User talk:Astynax/Archive 12

AN/I
A case at the Administrator's noticeboard has been opened about your recent edits. Please see this link. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A simple solution to this situation would take place if you please reverted those recent changes that discriminated against "War of the Triple Alliance". This matter does not need to become a deeper problem, and an amicable precedent can be left at AN/I. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to demand that I revert my edits to other articles. Linking to the redirect page, rather than the article itself, is irritating to those of us who use Wiki's popup option on links (the redirect notice takes up valuable space in the popup window). The alternative name for the war ("War of the Triple Alliance") appears on the first line of the article shown in the window, so no one is being confused by linking directly to the article. If there is a valid reason to link to a redirect page in a few instances, rather than to directly to the article, I have no problem with the reason being stated and changed. Insisting on linking to an old article title is itself WP:Pointy in attempting to reverse a move made by editor consensus. You should be arguing your reasons on the article's talk page if you want to make another attempt at moving it. Your accusations impugning my motives are a product of your imagination. As I stated, you could have piped the link to preserve your preferred name for the war and/or you could have corrected my mistake and improved the sentence. You could have discussed. You did none of those. &bull; Astynax talk 07:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You never "requested" anything. You reverted, then immediately opened an ANI complaint. Doing this in the same breath as patting yourself on the back for your cooperative spirit is bizarre, and the very behavior for which you are blaming me and others. &bull; Astynax talk 16:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A request is not a demand, Astynax. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 13:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, I saw this a couple of hours ago. MarshalN20 reported you without discussing first. Not only that, but he openly canvassed the only other editor who is with him on an arbitration case. All that because of wikilinks? Of course not. It's a clear retaliation against you for your statement on the arbitration. One of the Arbitrators said that every action taken during the arbitration would be checked. It's almost like MarshalN20 is trying really hard to prove that I'm right after all. --Lecen (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also got that impression from his first revert. I should have gone back and checked my spelling after his first revert, but I assumed he was really objecting to changing the link and resurrecting the "Paraguayan War" dispute. Even though I should have corrected my error, it seems that my assumption was correct and that MarshalN20 was shopping the dispute to yet another venue. The term "Paraguayan War" has very solid backing in scholarly literature both in English and Spanish, and it is unbelievable that anyone would quibble about this now. Perhaps the same people will come back back every year to say the same things? &bull; Astynax talk 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Lecen and Astynax, I find your conclusions quite disturbing. I have not "canvassed" anyone. Cambalachero had previously taken a similar case (about the "War of the Triple Alliance") at the NPOV noticeboard and AN/I, hence I contacted him after finding out about Astynax's behavior. He did not want to deal with Astynax, so I took the case to AN/I. None of my actions constitute canvassing.
 * Lecen, the last sentence of your message above just shows a desperate attempt at getting out of the hole you dug yourself into.
 * Moreover, trying to make me look bad will not clean up any of your misbehavior history.
 * Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to resurrect the "War of the Triple Alliance" question, you should have raised it again on Talk:Paraguayan War. Trying to shop the same issue to other venues, and to my talk page, is a tiresome waste of time. &bull; Astynax talk 07:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * All I asked was that you stop harming the wikilinks to "War of the Triple Alliance" and revert your recent changes. If you do not want to do that, then, just as I expected, the matter must be discussed at AN/I. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 13:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not make any sense whatsoever. What "harming" has been done? The links all point to the correct article, and where I had any inkling that the name or the war might be controversial (for a reason I cannot begin to imagine), I piped the link, thus preserving the visible "War of the Triple Alliance" name in the text. I'm done repeating myself on this page. &bull; Astynax talk 21:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wee Curry Monster explains it best at AN/I, where he writes: "So we have the situation that most people find their way to the article via the redirect, which last time I looked was nearly always hit first" . He mentioned this as well on the ArbComm case.
 * WCM's comments are what sparked your sudden "campaign" against the term "War of the Triple Alliance". You are trying to minimize, anyway possible, the amount of redirect hits that "War of the Triple Alliance" gets relative to "Paraguayan War".
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 13:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, in the past 50 years the following books in English were published about the war:


 * Independence or Death Story of the Paraguayan War (1965)
 * The origins of the Paraguayan War (1967)
 * The Paraguayan War: History and Historiography (1996)
 * The Paraguayan War, Volume 1: Causes and Early Conduct (2002)
 * To the Bitter End: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance (2002)
 * The Paraguayan War: Armies of the Nineteenth Century:The Americas (2008)
 * Wargaming the Paraguayan War - 1864-1870 (2010)

The only one that uses "Triple Alliance" (see above) says "...or the Paraguayan War, as it is more popularly termed". Will it matter to MarshalN20? No, it won't. He'll call it "Brazilianism" or whatever he wants. His friend said "Mere search results from a Search engine test are not an acceptable replacement" (see Cambalachero's statement on arbitration workshop page). This requirement is acceptable to them on the Arbitration case, but it won't on any other question that it's not suitable to them. You wrote what you had to write. Leave it be. --Lecen (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Google Book hits is acceptable for determining WP:COMMONNAME for article titles. Using the same method for content disputes is nothing more than WP:OR, and a weak way to argument your case. It's a simple matter of WP:CLUE.
 * Next, the quote you borrow from Chris Leuchars is strange, to say the least, and leaves various unanswered questions:
 * "More popularly termed" where? By who?
 * If Leuchars does not think that the term "War of the Triple Alliance" is as "popular" as "Paraguayan War", then why did he use the former term in his book? Does he not want to get his book sold or cited relative to authors who use the allegedly "popular" term?
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese invasion of the Eastern Bank (1811–12)
Astynax, once you have some free time available, could you take a look at Portuguese invasion of the Eastern Bank (1811–12)? The three sub-sections with "Background" are finished. --Lecen (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Occupation of Melo" is done. --Lecen (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas
Astynax, once you have some free time available, could you take a look at Juan Manuel de Rosas? "Birth" and "Estanciero" are all done. --Lecen (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will look at it Monday evening. &bull; Astynax talk 06:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Finished "Caudillo". Let me know if something isn't well explained. --Lecen (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done with this section. &bull; Astynax talk 07:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a few additions to that section. --Lecen (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There were no problems with the additions, although I made 2 slight changes that make the sentences a bit easier to read. &bull; Astynax talk 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Finished "Governor of Buenos Aires". --Lecen (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to bunch cites for the moment. I'll probably add more later. Better do that when the article is all finished. --Lecen (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK &bull; Astynax talk 15:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Finished "Desert Campaign". --Lecen (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm now done with the section. &bull; Astynax talk 09:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I made these additions to the article about Pedro I. His remains, as well of his two wives, was exhumed a few months ago. Maria Leopoldina indeed died of natural causes, and not because Pedro I killed her. Could you correct any mistake I made? I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to change "these aspersions" to "those aspersions" since the rumours aren't directly mentioned in the previous sentence. --Lecen (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. I should have time to look over it later this evening. &bull; Astynax talk 23:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Finished "Absolute power". --Lecen (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You may remove "On 7 March 1835, Rosas was reelected governor by the House of Representatives" (the very first sentence in that section). It's actually a leftover from a previous draft. I forgot to erase it. --Lecen (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. &bull; Astynax talk 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please watch this (beginning at 03:05). Guess who is the blond haired guy. --Lecen (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At least the casting director paid attention to how the historians described Rosas. The actor looks very much like the painting. &bull; Astynax talk 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It would have been promoted in the first time, if it wasn't for a couple of editors. But you and I both deserved some good news. And the article is indeed great. Once we're done with Rosas, I'll move back to the Platine Wars (No, I haven't forgot about the 1811 Portuguese invasion). --Lecen (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Done with "Totalitarian regime". --Lecen (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have finished reading. Is there another source that mentions that people were afraid to use blue and white. I remember reading this somewhere, but could only find a mention online here. &bull; Astynax talk 18:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are several books talking about the need to wear red clothes. In case someone requests them, we'll add more later. I believe what we have right now is fine. Also, you may bunch all cites if you like to. I'm pretty sure I won't add any further citations to the article. --Lecen (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that this might underline the atmosphere of terror under the regime, but perhaps you are correct that it may not be necessary. &bull; Astynax talk 17:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I misunderstood what you said. I thought you were asking for more sources to the "all red-Buenos Aires and no white and blue" thing. I will mention the fear of blue and white on "State terrorism" section. --Lecen (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=566826121 your edit] to List of new religious movements may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * * {{cite book |last1=Aupers |first1=Stef |editor1-first=Erik |editor1-last=Sengers |title=The Dutch

Main Page appearance: Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias
This is a note to let the main editors of Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 25, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/August 25, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias (1803–80) was an army officer, politician and monarchist of the Empire of Brazil. He fought against Portugal during the Brazilian War for Independence, and thereafter remained loyal to the emperors Dom Pedro I and his son, Dom Pedro II (to whom he became a friend and instructor in swordsmanship and horsemanship). He commanded forces that put down uprisings from 1839 to 1845, including the Balaiada and the War of the Ragamuffins. He led the Brazilian army to victory in the Platine War against the Argentine Confederation and in the Paraguayan War against the Paraguayans. Caxias was promoted to army marshal, the army's highest rank, and was the only person made a duke during the 58-year reign of Pedro II. A member of the Reactionary Party (which became the Conservative Party), he was elected senator in 1846 and served as president (prime minister) of the Council of Ministers three times. Historians have regarded Caxias in a positive light and several have ranked him as the greatest Brazilian military officer. He has been designated as the army's protector, and is regarded as the most important figure in its tradition. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the peacemaker! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Request
Astynax, I'm sorry for being away for some time. I'm still trying to find enough courage to continue the Rosas article. I'm now working on José Luís Mena Barreto (1817–79). With the present sources I have I find it impossible to create a good article. However, I have enough to create something other than yet another stub. Could you take a look in it? I'm done with "Early years" up to "Invasion of Uruguay" and "Later years and death". --Lecen (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been busy with visiting relatives for the last few months who come to stay with me during the warm weather. I should be able to go through the Barreto article tonight or tomorrow. &bull; Astynax talk 09:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Finished the lead and the "War against Paraguay" section. Unfortunately, it's a small article. But it's better than a stub, as it was before. --Lecen (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide
Hello! I noted of my revision to the Landmark Worldwide article. I'm dropping a note here to let you know that I did in fact address this both at the other editor's talk page, and at the article page (along with other editors). I'll address the quality of the source at the article talk page, but I wanted to address your edit summary here in a more personal way.

Given that the passage in the lede is a relatively new addition, and that the "normal" course of events here would have been WP:BRD, I request that you undo your revert so that discussion can continue before it is re-added.

Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

caic.org.au discussion
Hello! As someone who has edited the Landmark Worldwide article in the past few weeks, I am notifying you of a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the use of the website caic.org.au as a reliable source in that article. Please feel free to review or participate in that discussion.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573672807 your edit] to Empire of Brazil may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Region, Brazil|Northeastern]] and Central-Western regions. . See:

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox related events
Template:Infobox related events has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's map the future, pave the road forward
Hi Astynax. I would appreciate if you could take the time to read through my lengthy post at Talk:Empire of Brazil. Thank you and best regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Rosas
Finished "state terrorism". I was very lazy there, I must admit. Most of it is composed of long quotations. I felt it was for the best: it prevents anyone from accusing me later of distorting the meaning of the author. --Lecen (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Pedro, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1
Just an FYI, if you're interested. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look later. &bull; Astynax talk 18:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

List of new religious movements
Please don't do that again. I've reverted you as the RfC was closed with the statement "There is a rough consensus that Landmark Worldwide should not be included this list." There was no point in starting the RfC if you were going to ignore the outcome, and it is precisely because you started the RfC and ignored the outcome that this might be considered disruptive editing. I hope you can understand this. I have no opinion on the issue myself as I haven't been following the debate. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I came here to say something similar to what Dougweller said, but he beat me to it. The article history shows that I reverted your re-addition, so there must have been an edit conflict. I add that the RfC was closed following a request at WP:ANRFC, and suggest that you review CLOSE. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that my edit failed. I have 250 tabs open in Firefox and have found my failed attempt among them. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think maybe the best way to go would be to request the page be moved to something like List of cults, sects, and new religious movements, like I proposed on the article talk page. The early years of the study of NRMs did include a lot of discussion of what might today be called "non-religious" cults, like therapy cults, which might not be specifically religious, but do perhaps have most if not all of the characteristics of cults. The RfC was closed based on the question of criteria for inclusion, and taking that into account, changing the title or otherwise changing the criteria for inclusion would be the next apparent reasonable step. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with making the title more inclusive, although it would be getting fairly long. "Cult" and "sect" are certainly still used in academic literature. The term "new religions" is also widely used recently. Regardless of the so-called consensus, eminently reliable sources from the Sociology of Religion, Psychiatry and other fields—including those I listed—designate both est and Landmark as examples of NRMs. Even Chryssides, the single reliable source advanced to support the contention that Landmark is not a full-fledged religion, specifically acknowledges both that there are academics who classify Landmark as a NRM and that he himself sees some religious aspects: "From what has been said thus far, one may wonder in what sense est can be regarded as a religion. est itself and the subsequent Landmark organization have denied being religious in character. Nonetheless, several books, both anti-cult and academic, now classify est/Landmark and other Human Potential groups as examples of new religions" [...] "est and Landmark may have some of the attributes typically associated with religion, but it is doubtful whether they should be accorded full status as religious organizations." (Exploring New Religions pp. 278, 312-314.). So I doubt that any change of title is going to satisfy those determined to ignore and/or cherry-pick the academic lit in favor of supporting Landmark's position of divorcing itself from the "religion" word. &bull; Astynax talk 14:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The "consensus" read by the closing admin was to shift the discussion to inclusion criterion and then "with no prejudice to re-opening this discussion, once there is a consensus agreement of refined criteria". D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 17:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, the closing editor should have marked it "no consensus" and the extremely reliably sourced entry should not have been deleted, particularly as no reliable source was raised during the RfC to show that Landmark is not regarded as a NRM by a significant and notable segment of academics in the fields involved. Perhaps the closing editor was inexperienced or just hasty. As it should be transparently obvious to anyone who has read the literature, both est and Landmark are regarded as a NRM to one degree or another by many academics. It frequently appears in works on NRMs, even in articles by those who do not regard it as a fully-fledged religion, for the very reason that it is viewed as a NRM by a significant segment of scholars in NRM disciplines. I'm exasperated that this disregard for scholarship has been given a free ride, and I doubt that there is willingness on the part of PoV-pushing editors to include any criteria that would allow Landmark to be listed as a NRM or cult, as it most certainly is in reliable references authored by highly respected scholars. As I have mentioned, there are many other NRMs—identified as such in the academic lit—that would beg to be left off the list for the same mistaken reasoning as the Landmark people would have it: i.e., they object to the "religious" label, do not have a traditional clerical hierarchy, do not identify with a set of doctrines, do not have memberships or temples, or any of a number of other criteria. What should matter is what reliable sources say is a NRM, which seem to have been judged irrelevant by "consensus" in this instance. In my view, that does not bode well for consensus on changing inclusion criteria, assuming that a change is even desirable. &bull; Astynax talk 19:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe he should have. However, he did indicate the way to proceed. Under the circumstances, I think starting a second RfC, specifically regarding the proposed change in the name and in the inclusion criteria, would seem the way to go. Specifically regarding Landmark, considering it has been officially included in a French government list of cults, I think there would be no reasonable cause for its exclusion from a list including cults, or, for that matter, any other groups which don't like the label but have been so labelled by other governments. This unfortunately does raise a real question regarding the number or groups which the Chinese communist government has labelled by a term whose official translation was "heterodox movement," but has been changed to "evil cult", but we can deal with that in the discussion of inclusion criteria. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally have no problem with your proposed name change or to a new RfC. The NRM term is broad, and cult-sect typologies are certainly included under it, and there should be no objection to making that more explicit if it need be. The abbreviated term "New Religion" and "New Spiritualities" are also now being used by some scholars along with several other variants, and those synonyms should probably also be added to the lead section and to the full NRM article itself. &bull; Astynax talk 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate remarks
With regard to your faceitious comments on the talk page for the List of New religious movements [], the point is not whether I feel "attacked", but whether your comments are a repeated breach of the requirement to assume good faith and to debate in a civil manner. It is grossly offensive to routinely accuse editors of disregarding the fundamental policies of Wikipedia every time one disagrees with your personal opinions or interpretations. Incidentally I wasn't even specifically thinking of myself as being the target of your blanket condemnations. DaveApter (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely feel that I or anyone else is serially uncivil, then stop distracting talk page discussions with such personal accusations and report the behavior to the appropriate venue. &bull; Astynax talk 18:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's the normal procedure to ask them to stop first, and only escalate if they persist? DaveApter (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not on article talk pages. Nor do I have the slightest inclination to stop advocating adherence to Wikipedia policies just because anyone might find them offensive. &bull; Astynax talk 23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, I'm not suggesting that you refrain from 'advocating adherence to Wikipedia policies' - but that's not the same thing as rushing to accuse other editors of violating them every time one has an interpretation of the sources that differs from yours. DaveApter (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, stop your baseless accusations that I have done any such thing. Report it if you think you have grounds, but stop distracting talk page discussions with that sort of garbage. &bull; Astynax talk 17:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of new religious movements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EST (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil
I made substantial improvements to Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. I wonder if you could take a look in it and review it? --Lecen (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment
Hi there Astynax! I see that you're fairly active working on pages about New religious movements and I wanted to get your input on something I've been working on, if you're interested of course. I am working on behalf of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, which has been described as a new religious movement, to improve the entry about the school.

This page currently has some issues, including problems with how information about the school's beliefs and teaching methods are presented. I have now finished writing a new version that addresses these, and some other issues, that I would like other editors to consider. The problem I am having is that it seems I can't find editors to judge my revision on its own merits and compare it to what is currently on the page. I think many editors are resistant to helping simply because of the topic. I even had one editor tell me he thought the current version was more neutral, only to admit later that he hadn't looked very closely at it.

On the discussion page you will find more information about what I suggest changing and why. You will also find a link to what I have written. Though I have written this on behalf of the school, I am not personally a member, however because of my "conflict of interest" I will not edit the entry myself.

I've worked hard to write a new factual entry for the page based on the available reliable sources and I've gotten guidance about Wikipedia's policies and feel like I've done a good job of abiding by them. If you had time to help me out by reading what I've put together and letting me know what you think it would be a big help. Calstarry (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! I replied to your comment on the Ramtha's discussion page. Calstarry (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! I wanted to let you know that I've read the Melton essay I was able to find on Amazon and I've added some new information to my draft. You can see the updated draft here: Ramtha's School draft. How does it look to you now that this source has been added?


 * Oh, I've also left a reply on the Ramtha's discussion page about this, so maybe we should try and keep the discussion in one place. Calstarry (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems like everyone has been busy in other places this week so I wanted to check in before the weekend and see if you might have time to return to the Ramtha's discussion page soon. I hope you'll be able to look at my draft soon. Calstarry (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. —Tgeairn (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment
Hi Astynax! If you didn't see I replied to your message on the discussion page about the "Criticisms of the school" section. I'd like to know what you think of my suggestions and then I'm happy to go ahead and make some changes if needed. Calstarry (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Fresh start: Ramtha's School of Enlightenment
Hi Astynax. I wanted to let you know that I posted a new message on the Ramtha's discussion page. Since a few editors have mentioned that it might be better to work through the article section by section, and because the discussion has gotten so long and complex, I would like to try to review the page this way.

I'm asking editors to look through just the Research section with me. Your comments have been very helpful in the past and it seems that you are very knowledgable about articles like this so I'm hoping that you will be able to look at this new request. Thank you. Calstarry (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)