User talk:The7thdr: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:41, 7 August 2009

The Day After Roswell

Hi. Could you explain your reasoning here? Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV axe to grind

The first big hint that someone has a massive POV axe to grind is when they start trying to harass users who disagree with their edits by making highly questionable threats and/or AN/I reports. It is a big red flag for me. My suggestion is you focus on the talk page of the article rather than dropping threats on user talk pages. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a threat - I have tried to discuss with you and you have ignored me. Before reporting a third edit I am obliged to inform you of such. I like to think it is good manners.In response, my experience of POV is when an editor repeatedly makes reverts without discussion and on occasion without a comment in the edit box. I am surprised that this has happens with some one who claims to have started their own WIKI based on "rationality. The7thdr (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I am not sure of your experience in this area so want to alert you to 3RR. At 4RR you could and probably would be be blocked.(olive (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fable 2

First off, as far as WP:V is concerned web sites are considered as good enough for popular culture as long as they aren't "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.^[1]"

Second, the posts were not from the forum, but news. 1up is considered a reliable independant news site with peer overview, unless you have some information I don't have on this particular site.Jinnai (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to flag up, you're up to WP:3RR on Fable 2. --Ged UK (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, however several of those were clear vandalism, ie deleting entire page content.Jinnai (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to User:The7thdr. --Ged UK (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup on your reply.

Perhaps it might need a bit rephrasing, but I hardly see a game permenatly freezing as an intended game design. That was my point. I didn't comment on other stuff. If you look at their site, the number of articles they have like that numbers into 3 (at the time i posted that). All of those dealt with serious issues like corruptions, freezes, etc. Stuff that isn't "limited number of saves", but stuff that is a defiantly a bug.

About what is reliable, the general industry consensus is that any article 1up does considered legit, except for (p)review articles which they tend to favor big names even if the title is bad. Reports like those are different however and considered at the same level you'd consider an article from Wired.Jinnai (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that it does need to be worded carefully. However 1up reported the freezes and game-breaking bugs in a news article, they did not report anything about hacking. That shows first, that the hacking item should probably be treated with a grain of salt at this time and second, 1up clearly has some kind of peer review to not post every single thing they have. The news articles also didn't appear immediately after the incidents were first reported, but a couple days later.

The number of players being affected, probably should not be mentioned beyond "being reported" because a lot of users may be experiencing these troubles and not reporting it or almost everyone who is, is reporting it. We can't know which it is just by looking at articles or forum posts.Jinnai (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bad wording on my part. My point was 1up is considered a trusted site by the industry for reliable news, much like Wall Street Journal is for business news, with the once exception I mentioned before. That is considered good enough for WP:V for popular culture sources since academic material is rarely available.Jinnai (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to weigh in here

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Article:_Transcendental_Meditation.2C_Users_TimidGuy_and_Littleolive_oil Fladrif (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down

It's great to be eager, but I suggest that you slow down a bit and take more time in discussing your edits on the talk page and in seeking consensus. Editors who are followers won't feel they need to be as involved if editors who are critics aren't just dumping stuff into the article. Wikipedia is a long term project and we don't have to get it right immediaely. Will Beback talk 03:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religions are sensitive topics, so comments like this can lead to tension.[1] Please try to be more considerate of the beliefs of other people. Will Beback talk 20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people

If someone removes material citing WP:BLP, please do not restore it. I will if necessary suspend your editing rights to enforce the policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Availablity for Mediation on TM article

I will be applying for formal mediation shortly. Please let me know within the next two days if you will be available for mediation or not. This does not mean you accept the mediation, but just that I can include your name as party to the mediation. Thanks. (olive (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File copyright problem with File:LakeMeditationB.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:LakeMeditationB.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humor

Jokes that one person think are funny may not appear so funny to someone else. Particularly where spiritual beliefs are concerned. I advise avoiding humor, lest it be misinterpreted.[2] Will Beback talk 06:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on outing

Just a friendly note 7th: None of the users presently working on the TM pages indicate as far as I can see on their user pages that they are faculty at MUM. If you have other information that they are, you in disclosing that information are outing them. Outing on Wikipedia is serious breach and can result in very long blocks. I would mention also that any personal information about my employment not on my user page is in some case outdated, but if disclosed is also outing as some recent ArbCom cases indicate. I have had to protect certain kinds of information due to ridiculous anonymous phone calls ... a clear sign that those on Wikipedia are not necessarily nice people, and that someone has too much time on their hands. (olive (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

7th ... I recently watched an editor banned indefinitely precipitated when he mistakenly revealed information on an editor contained in an archive, and in a situation he thought to be appropriate. You have indeed accused those on the TM page of being MUM people. My note was not a threat, but a friendly warning. An admin coming onto the TM page may caution you about this. David Orme Johnson does not advise me, a lowly Wikipedia editor.. as I said.(olive (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Clarify:

Thanks for you comment on my Talk Page, 7th. I appreciate you taking the time to leave a message. What I was trying to do was to use your experience as a peer-reviewer to try to arbitrate this discussion on Otis. I though that if we could approach the study in a even rational way, we may be able to resolve this impasse. And you have not offended me in any way. I enjoy the cut-and-thrust of the debate. However, i do not like the "personal" attacks that are sometimes employed. I feel it is OK to savage the content of the comments, but not the authors. See you back in the fray on the TM discussion page! --BwB (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True to Your Word?

"Spiritual/religious/esoteric profiteering: I have a deep dislike and mistrust of any organization that in anyway "profits" or "charges" for spiritual or religious "secrets" or services of any kind and consider it possibly the most shameful of all religious activities". Perhaps you put this POV aside when editing? It does not influence you in any way when deciding what text, references, quotes, etc. should go in any article? --BwB (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small Point

Hey 7th, Recently you correctly informed BWB that he shouldn't use bold and caps as part of his text on the talk page. So I am also taking a moment to remind you as well. Recently you put the following in the summary box on one of your edits

"Do NOT, I repeat DO NOT remove reference materila form this article without discussion"

OK, nuff said. I look forward to having many caps-free discussions with you in the future, my friend. :-) Namaste, Kbob--Kbob (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)

Hi 7th, is this a user name of yours? I'm not sure. If yes, please see the message I posted on that user page about careless comments about other editors. And if that user account is unrelated to you I apologize in advance for my error. Cheers!--Kbob (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

The7thdr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

80.7.181.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)". The reason given for Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)'s block is: "Personal attacks or

Blocking administrator: Rlevse (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: No and I've blocked your main account for the remaining time left on your sock's blocks. Here's what I see: using a second account to engage in a dispute that your first account was already active in, using the second account to avoid being caught in the 3RR, confusing and skewing discussions by using both accounts to comment and finally using the second account to attack other editors. Not sure why you thought that behavior was at all appropriate, its not. — Shell ^babelfish 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

admitted socking of blocked account and being this account, therefore, recommend unblock be denied as The7thdr appears to have created a bad hand account (Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)). In fact, I recommend indef'd the sock and blocking this main account too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it counts as abusive socking under the presnet definition since he was upfront about it being an alternate account. (Though if he used on to avoid 3RR that's clearly unacceptable.) However I don't see what benefit the other account brings. I endorse the block, as this user has been edit warring. However I do not think there should be an indefinite block. Hopefully a few days off will help this editor relax and take a fresh approach to the dispute. Will Beback talk 02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that The7thdr never denied the connection was the only reason I didn't make the block any longer than the original block for personal attacks. The sock has been indef'd though - using a second account, even if you don't deny it when asked, to influence discussion, edit war and generally engage in the same dispute twice isn't really a legitimate use of a second account. Also, when one's second account is blocked, moving back to the first and evading the block on your IP doesn't really help the case. His comments on your talk page concern me since they seem to indicate a lack of respect for community norms (i.e. he can get around the block, if this doesn't go away he'll quit etc.) It also seems that he doesn't understand why calling people stupid is considered a personal attack and that really starts to worry me. Maybe The7thdr could chime in here? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the comments? Shell ^babelfish 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've now had to block another sock used to evade: User:Meyouandhim. The7thdr, you need to stop this immediately or you'll likely end up banned from Wikipedia over what should be just a short block. Please reconsider the way you are handling things and discuss the issues here. Shell ^babelfish 03:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one agrees to the "alt ego" argument, the account was still edit warring, threatening people, and personal attacks. Furthermore, the TM page is not the place to ID an "alt account", if one even buys that argument here. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the new sock tried to get me to unblock: User_talk:Rlevse#Banning_Lotus_Blossom_.28ak_the_7th.29 — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned from work and have to say i find this entire fiasco unbleivable. have any of you actually read the TM page? have you identified the number of editors "edit waring and reversing material on there, A number of questions need to be asked:

1 You claim that Lb is a "Sockpuppet" yet you are aware that such an "alt" is created to hide ones identity. As a quick survey of the page makes clear - LB was generated as a reply to gender specific assumptions while addressing me - something i see you are repeating Rleve. Perhaps you might want to read the article on "gender neutral witting?

2 You claim I made 3 reverts yet I only count one. indeed, once again it is the editor form the TM org - who doesn't even have the decency to loggin - who i think you will find made 3 reverts.

3 You claim edit wars yet it was clear form my comments that this was an attempt to make a "bold" edit to bring the article out of a stalemate is had been in for months. Can I point out the statement I made that I would not the only contest any revert but for people to give it a little time while things settled down (see Tm talkpage). Can i add that the only revert I made was to an unknown user who had been highly disruptive editing the article for 24 hours - see history.

4 The final fact seemed to be that I used MED-R guidelines to remove none complaint studies from the article while the editors "calmed down" and came to some sort of neutral npov edit.

I have put up with a lot of harassment for my religious views - or should that be my atheism - I hope this is not a continuation there of? The7thdr (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC) The7thdr (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know your gender or religious views, so that argument is total hogwash and shows your lack of AGF and tendency towards personal attacks. You got blocked, or rather your sock, by me for edit warring (I did not say 3RR), threats, and personal attacks. Thanks for proving my point. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should know my gender, if you do not it means that you have blocked me without even understanding the reason for Lbs existence - which was clearly stated repeatedly on the TM talk page and all editors were aware of it. :) And my religious views are on my profile page - clearly. They are there, because I have been spending to much time on the TM page, but I do want people to know what my - and we all have them - POV is so that any edits or contributions i make should be seen in that light.

No where above have I made a "personal" attack on you, I asked a question and it was a genuine one. Perhaps you are being slightly over sensitive. But then we all do have our moments - I know I do :).

On LBs block its says - among other things - Blocked for 3RR

You see rleve, this is my problem, it is clear that you do not know the full story and this is what has perhaps caused my confusion. I do admit however, as I explained to another editor on the TM after "I" putt back a "pro" Tm article we had earlier removed - that the page was so "heavy" with text, it is perhaps difficult to come into it and see clearly what is happening. Perhaps we have both misunderstood each others actions. It certainly seems I have misunderstood yours :). Namaste

edit: Actually, it says in the block above in this section that I was blocked for 3RR. I really am confused releve, I really am :-)

"disrubtive edits and Abuse, On the Tm page by the 7th and LB

A selection of my so called disruptive behavior and abuse:

                   Evening/morning/afternoon. i am sure you have read and discovered - unlike some here - that I am the 7thdrI . My personal views can be found on that talk page. I see you are new to the mediation process; you have my sympathies getting this one :) Namaste Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

               Edit, you may find the manner in which I address many of the other editors on the page "strange". The reason is they have stopped talking to me except in the third person. A curious development, but I thought if I returned the favor they might - as they say "in this neck of the woods" - "get the hint" :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

           thanks gentlemen.--Kbob (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

               Who on earth said I was a man? The7thdr (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

                   Who in heaven said you were a woman? --Kbob (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

                   Patriarchal assumptions and language is something that I encounter everyday in my profession Kbob - it would be nothing new here :-). Your assumption,seeming without question, that I was male might be one to "mediate on" :-) Please see Gender neutrality in English But you are forgiven, you are after all less the result of your genitalia then you are a dominate form of socialization. Anyway, let us stop lest you lead me down to a discussion of assumptions, language, professions and gender roles :-). Perhaps I shall change by avatars name here just for you :-) The7thdr (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

                           Hows that? Better? :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

                           So I guess you are telling me that you are a woman and resent being called a gentlemen. OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. :-)--Kbob (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC

________________________________________________________________________

   I suggest that this article would be best focused on the meditation technique, and organizational aspects should be moved to another article.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Uncreated (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

       I agree; although if it is to be included here I think in the Relgion section - as it does seem to support the idea that TM is a religion The7thdr (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

           We may not like it, but this is a celebrity-focused world. The involvement of celebrities in TM probably did more to promote it adoption than all of the scientific studies combined. Both deserve space in the article.   Will Beback  talk  18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

           This what i said before the "popularity section was added - but it was ignored. Now it is in place I think it makes interesting reading. Like it or I do have to sadly agree with WILL. Whether, "we" like it or not, celebrity is important. Indeed, it was the TM authors of this piece that argued this section be added. It is now a little late to complain about something which TM argued to include, when it appears that many of the celebrities (especially the dead ones) its website and promotional material is so keen to suggest endorsed the technique may have actually had a very different view

           keithbob: it is a "personal website" from an expert in his field - just as OJ is. (Actually, it's an authors page a much different thing but hey, I'll play along if you want). It was included, so the reader could actually read the full interview. However, if you wish to cite a published source for the same interview - you are obviously unaware of the author - you could cite the following just as easily: Conversations with Kurt Vonnegut: By Kurt Vonnegut, William Rodney Allen. Where the full text is also included. Alas, not all of it is available to GoogleBooks preview. The7thdr (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will and we should remove the recent additions where people are quoted with negative remarks. It just makes the whole popularity section unbalanced.--Uncreated (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

       Not sure what part of WILLs statements you are agreeing to uncreated. Until a balance is archived where it does seem that the people cited are endorsing the produced I do not see how you can remove the recent edits. KV was especially negative; the same as the Beatles - minus one member - about TM. Include all the "good" stuff in poularity must be balanced by what you might consider the "negative" stuff.Plus I like the Ozzy quote :) The7thdr (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 Sounds like a plan. Are you willing to lead this, Will? --BwB (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    No, I haven't done any research on TM and have too many other WP matters pending.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
            I think I can come up with a little something - in time :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________

       I can get a connection every now and then 7th ... its just spotty...This is a contentious article, and you're making a very large addition. Not only was there no agreement for the studies, there was no agreement for a new section. Since you've stated that you've looked at the archives you'll know there are concerns with some of these studies like the Otis study. Are you playing fair, 7th.;o)(olive (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

           I always play fair Olive. As to "issues" with the studies, as you are aware there are "issues" and criticisms with every TM study in this article - all recorded in the academic literature. If we were to exclude every study on that basis your research section would be none existent. It is not up to WIKI contributors to decide whether reliable resourced - and relevant - research should be included or not. If it exists it exists - whether the TM movement likes that or not. The criticisms of TM can be found amongst all meditative practices - this is one of the possible consequences of meditation. The only reason that you - as a representative of MUM and the TM "movement" and your organization are so upset by this is that you both deny that such adverse affects exist and that - it might be argued - TM is so poor at addressing them in meditors (but this would be expected if your movement claim they do not exist).

           Just because TM (Inc) dislikes the idea does not mean that WIKI readers should not be made aware of the issues. This is an encyclopedic entry after all and not a TM promotional brochure.. Now, you must excuse me but I seem to have a dose of flu. I hope a bunch of TMers are not doing what what you did to Tony Blair and bouncing bad thoughts at me with you super dupa bouncing occult powers :-) The7thdr (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

                   No, Olive, I'm not wrong. You completely misinterpret WP:RS and WP:NOR. And, threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue - yet again - doesn't make your argument any more convincing. Fladrif (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

                       Ahhhh... Fladrif. I believe 7th was holding his breath.(olive (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

                               "His"Italic text breath? It is rampant I see amongst you TM meditators :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

                   I don't see how an article on meditation qualifies as a 'medical article' and so using this Wiki guideline is quite out of context in my opinion.--Kbob (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

                       I assume then Kbob we shall be removing an reference to TM research in the article which suggests it might have medical applications? I can assure you that would be happy to remove all of the below immediately:

                           I think it would be safe to assume since that is what Kbob said that he offered an opinion, and neither he nor anyone else has agreement to move large sections of this article. Anyone who does without consensus can expect neutral admin intervention.(olive (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

                               Threats are the last actions of a desperate argument OLIVE - and also do not become you :-) The7thdr (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________

I think we agree it needs to be included and nodoubt along with other arguments about a TM research. Can anyone think of any sensible objections why not? Please, try and use WIKI policies and guidelines sensibly :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

   Edit: Will, or anyone with the know-how - I seem to have moved the references up a line again. Could someone please rectify? And if you could point to instructions on how to stop this happening i would be grateful The7thdr (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

       7th, you can't use the New Section tab on the discussion page or it will put the new section below the Ref Section. So what I do is click the Edit This Page tab and scrooooooollllll to the bottom and place the new section manually just before the Ref section. Unless someone much smarter than me knows a better way. And if they do I'm all ears as I get tired of scroooolling! --Kbob (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

           Ah, thank you Kbob! And nice to see you as always. The7thdr (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

               I see no further discussion of this so shall begin compiling the section. The7thdr (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________

           Good comments Woonpton. Appreciate you taking the time to examine the source and give an informed opinion.--Kbob (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

               Likewise Woonpton, likewise :)Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The analysis of flad and Woonpton is to comprehensive and well argued for there to be anything to add to it, except to say that I am in agreement. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your going to hate me Mr Flad, but does it justify: Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions... I shall look for more resources, hang on Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Over the past several days there have been many major edits made by a single editor. These acts seem to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent discussion and consensus. This kind of editing bypasses the involvement of all other editors who have been actively working on the article for many months. The single editor appears to be taking ownership of the article in violation of WP:OWN. The editor refuses to consider that his/her editing syle may be inappropriate. This is indicated by the editor's reverts of any deletions of his newly added material. The editor in question makes his/her reversals without any talk page discussion which is in violation of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. The editor has made many substantial edits over the past several days without consideration of other editors. Here is a list to illustrate my point. Today alone the editor in question has made the following edits:

   * Removed three paragraphs of sourced text from the Med Research section

       Removed per WP:MEDRS. The studies were 30 tears old!! while there is justification to hold historical research in the article, there is already a historical research section and the studies removed are not unique but the same are are already cited within the article in newer research not removeLotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

   * Removed a paragraph of sourced material from the Relationship to Religion section

The author keeps inserting a reference that is nothing to do with the section to support a certain POV. Both I and an amin have cited that the additon is VERY relavant - but advised the editors (KBOB) that she shoudl put it in the correct section.

   * Created a new section (TM-Sidhi) which is a repeat of material currently in the article and has been the topic of previous discussion.

Not new, the sentence is a copy and past of the sentence that was already in place and agreed. However, give it it's own subheading per the structure in place already of the history section. It was MOVED to it's own subheading not reapeated or added per the structure of the section.Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

   * Added a paragraph in the Relationship to Religion section

       Indeed, a piece of important discussion highly relevant to the section in question. Well sourced and highly relevant. If not please discuss why :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

   * Replaced references in the Cult section

What reverences would they be that where replaced? Please enlighten me.Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

   * Started a new section on the talk page called TM and TM technique to support his edits and attempts to change the article focus.

Starting a new section in the talk page for discussion is WRONG? Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

   * Made additions to the lede of the article to support his position in the above talk page section

Added a sentence clarifying what TM - as cited by a highly reliable source Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

   * Made additions to the lede without discussion, consensus or notice which changes the focus of the article.

See above. WIKI is not a democracy Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

   * Made a change to the section entitled Teaching Procedures to support his changes in the lede

Is Kbob repeating her point here. Perhaps she rushed this edit? But what changes to support what change in the lede? Once again I await an answer if she would be so good to respond :)Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This type of editing is neither responsible nor balanced. Therefore, I am openly stating that I will be reverting these irresponsible edits so that these proposed additions and deletions can be discussed on the talk page and consensus can be reached by all of the editors active on this article.--Kbob (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

       I agree, this editor has essentially highjacked the article and is transforming it to suit his POV. It is just as you said Kbob, a violation of Wiki policies. It is also disrespectful to the work of the many editors who have contributed to the article.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

           I would like to point out to LUKE that she is wrong about "highjacking"; a view that does not agree with the majority of the editors does not mean that that view is incorrect. Perhaps she would like to think upon this. :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

           All edits are are well sourced, balanced, NPOV and add to the article. All wiki policies cited by the KBOB are being used by pro TM advocates to forward their own agenda. This agenda is one of promotion to the product cited in the article. None of the wiki policies cited are relevant in this context (by the way might I point out the WIKi is NOT a democracy) The arguments made to the remove the segments are not to do with sourcing or relevance it is noted. It will always seem that any NPOV neutral editor is "biased" because the majority of editors on this article have strong POV in pro to TM. (By the way Kbob this is mot "Outing (yet another miss-use if wiki policies to threaten by the way? Perhaps you should spend a little more time getting a grasp of them rather than just citing them randomly? :-)) But an obvious fact to any neutral editor,

           Now that rational argument is being lost by kbob he is reverting to Wikilawyering (a poor excuse for a rational argument). Once again, pro TM editor are "threatening me" with bans, etc. I cite KBOB who again, makes accusation of "outing" on my talk page.:

                   Outing?

Just a reminder that we discuss the content not the contributors. This kind of careless branding "one of the obvious TM devotes" and generalization about fellow editors is not appropriate. Thanks.--Kbob (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

           (Once again, another) misuse of WIKI policies to further KBOBs agenda. Perhaps the editor in question might like to actual read the policies in dental (edit) or detail depending on which would work best :-)? :)

           The personal insults by TMer on this page together with the constant "threats of having me banned is somewhat boring.

           However, I will not allow myself to be drawn into the this , no more than I would be drawn into your "POLLs" :-)

Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

           Threats will not put me off however, but are more likely for me to spend more time here to deal with issues such as NPOV, POV FORking, Medcial article sourcing. etc, c. WIKIis not an advert to promote a particular product. Thanks :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

               Wikipedia is however a collaborative project...and depends on collaboration for balance and accuracy. I agree with Kbob and Luke. sourcing something is only one criterai for inclusion . There are multiple issues with the additions in the article.I do not have cosistemnt access to a connection for a few days but will comment more later.

________________________________________________________________________________

       EDIT: I wont "revert war" over this issue, but would ask editors here to give it a chance for a moment and see how it "feels". If there is no agreement to keep it eventually than so be it (it is a simple matter to add it back) but use all of that academic and meditative patience and see how it goes :)Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Now doesn't that look more encyclopedic, neater and clearer for the causual reader. Perhaps the research edit war can now continue leaving the rest undisturbed. Although the overview here will need clear work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   There is something to be said for WP:BOLD in a circumstance like this. Fladrif (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

       Indeed there is, indeed there is. Let us see how it progresses :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Things such as the Maharishi Effect and the orientation of buildings a wonderful and important addition - however try adding either and see what happens - in a completely neutral manner. You will NEVER counter fantacism. Please? You seem like a sensible editor, please bring some neutral editors here. In fact, I will now step back and observe things from the sidelines and see how this progresses. Namaste Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

======================================================================

       I would completely agree with you woonpton. This has been raised many times - the research section is ridiculously long, never mind the quality of ALL of the studies. This has been raised time and time again - even by Admins. Alas, it reflects the style of TM marketing and they REFUSE to allow it to be both shortened and critiqued. It just ends up with all of the ladies here threatening banning, and suing and all sorts of other nonsense. It concludes with an edit war - and much stamping of feet - until anyone remotely neutral goes away in disgust having had enough of it. As hard as it might be to imagine, considering the comments here by others directed in my direction, I am neutral. My only concern has been due to the blatant intellectually dishonesty in the editing of this article.

       The upshot of this is that one is forced to cite documents and critiques that one might not normally simply because the editors will only calm down slightly if they see "hundreds" of sources "supporting" or analyzing some critique. It is in many ways due to a misinterpretation (or miss-representation one might say if one was cruel - which i would not like to be) of policies about referencing and weight; but they won't listen. But what can one do? I used to think that it was because certain editors where paid by TM but having looked at recent additions I am starting to think that this is not the (only?) case here and that instead some editors world view is so distorted that they really believe that they are right:

       Take for example the recent edits to the cult the section, at least 3 editors thought the following edit was NPOV and acceptable - indeed two of them spent much time editing it to get it "just right":

   Cult issues While Transcendental Meditation is a mental technique, not requiring the practicinar (sic) to believe anything (sic), to change their existing beliefs, or become a member of any organization, it has been asserted that the organization teaching the TM technique exhibit charactistics (sic)of a cult. These include: Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, [98]; and, Michael A. Persinger's in his book, TM and Cult Mania, published in 1980.[99]. However, Clarke and Linzey, argue that for the ordinary membership of TM their lives and daily concerns are little - if at all - affected by it's cult nature. Instead they claim, as is the case for Scientology, it is only the core membership, who must give total dedication to the movement [100] According to David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management , cult followers are said to allegedly operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, while these studies would indicate the ability of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.[101]; Marc Galanter MD, Professor of Psychiatry at NYU in his book "Cults: Faith and healing Coercion (who prefers the term Charismatic Movement to Cult)[102]

       How on earth can one hold a neutral discussion about resources and edits in such an atmosphere? Woe is us. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

[1] "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

[1]