Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:40, 30 August 2007

Archives: /Archive 1

BKWSU information technology team

Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University/Archive02

NPA to TalkAbout

AMA

Hello:) I have taken the AMA case. I will try to help. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• I feel stupid asking you this, but what does ETA mean? Shalom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 20:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What AMA case is yours? I did not put it down on my desk so I do not know what case it is. Shalom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 15:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just waiting for you to tell my what case it is. I am here enough to help out. I saw that you want help in using dispute resolution. Some things that I would do is keep your cool, set a reasonable date to get this dispute over and all of us can work to meet it, be civil, and be willing to bend a little. Sound fair? Have a nice week:)--James, La gloria è a dio 16:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for all involved on Green's talk page. Please take a look. Have a nice week and God bless you and everyone you know.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, both sides will need to bend to end this dispute. Secondly, does June 10 sound like a reasonable date to get this over with.--James, La gloria è a dio 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

:-(

Bksimonb, Ok, let us see how Green does to my reply on the article talk page to his odd humour. I hope I don't have to eat my hat on this one. Once again my apologies. PEACETalkAbout 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am off studying "World Religions" this summer in hopes of keeping up with the lot of you. Just got my midterm paper back on Hinduism and well I think I might pass. Honestly I was having a hard time keeping up with all the Hindi and the BKism too boot so I needed to do it for several reasons. Hope you are doing well. Ay, I now have a better understanding of "Liberation"!:-)PEACETalkAbout 06:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout, I think I understand the reasons why you are studying and would like to convey my whole hearted support and good wishes to you with your studies. Does this mean you are taking a Wikibreak? It's certainly useful to understand the BKs with a full appreciation of the unique religion and customs of India. Although I visit the place once a year and have many friends there I am still finding out stuff that surprises me about the place even today. Kind regards Bksimonb 07:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Green108

I strongly recommend you file a checkuser request under code B, as they can easily figure out if this user is a sock of another. --w 07:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR and other comments

Just for balance, you seem to have reverted just as many times as Green108. So please consider yourself warned also. It would be best if you discussed on the talk page rather than trying to carry on a discussion with Green108 in the edit summaries. That's just bad form. As this is not a biography of a living person, there is no real urgency in coming to a consensus. In point of fact, I agree with you on the Romain document, but it doesn't help your case to get into a revert war over it. IPSOS (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation

I think the best thing to do is to try to fight one battle at a time and try to do it in a non-confrontational way. I'd start a heading on the talk page about the Romain reference only. Then I'd list the article on the appropriate article RfC page. I am on your side with respect to this reference, and I suspect you already have one other regular editor to support you. Already the consensus is 3-1 against using Romain. All you need is for a couple of previously uninvolved editors to agree. Once consensus is clearly established, it is much easier to get admins to take action. That's why it is important to have a new section to gather all the opinions in one place rather than all over the talk page. Once neutral editors come in from the RfC on the specific issue rather than a general call, you will be in good shape. Prioritize the importance and do them one at a time.

On the age thing, I'd suggest compromise, making it clear in the article that there are various sources which suggest different birthdates, but use the most official or reliable for the main listing and category. IPSOS (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Simon, thanks for replying. I am only a six month Wiki editor, but I am totally sold on the project and the philosophy behind it. I agree that the way problems like this are resolved has repercussions for the future of Wiki, and that the tools for dealing with them seem to be still evolving. IPSOS' advice sounds very good and professional to me. I have, as I said, referred the page and its problems to other more experienced editors, especially jossi as I have found him very helpful, but he is very busy also, like most effective people. Vassyana is very good value also. If the suggested methods prove helpful, and edits made with a view to neutralising and improving the article are allowed to stand, I would be happy to get involved again, but you really do seem to be in a hostile situation at present. All the best with it. Rumiton 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't make a request for comment as I suggested. Without outside parties, there won't be any progress. Go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy and add a request to the top of the list. Use Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University#Inclusion of E.Romain's website as an external link as the link and sign with 5 (not 4) tildes. New request go at the top. IPSOS (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bksimonb, I saw your note to IPSOS about how Green108 changed your actual words in an RFC post you made. You might consider posting something at showing the diff. --Renee 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Simon, thanks for dropping a line. No, I don't judge people or groups by the emotional content of Wiki talk pages, knowing how fraught peoples' minds can become. I read somewhere once that the truth cannot be expressed in words, and I have found that to be accurate (note that I cannot say "true" or I would be contradicting myself.) :-) All the best, Rumiton 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

quick request

Dear Simon, Can you please go back in and sign your "further proposed changes" post? Makes it easier to keep track of the parties. Thanks a bunch. Renee --Renee 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! --Renee 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Simon, I think it's best to leave up other's posts on the talk page. It only reflects on them, doesn't harm the article, and makes sure everything's fully transparent. Best, Renee --Renee 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Simon, Thanks for your response. Sounds reasonable. I forget sometimes there may have been a long and frustrating history leading to current responses. I don't think you have to worry about the attack element -- when I read that post it just reflected poorly on the author and not on you. If you want to put a quick note after that post you can simply say, "XXX is blocked user reported to Wiki Admin for action" and leave it at that. These type of people want you to engage (I've learned the hard way) and I wish I had responded more like the above in the past. Live and learn as they say. Best, Renee --Renee 09:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick preference question -- do you prefer to be called bksimonb or simon? I've seen you addressed both ways and have addressed you both ways myself. Thanks, Renee --Renee 13:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108 sock has been blocked

May I consider this resolved, or do you still want input about edit removal as suggested in that thread? Carlossuarez46 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How did the defenses hold up overnight? By the way, blocking dynamic IP's is a tricky business. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re the last note you added to my talk page

If you have evidence, contribute it to the sockpuppet report directly, at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Green108.

Alice Bailey RfC

If you look, you will see that the criticism section is the only section of the article that has sources. The lack of secondary sources in the main part of the article suggests to me that the subject of this article lacks notability. I am trying to be fair; and, in fact, I believe all the necessary sourcing is there. If you think something that should be there is not, point it out to me and if it is a genuine problem I will either supply the necessary sourcing, or remove the problematic statement. Kwork 18:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I use the best sources I can find, but certainly do I wish there were better sources. To the best of my knowledge, no independent study, not even a good scholarly historical essay, has ever been written about her. Because of that, the article should do a better job of establishing Bailey's notability. I just took a look at amazon.com for her book White Magic (probably her most popular book) and its sales stand at "Sales Rank: #262,410". That is not very impressive, so the article needs to prove she is notable, but it does not. The best argument for her notability is actually in the criticism section of the article, which is a rather strange situation. Kwork 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you notes

Hi Bksimonb, I saw your appreciation note to IPSOS (which was nice of you). One thing you can do to show appreciation is to give him a barnstar award . He really was instrumental in getting some other pages I was working on into a balanced, neutral state for the first time ever and I gave him one for each article (and he surely deserved them). Best, Renee --Renee 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks -- I didn't mean for you to do it for me! IPSOS does deserve one. Best, Renee --Renee 12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! IPSOS (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of images

So.........if it is too big for you , why not just make it smaller?

to be frank , i dont believe you for one minute.........Green108 19:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Yes, why don't you file a checkuser. I believe if one is still open you just add to it. If not, it is still done on the same page. Or maybe bring it to the attention of Thatcher131. He should be able to advise. IPSOS (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that was an SSP. You should also open a request for checkuser. IPSOS (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, I think it is more of a G. It's not really vandalism or attack. It's the use of sockpuppets to prevail over established consensus in a content dispute. IPSOS (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Had to steal this from you for the Alice Bailey site. Hope you don't mind! Renee --Renee 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words. My dad's in ICU right now so there's just lots of waiting and letting the healing process work. Here's where I used it: . Feedback welcome. --Renee 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Disingenuous use of policy in an attempt to discredit other editors

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. It is good to see that the Brahma Kumari followers all work so closely and you take care of their interests.

I must flag up the disingenuous use of policy in an attempt to suppress, discredit and intimidate other editors here.

To point of a conflict of interest is not the same as a personal attack. --Lwachowski 14:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)