User talk:Joeperez69
Welcome!
Hello, Joeperez69, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — goethean ॐ 15:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Integral movement has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://integral-options.blogspot.com/ (matching the regex rule \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
hello
[edit]. ok Thinsk your asing for your own sand box to edit in private right??? here you go User:Joeperez69/sandbox1..User:Joeperez69/sandbox2...have fun
- No if you mean a Portal i can help more ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Link format
[edit]I'm glad you appreciate the Steiner and Anthroposophy pages. They were the result of a long process; patience is always a virtue!
Incidentally, when you link to Wikipedia pages, you can just use one of the formats you'll see in this comment (e.g. [[Ken Wilbur]]) rather than going through a hyperlink. hgilbert (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
List of Integral thinkers
[edit]Hi Joe. Re List of integral thinkers and supporters, it's redundant to cite Wikipedia pages in the footnotes, as the pages are linked to anyway in the main text by the double angle brackets. The footnotes are for non-Wikipedia sources (following notability guidelines). I meant to mention it before. Cheers M Alan Kazlev (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to make a comment at this page. Durova412 05:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 19:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Joeperez69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is a test sentence in which I will explain why I should be unblocked.
Decline reason:
This is an actual decline. Kuru (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Joeperez69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines for sockpuppetry and believe that I have not abused Wikipedia guidelines in any way. Let me make the case as succinctly as I can, and thanks in advance for your time.
I am not the same editor as TimZBrooks, however I know "Tim", Tim is a good friend of mine (and fan of my books), Tim uses a pseudonym, and Tim and I have shared the same computer. Tim wrote my Wikipedia article, with my knowledge but not at my behest. I have spoken to Tim about the situation, and he says he has no intention of editing at Wikipedia again (he wishes to stay out of this controversy).
I have known all along that this connection between me and Tim would probably come to light eventually, and so this charge of sockpuppetry doesn't surprise me. I also don't know of any way to persuade others that I have not used multiple accounts given that I have shared an IP address with Tim, so I expect my appeal to be an uphill battle in the extreme.
So let me explain that I have read the Wikipedia guidelines on Sockpuppetry and don't believe that I have violated them. I had no way of controlling Tim's edits, and exerted no influence on him. Indeed, his Wikipedia page contains a few errors of fact related to my work, but I have made no effort to correct those errors because of my fear of editing with a conflict of interest.
With regard to my own editing as Joeperez69, I have openly shared my full identity, provided links to my professional page (I do writing of biographies, profiles, online identity profiles, etc.), and disclosed the conflict of interest in my writing on my profile (i.e., as an author of a book on integral philosophy, I have an interest in seeing accurate information published about that intellectual current), and nobody has alleged that any of my edits have been harmful to Wikipedia in any way. I have always discussed my planned edits in the talk pages and sought consensus before making any changes. I have made no controversial changes that have in any way caused disagreement. Indeed, where Tim added a link to my blog to the "Integral movement" page, I advocated DELETING the link on the Talk page. If I intended to sockpuppet my way to Wikipedia fame, would I have added a self-promotional link only to advocate its DELETION a few days later???
Perhaps I should have immediately disclosed that I had shared an IP address with the editor who wrote my profile, and have no way of proving that I did not. In retrospect, I think that would have been wise.
That said, I believe the reasons for my account closure go beyond the matter that many of you have good reason to suspect that I wrote my own Wikipedia page. The fact remains that while I have not made any edits to Wikipedia that have been harmful, I have both (a) publicly invited other editors to contribute to Wikipedia in manners consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, and (b) added "Wikipedia Articles" to a rather lengthy list of editorial services that I provide to individuals along with Resumes, Executive Profiles, Public Relations Articles, Corporate Profiles, etc. That's what I do for a living.
Neither (a) nor (b) are in violation of Wikipedia's rules, so far as I can tell. I have made no effort to sway editorial contributions in any way, and have not disguised my identity, because I have been careful to invite editors to contribute ONLY in ways consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. You may read the full blog post yourself, and see that it is very explicit on this point. And with regard to (b), as it happens I have not done any Wikipedia articles for any clients, but believe that should I do so in the future this can be done -- and WOULD BE done -- completely in adherence to all Wikipedia guidelines, especially those regarding disclosures of conflict of interest, etc.
(Following the revocation of my user privileges, I considered removing "Wikipedia Articles" from my list of areas of work on my LinkedIn profile because obviously it raises suspicion among other editors that I may have a conflict of interest with any article that I edit; nevertheless, I searched my soul and don't believe there is anything unethical or in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines in offering a commercial service in which I could potentially coach individuals on how to create Wikipedia content in full adherence to Wikipedia guidelines. I am unanaware of any finding that an editor offering any commercial service offering of Wikipedia article ghostwriting or coaching services is, ipso facto, a violation of Wikipedia policies. If I am wrong about this, then by all means deny this appeal. But consider carefully whether this is indeed the extreme sort of precedent that you wish to set: that no editor may ever provide any coaching or editorial services to anyone else on how to write Wikipedia articles in compliance with its guidelines for a fee or they would lose their editing privileges.)
In light of my completely non-controversial history of editing and my track record of consistently seeking consensus prior to making any edits, I humbly ask for a second chance. Thank you. Joeperez69 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Decline reason:
Since you were just evading your block a short while ago, this is declined. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Reviewing administrator, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Joeperez69/Archive#Evidence_submitted_by_Durova. It's not merely the technical connection between Joeperez69, but also its first edit arising in extremely short time frame (23 minutes) after an administrator tagged the biography. Joe Perez's appeal seriously understates the conflict of interest, which is "establishing integral studies as more widely accepted in academia"[1] via paid advocacy in Wikipedia articles. User was also blocked for block evasion since previous appeal. I might have been persuaded if this editor's appeal had demonstrated understanding of WP:MEAT and WP:PROMOTION and had pledged to refrain from repeating past problems. But really, he doesn't see anything wrong with using students as unwitting vehicles to insinuate a topic into the academic mainstream. That goes against site mission on a fundamental level. Durova412 04:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Joeperez69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Joe Perez here. If I "evaded block" earlier tonight, it was entirely unintentional. I only wished to respond on this page and to send messages to editors who blocked me -- and THAT IS IT -- and when the page wouldn't accept my edits in the "Respond to allegations" field when logged in Joeperez69, I logged out and typed my name which was recorded alongside my IP address. It seems that these accidents are now taken by two editors as reasons for disbarment? Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of "evading block"; since all I tried to do was respond to my block on the page where I was supposed to "Respond to allegations" and the system would not allow me to do so, I figured that this was some sort of bug and tried to get around it so that I could respond to the charges against me -- something, BTW, I have STILL not been able to do, except on this user page. Maybe this is by design, but it is darn confusing. I encourage everyone here to be reasonable, and recognize that I may be an accomplished author and professional writer, but I am a rookie editor at Wikipedia and made some rookie mistakes. ::If I agreed with Duova that my blog post on KenWilber.com was a plea to "use students as unwitting vehicles to insinuate a topic into the academic mainstream" and therefore "against site mission", then I would totally support revoking my privileges. If fair minded administrators come to this conclusion, then by all means block my account. However, I must state emphatically that this "insinuation" was not my intent; and objectively, this was not what I said. My intent, consistent with the de facto reading of Wikipedia mission, is to encourage new editors to join the project, and to do so regardless of their opinions or perspectives, seeking only contributing for the good of the project in full accordance with its mission. I made this plea via kenwilber.com to a group knowledgeable in a wide variety of philosophical, spiritual, and psychological interests, and went out of my way to be sure my post should not be interpreted by any objective party as encouraging conflict of interest editing or rule-breaking of any kind. As for "insinuating a topic into the mainstream", I suppose one could interpret my blog post in that manner, in that I obviously believe that the Wikipedia posts on Integral Theory are inaccurate, inadequate, and poorly out of date. By putting up a notice where students of Integral Theory would see, I hoped only to encourage them to correct problems, add source citations, and improve article quality. As anyone who reads the articles or talk pages for the Integral Theory and Ken Wilber articles can plainly see, these pages are cited shabbily and incompletely, and need significant work by students and scholars who have access to original source material who can add the necessary citations. What could possibly be wrong with inviting contributions from such scholars in a place where they would likely find it? Don't take my word for it; read the blog post yourself. At the time I posted it, there were no raging controversies for which I sought to boost one side of an editorial war; I made no pleas for anyone to take sides on any topic whatsoever, only to add quality. Indeed, I am a bit offended by Durova's implication that my intentions with students must have been implicitly exploitative -- using them as "unwitting vehicles". That sort of attack on another editor's motives is NOT appropriate or respectful, Duova. ::As for Durova's claims that I have "understated my conflict of interest", I am willing to let other Wikipedia editors be the judge of that. I disagree for several reasons. First, I acknowledged my financial interest (e.g., as an author of a book in integral philosophy) up front on my userpage. Please give me some credit. Second, I am aware of no rule stating than an editor may not operate a business in which I may choose to coach clients on proper usage of Wikipedia, dos and don'ts, and assist with editorial services. I do online identity coaching and writing, resumes, biographies, LinkedIn profiles, as I previously said; and it's inevitable that in the future a client may ask me to assist with a Wikipedia article. If I disclose any conflict of interest, I see no reason why I cannot take on such a client and uphold the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines. I know enough to tell clients how to avoid edits that are controversial and overly promotional; I recognize the importance of stressing that anyone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia needs to put the interests of the project above their own personal interests, and to work cooperatively to build consensus with other editors. ::I have read and grokked both the MEAT and PROMOTION guidelines and believe I am capable of helping my writing clients -- should I be requested in the future -- to understand those guidelines as well and how to avoid running afoul of them. Frankly, I am saddenned that the mere mention that I might be offering Wikipedia Article coaching services in the future leads Duova to a dark assumption that I would do so in an abusive way. Aren't editors supposed to assume good will? I propose that I should be held accountable for actual abuses or damage to the Wikipedia, not for what another editor fears that I MIGHT do in the future. And nobody, not one editor, has said that I have done abusive editing. Had they inspected my editorial record they would see it is a model for cooperation and consensus seeking and non-controversial. Is wanting to be judged based on what I've done rather than what some fear that I might do so unreasonable? ::Thanks for giving my appeal a fair hearing. ~~ Joe Perez
Decline reason:
This overly long request does not address the reason for your block: abuse of multiple accounts. Sandstein 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Joeperez69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I addressed the issue of abuse of multiple accounts in my previous reply beginning, "I am not the same editor as TimZBrooks." It does not seem that you saw that reply. Did you? I believe I have addressed each and every reason for my account block, and would very much appreciate a response to my response, which so far I haven't seen. Thank you. -- Joe Perez
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, you have been confirmed by technical evidence to be the same user as TimZBrooks. And even without that, you appear to be engaged in advocacy for a cause for profit on Wikipedia, which is so far from what this project is that it isn't even funny. Also, you are actively encouraging others to tweak the article in accordance with your POV. Those two reasons are blockable offenses by themselves. Talk page disabled. Blueboy96 05:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
MfD nomination of User:Joeperez69/Integral studies
[edit]
User:Joeperez69/Integral studies, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joeperez69/Integral studies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Joeperez69/Integral studies during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ~ RobTalk 05:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of List of integral thinkers and supporters for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of integral thinkers and supporters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article.