User talk:Terrymacro/Archive

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WikiProject Astrology
Hey there Terry! It is really nice to collaborate with you on New Age. I see that you are a member of WikiProject Astrology; could you add the New Age article to the project? I thought that might be helpful since there is no WikiProject New Age; although there probably should be. Take care! ~ All is One ~ (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good one
Onya mate! Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fields of interest
Was this really appropriate?  Will Beback   talk    07:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DLM
We're now discussing the DLM. High-ranked individuals in that movement have a conflict of interest which should be disclosed if they intend to edit articles related to the topic.  Will Beback   talk    08:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the WP:COI and it does not apply to me thankyou. Terry Macro (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that a senior official in a movment has no conflict of interst when discussing that movement?   Will Beback    talk    01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean to say "Do you think that a former senior official in a movment has no conflict of interst when discussing that movement?" Is this of a different status to current members of anti-DLM/PR groups editing these pages and not revealing their interests?Terry Macro (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are organized groups that have senior members then yes, it would be a similar situation. You have commented on issues with which you had an undisclosed conflict of interest. That gives the impression of acting in bad faith.    Will Beback    talk    03:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I need to get clear on this issue with you otherwise I will refer it elsewhere. Do you mean to say that being a current member of a group that is anti the subject, that say for example it is not a registered organisation in the legal sense, is not a COI but being a former senior member of a defunct organisation is a COI? If so, which sentences/sections of WP:COI specifically indicates this, as I could not find it.  Terry Macro (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COI says:
 * Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they... are trying to distort Wikipedia.
 * ''If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community.
 * '' Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.
 * ''If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article.
 *  The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.
 * An average member of a large religious group does not necessarily have a conflict of interest. But someone who was an early follower and senior national official in a religious movement almost certainly does have a conflict of interest. The fact that Terry MacKinnell commented on the John MacGregor affidavit without disclosing his involvement with that person, or his role in the involved organizations, appears to be a major violation of good faith. You didn't have to comment, but since you did involve yourself and expressed a strong opinion, it was inappropriate to pretend to be an uninvolved bystander. Most recently, writing about the DLM in the 1970s, when Terry MacKinnell was the Australian national Financial Director, you said, "I only knew of those times in general terms and from hearsay." That appears to be an unnecessary but misleading remark. If you are going to participate in dicussions of the DLM and the Rawat movement then it's important to be honest about your significant involvement in the topic. If that's not comfortable then it's appropriate to stay away.     Will Beback    talk    07:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish to answer a couple of misconceptions you have presented. The online affidavit re John McGregor was fraudulent and posted by someone antagonistic.  As you are well aware, such a source does not conform to Wiki's reliable sources.  Secondly my statement that "I only knew of those times in general terms and from hearsay." has been misinterpreted by you.  Australia is at the end of the world, and I was commenting on things that occurred in India and the USA that I had no direct knowledge of at the time other than the occasional hearsay and only learnt the details from Nik's research in the last week. People have fanciful and distorted views on the inner workings of organisations that they themselves had no involvement with. There was no CIA or FBI in DLM with information fed from one organisationt to the next - it was all fairly simple and harmless, and frankly good fun and I was extremely fortunate to be a right place at the right time.  I will have to refer your explanation for your allegation of my COI elsewhere in Wiki as you are basically saying that an ex official of a defunct organisation involvement in DLM should declare their interest while other editors that are members of antagonistic groups to the subjects or are clearly biased and anatagonistic to the subject are free to continue without declaring their interests. This is certainly not the spirit of Wiki policy and I will have to look for a NPOV on the issue elsewhere. Terry Macro (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Senior officials in anti-Rawat organizations would have the same COi as senior officials in pro-Rawat organizations. However I'm not aware of any such anti-Rawat organizations.
 * Really? Your talk page involvement began with this article in The Register. It includes a photo of John Brauns and links to his web sites.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/page4.html Terry Macro (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not correct, but it's beside the point. To the relevant issue, a website isn't the same thing as an organization. People simply contributing to a forum don't make an organization, unless it's a particularly large one that has a staff. I'm not aware of any anti-Rawat group that has a finance director. As for John Brauns, I believe he's barely edited any of the articles. I suggest you learn from his behavior, and just contribute to the talk pages as he has done.    Will Beback    talk    11:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to movement publications, Terry MacKinnell travelled to the US on at least one occasion in the mid-1970s in order to learn more about things from an international perspective. So he had a first-hand perspective of the US scene while being a key player on the Australian scene. And, so far as I know, Australia is closer to India than to the US or Europe, so I'm not sure what geographic distances have to do with anything. Again, staying silent is honest. Claiming ignorance while not disclosing a close relationship is problematic if you intend to continue contributing to the topic. This topic has had too many COI problems already, so fresh conflicts are unwelcome. If there's a continuing problem then there are several dispute resolutions steps we can take.      Will Beback    talk    08:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My involvement with DLM ceased over 25 years ago. I have never been employed by EV, and I am not a member of TPRF. Any common sense applied to the situation would clearly indicate that 25 years gives the necessary detachment to provide NPOV edits for articles related to DLM. There is no COI. Terry Macro (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The DLM itelf ceased to exist about 25 years ago. However the biography of Terry MacKinnell, on websites that you've linked to, seems to indicate that he was the financial director in the 1990s of a large facility owned by the Rawat movement, called "Ivory's Rock Conference Centre". In the same biography, MacKinnell states that his "major passion in life is utlising the techniques of self-knowledge as revealed by Maharaji." So it does not appear that MacKinnell left the movement 25 years ago, or ever. In other words, he was among the early followers, he has been a member for at least 34 years, and he was a senior official in two separate organizations, most recently in the 1990s. And yet you feel that Terry MacKinnell has no conflict of interest whatsoever regarding Prem Rawat? And that it is unreasonable for other editors to assume that Terry MacKinnell would not be a neutral editor on articles related to Prem Rawat? I've never seen this account make an edit that didn't support a "pro-Rawat" position, so there is no evidence that MacKinnell can be neutral. Therefore, the best thing would be for MacKinnell to "withdraw from editing" articles related to Prem Rawat.     Will Beback    talk    05:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or another route is to follow John Brauns' example and just participate in talk. There should still be disclosure, but this route is fully endorsed by the best practices and guidelines.   Will Beback    talk    11:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Terry, I’ve only become aware of this discussion in the last 24 hours and I’ve been pondering if, or how I should contribute to it. As you have said information I provided on article Talk pages is new to you, I think that it is appropriate that I add here such details that I understand to be pertinent to the question of COI. I have no problem taking you at your word that you did not know the history, however as you were the Finance Director of Ivory’s Rock Conference Centre, you must appreciate that some people will find it difficult to understand that were not aware of the corporate relationships involved. All relevant information is I believe readily avaible from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf

Key Facts

 * ELAN VITAL INCORPORATED (Aus) was previously named Divine Light Mission. See Former Names at


 * ELAN VITAL INCORPORATED (Aus) is owner of Jeeps Nominee Pty Ltd


 * Jeeps Nominee Pty Ltd, is the owner of IVORY'S ROCK CONFERENCE CENTRE PTY LTD ( Name:JEEPS NOMINEES PTY Number of Shares: 235974) [redacted link]
 * Terry Macinnell was appointed a director of IIRC 23/03/1995 [redacted link]


 * According to the website of Elan Vital Incorporated (Aus) the land on which IRCC operates is owned Myrine Investments (Jersey), which in turn is owned by The Prem Rawat Foundation

Question of COI
Terry, I think that you must acknowledge that anyone who has held a directorship of a company which is owned by an Elan Vital organisation, and which company operates on land owned by The Prem Rawat Foundation, must seriously be considered to have a declare-able COI in respect of any article dealing with Rawat or his supporting organisations. What conclusions you come to about future editing is (as far as I’m concerned) a matter for you, but your failure to be explicit with other editors about your past involvement is at the very least a failure of good faith. You can’t be ignorant of the role that Jossi has had in the Rawat articles, and frankly it would be astounding if you did not know both Rumiton and Momento personally. If you decide to continue participation in the Rawat articles I hope we will see a deal more openness regarding your position. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my understanding a COI can only exist when someone is presently on the payroll of an article subject, or presently carries functions in this organisation(s). Former involvement can only mean I may have a POV, which is clear anyway and no reason to refrain from editing. This is similar to the POV of the various editors who are affilitated in some way or another with groups or associations with demonstrated POV antagonistic the the subject.  Terry Macro (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Terry, could you give me contact details of the "groups or associations with demonstrated POV antagonistic (to) the subject" you refer to? I may be interested in joining such a group or association.  Thanks. :-) --John Brauns (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Money is only one aspect of COI. The fact that you failed to disclose a prominent and long term association between yourself and the topic in your previous discussions is just the kind of untransparaent POV pushing that COI is intended to prevent.   Will Beback    talk    01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it would seem your understanding of COI missed this sentence, "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.". After reading this page, it would seem to me like a simple declaration of COI would be a good idea. It does not mean you cannot edit, or change the way you edit. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 01:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I did reply to the note you added into the middle of my posting above. I wrote: Is there anything in your postig that I didn't respond to?  Will Beback   talk    04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ''That's not correct, but it's beside the point. To the relevant issue, a website isn't the same thing as an organization. People simply contributing to a forum don't make an organization, unless it's a particularly large one that has a staff. I'm not aware of any anti-Rawat group that has a finance director. As for John Brauns, I believe he's barely edited any of the articles. I suggest you learn from his behavior, and just contribute to the talk pages as he has done.   Will Beback    talk    11:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * see your talk page, I don't want to hog the action on mine. While everyone seems so keep on writing their concept of my BLP on my user page, very few of these same people reveal their own associations and affiliations.   Are you an atheist or do you have any religious beliefs? Terry Macro (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never served as an official in any religious, anti-religious, or atheist organization. I do not edit any articles connected to my religious beliefs.   Will Beback    talk    02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's pretty inaccurate Terry, although understandable given the fact that you only recently suddenly appeared as an editor on the Prem Rawat articles. Almost all of the other editors have already expressed their affiliations and beliefs, more than once. It's also not very relevant to the discussion. If you have some information that other people are hiding a COI as well, you should bring that up in the appropriate place. It does not, however, take anything away from the situation you have put yourself in, with what seems to be a pretty straightforward undeclared COI. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 15:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my country politicians have a saying "put up or shut up". Basically this means that if you or any one else has an issue about your allegation I have a COI you will have to do something about it.  In the meantime I can quiet fairly state that I am only interested in articles that present a NPOV.  Articles about subjects are not meant to be like a glossy brochure produced by their PR department/person/advisor, nor are they to be biased and unduly weighted towards extreme views held by groups anatagonistic to the subject. Terry Macro (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I thread
Please note Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, related to the above threads. Thanks,  JN 466  16:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See also: WP:COIN.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Divination on the Astrology Page
Hi Terry, since you contributed to the debate on whether divination is the most appropriate term to define astrology in the first sentence, I wanted to let you know that I have asked for a straw poll on the astrology discussion page to find out whether we should seek alternatives (without specifying the wording at this stage) or we should keep divination. Robert Currey  talk  22:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

History of astrology - for your attention possibly
As someone who has contributed discussion in the past - you may be interested in noticing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_astrology#Deletion_of_unreferenced_content Cheers, Zac  Δ talk   00:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 AN/I
Terry, thank you for your support in connection with my complaint. This is to let you know that I have reflected on the issues and since seen a more constructive side to this user and being an optimist, I have decided not to take the issue any further for the time being. Robert Currey  talk  17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Astrology project would like your views on what constitutes appropriate content and sources for astrology-related content
Hi, this is to let you know that there is an important discussion taking place in the WP:Astrology project, which affects the guidelines for content and sources on astrology-related pages. This requires input from its members. It would be very much appreciated if you could leave a comment/express your views on the issues raised.

The link to the discussion is here.

Hope you can find time to add a few thoughts

Thank you, --  Zac  Δ talk! 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Astrological age, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aquarius, Aries and Pisces (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) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your input re the Wikipedia Astrology Project
Hi Terrymacro

I have joined the Wikipedia Astrology project today and am contacting you as a listed member of that project. There has been a proposal to consider the project dead and merge it with 12 other alternative subjects into a new wiki project which would oversee all aspects of fringe. I think it would be a shame to lose the astrology project on the basis that it has no active participants without contacting the members directly and exploring ideas for new ways to work together on astrology-related pages. It would be very useful if you would visit the discussion and let us know if your interest in the project is still active, or what it might take to rekindle it. Regards Tento2 (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ebola
Hi, just wanted to say I totally agree with you RE: Ebola. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014#Ebola Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Astrological age
Could you please provide full citations including publisher, ISBN, etc? Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 6th millennium BC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gemini. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)