User talk:Hickorybark

File permission problem with File:Orme-Johnson Israel Study 1988.png
Thanks for uploading File:Orme-Johnson Israel Study 1988.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Fladrif (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of new to Wikipedia and not familiar with many of the procedures. In the meantime I'll look into how to get the proper permissions to do the file upload properly.Hickorybark (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Hickory. As a relatively new user you may not be aware of the 3RR. You might want to consider whether you are sailing close to the wind on this on the John Hagelin article. (olive (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

The "three-revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright-line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident. 3RR draws a line where edit warring via reverts is clearly beyond a reasonable level and action will be taken if it has not already been. As such it does not apply in a few narrowly defined situations where there is no edit war (listed below).

Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached.


 * Thanks for your feedback, Olive. I have no desire to participate in an "edit war," and I hope the other editors working on Hagelin's biography will weigh in on the Dallas Observer quote. But I don't think you and Fladrif should have reverted my input without discussing the issues thoroughly with me, because I don't think you're right to keep that quote in. I prefer that Wikipedia maintain an objective, courteous tone in its coverage, particularly in its biographies. It's not that I'm a Pollyanna--I think there are people for whom it's very appropriate to cite references noting that they are crackpots or that they are ostracized by responsible people. Holocaust deniers and racists, for example. But Hagelin is a superb scientist and a humanitarian. You and Faldrif may or may not agree with his views about consciousness, but I think that Wikipedia has to be cautious about propagating slander--sourced or not. "Once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him" comes pretty close. Anyway, I'll let other editors think this through and come to a consensus. I've made my point of view clear and don't wish to belabor it. Hickorybark (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help?
I'm surprised an arbitration clerk hasn't stepped up to help you with your evidence submission, but I've been watching helplessly for the last half hour or so as you have added your evidence, deleted it, moved it into Tucker's section, copied it out of there, removed the redundant text and then deleted your entire evidence section again. If I had any idea what you were trying to do, maybe I could help, and maybe not (I also tend to have a hard time using those templates properly). Another suggestion: email the clerks for assistance (The address should be at the top of the page) or ask at the talk page that's associated with the evidence page. Good luck, Woonpton (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I was getting a little frustrated there. I think it's in the right place now.Hickorybark (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks ok now. Sorry, but not only did my PC crash, I was busy doing other things, some in RL, and hadn't realised you'd written on my talk page. I don't know why I didn't see the New Message indicator. I might have missed it anyway because I would have looked at recent messages at the bottom of the page, and you appended yours to another discussion at the top. Always start a new section at the bottom. If you look at the tabs at the top of a talk page, it has User, then talk, then Edit, then in my case +, which is Start a new section. Click on that and you're away. There's also a clerks' talk page, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. Thank you.Hickorybark (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Arbitration
Clerk Notice Please reduce the size of your section on the evidence page. Sections are limited to 1000 words in total and this requirement is stated twice on the arbitration page. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 10:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Response by User:David Spector in the TM Arbitration

 * What I mean is that scientists not familiar with TM can easily dismiss TM as bad science, since it superficially looks like your typical fringe organization, with TM's grandiose claims, such as the development of higher states of consciousness.
 * Only about 100-150 of the studies are non-redundant citations and are good science (such as having sufficient N to confirm hypotheses). This is WP:OR so cannot be included in the article. Confirmation awaits fair "outside" evaluation.
 * Now it's $24 million? It keeps going up. Anyway, even if NIH gave large grants, that doesn't prove that TM is accepted by mainstream doctors and researchers. IMO, most of them have no idea what TM is.
 * There is no controversy about the main features of the Darwinian theory of evolution; it has been called the most thoroughly confirmed of all scientific theories. That is why I call it mainstream science. TM, unfortunately, does not have good enough studies to have convinced mainstream scientists and medical people. That is why some doctors ignorant of TM, such as Doc James, are so dead-set against it, as they would be against phrenology or the use of magnets to cure cancer. Most doctors who have learned TM themselves, in my experience, praise it and recommend it to their patients as a general aid to health.
 * "dangerous medical claims" doesn't refer to TM but to Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology. A typical claim is that whispering a Vedic sound can cure a patient of cancer. The danger comes from delaying potentially helpful mainline allopathic treatment.
 * I agree that the word "pseudoscience" is not always used correctly. That was my point. An intelligent person reading quickly about TM or the Maharishi Effect (with its analogy of the Meissner Effect) might conclude that many explanations are pseudoscience.
 * Stating the limitations of research is vital when grand claims are made. It is also part of good practice when writing up and publishing scientific research results. David Spector 23:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My reply
I will post here soon.Hickorybark (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No footnotes
Hickorybark, you've neglected to add any evidence of "anti-TM" edits by me, or of my adding significant material about cult or religion issues. You simply assert, without any proof, that I am responsible for that content. I am not responsible for that content, and have made only small additions to it. Please either substantiate the charges or remove them. I'm sure you're an honorable person who wouldn't continue to make false accusations once the problem has been pointed out to you.  Will Beback   talk    20:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Writing encyclopedia articles is not much different from writing term papers in college. Writers are expected to use their own words, or to clearly attribute copied material. This edit included material copied verbatim from this webpage, without any attribution or citation to indicate its source. In the academic world that is known as plagiarism, and is a serious offense. The material has now been deleted. Please do not copy text again. Instead, either use your own words or, in rare circumstances, quote the author directly using quotation marks.  Will Beback   talk    10:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for catching that. I'll be more careful in the future.Hickorybark (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked. Students get expelled, and academics lose their jobs for doing this.Fladrif (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
 * All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
 * Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
 * Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
 * Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
 * From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
 * User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
 * Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

AN/I notice.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which your name was discussed. Specifically in regard to User:Doc James. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 7mike5000 (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)