User talk:TimidGuy

Warnborough College

Hey, I was interested to see your recent edit to Warnborough College. You removed the word "prestigious" and, in your edit summary, wrote "more neutral wording". Do you honestly feel that calling Oxford University prestigious violates WP:POV? I would say it's a controversial statement. Surely the whole essence of Warnborough College's existence was to trade on Oxford's prestige? Shouldn't the article should make that clear? I'd be interested in your thoughts. Happy editing, Lincolnite (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It is indeed a value judgement but one that would, I hope you'll agree, be the consensus of the vast majority of readers and Wikipedia editors. What's more, it was the most fundamental element of Warnborough College's business model, it would seem. And therefore I'd argue it's worthy of inclusion. Don't you think? — Lincolnite (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Hi, you flagged me for vandalism, but when i made my post on Deepak Chopra's page, i was simply quoting Futurama professor Hubert Farnsworth, when he explains:

"As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason. Also eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war, who's the real animal?"

if i post a link to the video in which he says this online, will it be acceptable?

Altamira

Hi there... I have been making some research: Apparently the issue is due to the fact that the World Heritage Site was listed as "Altamira Cave" by UNESCO; but this name has been changed to "Cave of Altamira", in "Cave of Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain", which is the full name of the property after having been recently extended.

While English grammar would make both equivalent names possible, the original Spanish name is just "Cueva de Altamira" (with no possible alternate forms). This could be an explanation for this sudden adoption of an English name that is the most similar option... Ignis Fatuus (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cohabitation

Thank you for the fix on Neandertal. (I should have thought of it myself...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

H.N.

Hi. it is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neanderthal

r. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility and link

Hi TG. I am asking for comments on the Civ talk page, but for some reason the template is not linking back to the RFC page. I'm missing something obviously, but after several attempts still can't see what that is . Would you mind, if you have time, taking a look to see if you can see where the problem is. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

I did it last night. That seems time enough. I may have made a mistake somewhere, though. Well I guess I could just give it more time if it looks OK to you. Thanks for looking .(olive (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Dreadstar looked at it, and may have found the problem. Lets see if that works. Thanks TG.(olive (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Maharishi article

Hi TG. Thanks for your kind welcome. I read this talk page and see you've been suitably scorched in your time. I'll put some remarks on the Maharishi article talk page to see what people think. I hope I've got my account working now, but if not I'm Ber. Ber (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Re "we can figure out something that's compatible with the guidelines", thanks. I think I can see a framework for the new material; will put a subpage on the Maharishi subpage so drafts can go there. Ber (talk)

RFC Bates method article

I am contacting you quite randomly. For the following reason. The reason is the Bates method article, which in my opinion is edited by parties who are far from objective. Most logical associated party ophthalmology or a group focussed on just being skeptic. I am hoping for your comment on some current essential and interesting issues. Issues in which presenting objective strong arguments are completely neglected and ignored. If you have time and are willing to share you opinion and arguments, please do. My goal is to come to some kind of decision tool. By clearly stating if an argument is valid or not by the objective editor. My request is also to give a weight-factor for example between 1 and 10. For exmple1 for a valid argument but not very important and 10 for a very important argument. And zero for a fake-argument. Please feel free to comment and look at the current three RFC. Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 on the talkpage of the Bates method article. Seeyou (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Maharishi Vedic Medicine. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:204.82.28.211‎

Hi, I noticed that User:204.82.28.211 has vandalized a previous vandalism warning on his own talk page. I can't revert it due to conflicts; but in any case, what is the policy with this sort of "self-vandalism"? Thanks.—Tetracube (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maharishi Vedic Science

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Maharishi Vedic Science, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Conflict of Interest

You are in blatant violation of WP:COI with respect to the TM article. This is not the first time you have been warned about this. There are consequences to ignoring this policy. Do not remove the COI tag from the article

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently. In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

Fladrif (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello TimidGuy. You've been mentioned at WP:COIN#Article: Transcendental Meditation, Users TimidGuy and Littleolive oil. You are welcome to join that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TimidGuy, I don't see any response from you on the the noticeboard. I'd like to hear your side of this.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard you may have broken your arm. Ouch! I saw you'd made an edit today, so I'd assumed you were online, but I know there's a difference between a revert with a short summary and typing out a whole comment. If you can manage to type a little to let us know what your status is that'd help move things forward. Or if you're in contact with any other editors who can write on your behalf that'd also work. Get well soon!   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Yes, fractured in two places. I won't be participating in the discussion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your arm. Get well soon. Fladrif (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fladrif. Took a bad fall playing tennis. TimidGuy (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're in touch with Littleolive oil then perhaps he could speak on your behalf.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

TG

We do not perhaps always see "eye to eye" on the TM article - perhaps you are a little to close to the subject - however it will be a pity to see you leave WIKI completely and hope you reconsider. Also, I hope that the arm is healing well and quickly. Namaste The7thdr (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"“Meditation brings wisdom; lack of mediation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what hold you back, and choose the path that leads to wisdom.” Siddhattha Gotama

File:Http://www.lifedynamix.com/articles/files/LakeMeditationB.jpg

Cleaning Up References in Neanderthal Article

Hi, TimidGuy! I am a new user/editor who mainly works with California Indian group articles, but who has loved prehistory studies all my life. I just stumbled into the Neanderthal article, find it rather dis-heartening, and notice you have been one of the heroes trying to maintain neutrality with regard to the "inter-breeding" question. As a beginning contribution, I would like to tackle a rather neutral problem that would help people more quickly understand just who is being cited in the overall article. Currently it has both "Notes" and "References" but most of the references are spread through the extensive notes. I would be willing to repeat all of them down in the "References" section in standard alphabetical order by author. However, each article's reference history is supposed to be honored by new editors. What do you think? Should I expand the references by copying them from the notes? Or will I get clobbered for ignoring some ancient edit battle?Middle Fork (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say TimidGuy no longer edits Wikiepdia but is retired. He may check his email account every now and then, so you might email him, although I have no idea of he does or not. Sadly, other than that he isn't available to any of us anymore.(olive (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Welcome Back, but....

You have been directly told by multiple Admins at multiple COIN Project pages not to directly edit the TM-related pages. I doubt that you have simply forgotten those admonitions but have instead chosen to ignore them. I suggest that you follow those directions, and confine your activity on those articles to the Talk pages. Fladrif (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed. I believe Olive clearly explained to you why you are mistaken, and that Atama said that she was correct. Please see WP:HARASS. I will continue editing. I have always edited within the policies and guidelines, unlike you. No one has ever produced evidence of disruptive editing. TimidGuy (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

MUM/MVAH

We're back to discussing a topic which is very closely associate with MUM and its faculty. I'd like to know where you think the "COI" line exists in regard to MVAH. Would the VP of MAPI have a COI? Or an MVVT practitioner? If Orme-Johnson or Chopra started editing here would they have conflicts of interest? What about their friends and professional colleauges? This topic already has COI issues outside of Wikipedia, so it's a relevant matter. Now that I'm coming to understand the structure of the movement better I see that MVEDC controls the trademarks of MUM, MVAH, MAPI, TM, TM-Sidhi, etc., and that it has overlapping involvements so that one entity isn't distantly separate from another. In that respect it's not so different from many enterprises, even General Motors or the Catholic Church.   Will Beback  talk  11:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing

IIRC, back in the days before Youtube, a video clip was often played on TV, perhaps in the title sequence of a PBS nature series. It showed several small ants carrying a large leaf fragment. (Probably not Leaf cutter ants, who have leaf-carrying down to a science.) Anyway, the little ants are holding up the edges of the leaf, but they're all pulling in different directions. Despite this the they managed to make forward motion toward their goal. Each of those ants was doing his best to move the leaf in the right direction, and somehow they got there though they didn't agree exactly. That image comes to mind in good faith editing disputes. Another analogy is to the oars of a boat - you can't make forward motion by only rowing on one side. Balance is required to keep from going in circles.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lonnie Gamble and MUM alumni

Will and I have been going through the various alumni listed in the MUM article. It seems in most cases there is not a reliable source to verify their attendance at MUM, so I have temporarily removed them until good sources can be found. Interestingly, even John Gray's MUM attendance is not definitive as the sources vary between MIU and MERU. Go figure.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

TG, my comment was not limited to you, sorry if it gave that impression.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TG, you gave an extended discussion of your IP usage, much of which I assume applies to other editors of the TM articles from Fairfield since they are all using the same networks. Since LISCO provides internet access to MUM, it isn't always clear which IPs are specifically registered to MUM versus the non-fixed IPs given out to dial-up, DSL, or cable modems. In any case, I said that "Logged out edits show that some editors have used IPs registered directly to the Maharishi University of Management (MUM)." That is true. "Using the MUM network, and perhaps using MUM computers, while asserting that one has no conflict of interest regarding MUM strains credulity." Do you think that's true or not? "Is it possible to be a member of the 57-person faculty of MUM and be neutral about it, its research, or its cause?" I know that you believe it is possible, even though you've deleted well-soured negative material and added poorly sourced positive material. It's hard to believe that the nine editors from Fairfield, at least a few of whom are on the faculty of MUM, do not know each other in real life, and it's apparent that there is off-Wiki communication related to the project. If I'm wrong please say so.   Will Beback  talk  10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to fix any errors, and I'm sorry that I don't see the error here. My recollection is that many, though not all, of the Fairfield TM editors have denied having a conflict of interest and/or have claimed to be neutral. Do you consider yourself neutral? If so then the message I wrote seems to apply. I recall you saying that there were no neutral editors on the topic, but I assume you were excepting yourself. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the salutation to "@TimidGuy and others", because parts of it apply to other editors as well. But the whole message is in response to your posting about IP addresses and the general issues concerning all of the editors. I think some of this miscommunication may come from the unusual format of these RfARs, in which everybody only editors their own little sections. It's not really designed for a discussion.   Will Beback  talk  11:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Limits on MEDRS

Hi TimidGuy,

I was looking over the ArbCom case, and wanted to tell you that MEDRS doesn't really apply to every single sentence in a medicine-related article. It depends on the subject of the sentence.

For example, Wikipedia prefers high-quality legal sources, rather than scientific sources, whenever an article discusses legal issues, and we want WP:BLP-compliant sources whenever it discusses a living person. A reputable newspaper article is just fine for discussing 'who said what when' -- including statements like "This person said it's a bunch of nonsense". However, a newspaper may not be the best source for scientific facts and figures, such as "People doing TM were twice as likely to report this outcome".

Consequently, your complaint that other editors didn't always follow MEDRS' sourcing standards may be dismissed as unimportant: the specific statements in question may not have been subject to MEDRS. I hope this helps clarify the situation, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Whatamidoing for your feedback. I guess my feeling is that if someone holds the hypothesis that research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals is nonsense, that person should himself support the hypothesis and publish the evidence in a peer-reviwed journal. Parity of sources may be relevant here. TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the details. Certainly, as a general rule, you don't want to use primary sources to debunk secondary ones. However, I've seen editors argue successfully that whatever Oprah said on her television show is WP:DUE for inclusion. That's not only a primary source, but also a self-published one, and by a non-expert, in most cases. You also don't want to present a low-quality or outdated secondary source as being the unquestioned Truth™ if multiple high-quality primary sources directly criticize it.

Additionally, the lead is a complicated place, because you're trying to give a simplified summary that catches the overall flavor without explaining any of the complexities. If mainstream opinion is that TM is a bunch of unscientific nonsense with uncontrolled studies or overblown claims or faked data (or whatever), then the lead must communicate that. I'd say "crackpot", despite being insulting, accurately sums up the mainstream scientific view of the health effects of TM: the mainstream is, in fact, openly scornful of nearly all claims for health benefits from TM. While I don't think that the "crackpot" quotation is required (permitted, yes; required, no), the lead must effectively communicate the mainstream perspective.

I've got to run -- good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to the TM case

I've started a new section for you as you can't put your proposals in someone else's section. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. All new to me. I tried to figure it out and couldn't quite see how to do it. Really appreciate your help. TimidGuy (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

TM arbitration

Please reduce the size of your section on the evidence page. Sections are limited to 1000 words in total and this requirement is stated twice on the arbitration page. Many Thanks Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Trademarks

"...except where any other usage would be awkward." Changing every instance of "TM" to "the Transcendental Meditation technique" strikes me as awkward. I notice you didn't use any other variation and instead always used the officially approved version. The evidence I added accurately depicts the edits by you and Olive, both of which brought the TM article closer to the MUM style guide and further from common usage.   Will Beback  talk  16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. There's no question that Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures are open to interpretation- that's axiomatic. I'll double-check my comments, but I'm short on time until next week. Should I just strike out the whole thing until then?   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions

TG, there are two issues at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop#Allegations of sockpuppetry and review of parties to this case which concern you that you should be able to answer. One concerns why you didn't identify yourself while editing as 76.76, despite my repeated requests. The other concerns your alternate account which you say was blocked. I'm sure you can clarify these issues with your responses. Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the workshop proposals are just suggestions for the ArbCom. I'll check on that issues and see if I can improve my proposals.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

RFARB Workshop page

TimidGuy in case you missed this post from the Workshop talk page I am posting it here. I believe it indicates it is helpful for the Committee to have direct links on the Workshop page that lead to relevant evidence that has been presented on the Evidence Page. I hope this is useful.

• It would be very helpful if those proposing findings of fact would provide diffs and/or direct links to evidence supporting those findings of fact. Those diffs and/or evidence should appear on the evidence page in a broader context; if they aren't, then I would hope to see an explanation for that absence posted by the proposer of the finding of fact. Risker (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vedic meditation

The article Vedic meditation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as an unsourced orphan since 2006.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Excuse the boilerplate warning. The article seems to be unredeemable, and it must be among the oldest pages with those tags. Any objection to deleting it?   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs

Thanks for your note. I found the correct diff and fixed it.   Will Beback  talk  15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Gee, maybe I should asked you to prepare that evidence in the first place. ;)   Will Beback  talk  17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"My preference would be to remove the Maharishi Effect from Wikipedia altogether." Why would you wish that? The movement seems to put considerable effort into creating the ME, and promotes its benefits extensively.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you write: " Will vigorously argued for their removal." If I recall correctly, I argued vigorously to condense the lengthy material added by Luke, but not its outright removal. Are there diffs?   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

In reply to your question about duplicating material, if I recall correctly editors on both "sides" have done so and if you want to support your assertion of being a neutral editor it might be wise to avoid focusing only on the transgressions of some editors. That said, I can't think of a particular policy or guideline barring or discouraging duplication, though it seems like common sense. WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT don't address it directly though they do deal with related issues. If this is in regard to TM & TM-Sidhi, some duplication is probably inevitable since the topics overlap so much, but it should be kept to a minimum.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't kept track of this issue, and after all that work on the ArbCom case my enthusiasm for searching through archives is low. But if you find the guideline you can post it somewhere central where everyone will see it. As for the archive bot, I don't know of any special template to prevent archiving. Just keep posting an occasional message. If it still gets archived prematurely just move it back.   Will Beback  talk  11:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't move a discussion from a month ago, but if it's just been archived then there's no harm in moving it back.

I don't recall the conversation about Google Scholar. However I don't believe it's a complete reference, but Google keeps improving its products so previous views may no longer be accurate.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouting is almost never appropriate

...except when one intends to shout. Fladrif (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Those who..."

• But the problem is that those who oppose TM have done this very thing in dozens of instances in the article, yet for some reason that's allowed.

Do you think it's really wise for us to make general comments about editors on article talk pages with characterizations like this? Kbob just posted a request that editors comment on the content and not the contributors.[1] While we all necessarily discussed each other's behavior in the ArbCom case, that's a very different venue. We should leave our outside affiliations at the doorstep and try to regard ourselves and each other only as Wikipedia editors.   Will Beback  talk  17:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. The point that I was trying to make is that there are many similar instances of undue weight in the article that need to be addressed. TimidGuy (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Best to make that point without pointing at a purported faction, lest you open yourself to similar accusations. I'd dispute your basic point, but we can discuss that elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also say something to Fladrif. It seems like this was a bit over the top: "pushing the POV of your employer. If you think that pushing this now, just before ArbCom acts, is a good idea, you've got another think coming.'" TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

re: A question

Hello, TimidGuy. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 07:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Broken link

Rather than start a whole fresh thread on the article talk page, I'll just post this here. You added a link as a citation,[2] but it doesn't take me to any specifci source. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22science+of+creative+intelligence%22 Also, "however" is no longer listed at WP:WTA.[3]   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Thanks, Dmitri. I really appreciate the time and attention that the Arbitration Committee gave to this case. The editing environment in these articles is now much improved. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Balancing points

I'm guessing that you're busy elsewhere. If not, I just wanted to remind you that you hadn't responded to my question about your edit summary that said "add balancing point per NPOV". By my reading, NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view according to their prominence, but it does not mandate or even mention including "balancing points", nor does it require that all POV be "balanced" with equal amounts of the opposite POV. For example, the article on the geology of the Moon does not include balancing points from the "made of cheese" POV. Anyway, if you have an opportunity I'd be interested to hear from you on this. Otherwise, I hope not to hear about it again.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

This is just a friendly reminder that COI applies to you when you are working on the MUM article. Adding poorly sourced material which is favorable to the university is an example of a POV problem, which is why the WP:COI guideline suggests that people in your position refrains from editing the article directly. If I see further POV edits to the article I'll have to ask that you receive a formal warning, per the ArbCom's decision. There are millions of other articles on Wikipedia - it's not necessary for you to edit the MUM article.   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies - I had mis-remembered and thought you had added the journal material. I see you haven't edited the article in a long time, which is appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Will. No problem. But I don't think it's appropriate for you to suggest I shouldn't edit the MUM article. Please don't ever again try to constrain which articles I edit. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who would be constraining you. That would be the policies and guidelines, including those reiterated in the recently closed ArbCom case.[4] I'm just reminding you, perhaps unnecessarily as it turns out, that they are still in force. Of course we all have to follow NPOV, V, etc, whether or not we have a conflict of interest. It's just naturally harder when we do which is why there's a special guideline about it. Given the ArbCom case, MUM faculty and other highly involved members of the TM movement need to pay close attention to the policies, especially when there's an issue of adding or keeping positive material, or deleting or arguing against negative material. Accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative is inimical to good editing. Wikipedia article should be in-between. (Sorry Johnny Mercer). Do we agree on that?   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that says that I shouldn't edit any particular article. The Arbcom decision didn't say that I should refrain from editing any articles. It said just the opposite: "For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies." It says that I should take care to follow policy. In fact, I always have. I couldn't agree with you more that it's important to follow the policies and guidelines. I just wish that you would adhere to them more closely. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Contributing to the TM article

I am the anon that made recent contributions to the TM talk page. Thank you for your invitation to pursue my contribution directly in the TM article. However, I don't see what can be accomplished without opposing directly two or three editors of this article who have brought into it their own POV by misusing published materials. Direct fight (i.e. edition without consensus) is not my way and there would be no other way to remove all their personal POVs because there is no way to reason with them. Even if we were a majority of neutral editors, I would not like it. 67.230.155.152 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was imagining that you might draft something and then post it on the Talk page for discussion. Since the lead is obviously in violation of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, I think we can get consensus to change it. I really appreciate having a fresh pair of eyes looking at the article. You are focusing on some key shortcomings in terms of compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this last one from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmh649:

I think one could say that independent studies have NOT found specific physiological changes [due to TM] compared to relaxation.

This is from a physician! He must know how to read review papers. He simply did not read them carefully, did not trust in good faith that the authors were neutral because their conclusion was positive and perhaps he has some conflicting interests (fundings, personal business, etc.) and beliefs. The explanation is not so important. I can see by looking at the history of the article and its talk page that this is a recurring pattern. This recurring pattern is why I did not believe that we would get a consensus. BTW, I felt that your paragraph was good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.154.243 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel that my paragraph is good. Please participate in the discussion. We'll focus on Will's suggestions. I think we can get consensus. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The last one from Will Beback

Here he goes

I don't care where in the intro we mention the fees controversy, but we should include it because it's one of the more prominent controversies about the technique. Which we all know because we've discussed this already - remember?

He does not realize that he just admitted that his goal in mentioning the fee was to raise the controversy. He is so attach to his purpose of raising scepticism that he don't get that the role of an editor is only to present POV that are verifiable, noteworthy, etc., not to push our own agenda by mentioning an info that supports it indirectly in an insidious way. He would need to have a citation from a notable source where this controversy is presented, not only the price. Then we would have to agree on the prominence that we can give to this POV. I totally disagree that it deserves to appear in the first paragraph. I am not sure that it even deserves to be in the Intro at all. Of course, many people would like TM to be cheaper. This is not the criteria. The criteria is the prominence that this POV has outside wikipedia amongst the verifiable sources. I don't think that this obvious fact that many people would like TM to be cheaper has received much attention in the media. Moreover, when it appears, the pro-TM view, which is that today every thing that is useful is expensive, is also presented. If it is done right, perhaps a paragraph at the end of the Intro on this subject could be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.25 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right. I've made a similar point in the past -- that if it's a major controversy, it should be possible to find media reports that focus on this controversy. I've never seen more than a passing comment about the price. To be this prominent in the article, it should have been an ongoing, major controversy, but there's no evidence of that. TimidGuy (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you give up?

I would understand if you decided to give up. It is not easy when you have some editors that rely on a few reviews that were prepared for non typical publishers, such as gvmnt agencies and organizations that are strongly involved in influencing healthcare practices, to conclude that all the studies that have shown the benefits of TM are not reliable, including many meta-analyses that have been published in standard peer-reviewed journals. In other words, they believe that the normal scientific process is biased, but somehow these governmental agencies and special organisations are the only organizations that can bring light in this darkness. Oh well! They believe it so much that they argue that, in accordance to NPOV, we must not present anything else than these special reviews in the Introduction. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Edit. No, I didn't give up. Unlike editors who spend many hours a day in Wikipedia, I only have an hour or so every morning before 6:30 am. TimidGuy (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning the recent MUM-related sourcing issue. [5]   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation: TM lead

I will ask for formal mediation for Lead (research content): Transcedental Meditation in the next few days. Would you like to be included as an involved user. I’ll check back on your user page for an answer. Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. Does my ban extend to this? TimidGuy (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know TG... I would think not since its not a TM related article. (olive (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

I am not sure either, but I would think Olive is right. In any case, I see that the three of us are not so sure about the rules. I think I will contact User:JamesBWatson. He listed himself as someone willing to help here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance. He is a mathematician. Also, should we appeal to the last decision using Template:Arbitration_enforcement_appeal before we move ahead with a mediation? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning the recent edit warring. [6] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that under the discretionary sanctions rule I have imposed the sanctions I drafted earler at the AE noticeboard [7]. You are therefore topic-banned from all edits relating to TM topics for two months. In addition, you will be bound to a collective 1RR/24hrs revert limitation together with Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) and Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You take it so easy ... Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)