User talk:Sethie - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martial Law (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 10 December 2006 (→Re.:Star Trek Voyager Elite Force: Alt is your alternative trigger for your weapons.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:24, 10 December 2006 by Martial Law (talk | contribs) (→Re.:Star Trek Voyager Elite Force: Alt is your alternative trigger for your weapons.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Sethie, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

/Archive1 pre Nov 2006

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear Jossi and Sethie,

As the talk page shows in the archives, users "195.82.106.244", "talkabout" and supporters would like to use materials which belong to Brahma Kumaris which by definition are not considered "reliable sources." Besides, even if these materials were used by user .244 and group of supporters, these materials were being used in a highly biased way, in a detrimental way towards the organization which they pretend to use to "inform" the public thus, it could never be considered "self-serving" but rather contentious.

There is a point that I would like to stress. Articles which belong to an encyclopedia must be non-biased. User 195.82.106.244 and supporters being the originators of this article do not fit this category. They were "ex-Brahma Kumaris" and by definition, biased. As a matter of fact, user.244 has a public website located at: www.brahmakumaris.info which notably portrays an antagonistic vision towards Brahma Kumaris. I thought, I should mention this to you Jossi and Sethie as a background for your help in keeping this article as non-biased as possible. That is the reason why academia has been highly quoted in the majority of this article. It is non-biased research. Thank you and look forward to hearing from you. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sethie,

Sorry I thought I was in the article talk page. Response is here: PEACETalkAbout 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation

Sethie wrote:

I am noticing you removed the Speedy Delete and did a redirect on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you chose this route? Sethie 03:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I redirected Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation to Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University because the two articles were identical (one had obviously been copied from the other), and Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University was the first to be created. Hope that clears things up – Gurch 03:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does and it doesn't. My unclarity is about the fact that Organisation is spelled wrong, and there already is a a Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation redirect.

Given that there are alredy 6 o7 pages that redirect to BKWSU, do we need to have pages that are spelled wrong too? Sethie 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Organisation" is a valid spelling of the word; indeed it is more common in the UK. See Organization and American and British English spelling differences. Misplaced Pages is not exclusively written in US English; the convention is to keep the spelling in an article consistent but any variant of English is acceptable. Redirects from alternate spellings are therefore necessary – Gurch 05:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not know this. Sethie 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Riveros11 and the BKWSU

Policy and progress

And just to be fair, both ways, how long do we have to put up with a user that refuses to listen or participate in a "middle way" discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation? I am sorry Sethie but it cuts both ways, it takes "two hands" to clap.

The wiki is full of people screaming "vandalism", and using all sorts of methods to block or intimidate others, when someone else adds or changes what they have written. I have stated that I perfectly well accept to use the citable sources Luis accepts BUT also that self-published sources are also acceptable. Two admins have corroborated this policy. I am receiving a complete blanking from Riveros11 over this which is the source of dispute.

If an organization publishes extreme beliefs, and even academics report them in papers the other editors reference, e.g. their founder "glowing red" and a "different voice speaking through him", "God descending into him" then that is not defamation; that is objective, cited reportage. In such a central claim to the BK faith, of God incarnating into their founder only, it cannot be ignored - even if it does not fit into their current or Western orientated PR.

If we can come to a decision over the self-published material within the limits that Wiki policy sets, I will be very happy. This to me would appear too be the only bridge left to cross. That is hardly an unreasonable position. With Luis, we have faced two immense resistances, a) to the channelling issue and b) to the Destruction issue despite, again, both being referenced in academia AND he himself putting the points forward them on other website. Again, it comes down to whether the Misplaced Pages is PR for such organizations and individuals OR accurate reportage.

If there is going to be two dialogue instead of tit-for-tat attacks, I am happy to engage in it. What more can I state? 195.82.106.244 09:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

TM Spring Cleaning

Hi Sethie - looks like that time of year again, when it's time to brush off the cobwebs and throw out the clutter again, or at least insure that a housemate hasn't thrown out all your favourite CD's :)

The TM article is looking better than it was, Timidguy (obviously affiliated with the practice) has done good work (ie when compared to Peterklutz for eg) but a lot of the criticisms have either been hidden, or outright removed under many different pretexts. We should keep an eye on this and re-insert content where necessary. What do you say?

Sfacets 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely- and nice metaphors. :)

Overall, I really appreciate what he has done with it, and now some concerns are starting to appear. I will keep closer watch and hunt for some of the old stuff. Sethie 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks much, Sethie, for your kind apology on my Talk page. And for your input on the lead. As I note in the TM Talk page, I think it's better without the phrase "positive effects." TimidGuy 12:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Show me where

Hi,

show me where it says I cant arrange my own talk page as I want?

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Heya 195.82-

I am not aware of an official wikipedia policy that says you cant arrange your own talk page as you want.

My understanding is that you CAN arrange your talk page exactly how you want to.

My understanding is that I also can arrange your talk page how I want to.

I would never interfere in someone else's talk page unless: a) they removed a block or a warning with an article I am keeping an eye on b) they changed the text of something I said on their talk page.

I am aware that in practice, when auser removes a block, or a warning from their page, it usually gets reverted back.

I am sure there are guidelines about editing other people's talk pages... I just don't know them.

love, Sethie 21:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

JP is Jesselp

best message on his own talk page.

JP is Jesselp . Another BK follower. Grew up as a kid in the group, mother still in.

I note he also tidy ups or blanks his user page. I personally dont have a problem with that but if you do can you continue your vigilance in their direction too?

Thanks, 195.82.106.244 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

) Thanks for the heads up... yeah, I will keep an eye out. love, Sethie 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

hi s, me and 195.82.106.244 been having a conversation see his history.

follow...i;m not to sure about. but yes i was a follower so to speak, and i think 195.82.106.244 was to. other interests, Distractions...etc u know the story. i placed my position as to where i stand with the bkwsu, see bkwsu discussion history jesselp discussion i think its called. JP 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi JP. Thanks for sharing you. You know I am actually not going to go look at that disucssion, the more I focus on personalities and not edits, the less clear I get and the more emotioanlly involved I get in my edits! love, Sethie 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, again

Thanks, Sethie, for your kind comments on my talk page. No need to rewrite. It's nice working with you.TimidGuy 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Sethie, thanks for your note on my talk page. Yes, the effects of TM practice vary. As you say for some people it does a lot of damage, and for some people it helps them. And there is a third group: by *far* the largest number of people who learn TM end up quitting it entirely! (Which is why it is quite irrelvant how many millions of people have learned TM.)

The real danger is to people who gradually get more and more involved in TM doctrine and practice. I call this "falling down the TM rabbit hole" and explain my take on the whole thing on my website. In particular I discuss the gradation in the impact that TM has on people at the site. And my own experiences with MMY and TM are described here (sorry, it's a bit long).

Again, thanks for the note!

PS: I just happened to visit my talk page and saw your note. Is there any way of being notified when someone posts to my talk page, or do I just have to check it regularly? Thanks.

) Wowsa- I am very familiar with your site. I have visited it before. If personal websites were permitted in wikipweia, the TM article would be FULL of quotes from your site, with me as the editor who introduced them!

Thanks! :) Tanaats 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually, if everything is functioning well at wikipedia, it will display an orange bar when you log on that tells you that you have a message. peace, Sethie 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Live discussion on BKWSU talk page?

I checked on Misplaced Pages:How_to_archive_a_talk_page and there is no mention of a 2 week limit.
There is the suggested 32 kb limit.

The page was already over 100k.

Do you really think any of that stuff counts as "discussion", never mind live discussion? For it to be discussion both parties have to listen and concensus agreed to.

I checked again and all you have done is stir things up really badly Sethie. It was a pointless exercise and the choice of what is live and what is not entirely arbitrary. Important issues will come back up again.

Unless we keep things, tight focused and keep clear the endless bickering there can be no progress. I dont know if it was deliberate but you just fed the flames.

195.82.106.244 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do what you feel is right.

I have never seen ANYONE archive a page which inluded replies from that same day!

And if you are BKwatch, please don't operate under two accounts, pick one and stick with it? Sethie 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it

Hi, Sethie. I'm sorry to oppose you. It's not my nature. And I don't like it. Mostly I feel like we've worked well together and have done some good work on various articles. I really wish that instead of edit warring we could go through the dispute procedures. It would be so much more productive. You might win. It may be that your case is valid that the Skeptic's Dictionary is a reliable resource. We can only learn and improve Misplaced Pages by going through these procedures. I'm sorry I deleted what you inserted. I really don't think it should be there until we get this resolved.TimidGuy 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant!

I have challenged you numerous times and each time you switch your reason for why it is invalid. If you were able to stick with one, I would be willing to hear you out longer.... If you had more experience on wikipedia, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Things don't always get resolved on wikipedia. They often don't. Concencus does not mean "everyobody likes it."

Look Timidguy for me you are both a human being, with you own feelings, needs and hopes, and you are a preditable robot. Lumiere and Peterklutz, two former pro-TM editors, WP:SPA's (both left wikipedia right before being banned) behaved in many of the same ways you do. So I honor your individuality and I have been thorugh this all before.

I basically get to serial date you guys.

We're just getting warmed up Timidguy. There was so much more well-cited, critical information about TM. The mantras are Vedic Gods, the TM organization celebrates Hindu holidays, there are 20-30 studies shwoing negative results from TM, there is a meta-review of TM literature which challanges the overall validity of the studies. As for this "being your nature" or not.... to quote a wise man "You must do what you feel is right." Sethie 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad form and not reading the history

Sethie

whether it is bad form or not, it is not policy and in this case, you stepped way over the line.

If you look at the history, the block was kindly removed by an admin Nishkid64 who stated "(→Blocked - Remove template. It should have been removed earlier.)" which whom I have had no contact whatsoever; see, . I did not approach to have it removed and so I think your actions reflect more badly on yourself than me.

Sethie, I dont know what drives you to get involved but you are not really helping. If you want to confuse issues and wind things up, fine, go ahead. Do it with style and panache.

If you can read all those efforts by Riveros11 using other IP address, refering to himself as a third party, ignoring policy over guidelines and not think that something is up; then fine again, it is a reflection on yourself rather than mine and I know where you stand.

I will revert the user page. it makes it easier for me to pick up new messages when they arrive. It is as simple as that. 195.82.106.244 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try you little stinker-pooh! Here is the page after Nishkid64 was done with it. Please notice the blocked is still there.

The next edit was by you, removing the block:

Ughhhh yeah, Nishkid "removed the block." You advised me to read the history, I will advise you to do the same and notice that YOU removed the block, Nishkid removed the "blocked review template."

So I appologize for re-inserting the "block review" template, after someone who I will assume is an admin took it out.

Removing blocks is playing dirty. Removing live disucssions, whether you think they are productive is not, using a sockpuppet (that's just an allegation, I have no proof) is playing dirty. Lying to me on my own talk page "an admin removed my block" when in fact you did it, is playing dirty.

I have no interest in the article right now, all I have an interest is to try and create a playing field where no one is playing dirty, so disucssion can BEGIN.

Easier to recieve messages? That's.... a great justifcation that bears no validity. Nice try. Sethie 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK ... explain ... how does it keep changing?

I am sorry but I don't think so.

I say it has always been the same.

I only keep finding additional matieral about what has been going on behind my back via these other sockpuppets or RIversos11.

So if you are going to make allegation, please specify. Thank you. 195.82.106.244 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

~Well, first it was Nishkid removed the block- which was a lie. ~Next it was- it keeps me from getting my messages clearly. That's a lie- wikipedia doesn't work that way. ~now it is "removed block report as it was bogus based on reports made from sockpuppet IP"

Make up your mind already!Sethie 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much for making your position very clear, are blind to what I am saying? but you are stepping beyond your limits I am afraid.

Lie is a very power negative word. You had better be able to sustain it.

a) I clear the talk page so that I can see new messages when they come in. I have always said and done this. I also remove bogus vandalism off newcomers pages where I think they are intimidation.

b) Nishkid did remove the block template from my page, it is in the history. So I did not get what you refered to or do not know the exact wiki terminiology yet. Experience teaches.

c) the block was bogus ... I responded along those line 2 hours after it was set.

d) I started qualifying the Riveros11 activities as bogus on the 18 Nov and two days later after the block on the 29th and since. It took me a while to discover who or where it had come to because he used an IP user, referring to himself as a third party.

I would say that was pretty consistent.

I only discovered it beause he also used to block maleabroad and fake a page up to look like maleabroad in order to attack me. I cant be bother going searching out all the references because I don't suppose you are at all interested, are you? 195.82.106.244 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A) It is not neccesary to clear the talk page to see new messages! I didn't clear mine, and yet I saw you had posted.

B) YOU removed the block, not Niskid, yet you said it was him.

C) The block happened. It was not bogus. It may have been based on false claims, but the block happened- you confirm this in D!

D) Removing a block that happened from your page, is for me, and lotsa other editors- snakey behavior. Keep it up- you will continue to loose credibility.Sethie 02:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What I should do is bite the bullet and pick a user name, what I intend to do is make a redirect. 195.82.106.244 08:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't make it sound so painful 244, ..you've already chosen 'brahmakumaris.info' and 'bkwatch', what's wrong with those two? Surely we don't need any more to add to the confusion? searchin man 08:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LOLSethie 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, Sethie. I feel as if you've created a hostile atmosphere on the TM talk page. And I feel that your comment about "brainwashed Mantra Zealots" is a personal attack. Please observe the gudeline of Civility.TimidGuy 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I hear that you are feeling hostility...

I do feel regret about that phrase, it crossed a line for me as well and I wish I had not said it. I am more then willing to change it if you would like. Sethie 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Sethie. No need to change.

I won't be back until tomorrow afternoon. I do want to continue the discussion. I'm convinced we can work well together, as we have in the past.TimidGuy 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I just noticed that you responded to my post above. I feel that this was another personal attack: "you are a preditable robot."TimidGuy 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to get our fact straight, is that what I said, or did I say, "For me, you are a human being.... and a predictable robot?"

2ndly- I understand that you would feel hurt by those hurts, and see it is a personal attack.

3rdly- I think everyone is a machine, myself included. And I think that members of certain religious groups are even moreso programed and less autonomous and operating even less authentically then the rest of us robots. TM strikes me as one such group. Sethie 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TimidGuy 12:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on your spam edit

No, sorry, it wasn't intended to be sent your way or to be a personal attack. It was supposed to be humor and was basically a direct quote from one of the references that was given: . I'm going to post this to both of our talk pages to make sure it is clear. If I could edit the history comment, I would. Again, sorry, it was intended as a humor. Wrs1864 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks- I couldn't quite make heads or tails of it! Now I can! Peace, Sethie 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Columbia University

Hello Sethie. Thank you for your comment on the Columbia University talk page. Just out of curiosity, did you read the actual “citation” for the text in question? I don’t think adding a link to a random opinion piece on an unrelated subject should be used as “source”. Matan 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I didn't! I looked over the disucssion and then looked at the text.... and now based on your invite, looked more closely- and I don't see the opinion piece as "random." I see an opinion piece in the university newspaper, discussing the very topic. And the author even says, the jokes are "part of Columbia."

The other link is kinda weak- except that it does have a documented Barnard joke- and appears to be a transcript of some kind of actual event. Sethie 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

About the Otterbien site, I was assigned to correct the misinformation that is currently on the site and add more detail. Since my superior has seen how easily misinformation can be presented as legitimate, such as the year we were established, our endowment and several other pieces of information, she would like to pursue removing Otterbein from Misplaced Pages altogether. Can you tell us where we can get information on how to do so, please? In addition, we would like to know if you can tell us who posted our copywrighted logo on Misplaced Pages without the College's consent (which comes through the Office of Marketing and Communications,).

Hi Sethie. OK, if that's how you feel after reading that, then I won't argue with you. Have a nice day. Matan 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Otterbein site

Thank you for being helpful and receptive and reasonable. I was treated with a lot of hostility by another editor. The problem is not that we don't like the listing, we think it could be a valuable resource, but after seeing the process, how easily our information can be changed/incorrect and the hostile remarks from the other editor, my boss questioned whether this site is something we want our name to be associated with. I will admit that I am new here and this was probably a job better suited for our web manager, but I *thought* I had formatted things correctly, and was very proud of myself, only to have the other editor tell me I had "terrible formatting among other problems" without telling me what those problems were and later telling me "the page is a mess" when to Otterbein, the page is a mess as it is now with all its errors. When I asked for help, he listed some places to go, but continued to call me a plagiarist. Now, I wrote this thing from scratch yesterday morning, threw in our news release sign off (which I wrote and has NOT been published anywhere, it is something we use to keep the reporters acquainted with us), and it's frustrating to be told to rewrite everything, in effect to literally paraphrase myself. Considering I have been the source of information for the College to every news reporter who has called about the college for seven years, I find it hard to understand why I am considered a plagiarist here, and why my office is not considered a reliable source. We are the proverbial "horse's mouth." And I want to add, I am really not some dragon lady, I swear. An intern was supposed to do this, the quarter ended and it fell on me, and it's been a very frustrating experience for me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jennyhill (talk • contribs) 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Archive your talk page

It's getting kind of big...Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page -- Scientizzle 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD

You recently applied AfD tags to Nazareth victoria, Omluce & Lil squirrel, but you're not doing the deed correctly. First off, each of these articles is a candidate for speedy deletion, meeting the criteria at WP:CSD; I have tagged these three articles for speedy deletion. Secondly, applying the AfD tag is only the first step in nominating an article for deletion. Check out Template:AfD in 3 steps for the proper steps. -- Scientizzle 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wowasa thanks. Yeah I was wanting to nominate them for speedy delete.... I got them reversed.... thanks for covering for me. Sethie 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think you may have made a mistake or two in creating Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conversion to Christianity...the formatting seems screwed up. perhaps you should restart that page using the above template I linked to? -- Scientizzle 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the header problems yesterday...Also, I just re-added ~~Delete~~ in front of your vote for clarity on the AfD page. I think it helps everyone form a more coherent discussion if everything remains on the screen but comment and opinions that are changed/updated are simply crossed out. I hope you don't mind. -- Scientizzle 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

no that is great, I have seen it done before... I am learning a lot from out interactions. Sethie 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate your kind comments

Thanks much, Sethie, for your kind words on my Talk page. I do appreciate it. It's been a wild week.TimidGuy 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to go

You're a real winner. 69.165.187.96 12:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re.:Star Trek Voyager Elite Force

Don't play online, due to a ISP system failure. I'm on a Linksys set up/Wi-Fi and it has been a miserable failure most of the time. Want some "codes" - in case you got shot up/blown up one time too many ? Go to Google, type in "Star Trek Voyager Elite Force" and/or "Star Trek Voyager Elite Force Expansion" /cheat codes (I have both game CDs, came w/ the Star Trek Armada & Star Trek Armada II games). These should come in handy. Forgot sig. Yuck. Martial Law 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In the main game, you have to use your hand phaser to outline the invisible blocks in one part of the Harvester Fortress, or your character will have a nasty fall. On the "Space Gun", find on the floor, some kind of welding tool. When you get to the "Final Boss", which looks like some kind of cyborg octopus, hide behind a column, and cut loose with the grenade launcher, using the "alternate trigger" to shoot mines at the boss. This alternate trigger is the Alt key on your terminal's keyboard. Done correctly, you'll not get hit, and you'll take it out. Cheers. Martial Law 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The game I've been playing is the PC version, and cheat codes don't work on some of these things. Martial Law 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Alt button for the game is the alternate trigger for all of your weapons, just be careful w/ some of them, or you'll accidentally kill off your character via the concussion. Martial Law 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)