Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:28, 24 February 2009

Archives: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008a

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramakrishna / Keshub Chunder Sen

A user NVineeth is POVing on Ramakrishna and Keshub Chunder Sen and undoing some of my effort so as to insert quotes from Romain Rolland's hagiography (1929). I am not expert on wiki mediation so dont know what to do about this. 65.49.14.82 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hagiographies are not reliable sources. Therefore, mark each claim cited to a hagiography with the following: {{cn}}. — goethean ॐ 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Swaminarayan Invitation

I noticed your edits on the Delhi Akshardham page. I was wondering if you were interested in joining a wikiproject that is still being constructed. As of right now, we need more members to make the project. If you are interested please go to my sandbox and sign your name. Again, thanks for your edits.    Juthani1    21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude! You ROCK!

Brilliant oservation. Just Brilliant! I quoted you on my user page.

"Namely, that it is a free-for-all in which those who can control content tend to bring it in line with their point of view, and to prevent others from doing the same."

Thanks. It really expresses the intent and source of[REDACTED] for what it really is. --Artoftransformation (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Stab-in-the-back legend

I see you worked on Stab-in-the-back legend a while back, making significant changes. So perhaps you're familiar with the topic. An editor just made many changes with little explanation. I'm concerned that the changes may not have had the effect of "Neutralising some opinion" but rather adding new opinion. It's not a topic I'm interested or expert in, but if you can review the edit I'd appreciate it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthony M. Daniels

You have written so many bitter words on your introduction page (the spiritual wrappings of the message notwithstanding), that I think it's good to say that I agree with the edit you did on the Anthony Daniels (psychiatrist) article. The only excuse I can think of is that I felt a bit nervous in a foreign Misplaced Pages domain and, probably as a result, I produced marketing drivel that has been sent by you to its ultimate destiny: the waste bin. I feel ashamed. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Integral psychology page

hi Goethean. I restored the Integral psychology page, which had previously fallen prey to the depredations of deletionists. Also added a bunch of footnotes, and some new material, so this time hopefully it should be fine. Anyway keep an eye on it, just to be sure.

By the way there's a couple of Wilber quotes in a sentence (I suppose from his book Integral Psychology) in the text which I kept

Wilber identifies an "integral stage of consciousness" which exhibits "...cognition of unity, holism, dynamic dialecticism, or universal integralism..."

But they really need citations, so if you know the page number(s) (or know anyone who does) please add it/them. Cheers! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Good to see some one taking your views

Having looked at your userpage recently, I was quite excited. It seems good to see a Wikipedian who has similar views and interests to my own, both in terms of your general philosophy, and in terms of your philosophy of Misplaced Pages. For example, I take it that you and I would both be deeply interested in transpersonal psychology and related topics (in fact, I teach this subject as part of my profession). If you want to respond to this comment, please feel free to leave message on my userpage. I have been checking the computer a lot lately, as, living in part of the United Kingdom where snow has been at its worse for twenty years, it has not been inviting weather for going out. 92.4.10.52 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you and I apologise - I must have done the above when I was not logged in, hence no userpage signature! My userpage is at ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC). I hope you can get on that one OK. Again, thank you for your kind message. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ramakrishna

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Ramakrishna. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Redtigerxyz 13:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CON and WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Remarks like "You are being deliberately obtuse.", "your disingenuous message" are violations of WP:Assume good faith. Please do not violate it again and retain WP:CIVILITY. --Redtigerxyz 16:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ramakrishna (cont.)

Gothean, you're really being combative. you're really not going to get anywhere by continually pissing people off.

Just as a matter of record: I'm not associated with the Ramakrishna mission in anything more than a passing way. I mean, I know of them (because I know a lot about a lot of different religions), and I've visited a couple of their centers (which, on the whole, was usually a pleasant experience), but I'm not even Hindu, and I'm certainly no devotee of RK. when you accuse me of being part of some bizarre mission conspiracy to suppress some 'secret truth' - well, I don't frankly know what to do with that except write you off as a complete dolt. please try to gain some perspective before you destroy your credibility entirely. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My reply is here. — goethean ॐ 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see;

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th . Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I just had a great idea!

Why don't you (voluntarily) take a week off from working on the Ramakrishna article? Right now I've seen you violate 3RR and am within policy to block you but I don't want to do that. So, instead, I think a nice break from that article would be a fantastic idea. Would you agree? Work on something different, friend. There are millions of articles out there that need your help! Unfortunately, if you continue to edit war over that particular article (and I'm seeing a bit of ownership problems per your userpage) then I may be forced to block users who are edit warring. But I don't want to do that, buddy. If you agree with me that it's a great idea then come and tell me and we can have a nice cup of tea. :-) Scarian 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Got your e-mail. I'll reply as soon as I can, friend. Give me just a little while and we'll progress further, I promise :-) - Just have patience! ;-) Scarian 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)