User talk:Sethie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University 2 Re: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation 3 Riveros11 and the BKWSU 3.1 Policy and progress 4 TM Spring Cleaning 5 Thanks 6 Show me where 7 JP is Jesselp 8 Thanks, again 9 Thanks for the note 10 Live discussion on BKWSU talk page? 11 I don't like it 12 Bad form and not reading the history 13 OK ... explain ... how does it keep changing? 14 Civility 15 Your comments on your spam edit 16 Columbia University 17 Otterbein site 18 Archive your talk page 19 AfD 20 Greatly appreciate your kind comments 21 Way to go 22 Re.:Star Trek Voyager Elite Force 23 Arbitration 24 RfC regarding cult 25 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 26 Told ya so ... 27 Edits to List of celebrity cocaine addicts 28 Rats 29 Thanks 30 TM 31 No personal attacks 32 Have a good vacation 33 TM article 34 Zoophilia 35 Tone 36 Nonviolent Communication 37 re RFC at GW and religion 38 Re 39 AMA investigation 40 Mediation request 41 Request for Mediation 42 Thanks much 43 Lawson's Email 44 RE:Hoody 45 TM 46 Sri Ramana Article Edits

Welcome!

Hello, Sethie, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

/Archive1 pre Nov 2006

[edit] Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear Jossi and Sethie,

As the talk page shows in the archives, users "195.82.106.244", "talkabout" and supporters would like to use materials which belong to Brahma Kumaris which by definition are not considered "reliable sources." Besides, even if these materials were used by user .244 and group of supporters, these materials were being used in a highly biased way, in a detrimental way towards the organization which they pretend to use to "inform" the public thus, it could never be considered "self-serving" but rather contentious.

There is a point that I would like to stress. Articles which belong to an encyclopedia must be non-biased. User 195.82.106.244 and supporters being the originators of this article do not fit this category. They were "ex-Brahma Kumaris" and by definition, biased. As a matter of fact, user.244 has a public website located at: www.brahmakumaris.info which notably portrays an antagonistic vision towards Brahma Kumaris. I thought, I should mention this to you Jossi and Sethie as a background for your help in keeping this article as non-biased as possible. That is the reason why academia has been highly quoted in the majority of this article. It is non-biased research. Thank you and look forward to hearing from you. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sethie,

Sorry I thought I was in the article talk page. Response is here:[1] PEACETalkAbout 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation

Sethie wrote:

I am noticing you removed the Speedy Delete and did a redirect on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you chose this route? Sethie 03:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I redirected Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation to Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University because the two articles were identical (one had obviously been copied from the other), and Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University was the first to be created. Hope that clears things up – Gurch 03:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does and it doesn't. My unclarity is about the fact that Organisation is spelled wrong, and there already is a a Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation redirect.

Given that there are alredy 6 o7 pages that redirect to BKWSU, do we need to have pages that are spelled wrong too? Sethie 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Organisation" is a valid spelling of the word; indeed it is more common in the UK. See Organization and American and British English spelling differences. Wikipedia is not exclusively written in US English; the convention is to keep the spelling in an article consistent but any variant of English is acceptable. Redirects from alternate spellings are therefore necessary – Gurch 05:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not know this. Sethie 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riveros11 and the BKWSU

[edit] Policy and progress

And just to be fair, both ways, how long do we have to put up with a user that refuses to listen or participate in a "middle way" discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation? I am sorry Sethie but it cuts both ways, it takes "two hands" to clap.

The wiki is full of people screaming "vandalism", and using all sorts of methods to block or intimidate others, when someone else adds or changes what they have written. I have stated that I perfectly well accept to use the citable sources Luis accepts BUT also that self-published sources are also acceptable. Two admins have corroborated this policy. I am receiving a complete blanking from Riveros11 over this which is the source of dispute.

If an organization publishes extreme beliefs, and even academics report them in papers the other editors reference, e.g. their founder "glowing red" and a "different voice speaking through him", "God descending into him" then that is not defamation; that is objective, cited reportage. In such a central claim to the BK faith, of God incarnating into their founder only, it cannot be ignored - even if it does not fit into their current or Western orientated PR.

If we can come to a decision over the self-published material within the limits that Wiki policy sets, I will be very happy. This to me would appear too be the only bridge left to cross. That is hardly an unreasonable position. With Luis, we have faced two immense resistances, a) to the channelling issue and b) to the Destruction issue despite, again, both being referenced in academia AND he himself putting the points forward them on other website. Again, it comes down to whether the Wikipedia is PR for such organizations and individuals OR accurate reportage.

If there is going to be two dialogue instead of tit-for-tat attacks, I am happy to engage in it. What more can I state? 195.82.106.244 09:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TM Spring Cleaning

Hi Sethie - looks like that time of year again, when it's time to brush off the cobwebs and throw out the clutter again, or at least insure that a housemate hasn't thrown out all your favourite CD's :)

The TM article is looking better than it was, Timidguy (obviously affiliated with the practice) has done good work (ie when compared to Peterklutz for eg) but a lot of the criticisms have either been hidden, or outright removed under many different pretexts. We should keep an eye on this and re-insert content where necessary. What do you say?

Sfacets 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely- and nice metaphors. :)

Overall, I really appreciate what he has done with it, and now some concerns are starting to appear. I will keep closer watch and hunt for some of the old stuff. Sethie 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for passing on the welcome Sethie - and for fighting the good fight. Since I live in Fairfield, I am surrounded by believers who do not see any possibility that there is bias, or that they are gullible. And it seems like dedicated TMrs who no longer live here are even stronger in their beliefs. Heck I would probably still meditate, if I didn't live here and see what goes on. Timid Guy - I think he was on my teacher training - sounds like he will never stop pushing the TM page toward a marketing piece, however subtle. Orme-Johnson is a nice guy - smart guy - but look how far his web site goes in promoting the research. There are many in Fairfield who have inside knowledge and who are disturbed by the efforts to promote things that are obviously untrue - let me know if you need help. John 21:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heya John thanks for posting, I appreciate your voicing of support.

Yeah, I spent just a few days at MIU and I could instantly tell the place was.... well not a psychologically healthy place to be. After my visit there, doing TM again has never been a viable option for me... I miss it though, it often felt good and relaxing... :) though it often had a very strong adverse effects on me.... I honestly feel compassion for those who are stuck in the TM loop- seeing the destruction it causes, and yet being hooked on the bliss and Maharishi's teachings.

There is a lot of conflict on the page right now, and I will sit with your offer of support. I bet you have some stories! Denaro's affidavit it amazing- the stuff he saw there. peace! Sethie 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks much, Sethie, for your kind apology on my Talk page. And for your input on the lead. As I note in the TM Talk page, I think it's better without the phrase "positive effects." TimidGuy 12:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Show me where

Hi,

show me where it says I cant arrange my own talk page as I want?

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Heya 195.82-

I am not aware of an official wikipedia policy that says you cant arrange your own talk page as you want.

My understanding is that you CAN arrange your talk page exactly how you want to.

My understanding is that I also can arrange your talk page how I want to.

I would never interfere in someone else's talk page unless: a) they removed a block or a warning with an article I am keeping an eye on b) they changed the text of something I said on their talk page.

I am aware that in practice, when auser removes a block, or a warning from their page, it usually gets reverted back.

I am sure there are guidelines about editing other people's talk pages... I just don't know them.

love, Sethie 21:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JP is Jesselp

Hi

best message on his own talk page.

JP is Jesselp [2]. Another BK follower. Grew up as a kid in the group, mother still in.

I note he also tidy ups or blanks his user page. I personally dont have a problem with that but if you do can you continue your vigilance in their direction too?

Thanks, 195.82.106.244 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

) Thanks for the heads up... yeah, I will keep an eye out. love, Sethie 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

hi s, me and 195.82.106.244 been having a conversation see his history.

follow...i;m not to sure about. but yes i was a follower so to speak, and i think 195.82.106.244 was to. other interests, Distractions...etc u know the story. i placed my position as to where i stand with the bkwsu, see bkwsu discussion history jesselp discussion i think its called. JP 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi JP. Thanks for sharing you. You know I am actually not going to go look at that disucssion, the more I focus on personalities and not edits, the less clear I get and the more emotioanlly involved I get in my edits! love, Sethie 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, again

Thanks, Sethie, for your kind comments on my talk page. No need to rewrite. It's nice working with you.TimidGuy 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

Sethie, thanks for your note on my talk page. Yes, the effects of TM practice vary. As you say for some people it does a lot of damage, and for some people it helps them. And there is a third group: by *far* the largest number of people who learn TM end up quitting it entirely! (Which is why it is quite irrelvant how many millions of people have learned TM.)

The real danger is to people who gradually get more and more involved in TM doctrine and practice. I call this "falling down the TM rabbit hole" and explain my take on the whole thing on my website[3]. In particular I discuss the gradation in the impact that TM has on people at the site[4]. And my own experiences with MMY and TM are described here[5] (sorry, it's a bit long).

Again, thanks for the note!

PS: I just happened to visit my talk page and saw your note. Is there any way of being notified when someone posts to my talk page, or do I just have to check it regularly? Thanks.

) Wowsa- I am very familiar with your site. I have visited it before. If personal websites were permitted in wikipweia, the TM article would be FULL of quotes from your site, with me as the editor who introduced them!

Thanks!  :) Tanaats 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually, if everything is functioning well at wikipedia, it will display an orange bar when you log on that tells you that you have a message. peace, Sethie 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again!

[edit] Live discussion on BKWSU talk page?

• I checked on Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page and there is no mention of a 2 week limit.
• There is the suggested 32 kb limit.

The page was already over 100k.

Do you really think any of that stuff counts as "discussion", never mind live discussion? For it to be discussion both parties have to listen and concensus agreed to.

I checked again and all you have done is stir things up really badly Sethie. It was a pointless exercise and the choice of what is live and what is not entirely arbitrary. Important issues will come back up again.

• Unless we keep things, tight focused and keep clear the endless bickering there can be no progress. I dont know if it was deliberate but you just fed the flames.

195.82.106.244 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do what you feel is right.

I have never seen ANYONE archive a page which inluded replies from that same day!

And if you are BKwatch, please don't operate under two accounts, pick one and stick with it? Sethie 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't like it

Hi, Sethie. I'm sorry to oppose you. It's not my nature. And I don't like it. Mostly I feel like we've worked well together and have done some good work on various articles. I really wish that instead of edit warring we could go through the dispute procedures. It would be so much more productive. You might win. It may be that your case is valid that the Skeptic's Dictionary is a reliable resource. We can only learn and improve Wikipedia by going through these procedures. I'm sorry I deleted what you inserted. I really don't think it should be there until we get this resolved.TimidGuy 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant!

I have challenged you numerous times and each time you switch your reason for why it is invalid. If you were able to stick with one, I would be willing to hear you out longer.... If you had more experience on wikipedia, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Things don't always get resolved on wikipedia. They often don't. Concencus does not mean "everyobody likes it."

Look Timidguy for me you are both a human being, with you own feelings, needs and hopes, and you are a preditable robot. Lumiere and Peterklutz, two former pro-TM editors, WP:SPA's (both left wikipedia right before being banned) behaved in many of the same ways you do. So I honor your individuality and I have been thorugh this all before.

I basically get to serial date you guys.

We're just getting warmed up Timidguy. There was so much more well-cited, critical information about TM. The mantras are Vedic Gods, the TM organization celebrates Hindu holidays, there are 20-30 studies shwoing negative results from TM, there is a meta-review of TM literature which challanges the overall validity of the studies. As for this "being your nature" or not.... to quote a wise man "You must do what you feel is right." Sethie 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad form and not reading the history

Sethie

whether it is bad form or not, it is not policy and in this case, you stepped way over the line.

• If you look at the history, the block was kindly removed by an admin Nishkid64 who stated "(→Blocked - Remove template. It should have been removed earlier.)" which whom I have had no contact whatsoever; see, [6]. I did not approach to have it removed and so I think your actions reflect more badly on yourself than me.

Sethie, I dont know what drives you to get involved but you are not really helping. If you want to confuse issues and wind things up, fine, go ahead. Do it with style and panache.

If you can read all those efforts by Riveros11 using other IP address, refering to himself as a third party, ignoring policy over guidelines and not think that something is up; then fine again, it is a reflection on yourself rather than mine and I know where you stand.

I will revert the user page. it makes it easier for me to pick up new messages when they arrive. It is as simple as that. 195.82.106.244 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try you little stinker-pooh! Here is the page after Nishkid64 was done with it. Please notice the blocked is still there. [ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:195.82.106.244&direction=next&oldid=91530769]

The next edit was by you, removing the block: [7]

Ughhhh yeah, Nishkid "removed the block." You advised me to read the history, I will advise you to do the same and notice that YOU removed the block, Nishkid removed the "blocked review template."

So I appologize for re-inserting the "block review" template, after someone who I will assume is an admin took it out.

Removing blocks is playing dirty. Removing live disucssions, whether you think they are productive is not, using a sockpuppet (that's just an allegation, I have no proof) is playing dirty. Lying to me on my own talk page "an admin removed my block" when in fact you did it, is playing dirty.

I have no interest in the article right now, all I have an interest is to try and create a playing field where no one is playing dirty, so disucssion can BEGIN.

Easier to recieve messages? That's.... a great justifcation that bears no validity. Nice try. Sethie 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK ... explain ... how does it keep changing?

I am sorry but I don't think so.

I say it has always been the same.

I only keep finding additional matieral about what has been going on behind my back via these other sockpuppets or RIversos11.

So if you are going to make allegation, please specify. Thank you. 195.82.106.244 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

~Well, first it was Nishkid removed the block- which was a lie. ~Next it was- it keeps me from getting my messages clearly. That's a lie- wikipedia doesn't work that way. ~now it is "removed block report as it was bogus based on reports made from sockpuppet IP"

Make up your mind already!Sethie 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, thank you very much for making your position very clear, are blind to what I am saying? but you are stepping beyond your limits I am afraid.

Lie is a very power negative word. You had better be able to sustain it.

a) I clear the talk page so that I can see new messages when they come in. I have always said and done this. I also remove bogus vandalism off newcomers pages where I think they are intimidation.

b) Nishkid did remove the block template from my page, it is in the history. So I did not get what you refered to or do not know the exact wiki terminiology yet. Experience teaches.

c) the block was bogus ... I responded along those line 2 hours after it was set.

d) I started qualifying the Riveros11 activities as bogus on the 18 Nov and two days later after the block on the 29th and since. It took me a while to discover who or where it had come to because he used an IP user, referring to himself as a third party.

I would say that was pretty consistent.

I only discovered it beause he also used to block maleabroad and fake a page up to look like maleabroad in order to attack me. I cant be bother going searching out all the references because I don't suppose you are at all interested, are you? 195.82.106.244 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A) It is not neccesary to clear the talk page to see new messages! I didn't clear mine, and yet I saw you had posted.

B) YOU removed the block, not Niskid, yet you said it was him.

C) The block happened. It was not bogus. It may have been based on false claims, but the block happened- you confirm this in D!

D) Removing a block that happened from your page, is for me, and lotsa other editors- snakey behavior. Keep it up- you will continue to loose credibility.Sethie 02:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What I should do is bite the bullet and pick a user name, what I intend to do is make a redirect. 195.82.106.244 08:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't make it sound so painful 244, ..you've already chosen 'brahmakumaris.info' and 'bkwatch', what's wrong with those two? Surely we don't need any more to add to the confusion? searchin man 08:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LOLSethie 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had a search, there does not seem to be a user called Bkwatch, bkwatch or BKwatch. Can you point it out to me? 195.82.106.244 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just take a peak at the histories of the various BK pages- they'll show up or they won't. Sethie 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all just a case of capitalisation. Try [8]. Regards Bksimonb 17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Hi, Sethie. I feel as if you've created a hostile atmosphere on the TM talk page. And I feel that your comment about "brainwashed Mantra Zealots" is a personal attack. Please observe the gudeline of Civility.TimidGuy 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I hear that you are feeling hostility...

I do feel regret about that phrase, it crossed a line for me as well and I wish I had not said it. I am more then willing to change it if you would like. Sethie 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Sethie. No need to change.

I won't be back until tomorrow afternoon. I do want to continue the discussion. I'm convinced we can work well together, as we have in the past.TimidGuy 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I just noticed that you responded to my post above. I feel that this was another personal attack: "you are a preditable robot."TimidGuy 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to get our fact straight, is that what I said, or did I say, "For me, you are a human being.... and a predictable robot?"

2ndly- I understand that you would feel hurt by those hurts, and see it is a personal attack.

3rdly- I think everyone is a machine, myself included. And I think that members of certain religious groups are even moreso programed and less autonomous and operating even less authentically then the rest of us robots. TM strikes me as one such group. Sethie 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TimidGuy 12:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on your spam edit

No, sorry, it wasn't intended to be sent your way or to be a personal attack. It was supposed to be humor and was basically a direct quote from one of the references that was given: [9]. I'm going to post this to both of our talk pages to make sure it is clear. If I could edit the history comment, I would. Again, sorry, it was intended as a humor. Wrs1864 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks- I couldn't quite make heads or tails of it! Now I can! Peace, Sethie 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia University

Hello Sethie. Thank you for your comment on the Columbia University talk page. Just out of curiosity, did you read the actual “citation” for the text in question? I don’t think adding a link to a random opinion piece on an unrelated subject should be used as “source”. Matan 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I didn't! I looked over the disucssion and then looked at the text.... and now based on your invite, looked more closely- and I don't see the opinion piece as "random." I see an opinion piece in the university newspaper, discussing the very topic. And the author even says, the jokes are "part of Columbia."

The other link is kinda weak- except that it does have a documented Barnard joke- and appears to be a transcript of some kind of actual event. Sethie 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

About the Otterbien site, I was assigned to correct the misinformation that is currently on the site and add more detail. Since my superior has seen how easily misinformation can be presented as legitimate, such as the year we were established, our endowment and several other pieces of information, she would like to pursue removing Otterbein from Wikipedia altogether. Can you tell us where we can get information on how to do so, please? In addition, we would like to know if you can tell us who posted our copywrighted logo on Wikipedia without the College's consent (which comes through the Office of Marketing and Communications,).

Hi Sethie. OK, if that's how you feel after reading that, then I won't argue with you. Have a nice day. Matan 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otterbein site

Thank you for being helpful and receptive and reasonable. I was treated with a lot of hostility by another editor. The problem is not that we don't like the listing, we think it could be a valuable resource, but after seeing the process, how easily our information can be changed/incorrect and the hostile remarks from the other editor, my boss questioned whether this site is something we want our name to be associated with. I will admit that I am new here and this was probably a job better suited for our web manager, but I *thought* I had formatted things correctly, and was very proud of myself, only to have the other editor tell me I had "terrible formatting among other problems" without telling me what those problems were and later telling me "the page is a mess" when to Otterbein, the page is a mess as it is now with all its errors. When I asked for help, he listed some places to go, but continued to call me a plagiarist. Now, I wrote this thing from scratch yesterday morning, threw in our news release sign off (which I wrote and has NOT been published anywhere, it is something we use to keep the reporters acquainted with us), and it's frustrating to be told to rewrite everything, in effect to literally paraphrase myself. Considering I have been the source of information for the College to every news reporter who has called about the college for seven years, I find it hard to understand why I am considered a plagiarist here, and why my office is not considered a reliable source. We are the proverbial "horse's mouth." And I want to add, I am really not some dragon lady, I swear. An intern was supposed to do this, the quarter ended and it fell on me, and it's been a very frustrating experience for me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jennyhill (talk • contribs) 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Archive your talk page

It's getting kind of big...Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page -- Scientizzle 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

You recently applied AfD tags to Nazareth victoria, Omluce & Lil squirrel, but you're not doing the deed correctly. First off, each of these articles is a candidate for speedy deletion, meeting the criteria at WP:CSD; I have tagged these three articles for speedy deletion. Secondly, applying the AfD tag is only the first step in nominating an article for deletion. Check out Template:AfD in 3 steps for the proper steps. -- Scientizzle 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wowasa thanks. Yeah I was wanting to nominate them for speedy delete.... I got them reversed.... thanks for covering for me. Sethie 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think you may have made a mistake or two in creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion to Christianity...the formatting seems screwed up. perhaps you should restart that page using the above template I linked to? -- Scientizzle 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the header problems yesterday...Also, I just re-added Delete in front of your vote for clarity on the AfD page. I think it helps everyone form a more coherent discussion if everything remains on the screen but comment and opinions that are changed/updated are simply crossed out. I hope you don't mind. -- Scientizzle 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

no that is great, I have seen it done before... I am learning a lot from out interactions. Sethie 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greatly appreciate your kind comments

Thanks much, Sethie, for your kind words on my Talk page. I do appreciate it. It's been a wild week.TimidGuy 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Way to go

You're a real winner. 69.165.187.96 12:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re.:Star Trek Voyager Elite Force

Don't play online, due to a ISP system failure. I'm on a Linksys set up/Wi-Fi and it has been a miserable failure most of the time. Want some "codes" - in case you got shot up/blown up one time too many ? Go to Google, type in "Star Trek Voyager Elite Force" and/or "Star Trek Voyager Elite Force Expansion" /cheat codes (I have both game CDs, came w/ the Star Trek Armada & Star Trek Armada II games). These should come in handy. Forgot sig. Yuck. Martial Law 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In the main game, you have to use your hand phaser to outline the invisible blocks in one part of the Harvester Fortress, or your character will have a nasty fall. On the "Space Gun", find on the floor, some kind of welding tool. When you get to the "Final Boss", which looks like some kind of cyborg octopus, hide behind a column, and cut loose with the grenade launcher, using the "alternate trigger" to shoot mines at the boss. This alternate trigger is the Alt key on your terminal's keyboard. Done correctly, you'll not get hit, and you'll take it out. Cheers. Martial Law 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The game I've been playing is the PC version, and cheat codes don't work on some of these things. Martial Law 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Alt button for the game is the alternate trigger for all of your weapons, just be careful w/ some of them, or you'll accidentally kill off your character via the concussion. Martial Law 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Sethie,

can I ask you to remove that comment from the arbitration discussion page and put it on my talk page where it belongs. Let's try and keep the arbitration focused. If you are a non-English speaker, here is a link to a dictionary definition of engage; [10] to help you.

You have engaged in reversion of the complete article - which you do not state. If you know nothing about the subject and have not read the references, how can you comment on veracity or suitability.

In my own personal opinion, you also ignore just how the current edit got where it is; Riveros11 using a separate IP user to place complaints and arrange vandalism blocks to exclude others, including myself, from contributing which he thought could not be traced back to him. This has now been proven by a checkuser request. This, and my knowledge of both the subject, the BKWSU and its coordinated IT team attempt to control and remove media not just on the Wiki but elsewhere on the internet leads me to conclude that the current edit is invalid.

AI must admit that any organization engaging in the deliberate curtailment of others' freedom of speech and media re-writes falls low in my esteem. 195.82.106.244 07:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Engage: I did not say it was incorrect usage, I said I have never heard it used that way before.

You have engaged in reversion of the complete article - which you do not state That looks like a quote, yet I can not find it stated anywhere... please clarify.

"If you know nothing about the subject and have not read the references, how can you comment on veracity or suitability."

huh? Not once have I commented on the veracity or suitability of a refference. So please help me understand what that comment has to do with me?

It is true you hold the personal opinion that I just ignore how the current edit got where it is. And it is true that I am not focused on the details of it. I did not want to bicker about when to start to "discuss all changes mode."

You invite me to disucss on your talk page... and given what I have observed happening on your talk page, I think I will pass. Thank you for asking. You are welcome to dicuss here though. Sethie 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC regarding cult

Hi, Sethie. We still haven't resolved our disagreement about whether I can add a rebuttal to Hassan's claim that TM tries to control thinking. I think we should do an RfC. I'll be around this morning and can go ahead and begin the process by posting a formal statement on the TM Talk page. Thanks.TimidGuy 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well.... my understanding of the dialogue on this is I posted two reasons why I don't think it flys and you haven't responded to either. You are welcome to do a RfC- and I don't understand that choice at this point- when I have offered comments and you have not responded to them. I love outside input on the TM page- and generally people do an RfC when they are stuck in dialogue- not before the dialogue has even occured. Sethie 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Will respond TM Talk page. It just hadn't seemed to me that we could resolve this. I had already given my rationale.TimidGuy 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Told ya so ...

Well, don't say I did not tell you so ... I really wished that you had kept things where they belong.

Now the arbitration discussion page is going to become an overspill for all the 'flood swilling out of the BKWSU discussion page.

Folks have got to keep the focus or else where will never progress ... Surely there must be something more interesting on the TV than this!?! ;-) 195.82.106.244 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that the disucssions "belonged" on the archive page?

Is it true the arbitration page is going to become overspill?

Is it true that your attempts to control people's focus would be helpful or accomplish that?Sethie 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to List of celebrity cocaine addicts

I think you really gave a good start to the cleanup of this article/list. I haven't had time to check yet, but are the sources you are keeping reliable per WP:RS? Perhaps we need to post some requirements for this list on the talk page specifically referencing WP:RS. Mattarata 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a great question. I don't consider myself a wiki expert, but I am trying to follow WP:RS.

To be honest my approach to the page is to just do a little work here and there- I am not super careful with the article, and I probably make some boo-boos. My approach is to just help out where I can. love, Sethie 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rats

Come on - about a minute. Give me a go yo're just a bit too quick. I am populating the article - its genuine and will have mnore than required. I'm not snaboxing this am. SatuSuro 00:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the concept has potential. "Rats in Popular Culture" isn't the way to go. Maybe "Rat Symbolism" or something like that or "Rats in Mythology." AND you will need to cite sources, otherwise it is considered in violation of WP:NOR. Good luck! Sethie 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I forgot to use sandbox first. I got involved in watching edits wars in Orangutan over this category - and went off with a wildlife park manager from here in australia to create the orangutan in pop culture (just look at teh category list) and realised after taking my younger two kids to see charlottes web at the movies that templeton has a large family of relatives out there not adequately referred to... however the quality of the arts in the category is a vast collection of poorly thought out lists - no thematic groupings like in organutan... cripes my typing is bad today - anyways sorry for being nuisance SatuSuro 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all... not a nuissance at all. Sethie 01:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I move the article to user space User:SatuSuro/Rats in popular culture and removed the speedy tag, lets see what the editor developes. Gnangarra 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi, Sethie. I thanked Tanaats and wanted to thank you too for being kind and gentle with Olive and helping her get started. In the Sthapatya Veda article she went ahead and made the changes you suggested.TimidGuy 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TM

I am rarely editing these days ... but I will have a look at the article and see whether I can help with anything. Thanks for all you have done to this article! -- mkrohn 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Heya Macro Krohn- congrats on breaking the wiki habit! I salute you.

Areas I am concenred about: calling the Bagavat Gita a "Vedic Text," and debate about whether statements from Denis Roark off of Orme-Johnson's website meet wp:RS.

Jeez as I type this out to you- I think- what a bunch of baloney all this is! Ahhh well. Peace, Sethie 18:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The first question is by far out of scope from my knowledge. Reading the German Wikipedia articles de:Veda (the English text is very similar Veda) on it my understanding is the following: there are four vedas (Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajurveda, Atharvaveda). Bhagavad Gita is in the English and German Wikipedia articles listed under "other scriptures" and Smriti, respectively. From my limited understanding I would conclude that the text is not a Vedic text in the narrow sense of "Vedic".

However, it seems to me that the term "vedic" sometimes is used in a broader sense, basically meaning something like "knowledge". In this sense it might be possible to classify the text as "vedic".

From what I read from a few more sources I would not put it under "vedic text", but as I said in the beginning I know so little about these things that no one should rely on it ;-)

Mmh, better I start thinking about your second question ...

best regards -- mkrohn 18:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

You have made multiple blatant personal attacks on The Game AFD. I suggest you go and clean them up ASAP. I trust that you will recognize them when you look back at them with a cooler head.

Note that I also responded when you bit a newcomer by labeling their number of edits; this is an independent issue.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rspeer, thank you for your feedback. It is really appreciated right now, as I radically change my style of participation on Wikipedia.

I left a message on the newcomers page letting them know why I added that quote, thank you for pointing out my bias- I was assuming that people with low # of edits had been solicited to the vote- that is just an assumotion.

I would like to hear from you which entries you consider personal attacks so I can look them over.Sethie 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Do I have to find them all? Here's one: I guess your scroll bar is broken. Right up the page: "I don't care whether it is "notable" or not, I care if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. And it does not. Please read the wiki guidelines instead of making up your own definitions. There's also another where you say Thanks for clarifying that you make up your own guidelines as you go along or something along those lines.

I'd prefer not to be so confrontational as to take you to task over each individual thing you posted. I just want you to use your common sense and remove or revise the things you've said that are adding fuel to a wildfire for no good reason. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will sit with it.Sethie 01:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried that you're just brushing this off. I want to draw your attention to the fact that some of the things you say are unnecessarily hostile and occasionally are outright personal attacks, and you're hurting your own position whenever you make them.

Since we last talked here, a user (TimidGuy) has contacted me about your participation on the Talk:Transcendental Meditation page, where you seem to have maintained the same abrasive tone that I objected to on the AfD. I'll be clear where I stand: I abhor pseudoscience and mystical nonsense in all its forms, so I'd appreciate an article on Transcendental Meditation that balances explaining what its practitioners believe and clarifying (with scientific sources) that it is, in fact, mystical nonsense. So I appreciate your overall goal.

But the way you participate on the talk page isn't helping your goal at all. When you set up an article as a battleground between you and the "other side", and direct statements like these at the others:

You know, speaking of "reliable sources" would you be willing to read the little box that appears at the top of that pages.

Please read and meditate on the following sentence.

I look forward to a very ummmmm easy? debate with you over it in a RfC.

No wait, you don't imply that, you ummmmm, SAY IT!

Thanks for quoting wiki guidelines and trying and failing to state a fact

for fuck's sake

Dude your Guru... ehhh leader thinks he is going to create Heaven on Earth!

...it only makes your point of view look unreasonable, and makes it look like the "other side" is right because they can make their point without hostility. Those statements aren't really personal attacks, I'd say, but they still are harmful.

Now, it's great if you're trying to change the way you participate in Wikipedia discussions, but those last three have happened since we last talked, which is why I'm concerned you're just brushing it off.

As a general suggestion that I realize is tough to follow: try not to fight against the side you disagree with. Think of the opposing viewpoint to yours as a challenging constraint: how do I write an article that meets Wikipedia's standards while being acceptable to people who hold the opposing viewpoint? It's a tough task, and you start out without the information you need to accomplish it, because you don't know what's acceptable to the other side. If you try to go it alone, you'll fail.

Who can help you succeed at the challenging task of finding the right compromise in the article? Someone who disagrees with you, that's who. You may not like them, but you need their help.

Along those lines, if instead of finding a compromise, you turn to rigid interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines to back you up, you just end up with a pointless wikilawyering fight - which, I'll observe from the sidelines of that talk page, is something that both you and TimidGuy are good at doing. I wish you'd both stop. It's tiring to read, and with wikilawyering, your disagreements just grow larger instead of heading toward compromise.

Those are my thoughts, and I hope they help you find a new, less abrasive Wikipedia style.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not deny I crossed the line with civility, with the fuck and the guru jab.

The truth is, that without some fire, I am just not cut out for this debating stuff. I take it all to seriously, get my feelings hurt, give up on my position and actually am LESS able to think straight.

The cost however is sometimes I go for the person instead of the position.

In terms of looking for comprimises, sounds like you are light years ahead of me on this, I can very easily hear what you are saying, and the thought of trying to implement it- wowsa.

And ya know I do feeling a bit defensive, there are, as today, three WP:SPA's here for the purpose of working on the TM article, so I am feeling a bit cornered.

I'm not going to lie to you and say, "Everything is all different," I'm a fighter, I've fought over that freaking page for over a year now! And the editing style you suggest seems totally over my head. Give me a few days, and I'lt say more. Sethie 05:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have a good vacation

Hi, Sethie. I'll likely attempt to remove Roark while you're gone, since I feel like I've made a good case. We can do the RfC when you first get back. And I'll attempt to put JAMA in a proper context, since it's unrelated to the validity of the research.

The consensus to take it out of the article in the first place was because the article was too long and this wasn't directly related to Transcendental Meditation.

For approximately two months I was the only one editing the article. As you can see from the history, I didn't make any major changes other than to clarify the logic, rebut points, and remove unsourced opinions, as well as copyediting. So I won't, while you're gone, attempt to, in your words, make "swooping changes."TimidGuy 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TM article

I've reviewed the article as you requested. It does need a lot of work. In particular, a lot of content should be removed in accordance with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I've also reviewed the debate. You are correct that TimidGuy is most verbose. I'd like to stay out of this debate, as I have a lot of other things that need doing. Good luck. Michaelbusch 17:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a peak. What specifically do you think needs to go? Sethie 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoophilia

See talk page comment. The section you picked up on does need the kind of attention you've suggested, I'd be glad to discuss and collaborate. But probably ought to result in a sub-article, where the views of society (and their support or lack of it) can be covered in non-list format in a bit more length. This section's too long as it is, and too terse, but even so deleting material that's not acessible elsewhere isn't ideal. A new sub-article is.

Anyhow, see Talk:Zoophilia and discuss there :) And happy new year! This would be one section that I'd love to see attended to :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Hi, Sethie. I'm sorry if you thought my tone was inappropriate when I suggested you were harping at ChemistryProf. But, frankly, I was a bit annoyed by YOUR tone. He'd said several times that he was intending to get that source and that he understood it was necessary to do so, and so I thought your response wasn't inappropriate:

"you need a citation which unequivocable demonstrates that TM research is the kind of research Kuhn was talking about. You need to find someone else, not ChemistryProf, who has made that link and whom we can cite. If there is such a person out there, I am in error, it was not you who made the connection."

Anyway, it was a minor point and maybe I shouldn't have raised it. You're not as abrasive as you were, and we do appreciate it. TimidGuy 22:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow TG, you're right, in my quest to explain why I thought it was OR, I did neglect those statements of his. Good find. Sethie 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonviolent Communication

I noticed that you contributed to the Nonviolent Communication article at some time. A friend just recommended this book to me because she felt I could use it for my attempts to mediate for Sri Lanka related articles. Since I'm just reading it, I need some help from people who have more experience with NVP. You could help Wikipedia, Sri Lanka, the nonviolence movement and me greatly by looking at some of my edits and giving me honest feedback on User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC. This may also be interesting for yourself and anyone else interested in NVC, because applying the techniques to Wikipedia-style communication has its own challenges. — Sebastian 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re RFC at GW and religion

Sethie, I will not argue Wiki rules with you. I would disagree that I am trying to bolster a particular POV... to me the point is to get comments from those who are more knowlagable about the subject ... if I have any agenda, it is to attract those who are familiar with Anglican theology/Dogma of the era to find out IF there is a dispute. If RFC is not the forum to do this, do you know where such a request should be made? Blueboar 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have a sense that you are after a POV, just after A POV. :)

After I left, I realized the same thing, that there is another venue for what you are after.... I have forgotten what it is, and I will get it to you asap. Sethie 22:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Even if a user is uncivil to you you must not be uncivil to them. Also, as for your userpage I thought it was my responsibility as a Wikipedian to remove them. If you took the names out from the comments, it would be fine. Computerjoe's talk 19:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can hear that... uncivility beggeting uncivility does not work.

And, as my advocate, I wish you had been willing/able to note and point out BOTH of our uncivility, not just mine! :( With you only noting mine, and reprimanding me for my user page, on my AMA page, I really didn't have a sense of having an advocate.

TG has been issueing all sorts of exagerations, distortions and innacuracies about me on HIS AMA page. I figured that is his perogative. However once he came to mine and started the same stuff... that doesn't work for me. I stamd by what I said to him, I challenged his accusations. Maybe I could have said it differently.

As for the names... I feel no need to have their names listed on my user page. I will take them out. Sethie 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA investigation

Hi Sethie, 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 TimidGuy, with Computerjoe volunteering as your 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 19:21, 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] Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. TimidGuy 18:23, 5 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.

[edit] Thanks much

Hi, Sethie. Thanks for your kind note on my Talk page, and for your kinder, gentler style these days. Regarding WP:AGF on the Maharishi Talk page, I just meant to remind us that the person was new and that we needed to take that into account. I offered it as an explanation of why the person might have posted a rationale in the Edit summary but not on the Talk page. TimidGuy 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks.

And for your expressing where you were coming from with AGF.

peace! Sethie 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawson's Email

Sethie, while this isn't something that can be used as a cite for the relaxation-ducied anxiety thing, I'd like to explain something to you in private that I really can't talk about in public. My email is LEnglish5@cox.net -Sparaig 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sethie very much appreciates your offer and will take you up on it. He has his hands full right now with some other disucssions AND he really appreciates your offer and will most definatley take you up on it. Sethie 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Hoody

Yes i will be a advocate on the AMA case. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TM

The medical effects of TM match those of biofeedback and placebo, but that is not the main area of dispute. Talk:Transcendental Meditation illustrates the problem: we have three or four editors who have severe conflicts of interest (one is given a total of >10000 USD in compensation each year, from the Maharishi group), are studiously ignorant of Wikipedia policy, insistent that TM is not pseudoscience, and intent on making the article more favorable than the subject deserves. I think your input would be quite valuable. Michaelbusch 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Michael.... I will reconsider. I may participate from a distance, pointing to refferences and old versions of the article. peace. Sethie 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Ramana Article Edits

As one who has done extensive studies on Sri Ramana among other teachers, I suggest you provide a more detailed justification for your totally rv-ing the information on Sri Ramana's self enquiry than WP:NOT. Exactly what is your specific issue and why can't you instead work with what I have provided as a framework? I have no objection to editing the quotes down some to key points, but it was you yourself who asked an editor for clarification:

Naresh said: I am in the process of cleaning up this article:

(1) Clearly distinguish Ramana school of teaching from the traditional Advaitic teaching

(2) Provide references to various sections

(3) Include a list of Ramana quotes

To which you replied:

As for #1, please provide sources that say he was different from traditional Advaitic teachings. As for #2 and #3- go for it! peace,

However, conclusions such as he WAS different, etc. you need a source for. Documenting ways that it APPEARS he is different is fine.I mean by all means if you find a source which says that are VERY different, cite it. I'd love to know that. Sethie

Ask and ye shall receive! As you are aware, "self enquiry" is Sri Ramana's signature teaching, and as you may not be aware from your questions, in the way he actually taught it, significantly different than traditional practices found in non-dualistic schools, and inconsistent with much of what is popularly believed he taught, which is often simplistically stated, and that assertion is reliably sourced. As the article states, even "Nan Yar?" required some editing by Sri Ramana to purge the misconceptions; and the book still reflected some of the tendencies of the one who Sri Ramana was talking to in the early 1900s, and in the translations to formalized english and how it is read today, some of the sense of what Ramana actually meant was obscured, according to more modern followers with access to a broader range of sources. Therefore, (1) clarifying how Sri Ramana actually thought about and recommended the practice for which he is best know is needed, and (2) addressing popular misconceptions about the practice, which warrants a significant portion of the article. David Godman's exceptional expertise on Sri Ramana and access to a large variety of archival materials not referenced before on the subject is widely recognized and acknowledged, therefore his definitive summary of these points which in the full text is linked to all the supporting quotes by Sri Ramana, should provide the framework for a summary of this signature practice. The other quote from Michael Langford demonstrates with Sri Ramana quotes how attention to the sense of Self and the Self being nothing but Pure Awareness, which is the essence of self enquiry as Sri Ramana described it, and could be considered an alternate way Ramana taught the practice. I agree this explanation of self enquiry does not have to be exhaustive and should refer to sources for more details, but the article should address in enough detail what self enquiry is and is not, and what practices are and are not, in Sri Ramana's view, and for that, it is useful to provide the key points of the sourced summary. It isn't just a simple as providing a few quotes here or there because otherwise key points are not considered, and any summary by editors would need to avoid OR. Since the article isn't that long, and the encyclopedia should be accurate, I suggest we can collaborate on this. --Dseer 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)