User talk:SpiritBeing

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. If you are looking for help, please do any of the following:
 * visit the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have
 * type   on your user page, and someone will answer your questions shortly
 * visit the directory of help pages

There are a lot of standards and policies here, but as long as you are editing in good faith, you are encouraged to be bold in updating pages. Here are a few links you might find useful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;), which produces your name and the current date. Also, it would be a huge help if you could explain each of your edits with an edit summary. Again, welcome! --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion of Universal Church Of Metaphysics 501(c)3
A tag has been placed on Universal Church Of Metaphysics 501(c)3, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "I don't see how there can be a verifiable source independent of the church unless it has ended up in a newspaper or something." So you admit it does not begin to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. And there is no need for anything terrible to happen for an organisation to receive media coverage. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(SpiritBeing (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) Hello RHaworth. Take a look at the many reliable references I have provided, including three references to the secretary of state's offices in which the church is registered. If that is not a reliable source as to it's existence, then this is blatant religious discrimination. No I do not see that a newspaper article is relevant to the situation, and that is my point. I believe that the secretary of state's offices in California, Minnesota and Washington should be verifiable enough for you. Thank you for your input, but I respectfully disagree. Go look at the references and you will see verifiable references of its existence, and since it does not sell anything, then it is not a blatant advertisment. I believe an advertisement is supposed to be trying to get you to buy something. (SpiritBeing (talk)SpiritBeing)


 * Article subjects are required to have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This could be books written by academics, papers that have been published in scholarly journals, or media coverage. Have a look at the reliable sources guideline.--PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the reliable resources guidelines and I believe that the Secretary of State's offices do indeed qualify. Thank you for causing me to get those references, it is good to have them here anyway. Also, books do not normally mention churches, nor are books always printed on the internet since they are trying to sell them. If all books were on the internet for free, then they wouldn't be able to sell them. Please, let's not fight over this. Let's just all live and let live. Thank you for your help in getting the article more verified, I do appreciate that. I am going to post a lot more contributions to Wikipedia as time goes on because I see a lot of gaps in your information concerning my particular leanings in spirituality, and I would appreciate not having to fight about every article I ever upload just because you may not agree with this particular spiritual religion. I have written factually, provided verifiable references to government agencies that are acceptable sources in wikipedia, and I have refrained from my own opinions. I am only here to provide information for an encyclopedia that is missing information. Part of wikipedia's bad reputation for being faulty is that it doesn't have all the information it should have, so please let me remedy that situation and make wikipedia a better place, just as you are. I don't see any churches listed with this particular religion, so it means that wikipedia could be seen as biased against particular religions if no one is allowed to post articles about relevant and important organizations that are well known to those in that particular religion. People have asked about this unbalance on wikipedia, and I am hoping to be a contributor to wikipedia that brings more balance to an ignored religious category that an encyclopedia should be unbiased about. (SpiritBeing (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

Delrev to get other opinions

I would like to get other opinions on this page. I have reposted this page 4 times now and the users who have been deleting it have consistenly deleted all conversations previous to this, refuse to be reasonable or discuss things in a manner fitting of wikipedia, have started to hide their identieies so they don't get in trouble with wikipedia, and now I would like to invite some other administrators to view this page and give constructive advice as to how to handle this situation. I am feeling rather ganged up on. No matter what I post, my articles are attacked no matter what changes are made, no matter how dry and encyclopedic they are, no matter what I take out or add, and it is beginning to feel like religious discrimination, rather than a true editing or opposition. It also is a matter of opinion as to whether a church is important if it has thousands of members, several branches in three states, corporate registrations in three states and more to come, branches opening in other countries, and ministers who would like to see their church listed on wikipedia. I would like to hear from reasonable people now and seek a deletion resolution process from wikipedia rather than fight with people who don't respond to reasonable changes and additions to this article and others I present. I have joined wikipedia to fill in some of the blanks I see in this site, since there are many subjects that don't seem to be covered here, and this is only the beginning of what I would like to contribute to wikipedia. I believe that reasonable conversations should take place, speedy deletions should not happen without discussions and acknowledgements of changes made, etc. My article keeps getting deleted before I can even finish making the suggested revisions, so it is seeming to be a bit biased and unfair now. I would like another opinion. I hope that a higher administrator is able to take a look at this situation and I will keep seeking a higher administrator until I can reach someone who has reasonable input. Thank you so much for taking a look at this situation. (SpiritBeing (talk)SpiritBeing)

Speedy deletion of University of Metaphysical Sciences
A tag has been placed on University of Metaphysical Sciences, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. RayAYang (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Christine Breese, etc
I must object to your current line of commenting at the AfD. I bring this here as this to me has more of a matter between editors than about the specific article. Feel free to reprint my comments elsewhere if you feel it is warranted. To say that my comments are about not liking a religion or religious standpoint is ridiculous and highly offensive to me. To say that my "opinion" about the article has anything to do with my opinion about the subject is not only blatantly inappropriate but, would seem a deliberate attempt to avoid discussing the merits of the article itself. To sully other editors simply because you have a difference of opinion on why an article should stay or go is highly inappropriate and I'd encourage you to avoid doing such again. Instead take some of the references you claim are out there that are from reliable 3rd party sources and prove the subjects notability (which by the way is not the same as existence or popularity) and include them in the article. Once you've done this than changing peoples "opinions" on the article should be as easy as saying "Hey guys and girls, I've added appropriate 3rd party references that verify this subjects notability please check them out.". Thank you for your time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Already Added Numerous 3rd Party References Hello, sorry if you are offended, apologies, but I have already added numerous 3rd party references to the article and I would appreciate you taking a look at those, and therefore I would not think that there was a bias of any sort if people were giving reasons for request for deletion. People are not taking time to look at the edits before asking for deletion, so will you please take a look, follow the links, and you will see that there are plenty of 3rd party links proving notability. Then I will not be under the impression that there is a bias in any way and that the legitimacy of the article has been examined. Thank you for taking a look and examining the references, none of which point to anything but 3rd party links. I appreciate your feelings and don't want to offend, but I would appreciate more discussion about the references, not just a request for deletion with no specific reasons or proof of why. (SpiritBeing (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)


 * Maybe we have a "language/context" problem. The article does not include a reference section (only lots of links to places) and an External Links section. Nothing in the "External Links" section is a reliable 3rd party source which proves the persons notability in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the project. Additionally, the majority of the links embedded in the article seem to be to primary source, or to sources which confirm existence (which isn't the same as notability) or popularity (which again isn't the same as notability). Maybe you can update the formatting in a way that helps the article to look less like you are trying to advocate the person and/or her university it will help others to be more neutral. Maybe even making it easier for people to see some notability in the article that we may be missing because of formatting. By the way I looked at all those links before I placed my initial opinion at AfD and unfortunately, looking again hasn't really changed my mind about the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am new to Wiki and I don't know how to make a reference section, only links. The links in article aren't what I'm referring to as the 3rd party links, it is to all the links below where the articles in various mags are, the tv the radio stuff, in the lists, that all proves notability, but if I am formatting something wrong, can you or someone help me? I would really appreciate that. I have wanted to contribute to wiki but if I can't figure out how to do a reference section, I'm going to have this constant struggle to get an article on. Do I just put those numbers behind them? (SpiritBeing (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)
 * First you need to decide what you are going to use as actual references (just moving the list of links isn't going to help. the format looks something like this . I'll add the relevant section now but, you'll need to populate it based on the above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinion as requested
Shell provides some good advice. It would be worth it for you to look over Writing your first article. Five pillars and Welcome may also be very useful in explaining how we do things and why we do them. To get a more exact understanding of the responses people are giving, and why they are saying them, take a look over Neutral point of view, What Wikipedia is not and Notability. If there's any way I can help clarify things for you, please do not hesitate to let me know and I will do the best I can to explain. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote stuffing
Please be aware that selectively canvasing people to take part in an AfD is against Wikipedia rules. AfD are explicately not a vote. Jefffire (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Christine breese
You solicited my view regarding the speedy deletion tag posted on the abovementioned page. The article in its present form is clearly unacceptable and does not fulfill the requirements that the Wikipedia community in its inimitable wisdom of collective intelligence has established for an appropriate article. Have a look at some of the feature articles for the qualities, register and tone of a "show-case article" and work elements of these qualities into this article to demonstrably improve its quality. Importantly, reputable sources appropriately cited are required for probity. If you require help with this: ask! You solicited my advice, so here it is: Embrace dialogue and discourse within this community as a spiritual discipline and be open to developmental processes and iterating your perceptions and assumptions. We hope you stay, continue editing and work with the community.

Blessings in blood

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am pretty much in agreement with B9 hummingbird hovering here. Rather than canvassing for support (which is frowned upon here), spend your time searching for reliable sources which may establish notability of the subject. Preferably some third-party sources (i.e. a book review in an established publication, a news article, a biography). If you find these, try adding them to the article and see if others agree that notability has been established. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion Please?
Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual people, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)
 * Well, in the second case, you make the argument that because that article had been up for a long time, it shouldn't have been deleted. In fact, the length an article's been up has no bearing on whether it passes the various policies and criteria to stay afloat.  With nearly two and a half million articles, it stands to reason that there are hundreds - if not thousands - of articles that fail any potential deletion criteria, only no one's noticed them yet.  As currently constituted, it's a bare stub that doesn't even assert notability, let alone demonstrate it.  Beyond that, it seems that you've recreated the article after deletion several times.  Recreating a deleted article is a prima facie violation, articles can be speedily deleted for no other grounds than that, and open defiance of consensus and Wikipedia policy like that puts you at risk for blocking.
 * In the case of the Breese article, I'll put my comments up on the current AfD. That being said, I strongly urge you to ratch the belligerence down a couple notches.  It's a definite violation of WP:AGF to claim that the only reason anyone could oppose this article is that they don't like her religion, or that they are "non-spiritual;" you have zero basis for that belief.  Filibustering isn't going to save the article; only concrete evidence on how Breese meets WP:BIO does, and that is with solid, reliable sources, not with free handouts and podcasts.  Has she been featured in the Bay Guardian or the SF Weekly?  Appeared on KQED or KALW?  Not so far as I can find.   Ravenswing  09:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Spiritbeing, I would like to speak with you off-line. Can you please email me (go to my talk page and then click on "E-mail this user" in the "toolbox," which appears on the left column.  Alternatively, you can enable your amil and I can email you.  Renee (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. As it stands I don't think the article is good enough and there are a lot of dubious claims of self phds and self published works which from a professional viewpoint don't seem that valid. I'm leaning towards conditional keep, if you can show to me clearly that she is notable and referenced the article with citations and wikify it. There are certain things which seem to suggest she is worthy of note in her given field which qualifies on wikipedia which is why I'm proposing you are given the chance to improve it.  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go.
But I'm equally sorry to see that you're casting blame all around for your articles being deleted, instead of doing what's necessary to ensure they're not: nothing more complicated than making sure the subjects meet the criteria of WP:BIO. Quite the contrary from your assertion, there are many thousands of articles on spirituality topics and subjects, paganism, neopaganism, New Age, the whole gamut. The common thread they all share is that they meet the criteria for retention. Articles on people, for instance, are not sourced with personal websites, podcasts, self-published books, self-granted awards and supermarket handouts, but by mainstream magazine or newspaper articles, interviews on broadcast TV and radio, awards well-known to the national or international community and/or books with widespread distribution and provable readership.

If you continue to believe, however, that Wikipedia's being uniquely unfair in not doing what you want, then I have a suggestion: take (for instance) the Breese article to Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta and see if she meets their standards of notability for publication. Good luck.  Ravenswing  09:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I did supply plenty of references to third party sites and articles, none of which are self published, no awards, no self published books, no personal websites, and I did supply broadcasts on TV and radio, nationally distributed magazines, etc. I did provide book with national widespread distribution and readership and references to a school with thousands of students all over the world. Yes, I do believe that wikipedia is uniquely biased against particular spiritual genres, as I notice there are gaping holes in the information here in this spiritual category, which is why I joined, to help fill in these obvious gaps. However, it's not worth the fight with people who are determined to block specific spiritual information. The article did meet the criteria, and if proven widespread notability through the numerous amount of references I provided is not enough, then that's fine. I don't really mind. I thought I would help wikipedia with info that is strangely missing, it wasn't just this teacher, it is many that I wanted to cover who should be here, and who aren't, even though they ARE covered in places like Britannica. I believe Breese and her school would qualify. Wikipedia is no Britannica, that is for sure. Wikipedia is masquerading as an encyclopedia, nice idea if it worked, but even professors in colleges laugh at wikipedia whenever anyone tries to quote it as a source of information.

Anyway, good luck to you all, I hope Wikipedia gets better someday and has a larger appeal to spiritual audiences in this genre. It is sorely missing a lot of information in this category, which is a mass consensus in the public about this particular area of religion. If articles stay here for any length of time in that particular genre, like Eckhart Tolle, or Gangaji, they just get raked over the coals and disparaged in the negative discussions anyway, so spiritual types are better off not being listed in wikipedia after all. I have found this out after looking at the situation more closely. It's fine with me, I just thought I could fill in these gaps, but people before me have probably already tried with the same negative results, so my energy is better used elsewhere in the world. Best wishes. (SpiritBeing (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)
 * I can't speak to any other articles you may have created beyond the Breese one, but at least in her case, I don't know what you're talking about. Her book that you cited was self-published.  The freebie magazines in which she appeared were, according to their own websites, of local, limited distribution only.  You submitted no evidence she had ever appeared on TV, and the "radio" interviews you claimed were in fact podcasts.  The principal websites you cited were her own personal site and that of the organization she had created. None of these meet WP:BIO's criteria.  If you refuse to accept that, and if you persist in believing that you're being persecuted because we won't print everything you want, untouched, then perhaps your decision is indeed prudent.    Ravenswing  11:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)