Revision as of 17:27, 12 August 2007

Archives

• Archive 1 (1/24/07 - 6/13/07)
• Archive 2 (6/15/07 - 07/31/07)

Add new messages at end please

Request for advice

User:B9 hummingbird hovering persists in WP:OR and addition of unsourced material on multiple articles. In the past I have simply abandoned work on some articles such as Tantra where I have been unwilling to be subjected to personal attacks, but the pattern of disruptive editing on multiple articles in the Hinduism group is no longer something I am willing to ignore. I notice that you have had some edit interactions with this user as well, and I am wondering if you have any advice on how to handle this. This user makes no attempt to engage in dialog and simply starts edit wars immediately. I dislike edit wars and generally try to follow a one-revert rule if at all possible. Can you assist with this situation? I am at the point where I feel the need to begin conflict resolution procedures such as involving third parties or requesting mediation: Buddhipriya 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is blatant misrepresentation. B9 hummingbird hovering 06:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've observed the same things myself and I agree with Buddhipriya. IPSOS (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I invite editors to mine my editing history in depth before making determinations.

Blessings

B9 hummingbird hovering 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a request for a discussion of recent edits to Mantra and the insertion of Bucknell et. al. on multiple articles at: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Multiple_disputes_involving_B9_hummingbird_hovering. The Wikiquette alert page is an informal place where opinion can be had about disputes without opening a formal mediation or other conflict resolution process. The page notes that "This page is not part of the formal dispute resolution process, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go." Buddhipriya 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for input

It see a new batch of somewhat challenging posts on the BKWSU talk page. I'm holding off responding today in case you have any input or suggestions. Some posts that particularly sounded alarm bells with me are the provocative re-writing of an rfc request and the following comments on the talk page.

"Firstly, can I remind contributors that Simon and Riveros are both dedicated BK followers and, at least Simon, a member of the BKWSU organization core Internet PR Team. I tend to see them as a single voice of the BKWSU; Simon and his shadow. The BKWSU invests considerable energy and resources keeping the the more freaky part of its operation.

The BKWSU followers wants to re-write this topic into some vague, flattering New Agey advertisement ,"

"But at least, Riveros, you ought to go and read some more murlis (channelled messages of the Bk god) so that you can understand what it is you are involve in as a Brahma Kumari follower ".

Also, I plan to challenge the first paragraph by citing reliable secondary sources which show that the Puttick reference is misleading. Is it too soon to file an Rfc after the first Rfc? Anyhow, it will take me a day or two to prepare the topic and propose a new intro.

On advice from Renee, I filed a Wikiquette alert regarding the Rfc alteration.

Regards Bksimonb 07:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK it seems that Green108 has been blocked for a while along with two identified sock puppets. I'm not sure quite what the sequence of events was to this happening, the Wikiquette alert, the arbcom enforcement board or just concerned editors and admins who were already on the case, but I am certainly grateful to all those involved in taking the initiative to address this disruptive behaviour.

Thanks and regards Bksimonb 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for comments

After posting my thoughts on TTR's talk page, and discussions with DES and Carcharoth, Carcharoth asked if I'd be willing to put my talk page thoughts into an essay, as mentioned on the DTTR talk page, and at DES's added suggestions, I decided to go ahead and take a stab at it. Since you were one of the people who followed the issues between TTR and DTTR, I'd like to invite you to take a look at the completed draft of the essay, and offer your additional wisdom, insights, and suggestions. As of now, the essay is not public, DES and Chrislk02 are the only ones who have taken a look at it during its initial creation. However, now that I've finished all sections, I'm ready to move into further discussion of the essay, aimed towards any improvements in format, layout, content, etc. I have invited Until(1 == 2) to take a look as well. If you have the time to take a look, I'd be most grateful, 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusation

Please do. Faithinhumanity 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi IPSOS. FYI. I filed this before you arrived. I didn't follow the full procedure since I didn't know to before you arrived but it was discovered and announced on the talk page soon enough anyway .

I have some ideas on this but I'm not sure how I can convey them without upsetting editors who may well be innocent. One place that might throw up some candidates is here and here. Jossi tagged all the accounts that may have an interest.

Regards Bksimonb 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been offline for a few day.Faithinhumanity 13:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference tutorial?

Dear IPSOS,

Do you know where I can go to learn how to do references? I've looked on the help and cheatsheet pages but I can't figure out how they're doing references on the BKWSU page and several references need to be reinstated because they appear to be good.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- much appreciated! --Renee 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper citations

Dear IPSOS, How did you find all of those newspaper and other secondary sources for the Sahaj Marg site? I'd like to do the same for the Brahma Kumaris site. Thanks, Renee --Renee 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I've never clicked on the news in google. This is great. Thanks.

p.s. is there a 12-step program for Wiki addicts?  :) --Renee 19:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Ah, I understand. I didn't realise there was a reasoning or history to the separation of content beyond what was hinted at (content dispute) within one of the AfDs by the nominator. Well, if the lack of third party references would be an obstacle to the incorporation of content into the main article, and if they're also likely to wind up causing the deletion of this content, then it seems to me there are two possible options to saving what is potentially useful content:

1. Find some references (obvious I know!). I'm no expert in that field though, so I wouldn't know where to start looking...
2. Strip down the content, to make it acceptable and bring it in line with guidelines which would then allow it to be merged within the 'contemporary orders' section of HOGD.

What do you think? Is this salvageable? It doesn't seem like the articles are advertisements or spam to me, at least, but the lack of references is an issue and I also don't think the organisations merit articles of their own. Coldmachine 21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nirvikalpa

Would you please take a look at Nirvikalpa? Apparently this term is used in Western occultism in ways that differ from the use in Hindu texts such as the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali where vikalpa is a technical term. I am unsure how to evaluate the claims being made in the article at present. Buddhipriya 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope

That is false. Speedy deletion trumps MFD, and this was a valid speedy (G7). >Radiant< 13:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi IPSOS. Further to the thread at the noticeboard, it's a courtesy to drop an admin a note at their talk page if you think s/he has done the wrong thing, giving them a chance to explain themselves before you post to a noticeboard. In fact, never mind admins, it's courtesy to do this for any other user in good standing... and possibly those not in good standing, too. I'll AGF... it could be that you did leave Radiant a note and I missed it, in which case I apologise. Otherwise, please take this message in the friendly spirit of mild tutting in which it is intended. Cheers. --Dweller 15:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

IPSOS did, a note which Radiant! reverted as vandalism here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Am I expected to answer this query? Please inform me of what I am supposed to do.

I am not up on all the technical aspects. Faithinhumanity 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

IPSOS, it would appear that your are trying to make a point that I am a sockpuppet for merely stating the truth. If you are not familiar with the IT TEAM perhaps a quick read of the arb case may be of assistance. If you are curious as to where I have been? In school, just got my grades and so came back, but perhaps you do not welcome such editors? Well, enough, just keep in mind that Riveros11 has in the past alluded that he would pay me a visit. So, be very cautious as to trying to ID me for him/them. I am merely keeping a record as in the past I didn't and simply stuck to the editing points. I must say you lumping me in was most disappointing.PEACETalkAbout 05:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, I read the arb case before I tagged you. After reading it, I was much more sure you were a sock. Please don't post on my talk page again. Thanks. IPSOS (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear IPSOS, When will they determine if Faithinhumanity is a sockpuppet of Green108? I ask because s/he is back at BKWSU making similar edits (reversions). Thanks, Renee --Renee 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for advising me. Doing as requested. Bksimonb 17:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

IPSOS (article)

Hi in your article IPSOS you say "He equates the word with part of a cryptic cipher in Liber AL (II, 76), RPSTOVAL" you explain how he reached the formula but don't explain what it might mean, in layman's terms. I think a sentence explaining it's possible meaning would be interesting for the average reader to read there. I know crowley didn't write that he knew the meaning, but I thought if a few sources agreed upon the meaning, we could put it? My theory is that it represents 'the one who will come after' and the announcer of the next aeon after crowley, I can't find any sources that exactly say that lol:) If we can find a few (even quite flakey) sources that discuss it we can include them, on the grounds that there's no alternative/it caan't be found elsewhere (unless Grant explains the formula?) anyway lol, don't know if you'd want to include this until after the AfD. My advice would be to copy the article to your user space, then even if it's delete it can be recreated sometime, and might even show up on google.Merkinsmum 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

YAY the article survived:)Merkinsmum 13:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sockpuppet accusation

I responded again to your sockpuppet accusation (ISP uses dynamic IPs, there is no intent to decieve)User:Green108

Conclusion

I don't know what's your problem with the word conclusion but changing it to opinion weakens Davis' teachings and makes him appear unauthoritative. He descended from that lineage and in that book he is presenting each of the gurus in his own parampara. It wasn't research or scholarly work, it was a Kriya Yoga textbook written by an insider, an ordained representative of the same lineage that is being discussed. It is not a book of conjecture or hypothesis. If Davis claims that Mahavatar Babaji is Hairakhan Baba then that is clearly his conclusion, it is not some popular idea that he just presented for the readers to decide, he stated it as a fact. The person is a Guru of the Mahavatar Babaji line, not just an ordinary initiate. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see from your talk page you've exercised your right to vanish. So vanish. IPSOS (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quit crying, I will go back to my vanished state as soon as you stop your nonsense with the article. – Watchtower Sentinel 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Which I won't do, since it is not nonsense. So I'll be asking the admins to unprotect your talk page so warnings about personal attack and other incivility can be added. IPSOS (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected his talk page, and I have warned him for personal attacks. However I have to say a conclusion is an opinion, so it is really not worth fighting over! Don't sweat the small stuff. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I agree that I am overreacting. Copy editing is a singularly unrewarding job. But this editor has been nothing but critical. I'm tired I guess. I appreciate your thoughts though. So thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

SSP

I don't know if Kephera975 is using sockpuppets, or not.

That said, I have entered comments on that SSP report as well as the one at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd). My comments were not directly about Kephera975 though, they were about User:C00483033 and User:Rhondus the other two user names who are listed in both of those reports, and who are almost certainly both the same person.

One thing that makes me wonder what's really going on is that User:C00483033 and User:Rhondus do seem to be socks of User:Frater FiatLux, but in the contribs I thought I saw an argument between FiatLux and Kephra. I can't find that diff now though, so maybe I misread it.

Since I'm not certain I feel I should be conservative in my comments on this unless more evidence appears, though the SPA issue is clear anyway. --Parsifal _Hello 00:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about his new "bad faith" SSP report. I've entered comments there. Hopefully when the remaining one or two AfDs are completed this will settle down. If he continues his disruptive editing on the article pages after the AfD, please let me know, since I don't usually watch those pages. --Parsifal _Hello 04:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)