User talk:Esowteric

Hi and welcome. Please feel free to leave messages for me here. I will usually answer on this page, so please check back here. Thanks, EricT (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

McGilchrist

Re:McGilchrist Hi saw the new section and I belive things are improving. We'll have to wait for some more substantial criticism to appear. It's fringe science alright but it's interesting (same for Jaynes).91.92.179.172 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Esowteric+Talk 19:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro p.9: "it has been estimated that there are more connections within the human brain than there are particles in the known universe". Only if you think that it is silly, you will notice that it is also carefully worded; otherwise you are just awed. 91.92.179.172 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit that this struck me as strange. Serendipitously, click on the link to "Indra's net" in the comment about "Vermeer's Hat" under this section :) .... Esowteric+Talk 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vermeer's Hat

Aloha. Came by to say nice work on Vermeer's Hat: The Seventeenth Century and the Dawn of the Global World. It's too bad you didn't submit it for a WP:DYK. BTW, an editor recently added this to Indra's net, but didn't explain how the author uses the reference in the book. Could you verify it and flesh it out? It's ok if you can't. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind compliment, Viriditas. I still feel a bit of a "hack" when it comes to writing articles, but I'm slowly learning :) Esowteric+Talk 10:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Have found an article in The Spectator which explains Brook's use of the metaphor. Esowteric+Talk 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice article; and indeed, it would have made a fine DYK. --JN466 19:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

• Reference desk: Wikipedia Reference Desk quality analyzed

• News and notes: Usability, 15M articles, Vandalism research award, and more

• In the news: Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Severe Weather

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sai baba edit

The article is not neutral and also contains too much of trivial facts which will be only cherished by his fans. So few trivial facts has to be trimmed down. prefix:User Talk:Esowteric/Archives —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castroby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoning, Castroby. Esowteric+Talk 10:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering

Why has Messiah Foundation International been placed with the 'disputed' tag, all the information provided is not disputed, and if it is, it's disputed on unreasonable points, from TrueFighter, Faclonkhe and some other IPs, all of which seem like the same guy, and when I say that, he accuses me of sock-puppeting with Omi and some new Raystar guy. Please see through this problem, because this guys making things worse, and they don't even need to be that way. What he's doing is totally unjust. I mean he's editing the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi article, which I took time out to edit and give in factual information, actually complete information, which Falconkhe is not putting because of some biases. I however have no bias views regarding this issue thus have given in the time, all for the sake of clarity regarding the subject. Shahi and everything regarding him on the article 'RAGS' is very much restricted to one mans opinion (Falconkhe), which when I edited, I changed it to a more broader view in the public eye.

I suggest you look more into the matter, please.-- NY7 ☆ 12:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the idea of the tag was to try to be fair and to note the fact that there are ongoing content disputes. It's not meant to reflect upon a particular version or last editor. Esowteric+Talk 12:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What are the chances?

I didn't know who this guy was and I don't now really but I think that there is enough of both sides there for both sides to be able to accept it, the staunch disciples need to understand that it is not all about there visions and dreams, lets see how it goes, part of me wants to take it of my watch list now and part of me wants to see it stabilize, lets see, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks again and good luck. :) Esowteric+Talk 19:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

• News and notes: Financial statements, discussions, milestones

• In the news: Pentagon shooter used Wikipedia, soon iPhone OS will too

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Java

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

• What am I suppose to do in present situation? You look like in favor of Omi & Nasir that's why you involved me in Sockpuppet investigation instead of them as I mentioned and expressed my suspicion first for them.--Your Message (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please present it. I've been studying the way of the Sufi since 1986 and favour no editor here in particular: I can only go on the evidence presented to me and try to act in the best interests of Wikipedia. Please feel free to present evidence in your defence on the investigation talk page: this is an opportunity for you to do what's best. Esowteric+Talk 11:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look on their (Omi & Nasir) conversation/contribution, they are quite similar, aren't they?--Your Message (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way when the result is expected of Sockpuppet investigation?--Your Message (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea of the time frame, as I have not used sock puppet reporting before (ever). You need to go to the page I gave and add evidence in your defence. Feel free to mention your own concerns. Esowteric+Talk 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem with having an investigation opened about me-like I said, I've got nothing to hide. Anyway, in regards to the request for investigation on User:Falconkhe, do you think its worth mentioning that Stragewarior (talk) made similar comments, and copy-pasted a list of "demands" previously submitted by Falconkhe here? I don't know about it anymore, since Stagewarior was indefinitely blocked for issuing death threats against AlGohar anyway. Do sockpuppet investigations take into account stale cases like this? Thanks. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 12:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. If you have further evidence, please feel free to add it to the investigation page. Esowteric+Talk 12:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be informed that I have open case against Omirocksthisworld, RayStar77 & Nasiryounus.--Your Message (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I do believe that Truth will prevail, though I sometimes doubt it :) Esowteric+Talk 12:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Have post a link to this at RAGS talk page. Esowteric+Talk 12:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left my comments on the noticeboard :). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 12:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Confirmed unambiguos means they are sockpuppets in all likelyhood the same person and as soon as someone actions the report the accounts will be restriced from editing. Which is great because those three accounts have been responsible for a lot of disruption, good report. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks OffToRioRob. Joe Public could maybe do with a key/glossary to these things. Esowteric+Talk 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – SPI result "Confirmed, unambiguous". See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iamsaa.

Esowteric+Talk 10:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Attacks in the article Elaine Parent

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Elaine Parent. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have made only two minor edits. In the first, I erroneously made the section heading lowercase, then realized that "Parent" was a surname. See edit diff. I am certain that you have the wrong editor. Esowteric+Talk 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. Probably a glitch in the system. I declined the speedy, stubbed the thing and added a source. Dlohcierekim 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems a number of editors have received warnings. Esowteric+Talk 23:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No glitch. Dotish editor. I screwed up. I'm sorry. I meant to use the template that warns people who worked on a page that I'd put it up for speedy delete. Please find the nearest trout and slap me.David in DC (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we live and learn. I was on autopilot at the time and made the edit without actually reading the article :) Esowteric+Talk 12:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Why you are totally in favor of Nasiryounus, Omirocksthisworld & RayStar77?--Asikhi (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – SPI result "Confirmed. Again, unambiguous". See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iamsaa.

Esowteric+Talk 10:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eso

I have removed rags, but not because I am fed up with it, just so as not to get involved in the actual content issues, I did see the report though, that is the way to go, any accounts that come up following the same pattern either revert and 3RR report or sock or meat puppet report, tiresome but if it is enforced clearly the user will likely get bored and more on, any account the is clearly falcon should be socked as that would move him to indef. I was surprised the account was not a sock of falcon as well, they appear to have done a check for all accounts at that IP and no more are showing, I am a supporter of, official registered accounts only and only one account per user, which would clear up all of this type of disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see they are looking again at SPI, it does clearly look like Falcon, lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed well done, looks like the disruption is very limited, if and when they return use policy and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob'. Esowteric+Talk 16:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to go add evidence for the investigation, but it looks like you've already taken care of it. Well done...hopefully he gets the idea and decides to cooperate/move on to another article :) Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 19:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Esow'...I didn't know his sockpuppet list was that extensive...but, to be honest I'm not surprised. Lets hope we can edit in peace now. I have a feeling this guy isn't about to stop given the fact that his life's aim is to not spare the "lier Younus"- but I hope at the very least he will cooperate with other editors from now on. Again, good work ! Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RAGS

This is going to be nowhere you can't stop to us untill the article of MFI & Younus deleted and this article is purified from edits of Omi/Nasir. Its better for you to stop them as you are the one who favored them first on WP.--Newatwp (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not had time to check out changes to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, but I do share your concerns. The lull in hostilities should not be used to push the arguments of one side or the other.

Please read WP:ENEMY about writing fairly on behalf of one's opponents. And consider inclusion rather than edit warring by exclusion (ie by excluding or blackening the views of one's opponents).

The difference is that I can work with the likes of Omi because they are prepared to discuss matters in a civilized manner and do respond to calls for change. Esowteric+Talk 11:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So, it is clear now, you are favoring them?--Newatwp (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Nasiryounus I have concerns that there may be a conflict of interest and have left a notice about this on his talk page. Esowteric+Talk 12:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Omi, all I want them to not edit on this article, and this is your responsibility to save article from their edits. For your information Nasir/Omi are not different users.--Newatwp (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Their different behaviour suggests otherwise. If you have proof, then there is already an open Sockpuppet Investigation case against them. Provide your evidence there. Esowteric+Talk 12:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor revert all edits done by Omi & Nasir from this article and restrict them any further editing on this article and give me a week to get all reliable sources pertaining to my claimes about MFI & Younus?--Newatwp (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a regular editor here. You would need to put that in a request to an administrator. Perhaps ask Scientizzle or ask on the administrator's noticeboard. The case is still open and in need of evidence. Esowteric+Talk 12:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you take notice of lack of references/self-publish website at following articles Younus AlGohar, Messiah Foundation International.--Newatwp (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there's only one of me and I have things to do in real life :) I simply haven't had a chance. But you will notice that I haven't reverted your edits -- because I can also see that there is more than one side to this content dispute. Esowteric+Talk 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

But you have time to take action against other party.--Newatwp (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, ok. Nasiryounus has now been including in the AN/I thread. Please respond at this AN/I thread. Esowteric+Talk 13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why you are sparing Omi and why not have you taken back their edits on this article?--Newatwp (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)