User:Manning Bartlett/Archive1

Somalife
Mr. Bartlett,I had added a page called SomaLife which was an outline of a company that I'm interested in. You had deleted the page but I'm not sure why. The reason stated was ambiguous promotion or advertising. If you read this I'm sure you will note that this was an unbiased review of the company SomaLife. Please indicate in detail why this page was deleted so that we can make the appropriate changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaidaaddison (talk • contribs) 04:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) test

Technical hitch
Due to an internets malfunction I'll not be able to contribute to the Expelled discussion for a few days, perhaps a week. Trust you'll be able to make progress without me, apologies for any delay. . . user:dave souza in the temporary public guise of Davesalterego (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth the trouble?
Hi, Manning,

I mistakenly posted this on my own talk page last night, er, this morning.

Thanks for the heads-up as well as for your ear and advice.

Odd--official Wiki policy requires using common sense. I've edited my comment to show that. [Perhaps I didn't save it, or maybe the page automatically reverts. I've just done it again.] It seems the letter of the law here is violating the spirit of the law--obviously the intention of the policy is to prevent cranks from blathering on about all kinds of nonsense, or, conversely, hopeful writers from trying the public waters at Wiki first. I realize policy develops as situations are encountered and this clause may be obsolete. Too bad; it seems designed specifically for cases like this one, where I'm not making anything up but just want the whole context given. I think the very fact that people objected to including the last sentence reveals a bias they hold: Never allow anything--not even his own words--that could possibly be construed as casting Our Exalted Darwin in a poor light.

Policy can never cover every situation; therefore common sense is required. That's why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution--no amount of legal logorrhea can ever cover every contingency. (Oh--you're Australian--they just basically say, "We couldn't list all the people's rights, and whatever we didn't take from them is still theirs even though it's not down on paper.") [See this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMON]

I can't understand why I have to find a reliable article that comments on the biased SciAm article. Of course I won't find one. Who goes around writing things like that? I've never caught, for example, USN&WR second-guessing somebody else's article. At least not to the extent of reviewing it and supplying missing information. Why not just ignore that article and compare Stein's quote to Darwin's original? There's no synthesis there--it would go, "Stein said blah-blah-blah. Darwin's actual text reads blah-blah-blah." I don't see how insisting on saying, "Smith says Darwin said" makes for a better encyclopedia than simply, "Darwin said." In fact, this whole process has taught me Wiki isn't half the encyclopedia I thought it was. Encyclopedia Britannica hires knowledgeable people to write accurate stories. During this process I've discovered Jimmy Wales actually said he doesn't care what the truth is; all he cares about is that his policy is followed. It's his site and he can make whatever rules he wants, but now that I know them I respect the work far less. At least I am fair warned and will be alert in the future when I consult it on any subject that has any PC issues: do not trust.

Just to check how correct my conclusions were, I very appropriately added some information to the article on Richard Sternberg. Shot right down. I'm not going to argue with the PC boys over there. Finding websites that contradict each other has been frustrating. I have given up knowing the truth about the Smithsonian-Sternberg controversy. Somebody or everybody is lying and I have no way of knowing who. [Referring to Sternberg or Scott or Renner or, or, or. NOT to people at Wiki.] Certainly have to take Wiki's PC stance with a grain of salt. Nobody cares that the Mary Poppins article is poorly sourced, nobody cares that an article I wrote on the Caqueta River is unsourced. No, there's an agenda here: allow all kinds of shoddy work, but strictly keep the PC gate.

I do appreciate all the excellent editing people such as yourself and the other parties in this mediation do, all the effort to bring order out of chaos, to revert vandalism and weed out cranks and take time to listen to honest but perplexed people, to say nothing of writing and correcting.

I will be very busy the next couple of days in preparation for a short trip Sunday and Monday, and may just have to drop this, which might be a mercy. I had originally planned to appeal all the way up the line to the very top but, honestly, I've lost my faith in Wiki and am losing the heart for trying to make sense of it all.Yopienso (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PS It's 2:15 in the morning here and I'm drained and discouraged, feel like I've wasted days of my time. If later I regret being so morose I'll apologize. Have a great weekend! Yopienso (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Working for Wiki
Just curious here--"Hi - just to let you know I'm off for the weekend (it's Friday night here) so I won't be around to carry on the mediation until my Monday morning (Australia time)." Do you work here? I thought everybody was a volunteer, but am amazed how much time they spend here. If that's none of my business, please ignore. Yopienso (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Montana Meth Project
If you have a moment, I'd greatly appreciate your input in this Talk page discussion. A person previously engaged in wholesale blanking is now discussing at the Talk page, and I'd like to encourage that. Thanks! Whatever404 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We could use an extra set of eyes at Thomas Siebel; an apparently single-purpose account, possibly COI is engaged in a revert war, attempting to instate a version that reads like a CV or resume (the timeline is in reverse, in some places), and it's complete with peacock phrasing, use of honorifics, and lots of unsourced, flowery claims. Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Thomas Siebel article looks OK at the moment after your repair work, but am now also watching it (as well as the User:Notevenonce account). Cheers Manning (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a moment, please look closely at the differences between the two versions in this diff; you'll see that the majority of the information is indeed there; it's just presented in a simpler chronological formatrather than in the reverse-timeline CV format that the other editor seems to favor (with each new section beginning a new reverse timeline, much to the confusion of the reader). I have since also added the awards, in a paragraph format, though I'm open to changing this last bit. Whatever404 (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been outed by my wikiproject statistics...
In generating some data on our current wikiprojects, I just discovered that you're the creator of the very first project way back in September of 2001. That's quite an impact you've made! – ClockworkSoul 06:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks
Dear Manning Bartlett, thanks for your action at ANI. AdjustShift (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

uninvolvment
Hi, today AdjustShift finally made a comment on the ANI thread about his (un)involvment. In light of his answer I am even more convinced that his action needs to be re-examined. Yesterday you mentioned that i can launch any mediation/arbitration method about whether or not AdjustShift acted in an uninvolved capacity. Since I'm unfamiliar with most of them could you please advise me which would be most suited to clarify that (un)involvment? Loosmark (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Manning thank you for your advise, i really appreciate it. Loosmark (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark Arbitration Enforcement closure
You closed the ANI thread as "After review by two further (uninvolved) admins, the original admin actions by Sandstein and AdjustShift were upheld." It was Sandstein who imposed the sanctions against Loosmark, not me. I only endorsed his decision, and it was agreed by two other ("uninvolved") admins. If Loosmark really feels that the sanctions imposed against him are unjust, he can ask another admin to review the case, or contact the ArbCom. AdjustShift (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your endorsement was sort of nullified and my appeal was formally reviewed by neutral admin Manning Barlett and I accept his decision. My concern is not that, but rather your, IMO, apparent complete failure of understanding the "uninvolved" concept. I think I'll feel request for comment shortly. I will notify you when I do. Loosmark (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Should I reopen the WP:AE thread? Let another admin close the thread. AdjustShift (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Loosmark - just to echo a comment I recently made at AdjustShift's page. I gave you advice on how to proceed with your conduct complaint concerning Adjustshift because I am duty bound as an administrator to give advice on procedural matters to anyone who asks. This does not constitute an endorsement of your complaint, and on a purely personal note I actually believe your efforts will come to nothing. Manning (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think reopening the thread will be better. Let another admin close it. Thoughts? AdjustShift (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems trivial and unnecessary but I will go ahead and carry out the open/close for you anyway. Cheers Manning (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know about this message I left on AdjustShift talk page[] Regards--Jacurek (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded on AdjustShift talk page[]. Best--Jacurek (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer, really appreciated. I responded on A.Shift talk page also. Best Regards--Jacurek (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Intervention for edit war on Politecnico di Milano
Hi, thanks a lot for handling this so promptly! It was the first time I got into a situation where I couldn't handle everything by just discussing it, so thanks for helping me out :) --Raistlin (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weeeeeeell, we didn't have to wait for long to have other issues with the same user, this time not logged in: . --Raistlin (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, there's a number of other unlogged interventions in the backlog of the article (all in the same set of unsourced edits and reverts), all from the same IP range, which is the block 118.94.0.0-118.95.255.255. HTH. --Raistlin (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the current version is largely from my edits, so I'd welcome any other user to chime in and edit it better :) but I think you'll have no difficulties in spotting those edits, they are exactly the same to the word. Thanks a lot once again, I'm just sorry this is getting more painful :( --Raistlin (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go again!, this time from 118.95.49.185... -- this unsigned comment was from me, Raistlin.


 * Well, thanks a lot for all the help. You're definitely invited for a beer if you happen to pass by @Polimi :) --Raistlin (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the chuckle
It's always a pleasure to encounter a fellow pedant ;) EyeSerene talk 12:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks
Dear Manning Bartlett, thank you very much for responding on my talk page! AdjustShift (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank Zappa
Thank you manning for your comment. I have edited Frank Zappa's page based on this wikipedia post .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lebanese_people. '''

Bold text

'''Sir you left a note on the Tien Shan Pai discussion page regarding the conduct of the sysop Parakan of accusing a participant of putting a nazi label on someone just by saying good morning in German. After looking at your suggested remedy-its just too intimidating a process. But now that this has brought to your attention by at least 3-4 people, I think it should be investigated and he should have to justify this conclusion or be reprimanded/suspended. I think the average person would be intimidated by the complain (?) page you referenced. 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC) !Daprofessor09 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Safe sex
Since you joined that discussion please explain your reasoning there to justify where this this and this edits lacked neutrality, so I can address your concerns since so far Simon Seed is only reverting.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already stated that I will recuse from further comment. Manning (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Sincere thanks :), and I regret the delay that has arisen on account of real time commitments. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete
Hi Manning. Thanks for your note - I think what concered me most was that the editor is question apparently had either not read the stub I made, or had done so but didn't understand what an academic journal was - in either case I was alarmed that someone with such lack of understanding was tagging things with gay abandon. I see that several other of his/her proposals have been untagged as they are not appropriate. But good to know the admins are keeping an eye on things ... Cheers Jasper33 (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom Denning, Baron Denning
Quick favour to ask: here User:Proteus moved Alfred Denning, Baron Denning to Tom Denning, Baron Denning, with the edit summary "common name". Our "common name" guideline specificially excludes members of the peerage in most situations, and I immediately left a message asking Proteus to revert. He hasn't been around since, however; would you be willing to move it back (as part of WP:BRD, really)? Ironholds (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it immediately. Manning (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Block
There seems to be some support for the block and some concerns about how quickly it was imposed. I would have preferred it if you had asked that editor to slow down and take a break from editing on those articles while the dispute was discussed. It seems like blocks are used too quickly. But clearly the disputes on those articles are getting disruptive. I'm just always reluctant to see one side punished (maybe because I've been on that side? :) where there's a real content dispute that needs working out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey COM - Look that's fair enough and I'm sorry if this block brought up memories. Firstly as I've noted I don't block often and I always look for opportunities for rehab. And I completely agree that content disputes should be managed carefully. I truly didn't see that here though - this is just a long-term disruptive editor who has exhausted all conceivable forms of patience. Cheers Manning (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
You're right. I've removed the ban request, and cut my section header. I apologise, just getting a little tired of being told I must do something because some other editor decided to go behind my back and tell Kohs I would. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian unblock review
Just FYI - I'm reviewing the Yorkshirian block at the moment, and I've carefully read your comments and subsequent review at ANI. I support your block and understand the reasons for it, but (maybe I'm being over-optimistic) I do believe there's a chance that this was just a temporary blip on Yorkshirian's otherwise much-improved behavioural record. I'm in two minds to be honest, but given the support for their recent contributions from other editors (including those who've had problems with them in the past) I'm leaning towards a highly conditional unblock based on CoM's suggestions and Yorkshirian's apparent acceptance of them. I want further confirmation from Yorkshirian first though, and of course if you have anything more to add to the debate (for example, a topic-ban has been proposed), your input would be very welcome. EyeSerene talk 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey EyeSerene: I'd be perfectly happy with a 'one final chance, one-infraction-and-you're-gone, no arguing about it later' sort of reprieve. Also I think COM's idea about being restricted to talk pages for a few weeks has merit. Thanks for reviewing. Cheers Manning (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've added a two-week talk page-only restriction on articles related to Irish Republicanism, and Yorkshirian has agreed to all the terms, so I've unblocked. Whether they'll be able to keep out of trouble remains to be seen, but I hope so. All the best, EyeSerene talk 16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy wikibirthday
Eight years?! Wow. Congratulations, and Happy Wikibirthday. You qualify as someone I talked about here, I think. Bumped into you a couple of times the last few days, thought I'd look at your user page to see who you were, saw your userbox, and felt compelled to say "thanks" for devoting that much time to the 'pedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing! I was feeling very neglected *sniff*, but you've cheered me right up. I like your "Grampa" idea :) Manning (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing AfDs
Quick request - per WP:DPR, next time you close AfDs, can you add the to the top of the page (i.e., before the top section header? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I somehow came across wrong - that was not my intent. I was talking about, , , etc., all of which have a heading that's outside the shaded box. It seems that you put the template below the heading rather than above them. Tim Song (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Now Thekohs is vandalising pages in order to attack me, and on Wikipedia talk:Wikivoices, he's engaging in gross personal attacks [emphasis his]:

To which, I did respond that Shoemaker's Holiday was a morally bankrupt cog in the big Wiki machine of unaccountable treachery. That was as "harassing" as my tone ever got with Shoemaker's Holiday. If an apology is needed to release the audio file from Episode 45, I will be happy to provide a public or private apology to him, whichever he prefers. But, at this point, I suspect no amount of apologizing, groveling, or kissing the ring of Shoemaker's Holiday will bring him down off the very pointy ledge he's decided to park himself upon. -- Thekohser 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I do think that you piled things on a little thick; calling anybody "morally bankrupt" and involved in "treachery" is rather extreme for the "offense" of being slower to complete sound-editing of a podcast than you'd like, and this podcast is, as far as I know, an unofficial project not actually part of Wikipedia/Wikimedia and done entirely by volunteer labor; nobody has any enforceable obligations with regard to it. "Harassment" is also rather strong language (and something that has been greatly overused in the past), so there are some overreactions on both sides here.  I hope, going forward, a system can be devised to get the podcasts published in a timely manner without being able to fall victim to interpersonal conflict.  In particular, if election-related interviews get done in the future for board, ArbCom, or other elections, one would hope that they are able to be published while the voting is still in progress. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, "being slower to complete sound-editing" was not at all why I questioned Shoemaker's morality, but if you wish to perpetuate that fiction, you're entitled, Dan. -- Thekohser 13:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He's quoting a gross personal attack from one of his harassing e-mails as evidence of how he wasn't harassing me.

Can something be done about this? It's getting old. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

IRC
Next time you're on, if I'm online (DanielB), please ping me :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-16/Socionics
I've offered a solution: basically follow the content policies to the word (which was what I had been trying to push, but my point is finally starting to get through).

This is the source Rmcnew wants to use. It was written (but not finished: "To be continued.") by Olga Krylova, a PhD in math (which is mostly unrelated), but the article was approved and published on Chief Director of institute: Ph.D. in Socionics Prokofieva Tatyana's website. Prokofieva Tatyana, however, does not have much on her outside of her website. So, I'm asking: is this source reliable enough? Your answer will likely settle the dispute altogether, once everyone acknowledges it. MichaelExe (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I reject your solution. It reeks of NPOV as is as plain to all have competence in judging opinion. You are not impartial. Mediator, I do not believe one person's opinion alone can be binding in this case. The esoterism issue is in need of serious attention. Socionics is an extraordinary science and this an extraordinary situation. It is in need of attention from all relevant parties, or there is risk of a false consensus. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How is socionics an extraordinary science? --Rmcnew (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
 * "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." MichaelExe (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're mistaking the letter for the spirit. It's the equivalent of putting homeopathy "research" in the psychiatry article. What would you feel like if your discipline was under attack from a crazy like rmcnew? Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a better idea: make Rick DeLong a "special expert" like was mentioned on CNN. Give him expert powers to determine what is and is not legitimate for the field. It is well understood that DeLong has the confidence of the experts. I've been studying socionics for five years... DeLong for even longer. Hell, DeLong introduced me -- introduced the entire West -- to the information metabolism model. Everything I know today, I know because of DeLong. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote my response to this on the mediation page (follow this link) Considering he seems to be the only other editor (besides myself) giving any decent amount of quality input I directed the questions to Rick Delong. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I just recently made a series of counter-arguments listing sources against some claims made by Rick Delong on the socionics talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#Socionics.ru_statement_that_the_intertype_relationships_are_compared_to_Dmitri_Mendeleev_Periodic_table_of_the_elements_-_connection_to_the_theory_of_Synergetics_and_Hermeticism_.28counter-argument_to_Rick_Delong.27s_refutations.29 --Rmcnew (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Manning, I know you know the right decision to make on this. :) I'll leave it to you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW I found some more information on the PHD credentials of the socionics.ru website for the "Socionic Scientific Research Institute" ... you know, the one socionics institute located in Moscow, Russia that claims to be scientific and compares socionics theory to the Periodic Table, Hinduism, Chakras, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#PHD_in_psychology_associated_with_Moscow_Socionics_Research_Institute --Rmcnew (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The source in question may represent the views of a tiny-minority (although the number of reliable sources in socionics is limited, and Tatyana has 9 others working with her, but only 2 of these have PhDs, the rest, bachelors of socionics), so this presents another point against its inclusion in the article.

P.S. I'm sorry if the discussion on your talk page is getting a little long. XP I'll try to redirect it elsewhere. MichaelExe (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Debate against the claim from some editors who want to discredit the Moscow Socionics School by claiming the techniques there are fringe compared to other schools
There are some editors who are attempting to isolate the credibility of a whole socionics school that is located in Moscow, Russia, for reasons that are insufficent to wikipedias standards. In comparison it should be noted that scientifically the socionics school in Kiev, Ukraine headed by Alexander Bukalov wouldn't be any more credible than the one headed by Tatyana Prokofieva in Moscow Russia. In fact, if you were to look at a webtranslated version of this article ( click here for help) from the Kiev school and compare this to the chakra article (click here for help) from the Moscow school you would see that it is absolutely rediculous to make a claim that any of the socionics schools are any more scientifically credible than the next. Because 2 or 3 editors sware up and down this material is a minority fringe isn't sufficent enough for it to be claimed as such, especially when there are several PHDs in socionics and other fields who are knowingly allowing (and even encouraging) these sort of strange research comparisons between socionics and esoteric and religious philosophies to go on, while there are no known reliable sources where any such PHD in the socionics realm has condemned these strange techniques. In any case, I am sure that this would be enough to help you make your decision. --Rmcnew (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place
Hi guys - I'm following everything at the Talk:Socionics page. Let's keep everything there please. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal from socionics mediation
I am hereby resigning from the rest of the socionics mediation debate due to lack of time and interest. I believe my continued involvement would take many hours of my time because of fundamental disagreements between me and other participants. Furthermore, they are highly motivated to promote a certain viewpoint of socionics that is nonrepresentative of the field as a whole, whereas I am weakly motivated to present it accurately. The effort required of me to counter McNew's excessive focus on the esoteric hobbies of Russian socionists is simply not worth it to me. I have stated my opinions and stand by all my existing statements, but I do not wish to continue with the debate. McNew, I suppose, will get his way, and introduce clarity in the socionics article (I'm being sarcastic) with a fair discussion of the esoteric basis of socionics, such as the Wikisocion article he has written about the Esoteric Foundation of Socionics. --Rick DeLong (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to -Rick DeLong- withdrawal from socionics mediation

 * It should be duely noted that I do indeed personally object to and reject the hypothesis that socionics has no esoteric ties, and I believe that proponents who take the stance that there is no esoteric or protoscientific foundation are simply functioning as apologists for the theory. I do indeed personally believe, as there is evidence to the case, that socionics is related to hermetic doctrine in technique and purpose. I do admit that within the socionics organization it would be difficult to impossible to find any sort of admission to this fact from a reliable socionics sources, however. So, the view itself may not be notable enough for wikipedia for that very reason.


 * As far as wikipedia is concerned I am resigned to represent a neutral view on the matter. I would be content with there being neutral admission to the esoteric tendencies in socionics theory, but on a person note I disagree highly with those who fight against the evidences that socionics has a relation to hermeticism. If socionics is not itself an offshoot to hermeticism, it cetainly has alot of noticable similarities to hermeticism in its methodology. However, I do resign that any efforts to relay this could only be considered origional research on wikipedia and therefore may not be notable enough to mention in the article, excepting discussion on the talk page.


 * However, I should note that the tendencies that could be stated from reliable sources (according to wikipedia's standards) which do indeed correspond to hermeticism and current new age theories would be notable enough, in my opinion, to mention. Though, maybe with little to no mention that these things correspond heavily to new age or hermeticism unless that was also mentioned in the source article.


 * While comparisons to socionics and hermeticism by myself exists, I don't think that other editors should confuse my own personal comparisons to legitimate practices in socionics theory that correspond to hermeticism and therefore state that these practices are non-notable, because these practices do exist and are notable. Hermetic links are non-notable. Actual practices which are exactly like hermeticism, new age theories, and alternative medicine are likewise notable, regardless of similarities. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to show that there are similarities I submit the following, while not necessarily a reliable enough source to quote in the article, it does indeed show that socionics exists and has been adapted into an alternative medicine with the usage of chakras and bio-energy, which comes from the new age and hermetic movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#socionists_have_turned_socionics_into_a_therapy_akin_to_the_alternative_medicine_technique_of_vibrational_medicine

This is correct: "scientifically the socionics school in Kiev, Ukraine headed by Alexander Bukalov wouldn't be any more credible than the one headed by Tatyana Prokofieva in Moscow Russia." Note: "scientifically credible." But as I understand it, the issue is not who is producing more scientifically useful research (um, neither?), but which statements can be considered representative of the field of socionics as a whole. To cite Olga Krylova's hypothesis on the relation of socionic functions to chakras, or even to suggest that "socionists believe that the functions correspond to chakras" would be incorrect, as these views are not representative of the socionics community. --Rick DeLong (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with what Rick Delong says above and beliefs in chakras and bio-energy are representative of the socionics community, just not necessarily among the whole of the community. Here is a website that is sponsoring a socionics workshop where the chakras and bio-energy are being discussed in relation to socionics theory, and are emphasized as something that creates good health. http://ru.laser.ru/authors/kudr/index.html --Rmcnew (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Below is a translation of http://ru.laser.ru/authors/kudr/index.html

Introduction course

The original training course Socionics, which we propose is aimed, above all, the fact that each of the students better understand themselves, saw their abilities and talents, was able to sort out their own problems. Mastery of this knowledge will help a person not to be blind in his life relatively themselves and others, knowingly make important life choices. Very specific recommendations on how to adjust the relations within the family and at work, with close and distant. The core rate - skills testing (type definition) people. The proposed method of testing is based on the art of listening to his interlocutor, and hence on the art of talk is tested on subjects of interest to him. This is akin to the art of journalistic interview. Then, the semantics of speech, we do meaningful for us to conclusions. Learning to understand the semantics of the individual (after all, the meaning given to words, everyone has his own) - is a task comparable to the task of learning a language. First, we teach the alphabet (in Socionics is a mental functions). Then study the individual model of the psyche of each of 16 types. Once this is done, we can determine psychotype rights. You will receive a full range of skills in this procedure. Practice course provides specially selected videos, printed teaching materials, games and exercises testing employed members of the group on request. The practice takes more than 3 / 4 of the course. The final part of the course (for those who have already mastered the language of Socionics) is devoted to the relationship and ways of their correction. The course provides new, but already widely proven methodology for determining the types of copyright and intertype relationships with knowledge on bio-energy (the chakras and bio). An experienced specialist will offer self-correction techniques biofield and meditation to improve your self-esteem, that really helps blend in any team and to establish family relationships. Classes are held in intensive mode - 5 hours 1 times a week on Sundays. Cozy room, tea, chamber environment (groups 5-8 persons), individual approach. Studying in a group you feel that Socionics - is not only interesting and practically useful knowledge, but also a profound personal experience, clarify your unique world view. And on this basis can a real personal growth.

This shows that socionics has been adapted as an alternative medicine and is being used as something similar to vibrational medicine. This is also similar to some energy healing methods, such as reiki.