User talk:Naturezak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Hold on
HI, Naturezak. Please read this Wikipedia guidline: WP:CONSENSUS. You are making major changes to the article without discussion. This is especially important for a controversial article. TimidGuy (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Let's discuss my changes before reverting them. I've responded in the Tm talk page.Naturezak (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TM POV resolution
Can I ask you for some advice as we try to move toward a resolution of the POV issue over at Transcendental Meditation? Recommendations for building consensus, that nebulous beast, are welcome. I'm new, but eager to learn.Naturezak (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- TM has been a bone of contention since before I started editing, I'm afraid. At the moment, here is my evaluation of the situation: TimidGuy, littleoliveoil, and perhaps Spariag are admitted TMers, with conflicts-of-interest. They have been the main editors to the TM article and Maharishi's biography, and it is very hard to persuade them to not revert any large additions to the page. In light of their COIs, I have requested that they cease editing the article and permit a free hand for a complete overhaul. They dis-liked my observation that they cannot be completely neutral, and seem to mis-understand my request for a complete overhaul for a request for them to make small alterations. You have seen what they do if bold changes are made.
- At the moment, there are four editors I am aware of who have strongly protested the editing of the TM article - you, me, User:Dseer and User:Philosophus. That may be enough for a consensus. Note though that the TMers are zealous and persistent, and also like to cite WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS to excess - even when they do not apply. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- As you can see, I added documentation to show that TimidGuy has already been determined by the COI Noticeboard to have been in violation of COI and should not be editing anyway, with similar implications for the other TMers. I did not want to pursue this by myself only to get beat up by all the TMers, but there are enough non-TM editors here now to convince Arbcom to take the case and most certainly block TimidGuy and the other TMers from editing based on their continued pattern and refusal to comply with COI, and ample evidence no other conflict resolution means exist. They will argue endlessly, you need a solution with teeth. --Dseer (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think a such a solution might be in order; Olive seems very set on continuing with a protracted negotiation of edits, without any willingness to rescind her "control" over the article!Naturezak (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- At this point, if you want to do the work, the best course is probably to make yourself a user-subpage that contains a copy of the article, then edit it to your satisfaction, and link it on the talk page for comments. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- All I have for these efforts is a warning from my old adversary and what I see as cult friendly Jossi for lack of civility (LOL), and a refusal to address the more primary NPOV issue or defer to a more neutral Admin, or address the NPOV issue on a subject where Jossi has strong opinions. My opinion remains that history will repeat itself with the TMers who always promise reforms but already have been told shouldn't even be editing the article as they do anyway. If enough editors can get a neutral Admin and then go to arbitration if they continue to obstruct, I will support that. Otherwise, after all this time, I believe anything less than a thorough re-editing the TMers will never agree to simply makes the article appear less transparently biased. Failing that, the problem with such partial improvement is that as the COI Noticeboard said as much, the bias and the absurdity of claims like yogic flying and the disproven Maharishi effect will deter sensible readers from buying the propaganda. Plus editors get weary of the games and drop out. If you don't get either neutral Adminstration and/or arbitration to enforce NPOV and COI, I can't afford the flack any longer. --Dseer (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]
-
-
- Fine you testing the waters again despite past history and TMers failure to comply with COI. When you actually try and make the article neutral and controvert the fringe theories is when I anticipate the problem. I too tried to assume good faith at first despite past history. We shall see. --Dseer 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Apologies
I've apologized in the discussion for the edit war. Will do so here, too. I'm confident we can put this behind us and together work toward improving the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point. This is the best place for discussion of netiquette. I really appreciate your input on the article -- its invaluable to be able to see it through your eyes. Thanks for sticking with it. TimidGuy (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TM
Sorry if I reverted your reversion of a non-published paper, it just looked like sourced content had been removed and I didn't really see a solid discussion on it - which I may have missed. BTW, I'm impressed with the work you're doing on the article, and your ability to work with the other editors there to find common ground and consensus. Keep up the good work! Dreadstar † 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Best place?
Re: Talk:Homeopathy#I_hate_to_seem_skeptical.2C_but... is this the best place to bring this up? I can see this exploding into a mess. There are more discrete places to discuss this. If you do decide to remove the section feel free to remove my two edits too. David D. (Talk) 04:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Add a heading?
I was thinking that maybe we should add a new heading to our discussion rather than having it all under the head about article protection? What do you think? Generally one isn't supposed to edit other's comments, and creating a new context like this could violate policy. But it's just you and me, and there's a pretty clear break when the discussion moved from protection to TM and relaxation, so it seems like it would be okay, if you agree. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] League of Copyeditors roll call
 |
Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors. |
Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] January 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CardinalDan (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Émaux et Camées
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Émaux et Camées, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Émaux et Camées. NickPenguin(contribs) 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
