User talk:Reneeholle/Archive 1

Your message

I left a response for you on my talk page. Vassyana 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Shri Ram Chandra Mission

If there are two independent SRCM of the same name, then that article also need to be split. Could you suggest names for the two article? IPSOS (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Which org are you associated with? (if any) IPSOS (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chennai group, though my goal is to present a neutral article, not one that favors one over the other. I'm also very familiar with the other group too. Renee --Renee 19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste

You need to cut and paste from the edit page, not the article. Otherwise you lose all the wikilinks and I will have to revert you. IPSOS (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, did I do this wrong? Please let me know which page lost the wikilinks and I'll go back and fix it. Sorry! Renee --Renee 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Chennai)

Dear IPSOS, I've tried twice to do as you recommend and it didn't work (still lost that box). So, I'm just going to revert to your page and hand-type in the text. Thanks, Renee --Renee 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

AIV

I'm just curious as to why you and Shashwat have reported each other to AIV, instead of a resolution area. Jmlk17 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest filing a request at requests for page protection. I'll check into the users edits, and take appropriate action. Thank you. Jmlk17 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Heavier action, etc.

On the sahaj marg page, you asked about heavier action. One possible next step would be a user conduct RFC. [[1]], something Sethie considered however at the time, Sethie decided to go the mediation route....

However, a lot has happened, including: his 3rr violation, the stuff he wrote on his user page about why he is here at wikipedia (now removed), Sethie's problems with him, your problems with him, ISOPS problems with him (any others I am missing?) and that Will Babeck (an admin) cautioned him for all the same things we are struggling with him over. Sethie feels that there is sufficient evidence for a user conduct rfc and that some administrative action would almost certainly be taken against him if a user rfc was instigated.

If you would, read up on it, and read up on the various options available at WP:DR and let Sethie know your thoughts. Sethie 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the barnstars! IPSOS (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

your rfc

Hi I noticed your post on User:IPSOS's talk page and took a look at your RfC. While I was there I noticed that it was listed under "wikiuser" and thought you'd forgotten to fill in the user's name when you created the page. Almost left you a note about it, but then realized the subject of the RfC had moved it. I've moved it back and left him a warning. Other than that, since I know nothing about this dispute, I'll leave you to carry on... But let me know if he moves it again or otherwise vandalises it... GlassFET 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If the user continues to move or otherwise vandalise the RfC, I'll certainly add my outside view about that, but I'd rather edit pages than dig into something that happened in the past that I wasn't involved in... GlassFET 18:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S., I'd advise that you put something on your user page so it doesn't show up as a redlink. Vandal patrol tends to check the edits of IP users and new users. Having a redlinked user page makes you look like a new user and you may be causing extra work for patrollers. GlassFET 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at your sig. See how your name is red instead of blue? Click on it, you will get an edit page. Even if you just put a dot and save it, the links will turn blue. Your user name also shows up as a redlink in recent changes, article histories, etc. It tends to make one as a newbie or someone who'd rather not put a brief note on their user page about who they are and/or what they are interested in. Your edits probably get more scrutiny because of it.

With respect to your dispute, I'm not an admin so I'd rather not get involved with it. You might try the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page. GlassFET 18:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you'd like an idea of something to put on your user page, many users like to put userboxes on them. GlassFET 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome again. And thanks for the barnstar, it's my first! GlassFET 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Service award

This editor is a
Novice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

I see you are qualified for this service award, as you have been here over a month and have more than 200 edits. You could put this on your user page if you want or there are alternative forms your could use instead if you prefer them. Cheers! GlassFET 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat pandey

I've signed the RfC and added my attempts to resolve. IPSOS (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the tip on my page! Duty2love 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Heya

I really appreciated your comments on my talk page, I am so glad that I was able to inspire you to tackle some of the absurdities that you've been watching happen here on Wiki for so long.

I really feel like I've gotten really familiar with some of the core policies, and more importantly actually believe in them, and really try to edit from them. I feel like this is one of my strengths as an editor, and I am overjoyed to share that. :)

I would say one of my weaknesses as an editor is dealing with editors who don't play by those rules. It took me over a year to overcome my own agenda pushing on Wiki, and they really don't have an ounce of inclination to fight that in others anymore.

the positive thing about this whole experience for me is that I agree with you, in the end, on Wikipedia, NPOV wins, and troublesome users are forced out.

peace! Sethie 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

It's generally OK to say "We tried mediation but it didn't work". However, you must be very careful to not use it as evidence against someone and not link directly to mediation discussions in user conduct cases, because such links are usually interpreted in that fashion. If you have further questions, please ask. Cheers! Vassyana 08:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to include that formal mediation was attempted. However, please avoid linking to the mediation talk page, citing other parts of the related discussion or using the mediation against a user. This is to avoid having the mediation proceedings being handled as evidence. Ask always, ask any questions. Be well! Vassyana 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Thank you for stopping by Renee. It is uplifting to see the opinion of a neutral editor like yourself. Right above your comments, an analysis of the current article was provided. The issues you pointed out were also discussed there. It would be nice if neutral visitors followed up with the progress of this page to a certain extent. Anyway; thank you again. Best, Avyakt7 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Renee, Thank you so much for responding to the Rfc and waving one huge clue-stick at the article. Yes, the first paragraph seems to have been written to shock and horrify people as much as possible. It bears little resemblance to what BK-style Raj-Yoga actually involves. 'Monastic? Spirit Possession? OK so I need to go to some kind of monastery somewhere and, if I were a woman, get myself possessed by some "male spirit" and become his "mouthpiece"? No thanks!'--- I think that's the sort of impression it was meant to give. It is based on academic references but when I read the references they do use those words, yes, but the context is different and it is also clear there are some things they haven't grasped. I tried to clarify the situation here Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University#Start_of_article but at that time there were no neutral editors around.

Thank you for understanding what we are going through with this article. I've seen you've had a similar experience.

Regards Bksimonb 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on the talk page. I have done as you suggested. I've never had much luck with alerts before but one thing I have come to realise this week is that it really helps if Rfcs, alerts etc are written as one bite-size chunk of an issue that people can easily understand and respond to instead of a vague and subtle mushiness.

Also thanks for chipping in regarding the "possession" issue. I haven't had chance to formulate a response today but there are secondary references to show that the Puttick reference is not only being used out of context but is actually factually incorrect and misleading in itself. Bksimonb 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for reminding me :-) Best Bksimonb 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Try these three pages: WP:LAYOUT, WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. They will have links to lead you into more detailed waters. IPSOS (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Dear Renee; I didn't change my signature. Someone did that back in September 2006.I believe it was user 244. Avyakt7 was my user name in the brahmakumaris.info site before i was banned by him (user 244.) I have taken care of that so my signature name should match my user name. Best, Riveros11 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant that someone made that change without my permission. [2] as you can see I was signing with my normal user name. It appears to me that the archives have been reduced. I cannot find some things there which i used to see before. Best Wishes, Riveros11 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding citations

Google: first Google news, then web, and a bit of patience going through the results. IPSOS (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

.........and then buy some books and read them like the rest of us do. libraries can also be useful

I know the Bkwsu very well , i have also read the literature.......it would help a great deal if you could also , google really does not even scrape the surface . thanksGreen108 02:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Talk

I deleted the talk because in the past the talk page has been flooded with ranting by various suspected, and sometimes discovered, sockpuppets. So I'm inclined to nip these things in the bud now. Also the post was a bit attacking. And finally since it was practically an admission of disregard for wikilaw past and present, "trying to block you if they can , it has been going on for a year and has happened before", so it could be seen as a mercy deletion.

I'm happy to leave such posts from now on but let's review the situation if they become too intense and frequent as has sometimes happened on this article.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Other things

"I'd like to finish up my work on this article and move on to other things" - and I'd like to help out with other things too! I am so grateful for the effort you, IPSOS, Rumiton, Utcursch and others have put in and I kind of feel I'd like to pay back somehow.

Please let me know if you need my support on a project or know of other areas I may be able to help. I am looking out for rfc's I can comment on as a start.

Regards Bksimonb 12:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You know what. I didn't even realise I was sometimes called Simon, sometimes SimonB and sometimes Bksimonb. I guess that must mean I am happy with any of those :-) Regards Bksimonb 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey article

Thank you so much for your helpful edit of the article! It felt like a ray of light. Kwork 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page:

By the way, did you notice your name appears in red (and most other people's names are in blue). This is because you don't have anything on your user page and often signals to people a newbie and often draws attention to your edits. All you have to do to get the color to change to blue is put something, even a period, on your user page. Best, Renee -- Renee 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My user, and user talk, page were deleted at my own request.....in despair over Wikipedia problems, which I consider unsolvable. I have continued to edit the Alice Bailey article, because I would like to see some resolution to at least that. When it is settled, I will go and bother Wikipedia editors no more. Kwork 14:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Work on BKWSU article. A barnstar no less

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Just discovered barnstars! Have duly awarded one to IPSOS but that task would not be complete without also awarding one to you for the amazing POV-busting work you have done on the BKWSU article. Bksimonb 06:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No really! Don't be so modest. You deserve it :-) Bksimonb 12:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee, I neglected to thank you for my Ray of Sunshine award. Thanks now. It made me smile. Rumiton 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Any help appreciated

) Well Renee, we've been here before....

My opinion is that while Kwork has 10-15% positive things to contribute to the Alice Bailey article, he is mostly causing problems. User:Sethie\kwork notes

Any diffs you can provide would be greatly appreciatedSethie 23:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

For [3]. Exactly the right idea. I'm hoping the dispute about the subject of the RFC is essentially settled. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

BK pictures

This is probably a better place to answer your question. I think the BK members want the images removed because of what is written right next to them in the article.

The BKWSU prefers to keep the details of their beliefs hidden from newcomers introducing them gradually because they are pretty extreme. Especially this beleif that time and space are only 5,000 Years old and repeat identically.

All the recent pictures of the 5,000 Cycle have the actual times and dates removed, the old ones don't. There may be more reasons but you might have to ask the more radical anti-BKs about that.

They also believe that the dinosaurs exited 2,500 Years ago at the time of Abraham. Not quite sure of the details but ask the BKs and they will tell you. Lwachowski 19:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sethie's RfC

Hi Renee, I just read your endorsement on Sethie's RfC for Kwork, and I got the impression you may misunderstand the process slightly: you can't really 'withdraw' support for an RfC in the stage that one's in now. When someone files an RfC, it's not actually active until two (or more) involved editors endorse it (and this may include the submitter). If two don't endorse it within 48 hours, the page is automagically deleted. In other words, now that you've also endorsed this RfC, it will stay, and become "active" on the RfC:User page, where interested editors will see a notice and may come to look it over and comment on it. This is, btw, the only thing that an RfC is good for: you can't ask for or expect any sort of ban or punishment or sanctions from an RfC: only comments from (hopefully) disinterested parties.

I just wanted to make sure you understand all that; I myself added an "Outside view" section to the RfC (which you may have seen) stating that I don't support the RfC, and the real reason is simply that comments from other uninvolved editors seem completely unlikely to do a damn bit of good in this instance. But, maybe (hopefully) I'm wrong.

In any case, I suggest we continue doing our best to see Kwork's point of view. I think things are progressing well (if slowly). Peace. :) Eaglizard 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Great balls of fire!

No problem :-) I just found it on Google. I couldn't find it on the Alice Bailey article talk page. Where did you use it? I'm curious. Regards Bksimonb 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Just saw your wikibreak template. Hope all goes OK. Regards Bksimonb 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR

I think it is constructive Slrubenstein | Talk 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, feel free to use any of it. I think this is a really important issue for the Wiki world. --Renee 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good wishes for your father

Hi Renee,

My good wishes for early recovery of your father.

--Rushmi 21:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renne; about latest Edit

Just to give you a heads up. I've just made a series of edits to the controversy section. I removed non-neutral language and unsupported claims and conclusions that were not supported by references to Bailey or to other sources. Basically, what the pro-Jewish faction is doing is putting words in AAB's mouth and and using phrases that are personal conclusions of the editor. Phrases were used in the section that attributed motives to AAB for this or that position, the motive assigned being a perception or conclusion of the editor. Our Jewish editor friends, God love them, are not doing themselves a service by their bias and the edits are not following Wiki guidelines for neutrality and objectivity. They are mixing their personal selves into the edits in order to build a case that she was anti-Jewish.James 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

okay?

Yes, okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange?

You wrote:

Isn't this strange? Endorsing one's own RFC? Subconscious wish to leave Wiki Jr. High School? I can relate! Hope you're doing well. --Renee 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You might had better addressed that question to me, rather than Sethie. I consider the RfC against me as harmless, and my endorsing was intended to add a little humor in a setting that seems over serious. It is not a "Subconscious wish to leave Wiki Jr. High School?", it is really based on a very conscious judgment that if I were sent into permanent wiki-exile it would be the best thing that happened to me in months because, honestly, I do not like the people I find myself associating with here. Or perhaps I would like them very much under less contentious circumstances. Sorry, really. I know discussion that gets as tough as it frequently does is not pleasant. You may recall that the story of the Bhagavad Gite takes place just befor a battle that neither side really wants to fight, but that karma (fate) has brought them. And, in the Gita, (and perhaps here too) the fight is between two sides of one family. Sorry, because you are not the target. Kwork 12:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Kwork 12:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Kwork 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Anytime

In reply to "Thanks"...

Hello Reneeholle, Bksimonb has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Regards Bksimonb 13:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sahaj Marg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sahaj Marg, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaj Marg. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Peace

Hi Renee. Yes I saw the result. I guess this means that worst-case the rfc/u can continue with a few more misdeeds added to it if it becomes necessary. Hopefully it won't. It looks like the afd is a slam-dunk so hopefully that will remove the fuel from the fire. I can't say I fully understood what all the heat was about but then I guess that's what the BKWSU talk page looked like to an outsider. What next? Not sure right now. I guess I'll check for any rfc's on articles where I can actually understand what is going on and make a meaningful response to. Give me a call if you need help :-)

Best regards Bksimonb 15:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Case Resolved!!

Wow, so fast! Thanks a bunch, for you help Renee! Even though the Sahaj Marg page may go away, I am looking forward to working with you in future in other areas. Duty2love 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

archive

I would like to keep #91, which is still active. Thanks. Kwork 11:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

okee dokee. Renee 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD notices

Why all these notices? Rushmi didn't edit any of those articles.--Chaser - T 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't notice they'd been split. In that case, your notices were actually fine. Sorry for causing confusion.--Chaser - T 20:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit to AFD

Hi Reneeholle, I'm not sure if you meant this, but was this edit[4] supposed to be to the actual discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_Square_Theatres? The main AFD page is just for listing all the current AFDs for that day. You have to click on edit for the particular AFD (see the day before for an example) to write in that AFD discussion. If you don't mind, could you copy your edit into the AFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey no problem. You've edited on more AFDs than I have in months. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

AAB article

Renee, I hope you stay. You have kept your cool during the most trying times. I wish I had known that you thought the administrator was neutral, I would have been more welcoming. He said the article is off his list, but will come back if needed. I think James choose the new editor because s/he appeared to objective and has the ability to give a good analysis. Alas, it is a sensitive subject and even the best can lose their objectivity. Sparklecplenty 01:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up

Renee, Thanks a lot for this heads up. Obviously I didn't read the big red remark on top. Anyways since I only appended a sentence, hopefully it should not matter much. I will be more careful in future. Duty2love 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am one of those critics

But trust me when I say that I want to help balance out that article. I think it may have been Parsifal and not James who reverted the lousy source you were speaking of. Parsifal is very approachable he seems to be trying to please everybody but that is a task and a half. In general it is better to add than subtract. It helps keep the peace and is recommended by the wiki community in general : Albion moonlight 10:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Heya Renee, I feel kinda bad because you don't often add text to the article, and when you did I went and hacked it to pieces. I know you won't take it personally, but still, I just wanted to explain my viewpoint on the lead paragraph a bit more. Where we're not quite connecting is that I misuse the word lead to mean only the first paragraph (ie, the journalistic sense, and not the WP:LEAD sense). This is because you only get the lead 'graph on the pop-up browser thing that I love so much (except when it pops up over the firefox editor like it just did and makes me refresh the page...grrr) and I like it when that simple overview really captures the subject as entirely as possible in as few words as possible. (I really hate that WP:BIO requires the linked dates, and aliases in bold, etc. Yuck. Anyway.) It's just a challenge I like to set myself, pretty much. If you disagree, please don't hesitate to change my edits, ok? I won't take it personal. :) Eaglizard 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Major new update to the Bailey Biography

I've posted a major update to the biography. It contains new sections and a reorganizing of headings and subheadings in way that more closely approximates AAB's life and work. It is throughly referenced and with some new references throughout, together with quotes and paraphrases that closely matches the citations. It includes many new details and documentation on her life and conflict with the Theosophical. Kind Regards to all. James 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, I got busy with real life for a bit. I'm back but maybe a little more sporadically. I was surprised to see the Sahaj Marg articles deleted since I thought there was no problem with them the last I looked at them. Seems to me they should have just been reverted and kept. Oh well. IPSOS (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your AfD vote on GS&MPU

Sorry, I hadn't realized that the article was already listed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 'Haystacks' Maguire. I am going to be be requesting my listing be deleted, FYI. You may want to vote there instead.  ;) Into The Fray ^T/C 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Stevie G.

Thanks for the reminder. I forgot to add the template. It's there now.--Fightingirish 01:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye, and Thanks

The situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. Parsifal and Kwork tend to be anti-Bailey editors and their personal bias conditions their edits. They make nice little format fixes, but where anything significant is concerned, their bias is likely to control. I have fought their selective-misquotations and distortions and lack of perspective for a long time, and struggled in the face of it to create a biography that is accurate and that contains a just amount of reasonable criticism. It is no use, unless others with knowledge, interest, and authority show up to change the situation.

I am done with editing this article. Without administrative intervention or other knowledgeable editors with a scholarily interest in the subject, it is like writing in Beach sand and there is insufficient support to warrant continued painstaking efforts. There have been a few people who have given mostly moral support and discussion contributions, and for that thanks. But there is no real community of active editors willing to join me in shaping the article.

My friends in this karma, those identified with the Jewish issues, will now control a subject they are averse to and which they have limited knowledge of. The pro-Jewish editors, those I've called anti-anti-Jewish folks, have won and I predict the result will be apparent in the near future. What progress I have contributed will be dismantled. The order and relative sanity I've sought to foster will be undermined. Sections will be cut away until the article bears little resemblance to AAB's life and thought or the contrasting thoughts of a community of reasonable critics. How could it be otherwise when people work on a subject they do not know and are averse to identifying with, even on a temporary scholarily basis.

Yes, the situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. It is absurd, and no amount of Wiki rule quoting will avail. For any complex and controversial subject, and in the absence of knowledgeable and clear-headed editors, the Wikipedia process breaks down.

I will not be coming back to the article unless word reaches me by email that the situation has changed. It will likely be some time before I sign on to Wiki again and I will not be checking for response to this, my last post--there is a direct non-Wikipedia email link on my personal page. If anyone should need to contact me, use that, because after I click "Save" on this message, I'm out of here and will not look back. James 02:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. "Omit the negative propositions. Don't waste yourself in rejection, nor bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good. (R. W. Emerson)

a parting note

Thanks you being such a stellar person. I predict we'll meet someday. Can't tell you how I know that. Thanks so much for helping out. Sparklecplenty 23:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Renee, a response to your note on my page. Sparklecplenty 00:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

re: 3RR

Renee, WP:3RR gives specific instructions that violations are to be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, which, I believe you failed to do. Parsifal's surprisingly unhelpful comments also noted he doesn't believe there has been a warning; however, I'm quite certain Kwork has been warned of 3RR in the past, so I wouldn't worry about that. If you still want to file this violation, please do so properly, so it can receive proper attention. If you would like to post FOUR diffs to my talk page, I will tell you a priori whether I would support it or not. But please make sure you read the entire introduction section of the 3RR page linked above; the difference between reversion and content dispute is a very fine line, indeed (unfortunately). In fact, I strongly recommend that, any time you want to file any sort of community-wide report like this, you peruse many examples of existing cases first, to get a feel for the accepted format, and the mistakes people commonly make. That really helps a lot. Eaglizard 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A furtherly interlineated NB, because I'm being especially loquacious tonight: Renee, I didn't realize you had participated in AfD discussions and such; I really hope my comments here don't come across as too condescending. I apologize for my tone. Eaglizard 09:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

ps, As an addendum, after having another look at Kwork's repeated (if seemingly specious) pleas for RfC or mediation, I'm beginning to agree with them. However, any such action should be discussed first, as it is always best to have a cadre cabal err... consensusual group of editors beforehand, and a well-discussed request is likely to receive greater community attention. So, would you care to leave me a note regarding your feelings on this issue? If you agree, perhaps we will ask Sethie if he cares to resurrect his interest in the issue. Please note, however, that I will insist that any concerted opinion we express be entirely policy-based. As long as it's defensible in this way, I won't mind so much the inevitable charges of cabalism (and no, I don't mean Kabbalism, Kwork). Let me know what you think, Renee :) (Note, this doesn't apply to the 3RR thing, which I recommend you should report, if you really feel it took place.) Eaglizard 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard and Renee - as I've now noted in my reply to you on my page, and on the article talk page, there is a positive way we can proceed with this, and I recommend we do. Mediation is complex, very formal, time consuming and difficult. If you feel so strongly about Kwork that you choose to spend your time in that way, that's your choice of course, but I can't imagine why you want to go that route.

An article-content WP:RFC on the other hand is an informal community based process that takes some time and is best not pushed to be done quickly, but in the long run can result in a better article with far less interpersonal tension. I recommend this route.

To do the RFC though would require preparation, because the talk page is already so complex no new editor would be able to figure it out. The best option would be to write two versions of the article. Let Kwork edit one of them however he wants, and other editors can make a few changes, but mostly let him have his say. Alternately, you also make one the way you want it. Hopefully, both versions will have less quotes and more sources.

Then, start the RFC and gather as many editors from wide-ranging topic areas to view and compare the articles. Let their comments develop over time. Then as a consensus forms, with people who have not been involved from the start, the main article can be changed towards the direction of the consensus. --Parsifal _Hello 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a further note, to clarify my thinking. Parsifal is absolutely correct that mediation (or God forbid, arbitration) are complex and time-consuming; also, they're almost always frustrating for everyone involved. Even RfC can be a ton of work, if you want to get more response than Sethie got with his attempt. In the end, I have no desire to do any of this stuff, I'd rather play a video game. But, as I've said, my patience is exhausted, and I will do whatever has to be done to resolve this situation that has gone on too long now.

As for a warning, Renee, I just want you to see this diff, where I have rather thoroughly warned Kwork of my intentions, and have clearly and forthrightly pointed him to 3RR and such (I post a diff b/c he chose to undo my edit). Eaglizard 01:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

More about your favorite editor

Hey Renee, I wrote a lot above, and you haven't responded to it. While I'm not (very) slighted by this :), I fear that you may be trying to give me a hint that you're not too interested in my comments. In any case, I do feel I need to mention that User:jossi is, I believe, a very skilled editor with good experience in, let's say, helping unhelpful editors understand the error of their ways. ;) He has already demonstrated this by his exceedingly simple, direct, and practiced warnings of the Brooklyn sweetheart on the talk page right about here. Admire the skill! I'm impressed. So anyway, while there's no need for you to stop stating your opinion when you feel you've been attacked, there's no need to overstate it at this point, either. We suddenly have a number of experienced editors participating in this talk page daily, and if there's disruption like there has been in the past, it will likely be dealt with differently in now. IMHO. So, while I have seen exactly the edits you have been complaining about, and I had exactly the same interpretation you had, I still want to suggest that you've well made your point, so careful not to hurt that by overdoing. You're to the point that outside editors (unaware of the past 6 months) will look at your comments and say AGF. Also IMHO, but in this case I recommend you consider every comment you make about this issue in the light of outside editors coming along from any future RfC or ANI, and lacking the pent-up frustrations of the last half-year. Eaglizard 07:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ps, Pls don't respond to my vaguely emotive first comment, I'm not actually slighted or such, so if you want to talk to me, just do so. If you don't talk to me some though, I guess I will take the hint. :) Eaglizard 07:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know how I missed (or forgot) the comments you had to smack me in the forehead with there. Thanks for both sets of kind words! Its so interesting to me how, with some editors, I say "That's a personal attack, stop that" and they say "Oh go #$^! yourself!", whereas other editors say "Thank you very much for your suggestion!". If only people could recognize that much about themselves, ie, which group they're in. Sadly, everyone apparently thinks they are in the latter group. Regardless of that, I am certain you are in the "I wish to improve myself" family. It's a pleasure editing with you. And remember: if you can see what appear to be obvious violations, then other editors will see them just as well. Unless we're both wrong, I guess. Time will tell. Eaglizard 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC) (ps I'm getting rather fed up with cat's incessant hurling of abusive invective, as well. I really hope jossi sees fit to call her on it. )Eaglizard 12:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Renne Sweetie,

Left a message on my page for Eaglizard, you might be interested in reading it? You're good Wiki trooper and so gracious. With Pluto directly on my Leo Rising and Mars conjunct Jupiter in Leo in the first house, I have a bit of problem biting my tongue. The best to you. Sparklecplenty 00:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you still need my input?

Hi Renee, I just followed the link you sent me and it seems Jossi locked the AFD 15 minutes after you posted on my talk page. Does this mean it's all OK now? Let me know if there is anything you would still like me to look at. Best wishes Bksimonb 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice here

Thanks. Renee (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten Victory AfD

Hi there, I noticed your message on another user's page and have now placed the proper AfD tag on this article. You can go directly to the deletion discussion here. Risker (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Mankara link

If it were left up to me you could add all the links and most of the edits you wanted. I do not have any problem with self published sources or self published books either. Anyway sorry about the misunderstanding.. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

which ray

I don't recall saying that about you. (I am probably Fourth Ray.) What I meant, in my edit, was harmony through conflict is what is the force playing out. The fourth ray is considered the ray of all humanity, and that is how most people learn. In any case, I certainly hope things will be more harmonious between us in the future...even if the differences remain. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion to Malcolm's page. Renee (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Astrology

If what you want to do is to study Bailey's astrology, the person who comes to mind is M. Temple Richmond. I do not know her personally, but I know that she has a long relationship with the School for Esoteric Studies, and my impression of her is that she is a very balanced and good person. [5]

The SES gives training based on the Bailey books, and the group was mentored by Assagioli in its early days (he died in 1974). I think studying with them is the best way to learn the teaching. Studying the books alone will not give you the access to the teaching in the same depth that the correspondence training course devised by Bailey herself will. Also, if you contact them, they might advise you about astrology. John Cobb is the name of the director. I always found them very helpful. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee, because of the confrontational past of the AAB article, I understand why in your initial reaction you accused me of "ownership". But I have been trying hard to do things differently now. (I would rather not be involved in further editing of the AAB article at all, and would prefer to spend my time editing some of the Kabbalah articles.) Considering that, would you be willing to withdraw that accusation? It has supplied Claude the foundation for his RfC, which has already wasted time on argument, while doing nothing to benefit the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I do think you've been trying to do things differently. Renee (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good one.

By accepting Linda's proposal and replacing the other RFC you may have helped bring a lasting peace to the Bailey article . Kudos to you for your efforts. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I still have no idea what is actually going on here. Just what is the reason for this RfC? So far, I have put time into this, and nothing has happened. All Claude has said so far is that he wants to edit the Alice Bailey article. I knew that already. There is not one single specific in this RfC (unless I have missed something); and how am I, or how is anyone else, going to comment on something unspecified? I do not know if Claude has anything else to do with his time, but I do. I would like him to either say something specific, or delete the RfC. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he's referring to these sources here. Maybe you can take them one by one and give kindly feedback. On the other hand, if you don't want to you can just watch the article. If no one responds to the RFC then it'll disappear on its own. Renee (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a saying that says it is all noise until the fists start flying. I was parodying that phrase. I am assuming good faith until someone start deleting things. If they do we will likely need a mediator . Do not worry. I think we can reach consensus. : Albion moonlight (talk)

---

I just wanted to say hi. Keep up the good work on Greg Mortenson and others. « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:40 2008 March 18 (UTC)

Regurgitation of deleted page in French

Hello Renee

It does seem like a meaningless exercise to argue over regurgitated material and get into endless edit wars over something that was already deemed not wiki-worthy. Thanks for posting the link to Seicer - Forgot to do that (Age and number of braincells are inversely proportional).

I'm not aware of any PhD dissertations on SRCM but could look for some for you.

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeated regurgitation of pages

I agree with you - Cult Free World just doesn't get the message from the admins about secondary and verifiable sources. It's a horrible waste of time and effort keeping up with this person's repeated attempts to outsmart the wiki system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathi mulgaa (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2008

Canine gastropexy

I wonder if the misspelling is a mistake. I wouldn't want to include the misspelled word; only legitimate alternates. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look all that reliable; however, in University search engines list it that wy we can conclude that it is a common misspelling. I'll create redirects. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for locating my old page. No wonder my user page was blank - After all this time, I had forgotten my old login ID. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Time for a sock report?

I feel like it's time.... are you up for it? Sethie (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hola

Thanks for the heads-up. I love watching regurgitated material get skewered. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Advice please

I apologize for not being able to answer your talk page comment for so long! School's been incredibly busy for me. You can see my response here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have left a new response about this situation here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

I was punked. I'm walking away from this one. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A Word of Encouragement

I wanted to let you know how shocked I am by the situation you have been dealing with over here. This is really some of the worst harassment I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I am concerned that admins haven't closed the MFD by now. It's been going quite awhile. Somehow, I doubt the drama will end with the deletion of the page.

I'm wondering how I can help you with this? Have you considered opening an organized RFC against the two users? I think you may be able to garner support for banning with enough evidence. It seems that you need to involve some more members of the biography project in this matter. We tend to take libel and defamation a bit more seriously than the average Wikipedian. Please, let me know if there is anything I can to do to help you end this nightmare. Peace! Cleo123 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Response on your page. Thanks! Renee (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

re User:Cult free world/Proposed page

I regret that I have felt I have had to block both User:Sethie and User:Marathi mulgaa for 12 hours regarding the reverting of the above page. I see that you have, after previously following the same course as Sethie, begun a dialogue with Cult free world. As such I am not inclined to pass any sanction, but to commend the strategy of discussing your concerns. If you continue to feel that your concerns are not being addressed I would suggest other forms of dispute resolution (such as requesting a WP:3PO). However, I would caution you against again removing content without consensus. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Kind thoughts and words are further advanced by kind actions. Cult free world 's participation on Wikipedia has been the subject of much discussion already, but that does not disallow them the proper consideration by others. I am pleased that you are trying to communicate, and hope that you will possibly be able to arrive at some agreement (if not consensus) in this matter. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

David Shepherd (artist)

I added another newspaper article as a reference to David Shepherd (artist). When I am researching a biography of someone who lives in the United Kingdom, I often find useful references at http://www.guardian.co.uk , http://www.telegraph.co.uk or http://www.timesonline.co.uk --Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Tribal Leadership

I found some book reviews in U.S. newspapers for Tribal Leadership and added them to the article, so I think notability is now indicated. --Eastmain (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. You don't have to use a template for your references, but if you visit Template:Cite web, you'll see how to do it, and you can copy and paste text from there. --Eastmain (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cult Free World

I'm a bit shy on time right now, but I didn't want to ignore your message. I've posted a notice here as a start. Feel free to add to it if you like. I will also contact some admins, when I get a chance. Peace, Cleo123 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest

This is regarding your message for me [6]. Please provide what ever evidences you have. I know there are plenty available, the more I was digging in more I was finding .... Thanks! Duty2love (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Need feedback

Dear Renne,
If you could give your feedback on the RfC page created by CFW here, that would be great. I have spent a lot of time trying to tell him the need for secondary sources for a good article, but he doesn't want to admit and continues to keep adding primary or OR based references. May be I am not talking in straight language hence requesting you to assist here. Thanks! Duty2love (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramax

Could I ask you to take another look at this AfD? I've moved the article to the appropriate title, expanded it and added a reference, which takes care of one of your original concerns. The combination is used differently from either drug independently and there is also a suggested effect on paracetamol's absorption by metoclopramide, which suggests an article on this topic would be useful. There is a lot more that could be added, but I'm no expert in this therapeutic area. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to re-examine this, Renee. I agree the article was too technical for the general reader, thanks for adding explanations. Let's hope this is enough to save the article for others who are informed in the area to work on in future. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you ever

If you ever mention that you have asked attorney's about their opinion on a court case AND mention it on wikipedia, I will sue you for legally threatening my POV and soapbox.

Wikipedia is MY soapbox. I can use it for whatever I want to. Who cares about how it is run, or it's policies, it s MINE. ALL MINE.

I can show up at a basketball court and play tennis there if I want to, it's a free country. Sethie (talk)

Glad to see you back! I guess everyone needs a soapbox, huh? Renee (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson

Hi- the image was licensed in a way Wikipedia does not accept- as we aim to include 'free' content, we do not allow images only for non-commercial, educational or 'Wikipedia-only' use. As he is a living person, we also can't accept a non-free image. I don't know anything about the subject, but have you tried Flickr, contacting him or contacting his agent? We need an image that is explicitly released into the public domain or under a 'free' license. J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Groundhog Day template

I don't know of one such template. Having said that, it would definitely be useful in cases such as you mentioned. I can create templates, but don't know whether there is any sort of approval required for them first. Let me propose the idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and see what happens. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs template

Thanks. I use Twinkle, it must have screwed up and forgot to place the template on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My Mother is a Tractor : Deletion

Hi Renee. I know I cannot stand in the way of a tidal wave of wiki opinion but just wanted to add some notes for you.

• I'm originally from Australia but have not lived there for 8 years, hence those edits are the work of whoever - but not me. Upon checking Qworty's link I see they were added on June 6, 2006 - one of the busiest weeks of my year (exam week in Shanghai).
• It may be self-published but, if you follow the Amazon sales, it's usually only outsold by "Learning to Bow" in the pantheon of 'JET' books.
• Notability does not seem to matter much to Indiana University and Dokkyo University who utilise it as a standard text in courses WP:BK - Point 4
• It's archived by both the National Diet Libary (Japan) and Library and Archives (Canada) WP:BK#Threshold_standards
• This book has been independently reviewed by Japan Visitor, The Crazy Japan Times, Rocky Mountain JETAA and Rough Guide Japan WP:BK - Point 1
• As for personal non-nobility that's not in question here, and neither would I ever assert it - although some have alluded to it. FYI I have had other work published in major media such as The Japan Times, Shanghai Daily, Fukuoka-Now, Asia! and Voyage.
• Lastly if anyone have ever written a book one would realise the path of 'vanity press' is much easier one to tread than the continual slog of agents and publishing houses. Qworty obviously doesn't like POD/"Vanity Press' Talk:Trafford_Publishing and has deleted all other references without waiting for judgement here, so one must presume deletion a fait accompli

Given the last point I have therefore I saved a copy now as a last hurrah, expecting the worst. Good evening and good luck. —Preceding comment added by Nklar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 01 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly good news

I can't find Shashwat's proposed page anywhere on Google!!!! [[7]]

Can you find it?

Him not being able to use wikipedia as a blog would just make my day! Sethie (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Question and Reply

Hi Don, I found this post really interesting. In my husband's meditation system they're always focusing on seeing the light and I never could get that; I only felt a warm red diffuse glow. Then, I read this by Babuji and was struck -- if you're one with the light that's what you would "see," a warm reddish glow emanating outward (and, I realized if you "see" the light then you're still separate from it). I had understood that Babuji always advocated making a suggestion or mere supposition of divine light in the heart (not imagine it but just gently suggest it's there and let it go). Did he actually say "imagine"? Btw, sorry for calling you a meatpuppet of Shashwat/CFW. I was mixing up similar POVs with personalities, and your personality and approach is much, much different. I apologize.Renee (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reneeholle

Hi...

You are so right...I was doing it from memory and I am getting "craft" I think...(Can't Remember A _ucking Thing)... ;-))...

Spirituality should remain "subtle" so as to MERGE with ALL, and not DIVIDE, and "imagining" is forming an 'image" and that is too strong...Babuji used (I think...and I am stll "REMEMBERING" so I could be in error) "gentle suggestion" or "gentle supposition" or ??? something to that effect.

You are right, IMHO, about being OUTSIDE the LIGHT if you see it...If we were inside the SUN, we would not see it SHINING...but we would see more of an opaque SOUP in scalar (in all direction or hence "NO" direction) MOTION emaning from all points in our SPHERE...We would BE the LIGHT (or PART of the LIGHT...so as to not get egotistical) and visible only to those OUTSIDE the LIGHT or SUN...

You can change that ("imagined")and make it more accurate as per this conversation...

Apology accepted...no harm done...no effect registered on my heart...What did you say again? Darn CRAFT thing again... lol  ;-))

4d-Don--don (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Rfd

The rfd you voted on is to delete this, a redirect page [[8]]

Not the whole page itself, so maybe you could modify your comments?

peace,

Seth

I can't find it!

Renee,

I was searching on google for crap information about Sahaj Marg on wikipedia and just couldn't find it, I think it's lost.

[[9]]

Any help? Sethie (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:BLP question

Sorry Renee, there is not much I can do regarding this matter besides trying to keep the discussion regarding these issues civil. I do not have enough experience regarding this topic to examine the refs deeply enough. Unfortunately the editing of this article is becoming very disruptive. May I suggest you take a break from it for awhile? Consensus at this time isn't being achieved and may be it would be best to let things cool down? Hasty changes are not the best way to help an article grow better. One comment however after looking over the most recent version of Sahaj Marg: there are some tone issues in my opinion. Statements like: The practice of Sahaj Marg is recommended for those 18 years of age and older [8] and is free.[9] are not written in an encyclopedic tone and the lead also needs tweaking. That's the only advice I can give, sorry.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Renee - Thanks for your comment [here]. Do you by any chance have access to the article that Don references in the footnote to the sentence on age? Could you check the veracity of his claim that these words came from the actual abstract? Thanks! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)