User talk:Caleb Murdock/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Solar


 * Once again brilliant summary and re-visioning of the text to describe what Cayce actually did wehn he performed a reading. I have been trying to come up with a way to voice all these ideas, and you did in in one paragraph! Excellent job. I've been replacing or adding the term 'medical clairvoyant' wherever I find reference to Cayce in Wikipedia as a short way of giving him a more accurate moniker than simply calling him a 'psychic'. The thousands of affadavits and statutory declarations made by patients and doctors during his lifetime in regards to the wonderful and unique healing methods he described (Thomas Sugrue mentions the affadavits briefly in the intro to There Is A River), shoulde be included briefly somehow as well, I believe. But once again, I pray that your editing work stays in - its valuable, precise, insightful, and accurate. Great work! Drakonicon 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I've sent you a personal email since I wasn't sure where to answer your comments.--Caleb Murdock 09:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you resend the email... I think I deleted it not knowing what it was ... Very sorry... Drakonicon 15:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)... Um dont mind me... I found it! lol!Drakonicon 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email via Wikipedia's email system, and I don't think I was sent a copy, so I don't have the text. I just said "thanks" and pointed out that I had rewritten just one paragraph. The Cayce article is a huge mess, but I don't know enough about Cayce to rewrite too much of the article. Well, I DO know a lot about Cayce, but it has been years since I read the books about him. Maybe I'll read up on him.

I recommend you read The Seth Material. Seth expands on what Cayce said.

Oh, are you Zeno? If so, I'll resend my last note to you.--Caleb Murdock 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Another user has requested that you engage in mediation over the article about Jane Roberts. I'm from the Mediation_Cabal, and I'd like to help. Post something on Talk:Jane_Roberts if you want to pursue this. Grobertson 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jane Roberts Dispute
Hi Caleb. You have some good points on the Jane Roberts article talk page, but you might want to be careful when commenting on another editor's behavior. Read over "Wikiquette" and "No Personal Attacks", those can save you a lot of grief. Another good policy to follow is "Assume Good Faith"

As far as the inclusion of criticisim in articles by those of the skeptical persuasion, that's an ongoing discussion in several areas of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Check out these articles:


 * Criticism (this is a proposed policy)
 * Citing Sources
 * Verifiability
 * Reliable Sources
 * No Original Research

Dreadstar 05:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I shouldn't have made personal comments, and I'll refrain from doing that in the future. However, I won't negotiate with Mangel regarding the language of the article. Hopefully we won't get into a "rewrite war".

I am new to Wikipedia. This is the only page I am ever likely to edit. I am in the process of reading more of Roberts' books, and after that I will read her biography, so you can be sure that my edits and additions will be well-informed.

When I have the time I'll read all of Wikipedia's rules. Thank you for your attention to this, and I apologize for my indiscretion.--Caleb Murdock 06:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice work on the Cayce article! Makes a big difference to the bias in the piece. Highlights a difference of opinion between beleivers and skeptics. Cayce never really 'claimed' he had prophetic of medical powers... was always suspicious of what his readings suggested (he never heard one of them; all being recorded while he 'slept'). So other people witnessed (and purported)what he could do and say. Anyway, good work.. Keep it up.Drakonicon 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Caleb_Murdock"


 * Well, thank you! You're very nice!  To me, it was just a minor edit that I was making, but I guess it makes a difference.  The most authentic of the psychics were not charlatans who engaged in self-promotion, and they were often modest about their talents.


 * Is this the appropriate place for me to respond to you?--Caleb Murdock 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On the footnoting
I started with the footnotes but this article has a long way to go. Sayvandelay 09:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
Thanks, though I don't know what that means.--Caleb Murdock 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It will be my pleasure to explain! You can read about it at Barnstars, but in short, it is the custom to reward Wikipedia contributors for hard work and due diligence by awarding them barnstars. And you, my friend are definitely a hard worker and very diligent about the Jane Roberts article.  You deserve it!  Dreadstar  ☥  04:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly appreciate it. The article will get better as I continue to read.  I haven't read her biography yet, which should yield a lot of information.  Thank you for the contributions that you have made to the article.--Caleb Murdock 08:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Purported psychics
The categories were renamed per discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8. Each of the categories had a notification tag linking to the discussion. If you're interested in trying to move them back, you can list them at WP:CFD. --Minderbinder 12:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Caleb, I at first felt the same way you do. However, allowing this category is not so bad.  I means that there is not way to defend the position that a psychic is anyone who says they are psychic, instead of someone who actually has those powers.  I am much more concerned that they are trying to delete the category "Pseudoskepticism," here.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, I should have been notified of that discussion, Minderbinder.--Caleb Murdock 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Notification happened at both the category itself and WP:CFD. --Minderbinder 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry we lost the "purported" voting, but I'm pushing for it on the talk page for WP:BLP's. Was it you that pointed out a guideline on categories that said they couldn't be cited? I saw it somewhere and need it now... Thanks! Dreadstar ☥  23:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're saying about something that can't be cited, so I don't think that was me.--Caleb Murdock 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it. I'm continuing the battle here:  Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons.  I do not think the categories containing "purported" should stand.  Dreadstar  ☥  01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On this new page, are you requesting the removal of the category altogether? I'm not sure what the purpose of the new page is that I'm looking at.--Caleb Murdock 09:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably have a better shot at getting the category renamed if the proposed rename was to Professed psychics instead of Psychics and purported psychics or just Psychics. Although I have seen the same objections to "professed" as well. --Minderbinder 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are YOU trying to be helpful, Minderbinder? You would be happy if the category were renamed to "Frauds, Swindlers and Charlatans".--Caleb Murdock 06:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. --Minderbinder 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Shut up minderbinder. Made in the asu 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right on!--Caleb Murdock 10:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. --Minderbinder 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be gone!--Caleb Murdock 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the message and the Barnstar (: I was surprised the the ArbCom worked out as well as it did.  BTW, I was far from the only one who did work on the Arbitration. You can read the decision here.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Response
Response on my talk page (: ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Purported

 * Yes, I think the lead shouldn't have info the rest of the article doesn't have. I really don't mind words like "purported," sometimes, but they have been abused to such an extent by people who are just pushing a POV that it seems like using them once is like leaving a crack crystal around when there's an addict in the house. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey!
Just checking in with you to see how you're doing! I'm keeping pretty busy these days, things are going well. Dreadstar †  21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this where I'm supposed to answer?


 * Everything is fine, thanks. Very busy.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Butts' Death
According to: http://www.newworldview.com/blogs/helfrich/archive/2008/05/29/in-memoriam-robert-f-butts.aspx Robert Butt's recently passed away. I added dates to the mention of him in the Robert's article. You may want to have a looksee and see if it seems to fit in well with the rest of the text. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How sad. I knew it had to come soon; he was very old.  I had hoped he would live forever.


 * Your edit looks fine.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material Getting Redirected
There is a discussion as to whether the Seth Material page should be redirected back to the Jane Roberts page. Your input may be needed here. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material
Hi, I hope that you see where I was going with my edits to the tenets section. The language should be changed across the whole section to be more descriptive in this way. I like your improving edits, thanks. Verbal  chat  19:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Verbal  chat  07:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that you are functioning in good faith.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Small note on manner
Please try to take this in the manner in which it is offered, ok? I understand that Seth Material is important to you and I know battling people who want to get rid of it can be very annoying. I get angry myself at times. But when you assume automatically that because someone is a Christian or atheist that they are out to do your article harm and say so, it really comes off sounding bad, and doesn't encourage others to cooperate with you (it doesn't particularly show a good application of the advice given in NOPR either). I lose my temper, too, but let's try to keep things cool. Its obvious that some people want the articles gone, but even so some of their criticisms are useful. I wouldn't have bothered doing research to find the above sources for example. Again, I don't mean to offend but flying off the handle and making disparaging comments is not really cool. Hope I haven't upset you. Randy 70.186.172.75 (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't upset me. However, these people clearly have ulterior motives.  They are not being neutral or objective.  And that some of them have insinuated themselves into administrative positions is a shame for Wikipedia.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that! If all other articles here were subjected to the scrutiny that this one has, virtually all of them would be deleted. And I know admins can be bullies . . . I was an editor here for a long time, was nearly ad admin myself once, but I got so sick and tired of the useless bickering that I more or less "retired" and limited myself to the addition of infoboxes and references to biographies and low-profile articles. I didn't intend to get so embroiled in this discussion but it rankled that it was being singled out so to speak and being held to a higher standard than other articles of this nature. (Stewart Edward White for example isn't being singled out like this.) Usually when I get into fusses like these I lose, so I figure its best to let it lie. You may want to consider adding your own website on the Seth Material . . . I think it would serve as a valuable resource and you don't have to walk on eggshells when someone else doesn't approve. Anyway, take care. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of people go first to Wikipedia to get their information (since other encyclopedias are generally not posted free), so it is important that a good article on the Seth Material be present. It is astonishing to me that people in administrative positions are behaving in such a horrid manner.  I had no idea that this kind of thing went on here.  I assumed that there was an understanding:  you let the text remain so that it can be improved.  If the text is removed, it can't be improved!  You have no idea how poor the Jane Roberts article was until I started working on it (the Seth Material information originated there).  Yet if I had had people attacking the article constantly, it never would have been written.  And now they are trying to remove it altogether!  Not only that, but they arrive in packs to do their dirty work!  It's astonishing.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me tell you, its nothing new. This kind of crap is what got me fed up to begin with. They get their buddies to come out against you and as you have said don't bother to read anything or even *attempt* to help but try to get rid of it like a bunch of censors. If they had behaved this way early on, the encyclopedia would never have gotten started. I mean as I said, I am not a Muslim or Thelemite, but even so if I want to know what they believe, then this should be a good place to find out. They seem hell-bent on not allowing this with regards to the Seth Material. I found a bunch of possible sources, which we both knew were bound to exist . . . but they wanted to get rid of it *before* any of this was found. In essence they are requiring an article that is not a work in progress but a Featured Article from the get go. In this way they are prohibiting the incremental approach. Its doubly annoying . . . this material can be important. The reason I became interested in the Seth Material to begin with was because I encountered some of this stuff on a very personal level . . . I won't say more on a public forum, but when people like me look for information it would be nice to have it available. I can really sympathize with you and I disapprove of the way this has been handled, but I am just a peon here. I have found that when you get into a fight with a bunch of administrators, you lose. And I also have a tendency to lose my temper after trying to be Mr. Nice Guy for too long. The problem with me is that i always try to be conciliatory and take both points of view into consideration. The effect of this is usually to get kicked from both sides. But the things that were required . . . were so irrational . . . secondary sources for revealed material??? Do they ask that someone summarize the Bible in a secondary source for valid information about it??? Such sources are less likely to be accurate that the original (notability concerns I can see, but not for the beliefs per se). And a criticism section *equal* to length of the other half of the article for "balance"? I don't see that the case with relativity theory or Santeria. It boggles the mind. I think here you are seeing the full power of beliefs as Seth spoke of them . . . or the "official line" . . . they seek to defend themselves. Jane spoke of this a good deal in The God of Jane . . . although that doesn't make it any less maddening. Each time we fix something, I get the feeling it makes them even madder because they have one less rock to throw and then they come up with something else. I notice as we began to improve the article, they redoubled their efforts to have it removed. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing all that with me. It is nice to know that I'm not alone in dealing with situations like this.  It still astonishes me that people like that can gain any position of authority on Wikipedia.


 * It's beginning to appear that we may still win this one. Threatening them with mediation stopped them from redirecting it.  But then, they started to remove whole paragraphs of the article because there were no references in them.  Well, two paragraphs have now been restored (with references), and eventually they will all be restored.  The article will end up about the same, but with a ton of references.  Even so, I expect them to continue to threaten its deletion for ... you name it, they'll find a reason.  I don't think they'll be satisfied that the Seth Material is notable until Barack Obama mentions it in a speech.  The only thing I'm not going to try to restore is the quoted material.  The one thing we still need is second-party references.


 * Thanks again for sharing your experience.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't see the need for sources to back up what the original sources themselves stated, since in that case all you will get is a paraphrase at best, but if that is what they want, then it should be easy enough to track down in the above to some degree. We will have to do some hunting, since most of the reviews or critiques of the Seth Material are likely to be in older magazines and less than current, but I know back in the 60s and 70s it did attract considerable attention. A problem with using many sources is that anything they deem "fringe" will automatically be discounted as a source, so you will have to look to popular newspapers or magazines in order to get summaries of the material. I expect someone to try to take it to AfD pretty soon, notability seems obvious in this case . . . fame and notability are not the same thing, however, although that will be lost on the deletionist crowd. But it looks like the redirection has stopped for the moment. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The redirections have stopped, but Verbal and Dougweller have now deleted the entire Tenets section because of objections to the tone. They could, of course, rewrite it themselves, but they instead simply remove it and expect someone else to rewrite it (they can't rewrite it since they don't have the knowledge).  And since it appears I may have had 3 reverts in one 24-hour, they are going to block me in some way.  There is a truly evil quality to these people who are trying to censor others.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now they have moved the tenets material to Tenets, pending Reliable Sources. I am looking for them right now. As we get more of them, there should be less objections, although there may still be some issue over the length. I have added one more reference but it would likely be considered fringe as well, so we will have to get some of the news summaries in the above sources if possible. There are quite a few to track down so we should have some luck. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable references for the Tenets section would include references to the Seth Material itself, but they don't seem to be willing to accept those. Third-party references are needed only to establish Notability, and those have been provided by Linda.  The only references I can come up with are to the Material.  I have the advantage of having all the early books, and having an index to all the early books (which I can direct you to if you have the early books also), but they don't seem to want references to the Material.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing I can figure is that they must want a summary of the material from a source like a magazine or newspaper not on the "fringe" so I am looking for that. I don't see much sense in this myself since all this can do is summarize the material and refer you back to the material itself, but if that's what they want I can work with that. Some light is being seen, though, one of the opponents on the SM page did say that we should wait until further work can be done on the page since you were directed to spin off the Sm into a separate article to begin with. That gives us some time to work with and shows some of them are backing down a bit. I will keep hunting "secondary sources" to keep the article the way it is and let you continue working with it. I have all of the Seth books and a few others that have passing references to it so I will try to work with that. Good luck. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Case
I felt the need to close your case - It is not a dispute that will value from our support - please use official dispute resolution if it involves vandalism and involves administrators aswell. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You are at or may have exceeded 4 reverts in 24hrs - I suggest that you do a self-revert (ie revert your last revert), to show good faith, and retract your accusations of vandalism (see WP:VANDAL). Please work to improve the article, not simply reverting to your preferred version. Verbal  chat  18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been counting my reverts. I haven't exceeded 3 of them in one day.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in 24hrs, not any one day. I really would rather you helped improve the article rather than indulge in histrionics. For example, you've said that the Seth Material is important to your religion - could you tell us more about this, as it would be interesting for the article? Preferably with sources (any books about the religion, Seth, etc) Also, can you help summarise the tenets section? Galdalf and I have been discussing this. What is important, do you feel. Lastly, asking other editors to revert for you is a no-no on wikipedia, per WP:CANVAS although I'm sure you weren't aware. Verbal   chat  19:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I will not discuss my personal religious beliefs. It would not be appropriate or make a contribution.  The Tenets section does not need any summarizing beyond using the word "Summary" at the top instead of "Tenets", although I have made it clear that "Tenets" is perfectly acceptable.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Seth Material, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material Site
I just left this note for Gandalf61, and I thought I'd show it to you also:


 * I'm toying around with the idea of retiring from the fight. I don't have the energy for it.  I have owned the domain name Sethmaterial.org for a long time, and I'm just going to develop that.  This is not the first battle I've been in with atheists, skeptics, Christians, etc., on Wikipedia.  This is the first time, however, that they showed up in such a large gang.  Their tactic is to wear out other authors until the other authors give up.  It doesn't matter how many references we put into the article, it won't be enough.  Those two articles -- Jane Roberts and Seth Material -- are the only articles I edit, but it isn't worth the stress.  Most people, I believe, do not go to Wikipedia for their info but instead search the net, so my site will probably get more exposure.  There isn't, in fact, a site which simply explains who and what Seth was, so I'll be filling a void.  This decision isn't definite.  If I didn't feel that you needed backing up, I would definitely leave.  If you decide to stay and continue working on the site, maybe I'll also stay.  Tonight I'm just very tired.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have kind of given up as well. I think the best thing to do would be to make your own site about the Seth Material. Most of the Seth stuff on the web seems to be designed for people who already know about him. A well designed introductory web site may be very helpful and then you would not have to be subject to other people's requirements. And let's face it . . . when dealing with something like the material . . . its personal. If it affects you you tend to let others know this, and maybe thats for the best. I think the site would be a good idea. I do have some webdev experience so if you need any help, please let me know. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured I'd answer here. Thanks for your reply.  As I said above, my site will be Sethmaterial.org, and I expect to have it up and running by January or February.  It will be an introductory article, but more essay-like than the Wikipedia article.  I tried so hard to make the Seth Material article neutral in tone.  I thought I had, but obviously not.  The only thing I did that was not entirely neutral was to include so many quotes -- I wanted people to get the flavor of Seth by reading his actual words.  I really did have this idea about Wikipedia that people expected it to be a little sloppy because everyone worked on it, and I had no idea that roving bands of editors could completely up-end an article, and seemingly do it all within the rules (although I believe this particular band was stretching the rules).  Take care.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I piped you an email at purebeads. I was the one initially suggesting adding material on Frameworks, but I can see that's a no-go for now. I will probably hunt down some sources as time allows, but until the scrutiny cools down some, I am not sure how much headway anyone can make. I all all for sources, but its kind of daft in a way to get a secondary source which will ultimately rely back on the primary source that you are already using! Opinion on the article seems to be slowly changing, so if I am able to find a summary somewhere of the philosophy I will try adding it, but not right now. Sometimes editors can kind of submarine you with the WikiAlphabet Soup. WP:ETC, WP:THIS, WP:THAT, WP:OTHER, and it makes you feel like you are dealing with a bevy of lawyers at times. But I think we made the case that the material is notable and that it deserves its own article. But nothing here is stable; its liable to come under attack at any time in the future as well. I was under the impression that it was reasonably neutral and better written than many other articles as well, but it looks like "a work in progress" is not sufficient. I wish I could see how they would rewrite the "biased" portions. Anyway, I will be looking at your site to see what develops. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand your stress. My personal experience is that treating things in Wikipedia as a "fight" only leads to frustration and leaves a bad taste behind. But I can see that things will be different if you have an emotional attachment to an article's subject.
 * Anyway, you don't have to make a firm decision to leave or to stay - you could take a "wiki-break", do other stuff for a week or two, then come back when you have fresh inspiration. Everything will still be there, in the article's history and its talk pages. The most important achievement over the last few days is that the article now contains plenty of independent third-part sources, and almost everyone involved now agrees that the topic is notable. This is more important than whether the topic is classified as "fringe" or not, as articles can be deleted if they do not demonstrate notability, whereas they cannot be deleted just because they may be about a "fringe" topic.
 * I don't think we ever corresponded about frameworks, but it has been good working with you, and I hope our paths cross again in Wikpedia sometime in the future. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you are going to continue to work on the article. 70.186.172.75 told me this morning he feels similarly to me, so that would just leave you.  If you stop working on it, I think the article will be deleted within a week or two.  Yes, I did get too attached to it, but I really did try to make it neutral in tone.  I honestly don't know what kind of style they want it written in, because I thought I had achieved an encyclopedia-like style.  If you intend to continue working on it, I'll stay and work on it too, but I can't do more than one reference a day -- I have all the Seth books, including the early books, and I can fill in all the primary references in the Tenets section.  But truly, I don't think they'll allow that section to be returned to the article.  Look for my web site in a month or two:  Sethmaterial.org.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit war to your preferred version. Verbal   chat  09:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was never my agreement to work in a sandbox, and I won't. This is something you forced on me.  When does one editor force another editor in such a way?  Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort.  People like you, who are more concerned about censorship and policing other editors' behavior, are ruining Wikipedia.  You're doing as much warring as I am!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Time and space paragraph, Seth Material
Where do you think this paragraph should be inserted? I noticed you put it in the Summary section, but I think it's too specific for the summary, while too short for it's own section. How about integrating it with one of the new separate sections? The best candidate is probably "Reality", I feel. I also still think the summary needs expansion, and the other sections need general editing and sourcing. Thanks Verbal   chat  15:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry you did insert it in the Reality section. I've redone that edit and reworded the paragraph slightly. Verbal   chat  16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Seth Material
An article that you have been involved in editing, Seth Material, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Seth Material. Thank you. NoVomit (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)