User talk:Naturezak

Hold on
HI, Naturezak. Please read this Wikipedia guidline: WP:CONSENSUS. You are making major changes to the article without discussion. This is especially important for a controversial article. TimidGuy (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss my changes before reverting them. I've responded in the Tm talk page.Naturezak (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

TM POV resolution
Can I ask you for some advice as we try to move toward a resolution of the POV issue over at Transcendental Meditation? Recommendations for building consensus, that nebulous beast, are welcome. I'm new, but eager to learn.Naturezak (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * TM has been a bone of contention since before I started editing, I'm afraid. At the moment, here is my evaluation of the situation: TimidGuy, littleoliveoil, and perhaps Spariag are admitted TMers, with conflicts-of-interest.  They have been the main editors to the TM article and Maharishi's biography, and it is very hard to persuade them to not revert any large additions to the page.  In light of their COIs, I have requested that they cease editing the article and permit a free hand for a complete overhaul.  They dis-liked my observation that they cannot be completely neutral, and seem to mis-understand my request for a complete overhaul for a request for them to make small alterations.  You have seen what they do if bold changes are made.
 * At the moment, there are four editors I am aware of who have strongly protested the editing of the TM article - you, me, User:Dseer and User:Philosophus. That may be enough for a consensus.  Note though that the TMers are zealous and persistent, and also like to cite WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS to excess - even when they do not apply. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I added documentation to show that TimidGuy has already been determined by the COI Noticeboard to have been in violation of COI and should not be editing anyway, with similar implications for the other TMers. I did not want to pursue this by myself only to get beat up by all the TMers, but there are enough non-TM editors here now to convince Arbcom to take the case and most certainly block TimidGuy and the other TMers from editing based on their continued pattern and refusal to comply with COI, and ample evidence no other conflict resolution means exist. They will argue endlessly, you need a solution with teeth. --Dseer (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a such a solution might be in order; Olive seems very set on continuing with a protracted negotiation of edits, without any willingness to rescind her "control" over the article!Naturezak (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, if you want to do the work, the best course is probably to make yourself a user-subpage that contains a copy of the article, then edit it to your satisfaction, and link it on the talk page for comments. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All I have for these efforts is a warning from my old adversary and what I see as cult friendly Jossi for lack of civility (LOL), and a refusal to address the more primary NPOV issue or defer to a more neutral Admin, or address the NPOV issue on a subject where Jossi has strong opinions. My opinion remains that history will repeat itself with the TMers who always promise reforms but already have been told shouldn't even be editing the article as they do anyway. If enough editors can get a neutral Admin and then go to arbitration if they continue to obstruct, I will support that. Otherwise, after all this time, I believe anything less than a thorough re-editing the TMers will never agree to simply makes the article appear less transparently biased. Failing that, the problem with such partial improvement is that as the COI Noticeboard said as much, the bias and the absurdity of claims like yogic flying and the disproven Maharishi effect will deter sensible readers from buying the propaganda. Plus editors get weary of the games and drop out. If you don't get either neutral Adminstration and/or arbitration to enforce NPOV and COI, I can't afford the flack any longer. --Dseer (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]


 * Fine you testing the waters again despite past history and TMers failure to comply with COI. When you actually try and make the article neutral and controvert the fringe theories is when I anticipate the problem. I too tried to assume good faith at first despite past history. We shall see. --Dseer 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies
I've apologized in the discussion for the edit war. Will do so here, too. I'm confident we can put this behind us and together work toward improving the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This is the best place for discussion of netiquette. I really appreciate your input on the article -- its invaluable to be able to see it through your eyes. Thanks for sticking with it. TimidGuy (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

TM
Sorry if I reverted your reversion of a non-published paper, it just looked like sourced content had been removed and I didn't really see a solid discussion on it - which I may have missed. BTW, I'm impressed with the work you're doing on the article, and your ability to work with the other editors there to find common ground and consensus. Keep up the good work! Dreadstar †  03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Best place?
Re: Talk:Homeopathy is this the best place to bring this up? I can see this exploding into a mess. There are more discrete places to discuss this. If you do decide to remove the section feel free to remove my two edits too. David D. (Talk) 04:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm in bringing it up in a non-antagonistic way. It goes to the point of the legitimacy of the one's agreement with the other. Naturezak (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Add a heading?
I was thinking that maybe we should add a new heading to our discussion rather than having it all under the head about article protection? What do you think? Generally one isn't supposed to edit other's comments, and creating a new context like this could violate policy. But it's just you and me, and there's a pretty clear break when the discussion moved from protection to TM and relaxation, so it seems like it would be okay, if you agree. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WTB
The part that I dislike about your wording is that it doesn't make clear that the filmmakers support the concept that wishing can make it so. The pseudo-documentary sections are all in support of that concept, and the narrative is being used as an example: it's not just that the character considers this concept, that concept is the major thrust of the film.Kww (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me a proposal. With the history of that article, I hate to dicker around in the article text without an agreement in advance.Kww (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care for the implication that anything expressed in the movie is supported by science. I also don't like to use the word "fictional" to describe the narrative section, because the documentary sections are also fictional. How about Her experiences are offered by the filmmakers as an illustration of the movie's thesis about quantum physics and consciousness.Kww (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Naturzak. You are at 3 and possibly 4 reverts 3RR on the Transcendental Meditation article. You might want to take some care at this point because you could potentially be blocked for another revert.(olive (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Blocked
You've been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Transcendental Meditation. Dreadstar †  06:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor point
Naturezak, I appreciate the discussion. One minor point: per WP:TP, it's generally the practice that one adds one's comments after the previous comments. I guess I'd rather you didn't edit my posts by interspersing your comments. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Plava revija
Hello Naturezak,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Plava revija for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy deletion (because the criterion cited does not apply to magazines), but see below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Plava revija


The article Plava revija has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no effective sources; only source cited does not mention this publication

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)