Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Littleolive oil (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 16 August 2010 (→RfAdminship: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Edith Sirius Lee, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes for myself

Krisanaprakornkit and his team studied only meditation practices that could be used in clinical settings. "Meditation as a part of religious or spiritual practice wasn't considered to be meditation therapy," he said. http://www.wellsphere.com/meditation-article/meditate-your-anxiety-away/369 Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There were only two studies included in the review and only one of these two was about TM. See http://thediabeticnews.com/news/860.shtml . The only included study on TM seems to be http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6986134?dopt=Abstract . Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Considered for help User:JamesBWatson Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Great points. Can't wait until you bring up at TM:Talk. I can't believe that there are those who claim that there is no credible scientific research on TM. They seem most often to cite this one very poor metastudy, which is about the only research to condemn meditation (in general) as producing no significant results. This doesn't stop many, if not most doctors from prescribing meditation for a variety of conditions in which stress is a player. My own published research on a similar method for transcending shows a dramatic and statistically significant decrease in both state and trait anxiety in only two weeks of practice. David Spector (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the explanation of WP:RS that I have seen in comments from User_talk:Lar. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are mistaken...

...about this. The discretionary sanctions adopted at ArbCom apply to any editor of the TMM Movement articles. Do not make the mistake of thinking that, as a "new" editor, or an old editor under a new name, you are exempt from the TM ArbCom decision. Fladrif (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to intimidate me. I carefully read all these arbitration decisions before starting to edit. If anyone should take note of these decisions, its you. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your baseless accusations of intimidation against other editors violate half-a-dozen Misplaced Pages policies, starting with WP:AGF. If you have indeed read the TM ArbCom decision, then you should know, contrary to your earlier claim, that the discretionary sanctions do apply to you, and your claim of exemption is baseless. If you think that my editing violates in any way the spirit or letter of the TM ArbCom decision, you are free to raise the issue before ArbCom or AE. Fladrif (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want to accomplish here. I am calling this intimidation for a lack of better words. I am not going to raise anything to ArbCom or AE, not just for one interaction. Arbcom has already given you some good advices. Take it easy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I can shed some light on what Fladrif is trying to accomplish. He or she has proven to be a bully, plain and simple (a bully is one who tries to hurt others, in compensation for some psychological problem, such as lack of self-esteem or, worse, a diagnosable condition such as Borderline personality disorder). In fact, as you obviously saw, the ArbCom sanctions he himself references to intimidate you singles him out as a violator deserving of sanctions; this clearly shows that he is incapable of seeing faults in himself, which is a primary sign of egoism. Further, he has a previous record of incivility and sanctions at WP. I applaud your assertive response. If you look at Fladrif's contributions, you will see that many, perhaps most of his editing at other articles is very intelligent and balanced. Why does he act so different at certain articles? I have no theory yet, just vague ideas. It is clear that he has a special problem with either the editors at this article or with TM and similar techniques (including Natural Stress Relief, an article he singled out and attacked by managing its quick deletion). Whether or how that prompts him to act like a bully (something that would seem inconsistent with his evident intelligence) I have no idea. Actually, I came here to ask you something different: you just showed up recently, but you seem like an experienced WP editor. You must be aware of the 'no Sockpuppets' rule. So I'm a bit befuddled and was hoping you could clear up my confusion. Of course, you could just reply 'well, it's your confusion--I can't explain that', but I'm hoping you won't hide behind the anonymity that WP permits. I find such lack of candor disturbing. Perhaps that's because I'm the only editor I've seen in 9 years of editing who provides on his/her User page a detailed and honest background. I think anonymity has no advantages. I will watch here for your response, if any, on both issues. David Spector (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

Read WP:CHECK. Oh, and if you continue to be evasive with your answers, I will track down a CU right now and get one started, I don't technically need your permission to do so. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation: TM lead

I will ask for formal mediation for Lead (research content): Transcedental Meditation in the next few days. Would you like to be included as an involved user. I’ll check back on your user page for an answer. Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

I don't have much experience with this process, but when I read the Dispute Resolution procedural policy, I noticed the following "When requesting formal mediation, be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute using the steps listed above, ... " Does not that mean that we should first do an informal mediation? Did we do that already? If not, do you know that we can be dispensed? Beside, I see that a formal mediation has an advantage over a formal one. In an informal mediation, we might have a few "cool heads", whereas in a formal mediation, we have only one mediator and he can easily be biased. Many people don't know TM and will prefer to be on a safe side, for example, by falling into the argument that we must be suspicious of papers where some authors are TM affiliated, more than we should be suspicious of papers with passing comments that suggest that TM has no effect at all. This is very likely. In Misplaced Pages, we have the policy and we have how it is applied in practice and these are two completely different things, even during a mediation. Also, a formal mediation only helps the dispute resolution. In particular, correct me if I am wrong, but the mediator does not take position on how to apply the policy (but he will indirectly). Not clear in which way it is "formal".

My suggestion is to clearly determine the focus of the mediation on one specific part of the research in the lead, so that we can well document it and not remain superficial. For example, the focus could be one meta-analysis that we think should be included. We want to make the connection between the policy and one well delimited point. It will not be a small step, because even a small point will involve many aspects of the policy. In any case, if you believe you know what you are doing, I am with you and will participate as an involved editor. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have filed a request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning the recent edit warring. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that under the discretionary sanctions rule I have imposed the sanctions I drafted earler at the AE noticeboard . You will therefore now be bound to a collective 1RR/24hrs revert limitation together with TimidGuy (talk · contribs) and Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), on all edits related to TM topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Main styles of arguments that I have seen used to violate policy

1. Giving more weight to points out of the main scope of a source rather than to its main conclusions and findings. Using this to include the details in the Intro instead of including the main conclusions and findings. (violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:LEAD)
2. Evaluation of the content of a source to give to the source a lower or higher weight. (misinterpreation of WP:SOURCE to violate WP:NPOV)
3. Using the personal opinions of editors (involved or external) about a source to give to this source a lower or higher weight. (misinterpreation of WP:SOURCE to violate WP:NPOV)
4. Giving low weight to a paper because of some authors affiliation, despite the fact that it has been published in an independent respectable peer-reviewed journal. This ignores the fact that affiliation is already taken into account in the review process. It also ignores the fact that other papers also have authors with the opposite inclination. (violation of WP:DUE and WP:SOURCE)
5. Incorrect description of the results and conclusions in some reliable sources. (violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE)
6. Misinterpretation of a sub-policy or guideline to contradict the main policy. Especially, misinterpretation of WP:MEDRS and indirectly of WP:SOURCE to contradict WP:NPOV. (This is often a subcategory of #2)
7. Refusal to discuss an argument of the other party, arguing that a consensus with the larger community exists already or that because the argument comes from the other party we must use outside help. (violation of Misplaced Pages:DR#Discuss_with_the_other_party )

Do not delete other editor's comments

What you do with comments people leave on your talk page is your business, but you cannot delete comments that other editors have made on article or Misplaced Pages talk pages, as you did here. I have reverted your deletion. I agree 110% that it is "bizarre" that a number of editors have left comments on a closed RAE that has specific instructions not to modify the page. If one of the Admins running that board deletes them as untimely or improper, that is one thing. But, that is not something that mere mortals are permitted to do. See WP:TPOC Fladrif (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you agree that it is bizarre, maybe I should bring this to an Admin then. Also, are you an Admin with the right to rule what happens in this closed RAE? Maybe what you did is only to participate in this "bizarre" edit behaviour under the false umbrella of someone that can rule this closed RAE. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

To answer your question here . If you feel you you were not treated in an appropriate manner and that your restriction was unfair, you can appeal it as an individual editor independent of restrictions or bans placed on any other editor. Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I completely forgot about the question you asked. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Thank you Olive! Since I just came in and was working independently with my own perspective perhaps it is better that I also appeal independently. I say "perhaps" because I am not familiar with the environment and I am not sure about that, but it makes sense. However, I will certainly participate, if you wish, in case TG and/or you also appeal on your side. BTW, you should remove your comment in my statement in the closed RAE since Doc James took out his. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its odd that three individual editors were treated as one, and that needs to be addressed. However, since editors edit independently and the restrictions were based on different and individual, alleged concerns, even though the restriction was on three editors, the appeal must be made by each independently.(olive (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

In case this is useful to you.

• "Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators may not reverse discretionary sanctions without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so." --From the TM ArbCom Decision. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

RfAdminship

Hi Edith... If you haven't been involved in a RfA in the past you may not be aware that content issues are not really part of discussion on the process for discussing a request for adminship., There is rampant misinformation being lobbed every which way in this RfA, but discussion of content will not remedy that, probably nothing will, and in truth is probably unfair to the editor applying for adminship. I have no right to comment here, but thought to anyway for what its worth.(olive (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC))