This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rondus (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 10 August 2007 (→warning against making personal attacks and baseless accusations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

You mentioned that on Jaipur School reference section not to mention external weblinks - but I see many such external links on other sites including those of Harvard College. Pl. clarify.

Umesh (Jaipurschool 03:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

I have created a separate external links sections - I hope it is now okay.

mesh (Jaipurschool 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Articles

No I don't, but I will add them. Wow, that is probably my only pet peeve; reverts with an edit summary indicating a minor change that go back to a version from months back that is preferred by the editor.--Isotope23 13:15, 1 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)

Twilight language

Sorry 'bout that. I should have gotten a conflict message, since it wasn't your version I was editing, but didn't for some reason. 24.4.253.249 01:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i hear u

i will endeavour to remedy as soon as practicable *in+bliss* B9 hummingbird hovering 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

reverse chrono or chrono?

B9 hummingbird hovering 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FANx = fanX B9 hummingbird hovering 15:41, 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)

Dear IPSOS

I am surprised that so much editing and counter editing is being done about a central figure of Hinduism who lived on earth-- I want to introduce Rama and Krishna as central figures of Hinduism - I wonder why it is a problem to anyone including you. Please check wiki page on Jesus - it says the same for Jesus - introduces him as Christianity's central figure http://en.wikipedia.org/Jesus Please advise if I am wrong.

Umesh

AfD nomination of IPSOS

IPSOS, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that IPSOS satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/IPSOS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of IPSOS during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sandstein 23:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

warning against making personal attacks and baseless accusations

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kephera975 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps IPSOS should also read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers--Rondus 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

please actually start a page before giving a user a sockpuppet tag

Hi I'm not involved, but your edit, though I'm sure you didn't mean it that way:):):) to another user's userpage could easily be (mis)construed as vandalism. I assume you are working on/doing this now, but please start the article Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/999 before putting it on his userpage. I've not actually seen this tag in use before either really.Merkinsmum 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ekajati of which User:999 is a member. Regards, Mattisse 21:41, 5 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)

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

Kismet article

Hello,

I have noticed you have removed the Magic: The Gathering entry from the Kismet definitions, however it is still as notable as some other definitions on the same page. Since you gave the rationale as deleting external link, wasn't it better just to remove the linking, but leave the entry? nihil 08:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again? Can't there be just an entry without a link, much like there is in the Sex on the beach article? There is no need for an entire article on a single card, but like this is now, there is some information missing that could do into wikipedia without messing it. nihil 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Kumari article

I think you're being a little overzealous removing the link to the Kumari movie. First, that page has plenty of good information about the Kumari and spreading information is the whole point of Misplaced Pages. Second, the whole reason Sajani Shakya came to the U.S. and was "demoted" is that movie, so the move pertains directly to the article. I don't see any advantage to removing that link. Calibas 01:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, by Closedmouth (talk · contribs), another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:25, 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)