User:Bigweeboy/Will BeBack Rebuttal

__NOINDEX__

This page is a rebuttal to Will BeBack evidence.

Bwb has said that he's a neutral editor:
 * That is correct. I am a neutral editor.

Bwb has made edits regarding Natural Stress Relief, a commercial competitor to TM
 * Cannot see this as much of an issue. There was some discussion about the "See Also" section of the TM article and I felt the NSR article had little to do with TM, so I removed the link to it from the "See Also" section.  In time, all the links "See Also" section were removed, and currently the article does not have any "See Also" section.  Not sure what point Will is trying to make in pointing out I removed NSR link from this section.

Bwb has spammed references to the Maharishi's non-notable commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita to multiple articles: [
 * Perhpas "non-notable" is a POV? What I was seeking to do in these edits was to show how MMY's scholarly commentary on the BG gave some insight to the subject of the article, or that MMY spoke about that subject in his work.  I think declaring it spam is excessive - "enthusiastic" OK, spam NO.

Bwb has argued against removing or reducing fringe views based on primary sources:
 * Again Will seems to be making mountains out of molehills. I think primary sources are allowed in Wiki, but the point I was arguing was that the specific study under discussion was worthy of mention in the article because is pertained to research on ME in another country than the US and thus was worth mentioning to give the reader the sense that TM research was not US-centric, but had been done in other parts of the world.  I had commented on the TM talk pages and other TM related talk pages that these article were too US-centric since TM was taught and practiced all over the world.

Bwb has added dubious scientific or medical material based on primary sources that does not meet WP:MEDRS:
 * Was trying to give the reader a sense that research was being done on Maharishi Ayurveda. I confess that at the the time I did not understand the WP:MERDS requirements very well and through the discussions with other editors on the talk pages have been learning about the correct use of MERDS.  So I see this as a learning experience and not a crime.

Bwb has removed atrributions of POV material:
 * I did not feel that the assertion was POV material or need the Lonsdorf attribution. That was my judgment call.  Again, no big deal, IMHO.

Personal interactions
Bwb has made new and veteran users unwelcome: 
 * The text of this message on the user page includes the words "welcome" and "Happy New Year". And I was curious (and perhaps a little suspicious) about who this new editor was that suddenly appeared out of nowhere, was very knowledgeable on TM subject matter and aggressive both on the article and talk pages.

Bwb has removed sourced, negative material:
 * Because it was excessive in the overall context. The rewording of the Beatles section in the Maharishi article has been well discussed elsewhere, so please consider the second edit above in that light.

Technique vs movement
Bwb deleted sourced material on the basis of it being about the TM movement rather than the TM technique:
 * Yes I felt, as did others, that the article was on the TM "technique" not the organization teaching it, and the material I removed was not about the TM technique.

Bwb has argued against creating an article on the TM movement which could hold the deleted text:
 * I cannot see the problem with this. Every Wiki editor surely has the right to argue with other editors on the talk pages about the content of the articles?  I argued against the creation of the TMM article. My arguments did not succeed in persuading the other involved editors not to create the TMM article - fine, we all moved on and began to engage in the efforts to create a quality article on the TMM.

Plagiarism
Bwb has engaged in plagiarism:
 * Bigweeboy copied text from a site without making any significant changes: (see )
 * Does Wiki require editors to make "significant" changes to text before using it in the article? How do we define "significant"? It was not plagiarism and I edited the text.

Bwb copied text from an advertisement into an article making health claims: (source:)
 * Not sure this is plagiarism. I combined ideas from several sentences and rearranged the text. Journalism?