User talk:Twrigley~enwiki

{{AMA alerts}} I've got spaces here for messages, interesting tidbits of information you'd like to share, and general storage of stuff. You're welcome to add what you like. :-)

messages

Mysticism

hey, nice work on mysticism, i've seen it all coming up on my watch list but haven't really looked at what you've been up to until now. It looks good. my organization scheme was just kind of a reorganization of the article that already existed, yours certainly seems to work better. thanks! --Heah ^talk 06:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, my reorganization was just a reorganization of your reorganization - lol. but thanks. :-) feel free to jump in and flesh things out, if you like. Ted 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I was sad to see your comments regarding my adminship bid. Your suggestion that insults to my intelligence or character not be taken personally seemed extremely inappropriate. There is nothing about the WP:RFA process which nullifies our guidelines of WP:Civil or WP:Etiquette. Beyond that, your comment about my abilities in perspective-taking and dialectical synthesis shocked me a great deal. I have been very careful regarding mysticism, refraining from an extensive reworking of your edits while politely insisting that the overwhelming majority POV (that God is the focus of mysticism) be included. Your suggestion that Advaita or Taoism or other eastern philosophies fail to focus upon God is uninsightful, and misses the obvious. God is existence. God is the self. Atman is Brahman. Tat tvam asi. Sam Spade 23:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the guidelines on etiquette and civility is that they are intended to prevent ad-hominem attacks in discussions about article content. that would clearly make for an uncomfortable working environment; Wikipedia needs to be cooperative if it's going to work correctly. however, this is not article content that's being discussed. you've put yourself in a position where your character comes into question (that's the nature of power in semi-democratic systems like this), and so people need to be able to express that fact that they don't trust your character. whether they are correct or incorrect doesn't even enter into the picture—the fact that they feel that way is sufficient, and you ought to respect their feelings even if you disrespect the way they express themselves.

this is also why you really shouldn't take it personally: their feelings only reflect their perspective, it doesn't have any bearing on who you actually are.

as to my comments about perspective-taking and dialectical synthesis... well, look, you must recognize that you are a bit frustrating to work with. haven't you ever wondered why? I don't usually have a problem when we communicate with each other directly, but from my limited experience of your editing style you just don't integrate. you've reverted my edits, you've reasserted your original points (neither of which is bad in and of itself), but you've never expanded or included or 'worked with' at all. I still don't understand why you moved the tags out of the article into the talk section. when you edit, everything seems very black and white with you. this issue about God an excellent case in point. 'God' is not a neutral term, nor is it a term accepted by everyone without confrontation. would you be comfortable if everywhere you wrote the word 'God', I replaced it with the word 'Allah'? how about if I replaced it with 'Gaia' or 'Blessed Durga'? how about 'The Formless Essence of Creation'? some (heck, many) people will read the word 'God' as 'The Christian God,' with fortunate or unfortunate reactions. if you were looking at what I wrote dispassionately you'd see that I have, in fact, included God in the exposition, I've just done it (as best I can) in a way that won't alienate those people who use different names for God, or who have different understandings of the nature of God. your majority POV (granting for the sake of argument that it is actually a majority) is still a POV; it's majority status doesn't entitle it to an exagerated position in the article.

Mysticism isn't ontology, my friend. you don't need to defend God's existence, you just tell people to go look for themselves. different people find different things, even though they realize that it's all the same thing, and beyond that it just doesn't matter. classic quote from the tao (paraphrased, sorry) "when you talk about things you have to name them, but once you start naming you have to know when to stop, otherwise you'll lose the thing you were talking about." yes? Ted 01:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw saw your new wording, and chose not to alter it for now because I thought that might have been needlessly confrontational. I don't need to be any more difficult to work with than I am to talk to, but when I sense conflict without an opportunity for gain (as I did with your more recent statements on Talk:Mysticism) I stand back and wait.

Large blaring headers should be kept out of the article space when possible. I'm sure there is arule saying that somewhere, but the point is that the encyclopedia is for readers first and foremost. Big headers like that freak them out. Messages like that (as opposed to neutrality or accuracy disputes) should be kept on the talk page. I honestly wanted to say something like that on talk:mysticism, but it seemed it would be taken badly, so I refrained.

Regarding insults like those on my RFA, there is absolutely no need for them, and I get the impression you havn't read them. Please, go look at the opposing statements, and then tell me if you think they are productive or respectable.

Finally about defending God and your Tao quote. An encyclopedia is a place to define things. Defining things properly can be difficult, but also rewarding. I understand that some (especially in mysticism, esotericism, and existentialism) feel that proper definitions and communications are impossible, or close to it (esp. regarding important matters). I know that is wrong. Perhaps my absolutism makes me less mystical, perhaps your openess to atheist interpretations (which I would still like cites for btw ;) makes you less mystical. What I can say for sure is that our article sucks, wheras this one from Columbia University Press is pretty good... Sam Spade 13:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol - yes, our article sucks, no question. that's because it's not anywhere near done—which is why I feel that the 'underconstruction' tag is necessary for the moment, until it's more on its feet. if you'd like to make a smaller template, please feel free (I don't know how to, though I suppose I could learn), but something needs to be there.

the reference.com article is well-written (reasonably well, at any rate) because it's complete, but it also happens to be decidedly wrong in the Wikepedian sense. please look at the end of the article: 3/4 of the 'prominent mystics' section is devoted to Roman Catholic and Protestant mystics; 3/4 of the remaining quarter are a particular class of popular American advaitan gurus. Then they list one Jewish mystic; Buddha himself and a couple of prominent Buddhist scholars; and toss off taoism without any reference to mystics at all as the last word. if you can't see the cultural bias in that, you're not looking. I can think of at least 4 prominant (ancient) taoist mystics; there are dozens, if not hundreds, of noted buddhist mystics (the dalai llama, hello!); the list of Hindu mystics makes the Catholic pantheon of saints look tiny; and this hardly captures mystics who are unclassifiable or from different faiths or philosophies (Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Huxley, just to name a few).

I've posted sources on the talk page; have you looked at them? more to the point, have you thought them through? claiming that "Atman is Brahman" is a statement about God is (in one sense) perfectly true, but only if you use an understanding of the word 'God' that would anger a large majority of Christians (it literally puts each and every one of us on a level with Jesus). Making the word apply to Buddhism or Taoism requires an even greater manipulation of meanings: the Tao lacks 'beingness' and has no overt plan or purpose, both of which are intrinsic to the Christian notion of God, and Buddhists would adamantly deny that they believe in a God, because their practice is built around not having beliefs. shall we tell all 260 million buddhists they have a God regardless of what they say? you can't use the word 'God' as though it's non-problematical.

and Please Note that your frequent references to atheism are off-point and argumentative. I've said it before and I will say it again: there is no ontological argument made here. I am not asserting, questioning, or denying the existence of God. what I am doing is trying to clarify culturally specific representions of God in the discussion. if you cannot see that distinction, then please go work on the christian mysticism article where you'll feel more attuned to what's going on.

Harrumph...!!! ;-)

with respect for your RFA bid: I have read the comments, all of them, and yes, some of them are plain insulting (and some of them are plainly kiss-a$$, as well). I take that more as a reflection of the authors' bad grace than as anything about you personally. but honestly, you are asking to be put in a position of power over them; if you don't want to hear bad reflections about your character, then:

don't ask to be put in a position where people are threatened by you, or
make sure that people don't think of you as a threat before you ask to have power.

I can see perfectly well why people are threatened by you, just from our conversations: you're opinionated and strong-willed, and you are resistant to ideas that violate your sense of propriety or correctness. you're a natural-born pit-bull; you sink your teeth into an idea and it takes a crowbar to make you let go. good qualities, all, and not a problem for me, personally. I'm just as opinionated and strong-willed, and I have the intellectual and emotional resources to argue my points effectively. I have no doubts that over time you and I will come to a reasonable communal understanding here. but not everyone has my particular blend of skills, or my patience, and I suspect they are worried that you will win your points by brute force (when points should be won by better reasons, better sources, clearer analyses). for those people who don't know how to handle a pit-bull, the last thing they want is to let it off its leash. again, this is a perspective-taking issue: if you can't see why you are threatening to people, that's doubly-threatening, because then you won't even know when you're stepping on their toes.

is this making any sense?

Absolutely. I agree that I am willful and sometimes perceived as overbearing because of it. That is why I avoid unnecessary confrontation so studiously. We agree about the value of proper sourcing and logic, and there is no evidence of my having abused my position here, particularly not to the detriment of those who are less capable than I. What I am known for is defending the weak (I'm an WP:AMA advocate w a number of successful cases), challenging the strong, and refusing to surrender my principles. If that makes me a bad administrator, I'd be curious as to what makes a good one.

Where we do not agree is on the theology of Buddhists, Taoists, and etc... One of my martial arts instructors pointed out that Tao is God, and chi is his spirit facilitating action. Most Buddhists directly worship God, gods, ancestors, or Buddha ;) Very few are atheists, and indeed Buddhists are persecuted for this very reason. My reference to atheism is far from off point, it is directly related to the edits we have disagreed about on the mysticism page. I hope we can both agree that the first paragraph of the Columbia university definition I linked you to handles this distinction in an agreeable manner, and one which we would do well to learn from.

Regarding cultural bias, that is omnipresent. Your bias towards chinese philosophy for example is very clear. You make no mention of pagan african mysticism, for example, nor should you have to. In time, others will fill in your blanks. That is what the wiki is all about.

I'd like it if you changed your vote. It won't change the result of the RfA, but it would mean something to me. Cheers, Sam Spade 22:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug> I'm not accusing you of being a bad administrator, really... where did you get that idea? I'm just noticing the energy you stir up—more animosity than I'd expect, and more apparent devotion than I'd expect—and I'm noticing the way our conversations go. I find myself wondering right now, for instance, how many more times I'll have to tell you that ontological considerations about the existence of God are off the table before you'll respond to the point. I'll keep reminding you until you do, no worries, but still... why do I have to put this much effort in to get you to respond to such a central point?

I wasn't aware of AMA, incidentally. I may volunteer for that myself. thanks... :-)

as to your other points: your martial arts instructor may be speaking to you in terms you are willing to accept, or maybe that's the way s/he experiences it. I don't know, and it's not really relevant, but it's certainly not a view consistent with Laozi, Zhuangzi, or conventional definitions of God. perhaps this is the time to ask you the big question: how exactly do you define the word God? we won't be able to resolve this issue until you answer that. and while many Buddhists do indeed worship gods or buddha (just the way many christians drink, fornicate, and kill) that is not the buddhist teaching, nor is it something buddhist monks or teachers advocate. let's not judge the mystics of a given faith by the antics of lay practitioners.

now lets go through the columbia article line by line...

mysticism (mĭs′ tĭsĭzəm) [Gr.,=the practice of those who are initiated into the mysteries], the practice of putting oneself into, and remaining in, direct relation with God, the Absolute, or any unifying principle of life.

ok so far, and not that different that what I've said in the introduction. I'd have preferred something a little more open, but such is life.

Mysticism is inseparably linked with religion.

Incorrect, unless this is a very bizarre definition of the word 'religion'. I only need to look at someone like J. Krishnamurti (who actively advocates against religion, but is generally respected as a mystic) to refute this. mysticism grows out of religion as a general rule, but that's primarily because religion is pragmatically unavoidable in the social world.

Because of the nature of mysticism, firsthand objective studies of it are virtually impossible, and students must confine themselves to the accounts of mystics, autobiographical and biographical, or, as the mystics themselves say, they must experience for themselves.

either tautologically true or completely false, and misleading in any case. Mysticism is no more resistant to scientific investigation than any conventional religious precept. in some ways it's less resistant, because it's designed to be experiential. and the ordering is wrong—mystics almost invariably tell their students not to become enamoured of the words and accounts of prior mystics or other intellectual efforts, except as such things lead them on to personal experience.

The terms mystic and mysticism are used very broadly in English, being extended to mean magic, occultism, or the esoteric.

again, misleading, if only because it's so limited in the things mysticism is extended to.

I'll admit that I waffled for a long time between placing a 'neutral' or and 'opposed' opinion in your bid page. my statements were thoroughly considered, and I won't change them at this point, but the vote could have gone either way for me. I'll think about it a bit more in light of our recent conversations. do you know when the deadline is?

"I'll have to tell you that ontological considerations about the existence of God are off the table before you'll respond to the point."

I'm pretty sure I have been responding by telling you that your wrong on this particular. Mysticism is all about being; awareness of being, experience of being, acceptance of being. When it's not about that, it's smoke and mirrors.

What is God?

God = All. The sum total of everything that is, was, or ever shall be. Even that only imagined. God is here, there, and everywhere. Both immanent and imminent. Thusness. God is the sustainer of our being, indeed he is our being, without him we cannot exist. He is the only thing that is. There is no evil; evil is only the absence of good (God being the root of good). As some would say:

"Our universe is but a single cell in the embryo of God in the womb of nothingness. One day he will be born."

As far as the RfA its already over, but I'm glad you were willing to consider the option of changing your mind. So many people arn't. Sam Spade 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since this is so protracted, I thought adding some color might make things easier to read. tell me if it doesn't work. :-)

so first — Please don't misquote me. my original statement was a question about how many times I'd have to tell you, not a command that I'd have to tell you (as you've represented it here). minor point...

now what you did right here (in your first sentence after the quote) is a good example of why you leave so much contention in your wake. what you see as your response is in fact a non-communicative non-response. I said something you disagreed with, but you didn't investigate it or open the thought for discussion and consideration. you simply ignored it and moved on with the discussion as though your own beliefs are generally accepted and undisputed fact. that won't fly with me at all, and while you can bowl over others that way (because most won't understand what's happening), you will invariably make them frustrated and spiteful. you're not going to win an RfA bid until you learn not to do this. no insult intended, but this is something you need to examine in your approach to people.

Pure fact of the matter is, this is your POV. while I'm not going to disagree with you that mysticism is all about being, I will point out that you have absolutely no evidence to assert that 'Being requires God'. this is exactly what I mean when I say mysticism is not ontology. deists and monists are just like atheists in the sense that they make assertions about the existence of God (as true or false) that go beyond experience and evidence. mystics see these kinds of debates as fruitless.

I honor the fact that you believe in God, but I acknowledge the fact that you could be wrong, and I leave my mind open to what the universe cares to share with me.

look, I could do this to everything you've said about God. I mean, I'm a monist — experience has taught me all I need to know about immanence, so I'm not going to disagree with you there, but...

in what sense is God imminent? what evidence could you possibly have of this?
if I were to say 'I am the sustainer of my own being', how is that different than saying 'God is the sustainer of my being'?
what evidence do you have that God is good? the tao isn't good or evil (shall I give your quotes?) brahman isn't good or evil (shall I give you quotes?) heck, buddhists think good and evil are both delusions of the limited self.
what evidence (for heaven's sake...) do you have that God is a 'Him'? Lakshmi would be very displeased with you - lol.

and as to this:

"Our universe is but a single cell in the embryo of God in the womb of nothingness. One day he will be born."

that is nicely poetic, and a beautiful sentiment (if a bit too messianic for my tastes) but it's far from a statement of fact.

as far as your RfA... no worries. in this (as well as in discussions about God) I'm always willing to change my mind when I have a good reason. I just need good reasons to do it. :-)

Lets be perfectly clear, I am not looking to you for guidence on my interpersonal skills. We hardly know each other at all, but I can see that your assuming behaviour and arrogance undoubtably cause you your own difficulties. I am curious, your user account is very new, and yet you display an impressive degree of ease with our interface. Have you perhaps edited a wiki before?

Regarding my POV, you asked me to define what God ment, and I did so in brief. Of course it was opinionated. Your agnosticism is understandable, but not something I am going to be able to help you with from here. Developing love and understanding is a long and intimate process that we seem to be off to a rough start on. Sam Spade 13:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[sigh...] Yes, let's be perfectly clear. I'm not offering you guidance, I'm telling you what I see and think. if I were offering you guidance I'd have been much more buddy–buddy about it. you can do what you like with what I said—I just thought you'd appreciate a fresh perspective on what was going on. if not, my apologies, and I'll stop. nor am I making assumptions or being arrogant. again, I'm just saying what I see and what I think. I understand why you think I'm arrogant: I say what I mean to say, clearly and authoritatively, and I'm rarely shy about it. if you watch, though, you'll see I very rarely have problems with people. I consider carefully, and I listen carefully; I'm often right, and when I'm not I'm quick to let it go.

religious topics, unfortunately, are deeply engrained, and contentious.

I asked you to define what God meant not so that I could attack your notion of God, but because the way you were using God in our discussion was either completely self-contradictory or completely empty of content. all I can really tell is that you prefer the word 'God' in all situations; you stretch and twist the meaning of the word so that you can apply it wherever you think you need to apply it. I honestly don't know whether you see that you're doing this or not, mostly it's not a problem, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your intentions are honest. what bothers me, though, is your apparent insistance on exporting that preference to the wikipage and the universe beyond. there has never been a word that can capture whatever it is that runs the universe; why are you so attached to the word 'God'?

oh, and I appreciate your offer of help, thank you, but I don't really need assistance getting out of the categories you keep trying to put me in [smirk]. you can call me atheist, agnostic, or anything else you want; that's your issue, not mine.

to answer your other question, I've never worked a wiki before, but I'm reasonably good with computers, and wiki markup is just a variant (natural-language-ish) HTML. not too difficult. wiki-culture is a little more challenging. :-) Ted 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took me less than a minute to find that your smug demeanor has gone over poorly elsewhere as well. I appreciate perspective, but the one I have been getting from you has come across as intentionally insulting and provocative.

Telling other people what you see and think is not a good idea. Try being helpful instead. If I told people everything I see and think, I'd have banned from here a long time ago, wouldn't have the family I love, and might well be dead or in jail.

As far as the article, your POV that "there has never been a word that can capture whatever it is that runs the universe" is not what the article needs if it cannot be cited. Almost everyone agrees about God being that word, so its easy enough for me to cite. Your POV that there is no appropriate term might be held by some obscure individual, but there is no notable source for it of which I am aware. Sam Spade 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, that's as maybe. the fact of the matter is, I can (and have) given sources that clearly do not use the word God at all, and other sources that use the word God in ways that are mutually incompatible with each other. that right there is sufficient grounds to keep the word 'God' from being the central element of the mysticism article (though contrary to you apparent beliefs I have no intention of removing it entirely - I do respect your POV, after all). I am really trying to find a reasonable compromise with you here, but if you don't want to work with me, I am more than happy to go with you and request third party comments or arbitration. in the meantime, I will continue reworking the article in good faith.

if you like, why don't you retrieve a copy of the original introduction (or just the problematical lines - most of the remainder of the article hasn't yet been removed or rewritten), and either post it on a temporary page or add it to the end of the first page (with a notation that it's the original version that's being overwritten). that way people can easily compare and make effective comments. also, we might want to create a debate style point–counterpoint thing in the talk pages. you make a clear, short presentation of your perspective, I'll do the same for mine, and then we can each add a paragraph of rebuttal arguments.

if we're going to go this route, it would be good to archive some of the older discussions on the talk page, just to keep arguments from getting confused. I don't know how to do that; do you? Ted 18:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your two proposals. I have 2 counter proposals.

We can start discussing the issues as politely and impartially as possible, basing our positions as much as possible on the cited interpretations of notable others, rather than ourselves. If we do choose to discuss our opinions or each other we do so cautiously, carefully keeping that distinct from the article, and studiously maintaining civility. That's the way the wikipedia was intended.
I go away and edit other things, while you do what you think best. Eventually I will come back and do what I think best, and others might do likewise. Conflict avoidance (often the default way of successful wiki's who come between a rock and a hard place).

Thoughts? I made a substantive edit, btw. Sam Spade 00:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good either way, really. I thought we had been discussing them reasonably politely so far, and I'm more than willing to extend that courtesy further if you think I need to. the only thing that concerns me is that we may have some intractable differences here, mostly due to the nature of the topic. if, for instance, I cite the teachings of the buddha or the tao te ching, are you going to object that those are not 'notable others'? if we find citable authors who disagree with each other (which is more than likely), how do we adjudicate between them? how, in fact, do we judge who has a reputable perspective on mysticism? people have been struggling with that last question for thousands of years...

I'll tell you, my primary argument is that your take on mysticism is already incorporated as an element of mine, and so any excess emphasis runs to over-emphasis; you've already rejected that argument out of hand, claiming that mine is a minority viewpoint that should be minimized. how do we begin addressing that? Ted 00:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, your edits look good. I'll need to read them more carefully, and I can see a couple of formatting things that need cleaning, but... :-)

Point by point:

"I thought we had been discussing them reasonably politely so far, and I'm more than willing to extend that courtesy further if you think I need to"
- I took "the way you were using God in our discussion was either completely self-contradictory or completely empty of content." rather badly, and feel my response was hostile. I would prefer it if we not make comments particularly critical of each others beliefs, persona or character.

"If, for instance, I cite the teachings of the buddha or the tao te ching, are you going to object that those are not 'notable others'"
- No way, indeed I'll allow you to cite sources far less notable (but no geocities cites, please ;). What I may disagree with is yout interpretation of your citation, but thats a separate issue, which will likely require a cite of its own.

"if we find citable authors who disagree with each other (which is more than likely), how do we adjudicate between them?"
- Thats easy, cite both, clarify their standing, and allow the reader to decide who they believe. If things get too full, we can always switch to footnotes or external links or whatever. If that gets full, we can start culling the lesser known / less expert citations.

"how, in fact, do we judge who has a reputable perspective on mysticism?"
- We don't have to, the reader can (in most cases...). The only problem will be if we fill the article up (unlikely) or start quoting our favorite wingnut w a website (nothing personal, this just happens alot ;) If that happens we follow Wikipedia:policy. From what I've seen I doubt it will be either of us doing that, but it happens alot... If Sathya Sai Baba quotes start to bog down the article, I'll be the first to complain ;)

"you've already rejected that argument out of hand, claiming that mine is a minority viewpoint that should be minimized. how do we begin addressing that?"
- That might well have been unfair on my part. What I would say now is that you have emphasized an interpretaion I find offensive, inaccurate, and overwhelmingly uncommon (particularly among notable mystics and scholars). That interpretation could be described as "naturalistic pantheism", for lack of abetter term. I usually call it new age atheism, or some equally unflattering term. Clearly my opinion is that nearly all mystics focus on God (properly defined of course) or at least the atman. Some focus on the void, but from what I know of eastern thought this is negative theology rather than nihilism. In any case I agree this is our most difficult issue between us. Perhaps citations of other peoples interpretaions can help?

What did you think of my edit, btw? Sam Spade 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm... curiouser and curiouser... I think the worst problem we're having is semantics. let me say explicitly that the vast majority of the times I use God in a sentence, I'm talking about the word itself, not about the (being) that the word points to. I am genuinely hesitant to use words as referents here, because every word imports meanings that limit the nature of the divine in ways that strike me as inherently wrong. the phrase you took offense to (which I guess I can see, in retrospect, though it's a little alien to me) was meant to get at what, if anything, you were importing into the conversation through the word itself. from my perspective it's kind of like we are talking about, say... bicycles, except everytime you speak you use the word 'Schwinn' instead of 'bicycle'. how can I know whether that means that 'Shwinn' is just your word for what I mean by bicycle, or whether you think all bicycles are Schwinns, or whether you think that Schwinns are the only 'real' bicycles and all others bikes don't deserve to be considered? you see my problem? words, words, words...

and no worries, no geocities - lmfao.... (well, excuse for that one Menken quote, which I think is geocities, because it's verbatim from an academic text, so credible...) :-)

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call myself a natural pantheist (though this page raised some other issues for me, which I'll get to in a moment). it depends on nuances... I've met a few semi-scientific 'dead universe' people, who claim that there is no over-arching essence to the world (e.g., the world is mechanistic, but still beautiful in its design). That perspective goes contrary to my own experiences, but I respect it as a valid set of beliefs. personally I've always experienced the world as a presence... however, it is clear to me that taoism and buddhism (the latter in it's pure, non-derivative forms) speak only to presence, not to any more complex intentional being. buddhism doesn't exclude something more, so you could (as many buddhists have done) wrangle an understanding of beingness and God in there; taoism is much harder to fit into a theistic model. I'll add that Advaita Vedanta is closer to taoism than you might like, here; Brahman is not a God the way that Shiva and Kali and Ganesha are Gods; Brahman is the uncharacterizable source out of which Gods spring (that's straight from the Vedas - I'll get the cite later). in some ways, frankly, I see tao and brahman as far more acceptable conceptions of the divine than the gods of other faiths, precisely because the words do not import meanings. I agree with you that the notion of a nihilist mystic is silly, of course, but I think that the notion of God as an old grey-bearded guy sitting on a golden throne is equally silly.

and all notions of silliness aside, when it comes right down to it, I will defend even the most idiotic natural pantheist's perspective, as well as the anthropomorphic god people's perspectives. 'encyclopoedia' means 'all-around teaching' and I take that all-around part very seriously.

interestingly, by the way, that the definition you gave of God earlier is fairly close to the definition of tao given in the tao te (except for details like gender), which makes me wonder why you assign taoism to a kind of atheism. I guess I don't really see yet what meanings are carried with either of those words (God and atheist).

so, last point: reading the natural pantheism page, I realized that I found the same issues there that our discussions here have raised for me. So I checked the edit history on and found that you (along with Mel Ettis) were among the primary authors. that caught my attention. with your permission, I'm going to go through and check the entire spirituality section and make some revisions (nothing as extreme as here - this page needed a major rewrite). I'm asking your permission because I think we're establishing a decent working relationship, and I'd like to extend it to the other pages, rather than renew the problem with each new page. I think between us we can find a well-balanced perspective across the board that will be a credit to Wikipedia.

right now, though, I'm going to go out and have a life for a while. ;-) I'll go through your revisions fully tomorrow. Ted 03:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page break

Wow, we really have been miscommunicating! I don't think Taoism is atheistic, indeed I was upset w you for having said that...

I don't agree that God is a word specific to any one religion. Indeed it's origin is indo-euro, and means "libation". I do not worship a Giant space Jew, or any other Zeuslike anthropomorphization, and thats simply not what I refer to with the word. Instead my God IS existance, and is closer to Brahman or tao than the more cartoonish ideas of the Christian God. You can see more about my opinions here.

As far as including diverse POV's, of course we should! We should also give proper perspective and emphasis. It is overwhelmingly obvious (to me at least) that nearly all Mysticism is theistic in nature. I can cite a ton of mystics who emphasize God. I doubt you can cite much of any who entirely exclude him.

Lastly, feel free to edit whatever you like! I welcome your work, and agree it would be nice for us to achieve and maintain a harmonious working relationship. Mel probably has a very different opinion about that, but you won't be the first he disapproves of, nor the last. Cheers, Sam Spade 15:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Giant Space Jew'??? heavens to betsy... :-)

yeah, I figured we were miscommunicating, but I just couldn't figure out where it was going sour. and if I have annoyed you at any point in this conversation, I will sheepishly (and apologetically) admit to a tactic: sometimes I'll take a more hardline stance than I really feel just to force clarification. it sows short-term confusion, but long-term agreement.

as far as our main disagreement (re:theism), probably the best solution is to team write a section discussing the issue, and leave it up to others to decide for themselves. I can marshal a number of sources that plainly caution against overt belief in God (Sri Nisagardatta, J. Krishnamurti, shunryu Suzuki; quotes from the tao, the vedas, and the sutras; a couple of prominent philosophers who really belong in the mystic camp; and a few psychology-oriented mystics -Jung and after- who talk about archetypes and a collective unconscious rather than divinity). part of the problem with this discussion, I think, is that many 19th and 20th century mystics (and those who wrote about them) were explicitly rejecting organized religion (e.g. Hegel, who was trying to salvage spirituality from what he saw as the ravages of religion, by reattaching it to 'scientific' and logical principles); they see God-focused worship as a religious trap that actually draws people away from the experience of God. it's a distinct (and confusing) change from earlier mystics who thought direct appeal to God through religion was the only approach to take.

incidentally, I was poking around this morning and changed the image on the spirituality portal template. you can change it back if you like, though I happen to like this celtic knot. do you know how to add javascript to wiki pages? if you do, I can easily write a script that would cycle through various religious images every time the page was loaded - that would be cool. :-) then all we have to do is collect the file names of appropriate images. Ted 16:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the wrong one to ask about techie stuff... Try Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia talk:Template messages or Wikipedia:Computer help desk maybe...

As far as the devils advocate thing, I don't mind that. You just have to be careful how hard you push it, as it can upset people. I have a related problem thats rather more complicated, where on the one hand I usually present a much less extreme stance than I actually embrace in my heart, but on the other hand certain people (lefties mainly) tend to assume I advocate extremely objectionable stances which I do not, and even confuse me w a judeau-christian hypercalvinist (which I could not be more different from in reality).

We agree that a good answer to our difference of understanding is to create content relating to it which cites expert witnesses. The trouble will come in w how those cited sources are interpreted, but we can deal w that when we come to it. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

storage space

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

current edits (mostly quick-links for my own use)

In-Progress edits: mysticism, divinity, syllogism,Template:Disputed passage

mediation in progress: Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, Talk:2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities, Talk:Kosovo_Liberation_Army

useful links:[1]

User:Twrigley/sandbox

Mysticism/Issue List

I would just like to let you know that I tagged it for deletion. The place to discuss issues with an article is on that article's talk page. Regards, ^demon 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed. I had created that subpage because of some protracted debates I've been having—I thought a little external structure woiuld be useful, and inoffensive. apparently I was wrong on the last count. ;-) not worth swimming upstream about, regardless, so no worries. Ted 18:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump in this conversation. I was just looking around. I think that an Issue List is perfectly in accord with the concept of refactoring of talk pages, which is one of the proposed approach to deal with lenghty talk pages. See Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American System (economics) page

Ted, I want to thank you for mediating the current 'political views of lyndon larouche' page. I've offered my objections and presently am waiting for a response from those I listed. My concerns extend to the American System (economics) page, where one editor (Will Beback) has been engaged in harassment of myself, HK, Rjensen, or anyone who contributes. If you look at that page I have cited it up (at his insistence) so much it must be one of the most cited pages on Wikipedia. He continues to ask the same questions, in order to disrupt our work there to get it right. I am new here, and need help on that page especially. Your objective and I need your input here. If you would perview that page and respond to me via email about any possible places of contention in your mind or whether that article is right wiki wise I would appreciate it. If you feel it is credible, I ask for your input on that talk page. My experience here has been tormenting, because I do what is asked (provided credible sources) and this one user just continues to ask the same question...he is connected to SlimVirgin and others I listed in my mediation request on the other page, which I did because I was being accused of being a "LaRouche" person when I was not (see my profile). Thanks. --Northmeister 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go take a look this afternoon, and see what I can see. I'll make one suggestion to you, though, just as general principles: don't take anything that happens here personally. 90% of the problems you get on collaborative writing like this are misunderstandings (you write sentence A, and one of the people reading it filters it through their own perspective as though you said sentence B, and responds to B by saying something incomprehensible in terms of A). be calm and stubborn and communicative, and things will work out. the other 10% of the problems are trouble (either intentionally, or because they just can't find any perspective on the issue), but there are different mechanisms for coping with them. always think Big Picture... :-) Ted 16:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, I will take your advice to heart. I don't like having to respond like I do to the attacks made on me for just editing a historical article. I do hope this situation with these people can be worked out. I intend nothing but cooperation and excellence in all we do. Thanks again. --Northmeister 16:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, this is an example of what is going on still...It never ends...from SlimVirgin talk page:

"Hmmmm. [2], [3], [4], [5], Something amiss?--Cberlet 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)" --Northmeister 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at here. can you clarify? Ted 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued lumping of myself with others as if I am in a group with them. I wanted to bring this to outside attention, as to what is going on as it has happened in the past with other users most notably Rangerdude of last. A small group of the same editors. Nothing more than that and to show even though I've made a good faith effort to agree to your mediation, it seems these same individuals who have caused trouble in the past are at it again and won't stop. --Northmeister 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so they are keeping track of your edits. c'est la vie... this is not something to worry about, in and of itself, nor is it something that you can do anything about at the moment. they are allowed to talk about almost anything on talk pages. I'll leave a note on SlimVirgin's talk page, just so we're all together in the mix, and you might want to keep a link to this, if you decide you're going to move up the ladder to arbitration, but aside from that...

look, if you play by the wikipedia rules, then I suspect they will leave you alone and let you get on with your posting. the worst thing you have going against you is that you over-react and start yelling about things. relax: it's just wikipedia, after all. worst case scenario is that you give it up and go do something else, right? if the system is corrupt there's not a damned thing you can do about it (computers make it just too damned easy to oppress people), and if it's not corrupt, then you don't have a problem. either way, your best course of action is calm, cool, relaxed, no worries. Ted 03:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, I just read your exchanges with the others in question and have now read your advice above. First I wish to apologise for any stress I might have caused you in trying to mediate this situation. I will take your advice and you make perfect sense above. I again want to thank you for your efforts and dedication to fairness. --Northmeister 06:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:MajorRevision

Template:MajorRevision has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 00:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the template. I just wanted to replace {{majorRevision}}, which I've nominated for deletion, with a standard template I thought equivalent. I found out about the template from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Mysticism_header. You can discuss more there. Superm401 - Talk 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ok. thanks. :-) Ted 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted mediation request

The question Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator? is the question if you would be willing to mediate in a different case.

That is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question. --Fasten 19:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am, and am alredty trying to do so in a couple of cases. sorry for the misunderstanding.Ted 22:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Would you please amend the mediation case and answer either yes or no? --Fasten 15:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Problems

Sorry sam, if I knew how to get this page protected from editing while this dispite was resolved, I would do that. I don't know how, though, so I will simpy use reverts to keep the page static until either someone else steps in and protects it, or we reach some communcicative understanding. my apologies. Ted 22:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Wikipedia:Edit war. The page can be Wikipedia:Protected, but not for long. This is a Collaborative editing project, and the behavior I have seen you engaging in is not acceptable. Please observe our Wikipedia:Policies. Sam Spade 22:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I really don't want an edit war, and (frankly) I don't think your behavior has been very decent either. I'll ask about getting it protected for a short time, if only so we have a space to work out our differences. this entire dispute is personal, not content oriented (or so it seems to me), and it would be good to have a non-editing space to work out our differences. we could of course do this independently if you were willing to compromise a bit on your position; would that be possible? Ted 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to restore the edits I and another made. I can agree to the removal of the image and restoration of the headers you made up (for now), but reverting article improvements is entirely unacceptable. Restoring these edits would be an important step towards redeeming yourself. Sam Spade 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I really don't feel like I need to redeem myself in any way, but I will happily restore the edits of the third party. I think yours edits were overly aggressive (you essentially chopped off two or three hours of work) and I'd like to discuss them first, if you don't mind. I will take care of this later in the evening. Ted 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case: KLA

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures. --Fasten 08:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

magic classes

Cesar,

you mentioned at the village pump that there are magic classes that you can use for javascript and css. is there someplace I can get a list of those? :-) Ted 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making a list of all the CSS classes on Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes. However, it's very incomplete at the moment (there's a ridiculously high amount of them, and given that I want to get complete information on each of them, it's a lot of work). What little is there is already useful, however. --cesarb 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

curiouser and curiouser: kind of over-coded, but if it works, it works. this is only under monobook.js, though. will this not work for other skins? Ted 02:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, it can work for half of the skins (since they support adding JavaScript on the MediaWiki: namespace), if the code is copied to the correct places. The other half doesn't seem to have that support. --cesarb 10:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Ted, I'm not sure whether you saw my note on the talk page. Are you really trying to mediate with only 98 edits to articles, or do you have other edits under a different account? I'm sorry to say this, but you've provided almost a textbook example of how not to conduct a mediation. I'd also be grateful if you'd stop leaving what you believe are threatening messages on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I have no power to be threatening; which you know full well, since you're an admin. I'm simply trying to clarify what's going on here. the fact of the matter is, your and CBerlet's behavior is forcing me to act more like an advocate than a mediator, and since this is an informal process I've allowed it to shift that way to the limited extent that it makes me comfortable. my only goal here is to negotiate some kind of compromise that allows everyone to post within the bounds of Wikipedian rules, and for some reason you seem dead-set against that: no explanation, no communication, no possibility for consensus. if you would simply explain yourself, or offer some better compromise, or at least explain why you won't let Northmeister out of the box you've so effectively placed him in, then we'd have something to work with. but so far you haven't

I'm not interested in your opinions of my mediation skills, or of my experience. As I've said now, you have the right to ask me to leave at any time, and that's the only point that matters. make your own choices. Ted 04:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my final response. You keep asking me for a decision, but I've already given you one several times, and I am requesting that you respect that, stop contacting me about it, and stop posting to the article talk page unless your post is about the article's content. FYI, the relevant arbcom decisions are:

"Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche."
"Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."
"Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense."

Northmeister is in my view "engaged in activities that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche," As such, he is in violation of the ruling. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. As I said, I won't be responding again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Slim. I wish you had posted this early in the process, rather than waiting until I had to drag it out of you. now I can close this case as irresolvable without having to make a prejudicial comment, and I can suggest to Northmeister avenues by which he might challenge your decision through official (and unofficial) channels if he so chooses.

sorry to be so rough on you; maybe I can find some way to make amends after you've stopped being completely pissed at me. Ted 05:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Term logic

I left some comments on the Term logic talk page. Dbuckner 11:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syllogism

Let's assume that the comment on the Talk page was a momentary flash of anger, and foget it. my apologies if you feel that I have taken over the page. I take it that, when you saw what was there, you felt that it needed to be replaced; surely you can understand that I felt the same? As I said at Talk:Syllogism, though, your version (while clearly being hugely better than the mess it replaced, did have some problems of its own; it was a bit top-heavy in places, and the tone was often unencyclopædic.

Why not work together, without the confrontation, to combine the virtues of the various versions? I'm going to bed now, so I'll see your reply some time tomorrow evening. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, I am more than happy to work with you, that's not the issue. sorry if I was a bit snappish myself. however, I am well aware that SlimVirgin has got me under the gun (probably not without reason, mind you, but still...), and I do not want to bring her wrath down on any page that I touch, which is what appears to be happening at the moment. please feel free to make whatever edits you like, and I will join in again when I get some intuition that the waters have calmed themselves. Ted 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact I probably won't be able to do much myself for a few days (it';s the end of term, and things are hectic with last-minute [in fact, overdue] report-writing, etc.). I should be clear by the weekend; perhaps we can collaborate on transferring material from your version to flesh out the current skeleton. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Mel, but this doesn't sit well with me. the page was a skeleton when I got here, and I put a month's worth of work into fleshing it out. I think I did a good job of it, too; far better than what's there now. But SlimVirgin reverted it all away (to the letter) for reasons of her own, and you've solidified her revert by editing over the top of it again. and now you're asking me to help you flesh out the skeleton again...

so tell me, in what universe would I be idiot enough to do that?

it seems to me that if my contributions were acceptable, they wouldn't have been obliterated that completely. on the other hand, if they were unacceptable to the point that they needed to be obliterated that completely, then you shouldn't be asking me to contribute more. that's just simple logic. the fact that a third alternative is being offered strikes me as an entirely political move which I have neither the resources nor the interest to evaluate. honestly, I started editing on Wikipedia because I thought it was a decent cause and an interesting project, and because I have a lot of skills and knowledge that I can contribute. I didn't come here to play political games, or to fight petty little battles over bruised egos, and if that's what Wikipedia is really about (which is how it's looking to me right at the moment), then I can only see it as a useless and unproductive waste of time. I will wait a bit and see what happens, and if I see some tangible signs of good faith, then I'll reconsider. barring that, though, I have no interest in contributing to this article further. Ted 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the politics of the issue, if any. I saw an article that was in an appaling state, and I started rewriting it, as I've done on many other occasions. That there was a better version in the page history was unknown to me at the time (did you check back in the history before you started your edit? I suspect not). It looked like many other poor-quality articles, and I responded accordingly. I didn't oblierate your contributions (indeed, I didn't touch them); if they'd have been in place when I first saw the article, I'd have proceeded differently — but they weren't, and I didn't.

As I've explained, I think that your version, while much better than what I found, suffers from faults including NPoV and unencyclopædic language, and a tendency to read like a dense personal essay. Mine is scrupulously close to the sources I used (even when I personally have slightly different views). Yours is full of useful material which should be in the article, and it's much easier to add material from a longer to a shorter than to use the shorter to amend the longer, as I'm sure you'll agree.

I hope that you'll reconsider. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise Ted for what I've gotten you into. I had no idea. But, I refuse to allow the breaking of the rules by SlimVirgin who reverted the page in question in order to make a point and disrupt the work of editors who have put hours of work into the project. This is outrageous conduct and not appropriate for an administrator or any editor to do. --Northmeister 02:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC) I have reverted to your edition for reasons stated on the talk page there. I suggest you and Mel work together from your copy to flesh out any disagreement over wording or accuracy. The article needs cleaning up, but that does not call for reversion; mainly it is a problem of wording and phrase. I offer any help you need, but my knowledge of that area is limited. --Northmeister 04:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, SlimVirgin broke no rules. Secondly, you have done, by calling a non-vandalising set of edits (mine) vandalism. Thirdly, as you've just reverted my version for reasons unconnected with its content, you've done exactly what you've accused SlimVirgin of doing.

This issue can easily be settled by good-faith discussion and co-operation. If you don't want to be involved in that, but prefer to use the tactics that you claim to deplore, go and do something else. As you'd not contributed to the article until your revert of my version, you seem to have no genuine interest in the discussion in any case. I see from comments further up the page that your involvement is purely political, involving an earlier dispute with SlimVirgin. Your actions are looking more and more like violations of WP:POINT. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, you edited the page after SlimVirgin reverted the page without prior notice nor any discussion as to why. The reasons she gave were not sufficient. She did this after being in a dispute with myself over other violations of her position, in which she refused to mediate. Ted was the mediator who ruled that I had grounds to go onto arbitration. So she therefore retaliated against him, it is quite obvious and rude. I reverted back to the page before her vandalistic practices, so you and Ted could work together from the hours of work he made. Did she break any rules...Well consider interupting an article to make a point (its on that pages talk for education). --Northmeister 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok. see my comments on the talk page...

Northmeister: thank you for the support, but I really don't want to export the problems of another page onto this one. I can handle this problem, or not, and it will all work out fine. please don't edit the page unless you have an editorial interest in the contents. :-)

I will honor your request. SlimVirgin is abusing her position, and reverted breaking not only good faith but other standards of good wikipedia editing. She did this after you mediated a case in which she refused to be involved in as a clear retaliation against you. That is uncalled for and her vandalism should not stand. Mel above started edited after this. Hence, I did what I felt was right to correct a wrong. I am sorry you are leaving. But this is precisley what SlimVirgin and the cohorts around her do to editors and it needs to stop. --Northmeister 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that you reverted the page (twice) with the extremely misleading edit summary "rv. per discussion with Mel. please see discussion on talk page". Even if you're using "per" in an extremely non-standard way, I find it very difficult to assume good faith with regard to this; nothing in what I've said above or at Talk:Syllogism comes close to justifying a reversion (quite the contrary). I shall continue to make use of your material when expanding and up-dating the article, but it seems clear that you're not in fact interested in collaboration. I think that that's a pity, but it's silly for me to use up further time and energy on this page trying to achieve an amicable joint approach given your behaviour, so I'll leave it there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies, I didn't mean to imply anything that you would object to - I just wanted people to read this section so that they would understand my motivations for reverting (fat lot of good it did, of course). I seem to be running into a lot of communication problems here, which surprises me tremendously; I almost never have that problem in other arenas.

as to syllogism, please go ahead and do as you will; I hope that you can salvage something useful out of what I did before. normally I'd be happy to collaborate, but at this point I feel this entire environment is too hostile for me to deal with. I'm concerned that if I put more work into any projects here, SV will simply revert them again and I'll have another month of time and effort wasted. it sucks to have an administrator stalking you. so I'm going to leave Wikipedia; that should make everyone happier. Ted 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. I've decided your not a sockpuppet after all, but instead are acting in much the same way I did when first coming here. You catch on very quickly, but lack experience, therefore incuring all sorts of hostilities.

I for one appreciate your contributions, and would prefer to achieve a working relationship with you than seeing you go. We have had a number of minor differences, but our fundamental goal is the same: to learn while helping others. Sam Spade 00:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a problem

I'm afraid I wouldn't know the difference between a syllogism and a hole in the ground. But if you want to work through your differences with SlimVirgin, might I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, in particular the bit on mediation? I think the two of you could benefit from working through the issues in conjunction with a neutral third party (not me - too much on my plate at the moment!). -- ChrisO 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted knows much about this. He was a mediator and that is why he is being attacked by SlimVirgin now, for trying to resolve a dispute between herself and I over similiar tactics against myself and others. There is a long long history of her abuse (with others) and the refusal of wikipedia to step in a do anything about it. The community needs to be aware of what she is doing to wikipedia and civility. It is all documented, including surveillance of other editors, reverting pages without discussion (pages worked on for days and days), personal attacks on other editors, accusations of other editors credentials (Ted's per mediation case), previous disputes with other editors taken to arbitration where a convincing and overwhelming level of evidence was presented of her and others in her group harassing editors...etc. She is engaged in smear and the use of rules here in a dictatorial sort of way, contrary to wikipedias spirit of openess with facts. --Northmeister 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syllogism article

Ted, I ask you reconsider leaving Wikipedia and syllogism. I have recently made a plea for Mel to work from your original article paragraph by paragraph, one to right a wrong, and two for improvement. Mel has offered excellent work, but alas worked from a starting point after 'vandalism' occured. I am in hope that the two of you can put together an accurate article worthy of wikipedia. You've done days of work and that should be recognized. Mel has done good work as well and the two of you should be able to flesh out differences and make the article superb. I am not sure if my attempt to mediate, right a wrong done to you, and in the end do what wikipedia is suppose to do, have diverse characters work together toward excellence -will work, but it is an honest try. Reconsider at least, your a valuable member of wikipedia. --Northmeister 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see your leaving, as noted elsewhere...best wishes to you and good luck in the future. --Northmeister 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same to you. and I hope things work out well for you. Ted 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider and take a break instead of leaving for good. Ksenon 06:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Roll Call

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign next to your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a rtinp23 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Twrigley. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Twrigley~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

03:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)