Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:48, 15 March 2008

Osho

I'd be happy to do the move, probably tomorrow so I can give it my full attention. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 02:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Will Beback · † · 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi I see that you have reverted the position of the wikiquote link on the Osho page. Do you have any way of restoring the appearnace of the link symbols at the end of the first and third external links as they are not showing properly? 89.240.2.20 12:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The disappearing symbols are a glitch in Misplaced Pages; it happens in other places in the text as well. I can get the symbols to display correctly by changing the text size in IE or Firefox. As for the position of the Wikiquote box, I randomly checked some other articles that have links to sister projects -- Rabindranath Tagore (a Featured Article in WP), Karl Marx, Gandhi, J. Krishnamurti -- and they all have the box positioned at the top of the relevant section ... so I thought, well, let's go with that, since it seems to be the standard style. Cheers, Jayen466 13:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lo, Don't really understand much of how Wiki works at the moment for the actual editing process and leaving coments and the like. I was wondering if you could check out this Critical Assessment of Osho. It seems to be non biased from what I read and also detailed http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html Silveranstavern (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC) silveranstavern.

Welcome and thanks. I'm familiar with the site. However, have a look into WP:SPS, which is part of WP:V, and WP:RS; Misplaced Pages is quite stringent with the sort of sources it allows. Cheers, Jayen466 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Candiru Picture

I have indicated that the ruler is in Inches, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Takedashingen620 12:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:I'm lLOST

No problem. I'm only watching the page in waiting for a question I left on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

comments

I have commented here: Talk:Osho/Comments

WP:BIO might be able to recommend a suitable infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Hey, just wondering: isn't there a template for a teacher or a spiritual teacher - is the "artist" the closest we can get? I am guessing you already searched for templates and the "artist" seems the most suitable for Osho and Gurdjieff. If you want me to help you look for another say so. Aeuio 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aeuio, I took that info box from the featured article Tagore (where it's subsequently been replaced, though). I think it fits quite well, because it allows for specification of "movement" and "key works". What do you think?

I couldn't find any template specifically designed for spiritual teachers. Looked at the philosophy templates, and they didn't seem right. Have used the artist one in Idries Shah as well now. If you should find something better, do let me know. Cheers, Jayen466 11:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The philosophy one looks pretty good too. I'll put it on the talk page to see what others think. Thanks for the template idea. Aeuio 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I had the Osho article reviewed the other day, and the absence of an info box was one of the main shortcomings the reviewer wanted fixed. The G article has some of the same shortcomings. For example, we don't mention biographical details like his brother, the death of his wife etc. Cheers, Jayen466 12:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Gurdjieff article: We are currently doing a revision and you are more than welcome to help. Concerning your "history section" comment, If you are interested then this http://www.gurdjieff.org/chronology.htm is a good place to use to improve the bio. Aeuio 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, that chronology looks like a great reference source. Too busy to help today, but will check in again. Good luck. Jayen466 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Osho.jpg

Glad to help out, only the job's not quite finished. The image still needs a use rationale. Perhaps you can add one before someone flags the image again? Thanks, and thanks for cropping the messy bottom! -- But|seriously|folks  16:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That should take care of most of it. Just stick it into a template like {{Non-free use rationale}}, add the missing fields and you'll be done. Thanks again! -- But|seriously|folks  18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Scleromochlus / Ornithodira

Current phylogenetic analyses places Scleromochlus as the basal most-member of Ornithodira, and not within Pterosauropmorpha. Even if Scleromochlus was within Pterosauropmorpha it does not necessitate that it was in fact an 'ancestor' to the pterosaurs. All it would tell us is that both the pterosaurs and Scleromochlus shared a more recent common ancestor than that with the dinosaurs. Sister group relationships does not mean one taxon is ancestral to none-another. Take the example of humans and chimps+bonoboos. We are their sister taxon, but we're not ancestral to either, and neither of them are ancestral to us. This is a common misunderstanding of cladistic methodology and theory. There is no current Scleromochlus-pterosaur explicit ancestor theory (as no-one would/or should ever try and postulate direct ancestry as it is untestable)that I'm aware of. Simply that some analyses that placed it within the pterosauromorphs, whilst others places it as basal to both pterosauromorphs+dinosauromorphs. It is worth noting that Scleromochlus appears earlier in the fossil record than pterosauromorphs, so it cannot be the direct ancestor to pterosaurs in any case. Hope this helps. Mark t young 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

The only image of use that I noticed at was "imm003.jpg". What do you think? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

• However if the current Osho pic doesn't hold on WikiCommons, that Rolls Royce pic is the next best iconic, free-use pic to use to represent Osho on Wiki. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes, we could use that as a fall-back. -- Jayen466 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Kewl. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Barnstar!

		The Half Barnstar
		Awarded to you and to Curt Wilhelm VonSavage. For the most civil disagreement I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages, at 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Very impressive. Keep it up! Katr67 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! In fact, I have been thinking of inviting him (I'll assume with a name like that it is a he) to revise the Osho article with me. :-)) Best wishes, Jayen466 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think attempting to revise the Osho article is not something I am interested in at this time. It would take an incredible amount of work and time and effort to get the article from its current puff-piece/hagiography/whitewash to a state where it could be considered neutral. However, as I said before it might be fun to work on other related articles, or to create relevant articles that don't yet exist on the project. I already have quite a few in mind. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

Tamara Davies

Sorry for the late reply. I responded on my talk page. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag

This page is not a forum for general discussion about this subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about this subject at the Reference desk.

Jay,

Did you actually put this tag on a discussion page (Talk:Idries Shah)?

Was it not you who spotted that the psychology section of the article needed lots, lots more work...?

Is there anything wrong with the verifiability of the information ?

Or did I forget to ask the teacher ?

Lunarian (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am not that much interested in what wikipedia is not, I just contribute to what it is

I did, because I could not see where you were going with your comments. Otherwise I appreciate your adding sourced info to the article; it definitely can benefit from further expansion. -- Jayen466 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in any case the article is now much improved through your intervention also.

I must also conclude from our interchange that I am not that great with irony . It affects my tone in a manner that invites reprimand.

I stand corrected.

Thanks for your fine contribution.

Lunarian (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. -- Jayen466 04:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago pro labore tuo

You are of course right, refero/referro's the indicative pr 1.sg. Can't imagine how that's slipped by me all this time. Part of the explanation being that one hardly ever looks at one's own userpage. Thanks again for taking the time. Relata refero (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Six Sigma

In your recent edits, you deleted the reference to the 1988 Motorola pamphlet, "The Nature of six sigma quality". Did you know that this pamphlet is regarded as the publication that introduced the "rest of the world" to Six Sigma? It probably should have been kept in.

Additionally, why did you feel the need to de-link Image:OneAndAHalfSigmaDrift.svg?

Hi Daniel, I would suggest that we start a Literature section for the article, and include Harry's book in it. The article is generally short on references right now; many key statements are not verifiable for the reader. I am busy at the moment but will try to do some work on that. The section on the 1.5 sigma shift that I deleted (and which included the picture) was unreferenced and seemed like a Wikipedian's private critique of Harry's approach, rather than something verifiably based on available literature. The article needs a lot of work, based on academic sources -- I believe it is one of the articles most frequently accessed in WP, and at present woefully short of encyclopedic standards. Anyway, that is my view; what do you think? Best wishes Jayen466 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the issue:

• The first statement in the "The ±1.5 Sigma Drift" was cited until you deleted it, making the article even "shorter on references".
• The reference you deleted was a citation used to properly cite the source of that statement, consistent with WP:CITE. Separating the citation from the statement (e.g., in a "Literature section") makes it more difficult to verify, not easier.
• Per Misplaced Pages:Make technical articles accessible, "any people learn better, and many technical concepts are communicated better, through visual depictions". De-linking the image does not help these people.
• Finally, the edits you made contain no citations (except the one you moved), which seems contradictory in the face of your insistance WP:VERIFY.

I agree completely with your premise (that the old section was WP:OR), but it seems to me you replaced somewhat sourced material (e.g., the Harry pamphlet) with less sourced material. Did you really improve the article in the end?

Guilty as charged, what I inserted lacked references. However, there are published references available for what I inserted, and I am not so sure that is the case for everything else we had. The old section on "The term Six Sigma", for example, had things back to front, stating that the 1.5 sigma is added to an existing 4.5 sigma, as though the 1.5 sigma shift assumed processes were going to be more capable over the long term, when it is in fact a subtraction from the 6 sigma capability that practitioners want to observe over the short term, made so as not to make an unrealistic overestimate of long-term capability. So to that extent I am absolutely confident that I have improved the section concerned, making it easier to understand what this 6 sigma thing is about, and why the given 3.4 ppm correspond to a 4.5 sigma quantile, rather than 6 sigma. I have now inserted the Harry as a ref for the discussion of the 1.5 sigma shift where it is first mentioned. Jayen466 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no added the missing references. Jayen466 02:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Self revert?

Sorry, Jayen, this is not a self-revert diff - the last version of the intro before yours was Lawrence Cohen's (see left side of the diff I gave). Self-revert means you revert to the version before your own (regarding the part of the page you had been editing). Self-revert is a wrong term here, you're simply supporting the version without the intellectual content criticism in the lead section. No problem with that, but it is not correct to indicate it as a "self-revert" in the edit summary then. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Jayen466 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC resolved comments

Diff - If this particular issue with this specific set of instances of usage of the Garrett cites has been resolved, per your statement here can you please restore the caps that I had added to the FAC, so that it does not take up as much room in the FAC discussion page? Cirt (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)