake on jet lag.(olive 05:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)(


[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the thanks (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:John hagelin.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:John hagelin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It would of course be great if you could get a permission to put this image under a free license. You will find some advice on how to ask for it under Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. (The important thing is that they have to explicitly state that they put it under a free license such as the CC-BY, permission "to use on Wikipedia" is not enough. That's also the reason why press photos are not considered free content for Wikipedia purposes.)
As for your question on how a free image could be created or found, there are too many possibilities to list them. E.g. anybody who attends a public appearance of Hagelin could take one. Or somebody who meets him and asks nicely (as we are talking about a physicist here, see this user who has provided free photos of numerous physicists in this way). Joi Ito wrote an inspiring blog post about this. There are also many web sites out there which offer free photos, e.g. I have found dozens of free photos of notable people at flickr which I uploaded to Wikipedia (but be careful, not all photos on flickr are free).
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been named as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs to Wiki policy

Hi TG. You're never a pest my friend. You can find both here - my apologies for not providing the link orginally. Really2012back (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_publications_and_check_community_consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Business_and_Commerce

[edit] TM

TG/Olive - I assume you are just two people but anyway this is also addressed to both. Every time I comment on the TM article I feel a tad guilty. The reason for this is that I feel am denigrating peoples spiritual beliefs. This is not something that I wish to do at all, I can assure you and is why I always keep away from religious debates in WIKI and else-where. The reason that I am commenting at all is simply due the financial side of things. Because TM is treated as a commercial venture - IE a charge is made, products sold etc - it is important to me that the article in question is understood in this framework but more importantly is written and constructed on this basis.

However, The Sidhi Program, etc. deal, IMO, far more with your spiritual beliefs and on that basis I have decided to discontinue my involvement in these.

Anyway, I just felt the need to let you know that I an no way wish to insult, denigrate or whatever your spiritual believes and just hoped that that could be understood Really2012back (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:00, 6 February 2008 (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.

[edit] Thanks TG

Don't overly worry about - see my comments under OJ re-write. Unless you have the energy to do this yourself - I'm aware that you have removed references from the article "pro" TM because you have noted they are not relevant - given time I believe you will address all issues. However, following some recent vandalism and the most recent edit - and the rational for it - I give up. The whole thing is far to illogical for me. These are mind sets I cant even begin to understand. Memes and reality tunnels beyond my mere comprehension. Peace and good luck Dr Really2012again Really2012back (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

I/m leaving this on both your pages. I have only just heard and I know this isn't the place no-doubt but I have felt I have got to know you both - if slightly. Just wanted to give my condolences - ad it was reported in the Times I will assume - at this stage - that it is not a continuation of Internet rumors. As this will nodoubtt attract the vandals to your pages if you are bothy busy I shall attempt to keep track of them for a day or to and revert any "nonsense". Peace Really2012back (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep article

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I've never heard of Voodoo Science, and didn't get my information from that source, so I can't comment on Park's criticisms of the meditation-crime assertion. However, the link you gave me was a joke. An adequate rebuttal to someone who interpreted the data differently would include the following points: (a) what the original claim was and a brief summary of the data that supported the original claim, (b) what the countering interpretation was, (c) reasons for rejecting the counter-interpretation, using data to back up the point. This article includes none of the requisite parts of a scientific rebuttal. It just repeats the original claim, without supporting data, and then spends the rest of the space trashing Park. I don't know any more about Park's interpretation of the data or why Rainforth disagreed with it after reading the article than I did before I started. People who have good data can and will rely on the data to make the point; when someone starts blowing smoke around to draw attention away from the data, it's not a good sign. Please don't send me any more citations of this type. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. If you want to have a dialogue with me about anything I've written on the Bleep page, I would prefer that you address me on that page. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone else checks in . . . Park's critique is here. [8] Rainforth presents the original claim and presents the data in table form. He presents Park's counter interpretation -- that the experiment was a failure because the murder rate went up. He explains why that's a red herring, since the murder rate was within the range of what's expected that time of year and since it constituted only 3% of the total. The overall rate of violent crime decreased. [9] TimidGuy (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just came back because my sense of fairness requires me to add that I only saw the first five paragraphs or so of the article before making the above remarks; a wide band (3 inches or so on my monitor) of white space at that point gave me to believe that that's all there was of the article. It was only this morning that I got curious about who was behind that site that I scrolled down to read the index on the left frame and discovered that there's more to the article below the white space. I don't have time to read it now, so can't comment on it. Thanks for Park link above. Woonpton (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It hadn't occurred to me that that might happen. : ( I've e-mailed the webmaster. Anyway, I'm not sure why I brought it to your attention, since I don't really want to bring it up on Bleep, and since to do so would violate the policy of Original Research because the article doesn't mention Bleep. TimidGuy (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I've had a chance to look over the rest of this article. My second impression isn't much better than the first, and your statement that the article contains data in tables form is false. Tables are rows and columns of numbers; what he shows is two graphs. There are no data in this article. (I'm a statistician and it sets my teeth on edge when people mix those up, especially people who have set out to instruct me about statistics). There's not enough information in the graphs for me to draw any conclusions from them, and it's not clear what the units are on the abscissa, but at any rate this isn't a serious research paper; it's a polemic apparently written in answer to a polemic (I haven't read Parks' and probably won't bother) and I don't draw conclusions about anything from such material. It's a lot like the kind of useless debate that seems to characterize Wikipedia: nyah, nyah, nyah... back and forth; there's nothing much to be learned from such posturing and taunting.
You apparently assumed, without bothering to ask, that my comment (in an aside) that the evidence doesn't support the claim made in Bleep about the meditation study, came from Park. No, I came to that conclusion by analyzing the data myself. I won't bore you with the details of my analysis, since I ran those data simply to satisfy my own curiosity and it couldn't be cited anywhere, but I am quite comfortable saying my analyses just don't find anything in those data. There's a lot of nonsense (in many fields, unfortunately, not just yours) that results from taking a GIGO approach to time series or regression analysis, so I'm not terribly surprised or impresssed that someone got some kind of result by grinding these kinds of data through such a routine; spurious results are more the rule than the exception, in my experience with this combination. A simpler approach often gives one a more accurate idea of what's going on, since if there's really something there, not just an artifact, it will show up in the descriptive statistics as well as in the inferential statistics.
I'm looking right now at a table I just pulled up of crime in Washington DC from 1960 through 2006. The year 1993, the year TM supposedly reduced crime in the city by 23% for two months, Washington DC had the highest incidence of overall violent crime in the 46 years recorded in this dataset. Second highest murder rate, highest rate of rape, highest rate of assaults, which are supposed to be the three types of crime included in the study. It's kind of hard logically, never mind about the statistics, to argue that even though that was the worst year in history in DC for violent crime, it would have been worse without the meditation? There's simply no justification, in my opinion, for making such a claim (with or without fancy statistics); if Park did say that this is more likely a result of wishful thinking than an actual effect, I would be inclined to agree with him. thanks. Woonpton (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi TG, sorry really don't want to get involved my friend but surely the following cannot be used as a dismissal of the effects of the homicides: "He explains why that's a red herring, since the murder rate was within the range of what's expected that time of year" But this would then counter any claim for the "effectiveness" of the M effect - at least as far as decreasing murder is concerned. This would be highly important as it would be counter intuitive to the claims of the method in which the M effect works. If the rest of the statistics are decreased - IE burglary, muggings, etc and that this reduction is claimed to be a result of the M effect then murder rate should also have decreased - not either increased or stayed the same. To suggest otherwise should have been well noted within the research document simply because the authors argue that the M effect has caused a decrease in "general" crime rates - and claim that the research of this one study supports it. If that is the cases then it could be equally surmised that the M effect has no influence on crime leading to murder - it self an interesting and significant fact and worthy of further study. I would suspect I am missing something perhaps? Just throwing that around for your consideration but genuinely no interest in getting involved in the discussion. Really2012back (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)-

Woopton, thanks so much for actually looking at the study--few people have done so. You should maybe consider writing a short paper. I would think that Social Indicators Research might publish it. And I think the authors of the original study would appreciate the feedback. (You're correct -- I did assume that you were parroting the baseless criticism floating around the Internet originating from Park. Sorry about that.) I'm not sure I'm convinced regarding your last point, but no matter.
Really, I think Rainforth's point regarding murders was that it's a small sample size and only a tiny fraction of the data set. But maybe read the study to see how they address this. TimidGuy (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi TG, Thanks forreplying and I hope your day is going well. I did read it but to be honest, like whole swades of social research, its simply nonsense - no offense meant. An argument regarding it being a small sample size and a fraction of the data set, (assuming that what is surmised from the data is correct, etc) might be reasonable (although arguably) within the context of the research of other "effects" but would oddly be negated by the paranormal/spiritual/religious/quantum mysticism (select the term most happy with) stated effects of the M effect.

But can't be bothered discussing it TG. The M effect is a matter of spiritual believe in my opinion and any argument with believers/non believers regarding it would be no less pointless then atheist biologist arguing - and proving - that Darwin's theory of evolution is "proven" - with a Christan fundamentalist scientist of equal education, who can prove that in fact Darwin was wrong and that humanity simply suddenly appears "fully formed" in the fossil record.

I'm sure people at MUM - and many other educational institutions no doubt - are waiting upon one of Kuhn's "paradigms shifts" and you never know I suppose. The best way foreword of course would be to conduct more studies, of greater scale and without the involvement of any part of the TM movement. However, I have the feeling - although might be wrong - that following the death of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi his more "extreme" teachings will receive less and less attention from MUM and TM in general- the M effect, Yogic flying, etc. These will not be removed but simply become more "hidden" only for those who have gone through the more "palatable" first stage TM program. It's common with many religious/spiritual movements which wish to achieve mainstream acceptance - but I am sure you are more then aware of this. Peace Really2012back (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Frye

Very famous in the UK TG, comedian, actor, author, columnist (The Guardian amongst others) etc. All in a very "neo" Oscar Wilde, semi intellectual sort of way. Check out his first - semi - auto biographical novel if you get the chance "The Liar" Very British and very funny - in a very dark, British public school sort of way (ex-Cambridge Footlights if that means anything to you).

I'm surprised he was doing a documentary on TM to be honest - always struck me as more of a rational humanist then someone with an interest in "alternative" "New Age" lifestyles (no offense meant as I am sure you have worked out by now - I use the terms in very general sense)

Mind you, he did admit to having being diagnosed as having a bipolar disorder a few years ago and produced a very interesting two part documentary for the BBC on that. Perhaps He's investigating non standard - IE non pharmaceutical methods of control for that? I believe there is research analyzing the "control" of bipolar disorders and meditation.

Always struck me as someone who didn't take fools gladly - he has been deadly honest in programs with people he dislikes. So, perhaps it suggests that you ain't that bad after all TG :-P

There is a tendency in the UK - especially in the BBC - for ex Oxbridge/Cambridge type satirical journalists to "infiltrate" "controversial" organizations and lifestyles - especial American ones - under the pretense of producing a serious documentary but in truth are producing a satirical one.

At least in Frye's case this is not his style. Indeed, he has done a few serious interesting documentries.

I watch very little TV TG, but if you find out when it is being broadcast let me know - I would be keen to view it. Really2012back (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template use

On this page, you posted a strong warning. While I'm in agreement with it, you may have overreacted. Or can you connect this guy with the other "Daniel Fulham" vandalism I've seen? If so, I retract my remark, & wonder if there's a way to block him for longer. Trekphiler (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No beef with posting the warning, just the "going nuclear" aspect. The tendency is to save ones that strong for the really out of bounds. (Personally, I'd use strong ones way more often, but...) None of the vandalisms I saw merited it; just so you know next time. I've got graduated ones you can keep in your sandbox & cut & paste as needed, if you want 'em. As for the culprits, I suspect you're right, it is a kid somewhere, 'cause I've seen that name before. Trekphiler (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ==Consciousness causes collapse merger==

I missed the original discussion, but the nature of the merger seems quire unjustified to me. There is basically no discussion at all of the original subject matter of consciousness causes collapse on Quantum Mysticism, (unlike Quantum mind, and Copenhagen interpretation. The reader is effectively being told that the subject is nonsense without being told why. That is not how good encyclopedias work. Some sort of merger might have been a good idea, but this is WP:POV and censorship.1Z (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Lynch

I know that they married and divorced in the same year, I just thought that it looked better with only one date. But I will let the masses decide. Moorematthews (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

I don't know why you assume my tone is/was harsh, but I respectfully suggest you are reading your own frustrations into my words because you have become emotionally involved with adding some positive spin to the article. I have no involvement in the subject at all, except as a responder to the BLP concern on the noticeboard, and as such, have no emotional attachment to either side of the disagreement. I'm simply replying with reasons why your suggested inclusions violate BLP. --Faith (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps frustrated was the incorrect word, but an emotional attachment to the subject seems obvious by the responses. For example, you responded multiple times on the BLP/N, then dismissively stated "Orlady is a party to the dispute". I'd respectfully point out that you are also a party to the dispute. Again, my tone was not harsh; I can't help that you read something into it that just isn't there. As for the multiple responses, please note that I did not intend to answer again, yet you kept questioning me by name, and I thought it rude to not respond. If you do not want multiple replies, perhaps not responding/justifying/questioning is the way to go, as you would have gotten a single comment from me, and then comments from others, possibly. Best, --Faith (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure doesn't track my perception of things. TimidGuy (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)