User talk:Bigweeboy

This user may have left Wikipedia. Bigweeboy has not edited Wikipedia since August 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bigweeboy! I am Gman124 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Gman124^talk 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Hello! Please do not needlessly remove red links as you did here. Red links should only be removed when an article cannot be created at the title the link leads to, and even then, it's better to fix them instead of removing them altogether. Please see WP:REDLINK for additional information and feel free to drop me a note if you have questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:24, March 18, 2009 (UTC)

As User:Ezhiki has already written please don't remove redlinks without reasons as you did on Sir Edmund Bacon, 6th Baronet - this could be regarded as vandalism. Please also don't add commas into the date format "11 December 3000" (see Wikipedia:Dates#Dates).

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I have seen that you mainly add and remove wikilinks on articles, so you might find it interesting to read also Wikipedia:Linking#Overlinking_and_underlinking. If you have questions about Wikipedia or the editing generally, please feel free to drop me a note. Greetings

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

tedder (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

tedder (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpa

Reference are not needed on disambig pages. Thank you for the edits though World (talk • contributions) 02:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting

Not sure if you noticed but when you add a comment add also : which will indent the comment. The first person on a section doesn't add anything the next person adds one : the next two : and so up until seven: or so then it all starts over again.... makes for easy reading :o). Looks like this:

first person

second

third

fourth

fifth

and so on

and on

and....

starts over (olive (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sockpuppets

If you are also User:Mrsjolly and/or User:68.238.26.31, you might want to stick with just one indentity. I occasionally forget to log in myself, resulting in posting as an IP address, but using multiple identities is considered bad form.Fladrif (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today I deleted the Wiki username "Mrsjolly". My wife set this account up in June when she thought she wanted to get involved in Wiki as an editor. This never happened. When you look at her usage record, you will she made no edits on Wiki, made no comments on any Wiki discussion pages, and did not participate in any way in Wiki. The only time her account appeared on Wiki was as a error message when I did some edits on the Transcendental Meditation article as Bigweeboy while, mistakenly Mrsjolly was logged in on the computer we use at home. This was a simple mistake and the Mrsjolly account has not been used again until today when I submitted it for deletion to the Wiki Administrators. --BwB (talk) 11 August 2009

Just to clarify in case the above comment is not clear - On 11 June 2009 at 15:59 (UTC) we created a new Wiki account for my wife with the username Mrsjolly on our home computer. Twelve minutes later, at 16:11 (UTC) I made an edit on the TM-Sidhi article discussion page while logged in as Mrsjolly, and signed the edit as Bigweeboy. My wife had forgotten to sign out from Wiki before I began to edit and I did not realize that she had not logged out. So when I say above that "she made no edits on Wiki", this is in fact true since my wife never used the account again, and the edit associated with this account was made by me (Bigweeboy) while logged in as Mrsjolly by mistake. The Mrsjolly account was deleted yesterday, 11 August, 2009. --BwB (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The User:68.238.26.31 was created when I made some Wiki edits having forgotten to log in. I have requested this account to be deleted. --BwB (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein

To make a long story short I was in the process of making changes to an article that was an FAC and one of the project directors closed it and told me to come back in a few months. Theres a lot more too it than that but basically thats it.--Kumioko (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Clarify:

I just re-read some of my replies to you BB and in my usual manner i think they may have come across as "rude" this was not my intention and i just thought i would say - without trying to sound condescending - imo The7thdr (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)your questions are well thought out and reasoned. I have not answered your questions about whether I think Otis would have passed peer review for the simple fact that this would be my opinion. As difficult as it maybe to believe, I try to keep to what is cited by others. My personal opinion or background means nothing in WIKI- and this is how it should be :)The7thdr (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page:

One might be consider it anther personal attack from members of the TM faith - together with other members of your faith reminding me that I might somehow "be banned" I understand that faith is important to many people but still....

In answer to your question, no, but it might influence what articles I look at. However, I at least have the good manners to put forward my personal views so there are no mistake - unlike many others :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ME research

Cutting and pasting out of context quotes from DO-J's website defending this patent nonsense is not going to go a long way to convince me.Fladrif (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The journal's editors did think it was voodoo science, and if you read the whole thing, instead of the out-of-context quotes that DO-J cites, you'll see that they published the article despite their opinion that it was voodoo science.Fladrif (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editors and reviewers wondered too, and were worried about reader reaction, which is why they went to such extraordinary lengths to explain how it was that this nonsense, which they most definitely did not endorse managed to make it to print. 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion without reason

I went through the deletion policies and found nothing on it where you could have found reason to propose deletion of the Grand Island Senior High page. A short article is no a reason for deletion, especially when the article is fairly new. Please read over this [1] and please don't try to be a "wiki-hero" and hunt for things to edit in pages, especially in subjects and pages you don't know about. Tyb4 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comment, Tyb4. As editors we are all learning to improve. With respect to your comment "..and please don't try to be a "wiki-hero" and hunt for things to edit in pages, especially in subjects and pages you don't know about.", you have no right to say this to me and its a wrong thing to say to another editor. I would remind you of 2 Wiki policies: WP:BOLD - be bold; and, WP:AGF - Assume good faith --BwB (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from June 2009

When I have spare time, I am helping to edit the articles on this list. --BwB (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

Hi BwB, as per your comments and requests accounts cannot be technically deleted here, but you can simply not use it anymore and not worry much else. :-) -- Menti fisto 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the info, Ment. I will not use the account. --BwB (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Orme-Johnson

You wrote that you were "interested to see" that I'd written an article on David Orme-Johnson. Why so? Will Beback talk 00:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondered why you felt that DOJ warranted a Wiki page. --BwB (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His name kept coming up. Will Beback talk 15:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

In your most recent post on TM talk page I think there are two mistakes you may want to correct. 1) the second quote from Beacon that you removed was in the Principles section, not the Origin section. 2. The Beacon was discussed on the WP:RSN page not the WP:COIN page.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kbobb. I have noted this on the TM Talk Page. --BwB (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Back

Hello, Bigweeboy. You have new messages at Bigweeboy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BWB, Here's a handy tag. You can just place it on another editor's user talk page and it lets them know that you have responded to something that they have written on your User page. It automatically updates the Hello........... to the users name whose page you paste it on. You can paste it on my user talk page if you want to see how it works. This keeps the conversation all in one place instead of going back and forth. Its not required that you use it but I find it handy, so thought I'd share it with you. -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kbob. --BwB (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the tag on my page. It works!!-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transcendental Meditation Researcher

I renamed the category you created from "Category:Transcendental Meditation Researcher" to "Category:Transcendental Meditation researchers". "Researcher" isn't a proper noun, so it isn't capitalized, and category names are always plural. However if there is only one entry it probably doesn't belong. Are there other articles we can add? Will Beback talk 18:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small changes

B., I often see you making small improvemtns to article, such as adding or moving punctuation. That's great, thanks for doing it. However you may not be aware that everytime we save a change to a page, the Wiki software stores an entire new copy of the page. So for the overall project's benefit, it's best to avoid saving every little edit individually. More space can always be purchased and if there's a good reason for saving the individual edits then they won't break the server. But they do have a cost, and I though you might not have been aware of it. Will Beback talk 21:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will. I was not aware of it. I will change my editing habits accordingly. --BwB (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been changing date formats in articles from Month-Day-Year to Day-Month-Year. While either is an acceptable format, you're not supposed to be changing date formats except for (i) maintaining internal consistency in the article or (ii) a reason to change it based on "strong national ties to the topic'. See WP:MOSNUM#Full_date_formatting Your change [Diff Chopra Article], or example, is (i) inconsistent with the other date formats in the article and (ii) contrary to common usage in the US, where Chopra's entire professional career has been conducted.Fladrif (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Chopra instance, I though it read better with the revised format. Sorry if it is the wrong thing to do. Please revert as you like. --BwB (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the clean up on the School Programs section. I shouldn't have left those errors behind. I appreciate your eye for detail!-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "Thanks", Kbobb. --BwB (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Service Awards

This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Woo Hoo! I hereby bestow this award on BigWeeBoy! Actually this is one of several service awards that you may be eligble for and may (or may not) want to post on your user page. They come in different types and styles and you can check them out here. [2] Cheers! -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

The Provisional Irish Republican Army article along with numerous other article relating to The Troubles are currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

BigDunc 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

BigDunc 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another reply on my page. BigDunc 21:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TM in schools

Hi BWB, I have put the sentence that you deleted on TM/schools/legal back into the article. Although it mentions the TMM it is still appropriate for the TM technique article and adds balance to the previous sentence. Also that text is cited to an article in Newsweek which is entirely about TM in the schools and TMM is mentioned as the entity that implements TM into the schools. The TMM is also referenced in other parts of the TM article as well so I feel its appropriate. But if you disagree we can discuss more here or on the TM talk page, as you wish. Thanks for your help. -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Una Healy

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Una Healy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just Wondering

Hi, just wondering........ is that your unsigned comment on the Vedic City talk page? Also you wrote TTM. Did you mean TMM or Trans Med Movement? If its not your comment and thread, please disregard this message.Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Una Healy

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Una Healy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Féin

I think we've been at cross-purposes all along. You thought that the debate on the lead was ongoing, and couldn't understand why we didn't just get on with it, while I thought it was dealt with, and couldn't understand why you were still pursuing it. Hopefully it's settled for the moment at least. Thanks for your continuing interest. Scolaire (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, can I just remind you about indenting? I know it sounds like a trivial thing but people can get quite annoyed when you don't. Scolaire (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BwB, something strange has happened with this edit of yours, which appears not to be visible on the talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it fine. Maybe you need to need to clear your cache (I don't know what that means but I see that advice being given all the time).

But, BwB, you need to make up your mind. You say my wording is "great", you say Mooretwin's wording is "great", but the one is in opposition to the other! Either one of them is great and the other is poor, or they're both just okay. If you can't tell the difference maybe you just need to stop posting to that particular section. Scolaire (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange, how come I can see all the other posts? How do I clear the cache - do you know? Mooretwin (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is all about. --BwB (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BwB, don't be bullied by Scolaire on this article. Keep asking questions. Ask why no-one can provide sources to contradict the 1970 formation and ask why editors are wilfully ignoring the sources that clearly state that the party was formed in 1970? Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New users

Anything's possible. By comparison, I see that user:Littleolive oil's first contribution was to Maharishi Sthapatya Veda and her fourth was to Talk:Transcendental Meditation,[3] while user:TimidGuy's eighth edit was to that talk page.[4] I'm not aware of any user who has been banned as a result of editing the topic, so it's not a problem if it's a returning user with a new name. He does not appear to be similar to any active editors, so I don't see a sock puppet issue either. Let's just assume good faith and see how that works. Will Beback talk 21:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Will takes a legitimate request concerning a possible sock and reframes it to imply some concern about other editors. When I first came on Wikipedia I was so obviously not a sock or a knowledgeable editor and I clearly stated very early on my interests and where I was from. Its editors who attack on and off Wikipedia who have led me to remove all of that information in efforts to protect myself and who I am. If you have some concerns address me about them. 7th Dr was banned for using multiple socks on these articles, for returning to the article as a sock even as he was being banned. Thanks BWB. You had a legitimate concern. (olive (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I just meant that there's nothing inherently suspicious about editing Talk:Transcendental Meditation early in one's editing career. I hadn't realized or remembered that User:The7thdr had been banned, but now that I look they don't appear similar. Will Beback talk 00:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Will is correct that there is nothing inherently wrong with editing a particular topic early on in ones Wiki history but why he chose to use TG and Olive as examples is pretty strange. If an editor has a concern that a banned user has returned under a new user name that is a valid concern and should be given due consideration.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True believers

That's not a term I'd have used. But Kala is not the first editor to express the same concern. In fact, there have been five separate threads at WP:COIN over the years about the involvement of members of the TM movement in editing the articles. Unfortunately, all of those complaints have been ignored. Since you've asked me about it, I'd advise you or an any editor with a significant commitment to the TMM (or to anti-TMM groups) to avoid editing those topics directly. Wikipedia does not exist to provide a platform for advocacy. Will Beback talk 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Teacher, teacher - Johnny insulted me! He said I'm dirty."

"Well, Peter, you are covered in mud."

Are you complaining about the content of the statement or just about the way it was expressed? Will Beback talk 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

Wikipedia's short history is littered with cases where editors with conflicts of interest brought disrepute to themselves and their causes. For example, in 2007 a programmer created a tool, Wikiscanner, which revealed that many articles on organizations had been edited by IPs belonging to those organizations, and the editing had been decidedly non-neutral. Editing to Diebold, the ATM and electronic voting company, came in for special attention, which made the national news. In 2008, The Register revealed that the article on a spiritual leader from India, Prem Rawat, was controlled by an employee of the guru, user:Jossi. "Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe': When is a cult not a cult?" Jossi refused to acknowledge any problem with his editing, went through two ArbCom cases, and was eventually banned from the site. It doesn't take a programmer to see that you have edited using an IP that geolocates to Fairfield, Iowa, the small town that is home to the U.S. headquarters of the Transcendental Meditation movement and to most of the researchers we cite in related articles.[5] If you care about your own reputation and the reputation of the movement, then it might be best for you and other editors based in Fairfield to avoid editing TM-related articles. To quote the Wikipedia guideline: " Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia." That would be a bad thing for the TM-movement, and I don't think anyone wants that outcome. Will Beback talk 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will a major concern I have is that you have an unfounded idea that editors editing here are comparable to those who were for example on Scientology. You assume you can make such parallels, indeed that you have the right to do so, and in doing so you, Fladrif and Kala seem to have little compunction about revealing information that could be personal. I realize it is beyond comprehension here that editors who may or may not meditate and who may or may not support the TM movement could possibly edit in ways that are as neutral as any other editor on Wikipedia. Editors attacked day in and day out on these pages attempt to edit neutrally and while obviously attempting to retain emotional control. I suggest you look at the edits, and the attempts of editors to be neutral ... at the numerous times when the so called TM editors do not even agree, at the sock puppets that appear out of thin air in discussions, at the attacks and mischaracterizations and ask who is non neutral here, who has an agenda. I was close to leaving Wikipedia because of you, and Fladrif, and Kala , and the attacks, rudeness, mischaracterizations but probably won't now because I can only assume that is what you want. I suggest you take this to Arbitration and let the arbs look at the edits. Do you really think some of the behaviours here can stand their scrutiny. (olive (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I addressed these comments to Bigweeboy, but obviously they apply to any editors in Fairfield or connected to TM organizations who are active on the TM-related articles. Hidden COIs are particularly problematic, and if editing a topic involves personal details that shouldn't be made public then that's another good reason to avoid it. These conflicts have a way of coming out regardless of efforts to conceal them and, as I wrote above, the consequences have sometimes been unhappy for the concerned parties. I'm not suggesting that anyone leave Wikipedia altogether - this is just about TM-related articles. As for my own editing, I hope I've never been rude or made a personal attack on another editor. If I have then I regret it and would like it to be brought to my attention on my talk page. I certainly don't want to start an Arbitration request, and I'm making this request here as another effort to avoid that outcome. Will Beback talk 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By personal information I mean that information that belongs to a person in real life and is no one's business here. Is there a rule that says out yourself or go edit somewhere else. No there isn't. On the contrary.

"Any editors living in Fairfield"? Do you have any idea of what you've just said?. And you are suggesting that if editors leave these articles you will not go to arbitration, implying that despite efforts in the past to implicate editors in COI on the COIN which came to nothing you are now warning editors to leave the articles or you'll go to arbitration. On the contrary, perhaps you should go to arbitration. Your position is revealing, and your lack of understanding of the editors here, and under which understanding you are making these suggestions, misguided in the extreme.(olive (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know what personal information might be involved, and I don't really care to know if it isn't relevant. But if the information concerns connections to the topics we're writing about then the best thing would be for editors to either disclose their connections or refrain from editing the articles about topics with which they have close real-life connections. That's based on experience and observations of many other topics and editors.

Other dispute resolution methods don't seem to have resolved the problem of non-neutral editing and tag-teaming on the TM-related articles. If you can suggest another method short of Arbitration then that'd be welcome. If there's something that I don't understand about these editors that I should, please help me understand. If it's something better expressed in private my email is active. Will Beback talk 01:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So lets see, allegations being freely tossed around are .... tag teaming, meat puppetry, COI, non neutral editing, and, editors should not live in Fairfield, Iowa, have some connection to TM, have some connection the topics of the articles, whatever that means. However, it is neutral apparently to attack other editors, to accuse of COI despite CION results which did not find fault, to threaten arbitration unless editors leave an article. Apparently its fine to accuse without evidence, too. Its OK to suggest one knows where editors live, what their jobs are with out evidence. Meanwhile on the Fringe Notice Board possibly the ugliest place I've seen on Wikipedia, a disgrace to what collaboration and civility means, and a disgrace to Wikipedia, an environment where human beings can be at their worst spewing out allegations of things they seem to know little about, name calling, well comments given there assuming you can dig them out from the other muck that has been tossed around and before the discussion has even ended, well those comments supersede discussion here, and are considered law. Will there are some big problems on these articles, but I suspect the finger is pointing in the wrong place. You've done lot of work on these articles and you generally are very civil.....I would suggest that if editors behaved as if everyone on the article has something to give, to add, and no matter what, believed it was in their best interest and the interest of the articles to treat other editors with respect and civility there would be no problems at all....

I don't have information about how other editors here edit .... if you want information ask them and if they don't answer they are with in their rights as you know.

And as I said above, take this to arbitration.(olive (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Believe it or not, I came here to discuss this with Bigweeboy. Will Beback talk 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well...I only expected to make a short comment and to leave you to it.(olive (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Will. I am glad to see that you are concerned that the TM related articles are being edited in a neutral, NPOV, fair, non-biased way, adhering to all the best Wiki principles and guidelines. This is what one would expect from a respectable Wiki administrator. So I am grateful to you for that.

I can say wholeheartedly that my intentions are to abide by these Wiki ideals with every edit I make to any article on Wiki. I consider myself still a relative novice in Wiki and may make mistakes and am happy to be corrected when I do by more experienced and seasoned editors and administrators. This is the beauty of Wiki - the ability to participate as a novice and to learn from others in the process.

Once can see from my participation in Wiki that I have edited in a neutral manner. If I have doubts about edits, I bring them to the talk pages of the article first to get input from others (Beatles section of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as an example) and have participated on the talk pages, both to give my opinion and to learn how and when certain Wiki policies could/should be applied. I have been a strong advocate for keeping the focus of attention on the content (message) of the discussion, and away from the editor (messenger), and have expressed this directly on several occasions. This is not always how other editors behave, unfortunately.

Recently, when I brought some comments by another editor to your attention on your talk page, rather that address the specific situation, you instead began to advise me on COIN editing and implying some wrongdoing on my behalf. (You comments have been posted on your talk page) My request was a direct and genuine request for you, as an administrator, to address the growing tendency of Kala, a fairly new editor, to indulge in name calling and using an aggressive and dismissive tone in his approach to other editors. No doubt Kala has raised valid concerns that need to be addresses, but, in my opinion, the tone of the discussion has deteriorated since his arrival. You were not at all sympathetic to my request to do something about the name-calling, and in fact you trivialized by request to you and insulted me by implying I was acting like a child. This was a disappoint to me as I felt you were a mature and experienced administrator, from whom I had learned a great deal over the past 8-10 months.

Again, I reiterate that I have acted honorably in my editing of all Wiki articles and have done my best to adhere to Wiki policies for NPOV, neutrality, etc. Where I have made mistakes I have address the errors quickly and responsibly. I have engaged in the talk pages and sought advice from editors and administrators, and participated on the talk pages in a civil and respectful way. My editing record bares this out, I believe. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. One of the reasons why editing with a conflict of interest is a problem is that when we're too close to a subject it's hard for us to realize when we are not being neutral. I think you're acting in good faith, but good faith alone isn't sufficient. As I wrote above, there is a history of people editing topics with which they were closely who have ended up bringing disrepute to the very cause they were promoting. The COI guidelines exist as much to protect the involved editors as the project. Will Beback talk 05:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will for your concerns. I am a neutral editor and am not a Sockpuppet. I make my edits when logged in as BigweeBoy. On one occasion earlier in my Wiki career, June 2009, my wife was considering editing on Wiki and we set up an account for her. By mistake I made edits while logged in as her, but signed it as BwB. This was discussed on my personal talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bigweeboy#Sockpuppets and the 2nd account removed from Wiki. --BwB (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, there is some indication that you and other current editors may be sharing the same computer or connection. If you could explain that on the SPI page then it'd help clear up this matter. Will Beback talk 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I just wanted to let you know that many external links are completely acceptable. Any social network link like Twitter or MySpace or Facebook, which are official pages of the subject are permissable, as are offical pages at publisher's, universities and the like. Also permitted are interviews from newspapers and magazines. I learned this the hard way and wanted to let you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Wild. I was just concerned with the number of EL's, not the quality. --BwB (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much about the number of external links. You'll find some articles that have scores of them. As long as they meet the criteria in one way or another, they are fine. For an example, take a look at Abraham Lincoln#External links or other high profile persons. Sometimes they are well-organized, sometimes not. Also none of my business but out of stark curiosity, did you get the sock issues all sorted out that are noted above? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a concern to you?

If one editor provides a link to another editor concerning an article both are editing? Fladrif (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Thanks for the response. --BwB (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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—

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

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)[reply]

Bwb, I'm sure you want your evidence to be accurate. I did not take the case to the ArbCom. It was MuZemike who did so, with no suggestion from me. Will Beback talk 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence

Hello Bigweeboy. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1300 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bigweeboy/tm-evidence

Hi. As your evidence was still over the limit, I've refactored it and placed it at the above link. I've gone ahead and linked to it from your evidence. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TM case

See my response to you commment here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Workshop — Rlevse • Talk • 14:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit to Simon Wormull

Hello. Just to let you know that I undid this edit to Simon Wormull. The reference was placed after the player's name because that's what it verifies. Placing it at the end of the sentence would imply that it verified the whole of that sentence, which it doesn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TM teachers

I assume when you add asterisks to List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners to denote TM teachers that there is some source for that designation. It'd help the article if you can add those sources to make it more complete. Will Beback talk 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Those who became TM teachers or held other positions within the movement are marked with an asterisk [*]." The asterisk can denote several things. I am working on refs. --BwB (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've left a note on the article talk page with a suggestion. Will Beback talk 17:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of huts on Transcendental Meditation page have nothing to do with Maharishi or The Beatles

I have been in the TM movement since 1973, and anyone who has meditated for a while knows the photo is a joke. No one ever stayed in such "chamber" to my knowledge. By contrast, the TM movement facilities are plush. Maharishi always emphasized meditating in a group, such as the Golden Domes, which hold thousands. Look at any of the photos of the buildings at Maharishi University of Management. Who would seriously think that The Beatles, millionaires by the time they were meditating in Rishikesh, would stay in such a place? Someone put this photo on Wikipedia to try to discredit it. If they have evidence, let's see it. Until then, the photo makes no sense, contradicts abundant evidence, and should stay off the page. I hope this is the appropriate page to respond to you on this. Why not put a photo that is relevent, such as from http://www.mum.edu/panorama.html ? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cicorp. Have you ever visited Maharishi's ashram in Rishikesh? --BwB (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have toured Maharishi's former ashram at Rishikesh and saw no such huts. The photo is someone's idea of a joke. It is ridiculous to think that the Beatles, or their girl friends especially, would ever go in to such a bug ridden hut.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/transcendental%20meditation%20rishikesh/todaysgold/BeatlesMaharishi-1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement

You previously edited Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Transcendental Meditation movement. A WikiProject for the topic has since been created, at WP:TMMOVEMENT. Feel free to list yourself as a participant there. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison and NLP

The cite is from a critic of TM, no less. http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Transcendental%20Meditation.html

Harrison played a concert to support the Natural Law Party in England.

He says in the Beatles Auto-Biography (from which their film was made), "Maharishi only did good for us." I can get you the exact quote from the book, which I own and which is in one of my boxes if you decide you need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference from a CNN article on George's support of the NLP, doing his first concert in years for them, and for no pay.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/30/harrison.meeting/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners

See Talk:List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners#Non-notable. I don't want to keep repeating myself. Will Beback talk 10:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion Enterprises Link Deletion

I add some external links and you removed them for violations. Please explain how they were in violation so I can avoid that in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkvt (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Dear Big, External links are not permitted as inline citations so I moved the Maharishi Channel link to the External Links section of the MMY article. Just wanted to let you know.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know. I have seen them used in many other (non-TM) Wiki articles. So they are "wrong" in every case and should be removed? --BwB (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL Says "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." I hope that helps.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KB. --BwB (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPs and ISPs

Unless you're in charge of Primus/Fairfield, with access to its logs, I don't see how you can know who is connecting through it. I can call up an ISP in Calgary and appear to be connecting from there. If folks want to hide that kind of information by substituting other information it isn't that hard. Ultimately, we need to judge editors by what they do, not by what they say or appear to be. Will Beback talk 13:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% Will. --BwB (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Sirius Lee appeal

[6] Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion on Arbitration pages

Hi BWB. Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement are generally structured very differently from other pages on the encyclopedia. While it may be common to partake in threaded discussion at these pages, such a thing is generally frowned upon on pages like WP:AE or WP:A/R/A. Could I ask that you please refrain from doing so in the future? Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFARB

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation 2 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—

Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your edits on Sheila Hancock. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor input requested

In trying to get a sense of where editors stand on the TM article split merge situation It would help to have a definitve statement from each editor. This is not as I see it, to determine a change but to determine whether we can agree on this important issue and if we can't to get outside help. Input here: [7](olive (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The issue is how the term "Transcendental Meditation" is used

The statement that there is one TM technique is beside the point. We must acknowledge that we care about how "Transcendental Meditation" is used. They let us use "Transcendental Meditation Technique". However, if we ask that "Transcendental Meditation" is redirected to "Transcendental Meditation Technique", it is because we care a lot about how "Transcendental Meditation" is used. So, I am completely at a lost when I see that we don't focus on the fundamental question: how "Transcendental Meditation" should be used. I am not going to use a Wikipedia account anymore. So, I am not going to edit main or talk pages. In fact, this comment to you is perhaps my last contribution to Wikipedia. 67.230.154.189 (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Will Beback's last comment, my understanding, if I understand Olive, is that, after a long discussion before I came in, it was decided that the Transcendental Meditation article will be the technique article. So, all the work thereafter was done with this interpretation. He wants to change it, but its only argument is a Google count and few encyclopedia entries, including the EB. As pointed out by KeithBob, we have more encyclopedia entries against it and, more importantly, they have not shown one source that uses "Transcendental Meditation" alone (i.e. as a name) to mean a movement. There might be a few, but they didn't show one. Even the EB, in the body of the entry, uses "Transcendental Meditation" as a name only to mean the technique. The EB defines it in a strange way, but thereafter it uses it in the normal way as the technique. The Google count is not meaningful because it captures all the use of "Transcendental Meditation" as an adjective: "Transcendental Meditation teacher", etc. Also, it's not the title of the article about the technique that is the important issue, but where the term "Transcendental Meditation" is redirected. So, we are OK to entitle the article "Transcendental Meditation Technique", as long as the term "Transcendental Meditation" is redirected to it. 67.230.154.111 (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding Transcendental meditation

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc regarding a renaming of Transcendental Meditation movement to Transcendental Meditation

See Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Rfc:_Should_the_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_article_be_renamed Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I will be requesting formal mediation. Please let me know if you wish to be included or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thank you.(olive (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Earl Landaff

Hi. You added some material to this article in April 2009. I have now moved this into the article on Francis Mathew, 2nd Earl Landaff. The material is unsourced and I wonder if you have some references for it. If so, it would be good if you could add them to the article. Regards, Tryde (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Holmes links

Hi Bigweeboy. Can I ask, what is the purpose of removing links to the 800 metres and 1500 metres articles from the Kelly Holmes article? These are pretty important things to linki to in an athlete's article, if not among the most desirable links in the whole text. SFB 00:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps they are. Please add them back as you like. It just seemed there was an excessive amount of linking in the article. --BwB (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for backing me up. It is my hope that in time the article on Adams can become more balanced and less like a piece of SF public relations. Aberdeen01 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Mirren

The issue of whether or not she's an actor or actress has been under discussion for as long as I've been watching the article, and that has to be over a year now. You make a fair point about this, as I think do I. I tend to be of the opinion that whoever added the note regarding this issue is an experienced Wikipedian and has probably done their homework on this, but there's no harm in doing a bit more research if you want to do that. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in the comments posted here with regard to the term actor, which is not gender specific as the user was suggesting in his edit. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact

Please see Tanya Roberts and study the reason I reverted you. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fact tags

Really?[8][9] 12:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Then add the ref. --BwB (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can delete the whole unsourced section. Fine by me. Sure, let's delete anything that's unsourced. Will Beback talk 12:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this editor is having a problem here. Without going into details, I'd like to call upon him to emulate the standard behavior of Wikipedia editors in this regard. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Thank you for agreeing to participate in mediation in the past. We don't seem to be able to resolve this "bone of contention" on our own. I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Links

Why are you doing stuff like this (or this)? It looks like you're undoing the work of others who put in those links (thats the whole point of an article, isnt it? To link everything else up), e.g. removing the link to United Kingdom - nothing wrong in having that link there. Or is that the manual of style? --Demetrioscz (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have time to edit or undo. I was just curious as to what someone's motivation would be to remove links like that.

Linking to very broad topics - like United Kingdom or India in articles about rock bands or individuals does not add to the article, IMO.

Having extra links can add to an article but never subtract from it. What you did there is subtracting from an article. The question is: for example if we had that link to India on Sri Chinmoy's bio, is that a good thing? Why not. Its not a bad thing. It can only be a good thing. Links are there for a reason to connect Wikipdia articles together. That was the country he was from, and thats nothing insignificant and likewise for that link to the United Kingdom. Whatever you want to do is up to you. If you think you did the right thing, you should have a good reason for it. If you change your editing and dont that anymore, you should think about what you were doing before and why. Like I said I dont have any time to get into this more than what I did here. Tell you what, there's so much more important work to be done on this site than to remove links like that, but what you do with your time is your own preference. --Demetrioscz (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry

There may be a spouse parameter, but it isn't showing up in the infobox. Corvus cornix_talk 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Learning something new with Wiki every day. --BwB (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer Sutherland

Hi,you can find Sutherland's new work here (The Confession & Touch).He has played 10 episodes of The Confession! --Navidff (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda

May i know why you removed the link of CCIM to the article ? It was a link of central council of Indian medicine i guess which governs the registration of the BAMS practitioners in India. -Abhijeet Safai 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Was not in the correct Wiki format. Please add it again if you like but format it correctly. --BwB (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen it. i only saw from the history that you removed it. I am new on wiki and its really nice when somebody responds when you ask a question. :) -Abhijeet Safai 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Meditation

The revert on Meditation does not give a correct reason. The link is not to an advertisement but to a researched article on the use of Meditation for addiction treatment. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond or I will reinstate the link as per reason given above. Thanks for your efforts! --Jeffmcneill (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you like. --BweeB (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson, Anderson addition

Hi BwB. I've added the neccessary citation from the BBC website to the programme's article. All should be OK now. Nice. Quentin X (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup underway at Kayastha; your help would be appreciated

Greetings, I'm doing a major chop on Kayastha, removing caste puffery, adding proper citations about the controversy of their varna designation, and generally trying to hack out unref, OR, and other unsuitable materials. If you have any chance at all to chip in, it'd be greatly appreciated. Likewise, even watchlisting and keeping an eye out for upset editors removing my (full footnoted) notations about their possible Shudra status (an unpopular topic) would be appreciated. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC) OK I'll keep an eye on the article. --BweeB (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moss

I've reverted your revert. You'll see she is bold in the template on her page because she is a member of the template. Apologies if you made your revert (09:38) before you saw her addition to it (made at 09:37)... Regards, Ericoides (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geri Halliwell

Hi and thanks for sorting out the 4th Studio album nonsense. I did revert it, then accidentally unaccepted the edit, which it wouldn't let me re-accept again. I did try to do it over again, but without success it would seem. Glad that PC stuff's all over with now. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bono's Daughter Jordan Studies at Columbia

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ali-hewson-edun-regained-1984391.html

Please revert to my version with the citation added, thank you. Zoroastrama (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to do it yourself. --BweeB (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Here, at the bottom of that section, you replied to DeadSend saying go ahead and propose any article changes, but I haven't seen any activity from you in the section directly underneath; the post below yours was actually made first, too. DeadSend is feeling a bit frustrated at the lack of feedback. Can you perhaps pop in and give the suggestions a review? I've taken a quick look and think it's good, but I'm not a subject matter expert on this actress (I didn't realize she played Galadriel, in fact, but do remember her playing Queen Elizabeth). CycloneGU (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groton School

Thank you for fixing my edit. It can be a little frustrating sometimes trying to get it right! Epeabody 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeabody (talk • contribs)

Deletion of referenced material

In this edit you deleted material, incorrectly saying it was unreferenced.[10] Yet the text clearly included a reference. Further, the lyric in question is found in numerous sources, as could be seen by a quick Google search. Summary deletion of questionable material is sometimes appropriate when it concerns living people, but that is not an issue in this instance. There are several inline templates you can use if you feel that a citation is unclear. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Verifiability and sources. Will Beback talk 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This material was not referenced. --BweeB (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Will Beback talk 08:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page number etc? --BweeB (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we can have two separate discussions if that's what you prefer.

A lack of page numbers is not a reason to delete sourced material. If you are unable to find the material you can always ask for the page numbers with a handy template.^{[page needed]} I notice that you did not delete other material that was actually unsourced, or had even been already tagged as unsourced. Only the material which was negative toward MMY was deleted. The last ArbCom case dealt specifically with that problem. "Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material: Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." Please be more careful in the future. Will Beback talk 08:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention it at the time but I was concerned about this recent edit of yours which also deleted material for insufficient cause.[11] Will Beback talk 11:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the edit comment for the reasoning. Thanks. --BweeB (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to delete material just because it was in the 'wrong' section. That's a spurious and "peremptory" cause for deletion. There's no question about the veracity of the material. Your edit was disruptive to the project. Please be more careful in the future. Will Beback talk 11:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If something is in the wrong section then move it to the right section. Librarians don't throw away books just because they've been miss-shelved. Will Beback talk 08:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have since created a new section titled "Leadership" where I have put this material with the name of the Head of School. --BweeB (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. That's what you could have done in the first place. And I've never failed to assume good faith on your part. Will Beback talk 19:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Thanks for the feedback. --BweeB (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) I hope this is the last time I'll have to give feedback like this. But I like your edits on starlets' articles. Keep up the good work. Will Beback talk 12:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, please see my further thoughts on you comments above re the MSAE lede edit on your talk page [12]. --BweeB (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will: No referenced material was deleted

Will.This is beyond mischaracterization and is dishonest. An admin knows a link to a Wikipedia article is not a reference. No referenced material was deleted. Are there references for this content, probably, but this material in this article was unreferenced. If you feel the content improves the article, add a reference, yourself. I'm becoming increasingly concerned about your behaviour.(olive (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No, that's incorrect. "According to Mark Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions..." is a perfectly adequate reference to a published and respected book.[13] Will Beback talk 06:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content was attributed not sourced, and Wikipedia links are not reliable sources. However the content could also have been left in place with a citation tag, or a source added. As I said, if you feel the content helps the article please readd it and source it or alternately it could be discussed and added with agreement.(olive (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I did not delete material that was sourced and thus have not violated any issues raised by ArbCom per you quoted text - "Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material: Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources..." The material was linked to another Wiki article and there were no references provided, either in or at the end of the text added. --BweeB (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the sentence had an in-line attribution, but there was no reference or citation to verify that attribution or the text itself. Also, because of the crude language in the text, I suspected vandalism and so deleted the text that dd not have a reference. I noted this in my edit summary. I do not object to the text being in the article if the text is not vandalism and if it can be reliably sourced. --BweeB (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did have a reference, a very clear and obvious one. It just didn't have a footnote. Anyway, please be more careful in the future. Will Beback talk 19:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Christensen

Her publicly, and multiply documented and sourced statements are decidedly "encyclopedic." I reverted your deletion as inadequately explained and undiscussed, and out of step with long-standing agreement by many, many other editors. That you (perhaps) canvassed someone for help does nothing to support your position. I won't be silent in the face of deletion of sourced content. Discuss in Talk:Helena Christensen. --Lexein (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What was particularly wrong with the lead I wrote for her article? I tried to summarize everything up into three paragraphs, and used Reese Witherspoon as a basic guideline, which is a WP:FA. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was too detailed and too long. A more summarized version would be better I think. But if you like what you have done and want to keep it, I will not revert again. --BweeB (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can cut it down a little and then re-add it? HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Weisz-link to David Farr (theatre director)

Farr started to direct theatre at University and won the Guardian Student Drama Award at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 1991 with Slight Possession starring Rachel WeiszNeutral current (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough of a connection to warrant a "See Also" link, IMHO. --BweeB (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Domes

Thanks for your note, but let's keep discussion of articles on the article talk pages. If you like, you could copy your message there. In the meantime, please don't engage in peremptory deletion of sourced material. Will Beback talk 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see that this is the third notice regarding peremptory deletions in as many months. Will Beback talk 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the ArbCom if you're not sure. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material. I interpret it to mean undiscussed deletions of material with reliable sources that has been added in good faith. Will Beback talk 01:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if they are trivia and not pertinent to the subject? --BweeB (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then make that case on the talk page and get consensus. Will Beback talk 01:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't "Be Bold"!? Just like Doc James? --BweeB (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles and BLPS are covered by special rules. The article in question is neither. Will Beback talk 01:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The TM Articles are not "medical". --BweeB (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The research article, which contains medical claims such as lowered blood pressure, is what I'm referring to. Will Beback talk 02:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those medical claims are also repeated in other articles, per summary. If you have a problem with his editing I suggest you take it up with him. Will Beback talk 00:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained the difference. Will Beback talk 00:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you have concerns about an editor then the best place to raise them is on his or her talk page. As I've said before, medical research issues don't interest me much. Will Beback talk 00:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about it, then WT:MEDRS would be the place to ask. Will Beback talk 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about it, then WT:MEDRS would be the place to ask. Will Beback talk 21:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi there! I just wanted to inform you that I have reverted your edit (here) in which you removed a reference stating that "Twitter is not a reliable source". The reference you removed was a link to Gloria Estefan's verified Twitter account. As long as "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", social networking sources may be used. Cheers, MJ94 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bigweeboy. You have new messages at MJ94's talk page.
Message added 20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MJ94 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel McAdams deletion

I notice you have deleted large parts of the Rachel McAdams page, including sourced reviews of her films and sourced quotes about her thoughts on the films. This seems to me to just be a matter of personal taste for you, rather than any wikipedia policy (correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, if you notice sentences without a citation, please just add a "citation needed" template, as this is more productive. The article recently had a peer review, and it was recommended that quotes and tidbits be added throughout the article to bring it to Featured Article standard. At the moment, it's just very bare facts and not particularly compelling to read. Obviously, it's still a long way off FA standard now, but that's the aim, and you're more than welcome to help if you so wish. Please look at the Reese Witherspoon article as a template.Popeye191 (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

how you doing ! article made for Meg Ryan 2012 per-production film stars along side with 50 cent.

--Neogeolegend (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rory McIlroy

Hi Bigweeboy. With regards to this edit, you were right to remove the non-reliable source regarding his nationality, but now the source provided provides no evidence of Irish self-identification, only British, so either a source regarding Irish identification should be found or the claim should be removed. Best, JonC ^Talk 19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think you've misunderstood me! I was saying that you were right to remove the unreliable source, but that the one reliable source we have in the article now only has him saying "I'm British", not "I'm Irish". I think the Irish bit should be removed as the reliable source doesn't support it. JonC ^Talk 19:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Arb Talk

Courtesy notice: There is a discussion at the Arbitration Committee talk page concerning evidence pages created by participants in the TM ArbCom. The outcome of the discussion may impact your user page content (sandboxes) from that case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda

Hi there, that information is cited later in the article so it probably doesn't need to be cited in the lead as well. N^oformation ^Talk 03:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Maharshi See Also List. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Franchi Biography

Why have you deleted part of my biography article? "Not a tabloid?" WHat it it about the material which I have included as reliable and referenced that makes personal family information objectionable?Cathlec (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not chosen to reply to me here where I left you a message. I completely disagree that personal demographic information about family members is tabloid in nature. Many of the biography articles on Wikipedia start out with explicit information, demographics, etc. about parents and progress from there. I am going to restore these deletions, anf keep them until I finish the article. My editing is as important as yours. More so, in this case, since I am the one who has done the research and is trying to record this persons accomplishments. You obviously are not aware about how important Sergio Franchi's collection of rare cars was! (Interests and hobbies) And it was at east as important as John Denver's collection of airplanes was.. this was discussed at length in his biography. By yhe way, you have deleted material while I am working on an article, and that was not in keeping with Wiki advise about being polite! Also, you did not have the courtesy to leave me a message on my talk page, or on the article talk page..which would have been less irritating. Good manners is always desirable. Looks like you also violated the injunction about "Don't bite the newbies." While I am new to HTML editing (my second Wikipedia article), I am not new to research, nor to computer use. Please do not interfere while I am writng my article. I do however, welcome constructive criticism left on my talk page, or on the article page, and will trke it into consideration when I am in review mode. Cathlec (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have left you a new message on the Sergio Franchi Talk Page. Can you help with Musician's Template? CatherineCathlec (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your participation in the Dispute Resolution forum-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bigweeboy,

My Spanish teacher is married to Stacey Solomon. His initials are GVS. The G stands for Gavin!Pdiddyjr (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore

Please explain why, after I cited the proper policy in my last edit summary, you still slapped a {{clarify}} tag on it, remarking that another source needs to be found unless someone else finds the proper time stamps. If you wish to verify the source, you are the one who should watch the film, why are you "delegating" other editors to do what's essentially anyone's job? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Rapai

Hi, I removed your delete tag because it doesn't apply to articles created in 2008. Feel free to tag it in some other way if you think it's justified.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Annabeth Gish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cedar Falls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. --BwB (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IRE-IRL

There is a part of MOS I would like to point out to you, your unpipelinking is creating ambiguity. Please read it, the link to IMOS is also found on dicussion pages of articles covered by it. Thank you in advance. Murry1975 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop ambiguating the infobox.Murry1975 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read it, it cover the why it is done.Murry1975 (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raised it at MOSLinking and it was further raised at IMOS, your imput and view would be welcome BWB at IMOS by me at least. It needs to be cleared up, one editor has already given some outside imput, the rest are just editors envovled in that field, i.e. Irish thingys like me.Murry1975 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Farmiga

I don't understand this revert. The article clearly supports her Ukrainian ethnicity. Elizium23 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate mass tagging at Ian Paisley

This type of indiscriminate mass adding of citation needed tags is bad practice per WP:VERIFY. The idea is that you add them for material that you reasonably doubt and can't find a cite for, not that you just add them everywhere for the hell of it for material that you can't be bother to look for yourself. For example googling "Rhonda Paisley DUP councillor" (something you challenged) brings up this BBC article as the third link. The Anglo-Irish Agreement page is surely an obvious page to look for cites that it gave a consultive role to the Irish government, rather than sticking a pointless tag on, no?

Another example, personally I don't see the importance to the article of precisely when the Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform (Northern Ireland) was established, but google quickly brings up this and this.

Finally, what's with adding a fact tag at the end of this sentence: "In April 1977, Paisley declared he would retire from politics if a forthcoming United Unionist Action Council general strike was unsuccessful. The strike failed, but Paisley did not keep the promise" ?? Are you asking for proof that his career continued post-1977, something that is blindingly obvious from countless cites in the article itself or is it that you can't type "Ian Paisley Ulster Worker Councils strike 1977" into google? The latter brings up as the first search result CAIN which says "Ian Paisley, then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), said that if the forthcoming United Unionist Action Council (UUAC) strike was not a success then he would quit political life in Northern Ireland."

Thanks to your tags the article is in a mess. In future could you be a bit more constructive and do a bit of minimal legwork yourself before you gut articles with unneeded tags? Valenciano (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlinks

This has been discussed many times before, so it is astonishing after all this time that you would remove a link to a source that has become a deadlink an and label the text "unsourced". See WP:DEADLINKS for the proper course of action. Moreover, it took me all of 5 seconds to see that this Dutch source can be translated to the English version with a click of a button, and substitute the correct URL. Fladrif (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out to me, Flad. --BwB (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, go back and undo the multiple edits you have made to other articles over the past few days, including Fairfield, Iowa where you have removed sourced text, removed references and improperly substituted fact or 'unreferenced tags. Do not make other editors clean this up. You were warned about this in November 2010, and clearly know better. It is disruptive. Fladrif (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Bigweeboy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time

Regarding your comment @ List of TM Practitioners: "Yes, we need reliable sources to show specifically that a person was trained a teacher of TM. --BwB (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)". If you have time to check the sources for all those marked as TM teachers, to verify them, that would be great. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hararit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hararit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hararit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming of Michelle Williams

Hello. You're recent edits to Michelle Williams removed over 1,000 words. This is a HUGE change and should really have been discussed on the talk page first. It is rather disrespectful to editors who spent time and energy writing that stuff (I'm not one of them, but I know I would be angered if someone did this to an article I'd worked on). I can't see that the stuff you removed was problematic, either, there's nothing wrong with providing some context for the films she appeared in and including some quotes from Williams to hear her take on particular roles. Many actors articles do this, including FAs. Sections of the article have now completely lost their flow, as well (see for instance the last paragraph of "2006-present"). I'd like to revert back to the version before you edited, and then if you really feel strongly about the page it can be discussed on the talk page (this would be in keeping with WP's Bold, Revert, Discuss rule). --Lobo (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Why did you remove the link?--IIIraute (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, but don't worry - not important anymore. --IIIraute (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven States of Consciousness

... on your User Page.

Rather than edit your page - which I won't, since it's your page - I'll just ask: you do mean Dreamless Sleep, don't you? Cheers. --Seduisant (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more precise. Your page says "Dreamless Sleet." Like nasty weather sleet. --Seduisant (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Paradis

Hello, I have a question about an edit you made to the Vanessa Paradis page. It looks like you added IMDb as a reference (in a place where I'd added that a citation was needed). My understanding is that IMDb is not supposed to be used as a reference, and only as an external link, because of WP:IMDB. But perhaps it's better to use IMDb than nothing at all, which was the case before you made that edit. Anyway, I'm just trying to learn, so if you could explain to me your thinking on using IMDb as a source, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. That makes sense.Safehaven86 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Hagelin

Hi BigWeeBoy. I've been working on the john Hagelin article mostly tidying up. Would you have the time to take a look at it and see what more could be done. I'm about to add sources for the 3rd paragraph of the lead but beyond that change, anything else? Thanks in advance for whatever you can do. (olive (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for looking in.(olive (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Audrey Tautou

Hi just read the article of the reference and that's the only objection of your contribution thank you.--189.203.69.24 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Kendrick

Why shouldnt we include her blog entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaoTzu1234 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bigweeboy

Hi ! Dear Bigweeboy! how r u guy? please further improve these articles. Tina Fey and Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi.These are very good articles.thanks dear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles

--111.119.164.207 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New User Template

This user is a member of the
Wiki Project on Transcendental Meditation.

Hi, I am notifying all editors who are listed as participants at the Transcendental Meditation project page to let them know they may add this newly created project user template (see image at left) to their user page by adding the following code: {{User WPTranscendental Meditation}} to their page, if they so desire. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Natural Law Party of Ontario

An article that you have been involved in editing, Natural Law Party of Ontario, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concern

Hi Bigweeboy, I notice you haven't been around since mid 2012 but just in case you decide to come back I wanted to let you know I fixed a copy vio issue on one of your edits, here. The content you had inserted appeared to be an exact copy of content from the web page that it was cited to. So please be aware of this when you come back. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for RAAM

An article that you have been involved in editing, RAAM, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going [here], and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. EMP (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification motion

A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Swami Atmananda

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Swami Atmananda, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]