User talk:TheRingess/Archive 9

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Edit-warring at Kundalini yoga - please don't
I should probably give you the formal warning, but I prefer not to use templates if I don't have to, and I know you've seen uw-3rr. Edit-warring is disruptive and doesn't help. Alternatives are listed at WP:Dispute resolution. Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Undid edit - why?
Hi, I'm 213.140.16.179 (NAT ip, so that's not really me) and I made the last edit on [Fibonacci number], adding the link to my online calculator May I ask you why did you undo it? I didn't mean to spam, but my calculator is free to use and the fastest I've found on the internet (and I'm very proud of it :D ). Do you think that maybe, adding some explanation, I could add it again to the page? Kerio00 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

undo why?
Why have you undone my edits? This information was presented at an academic conference (ICSA 2007 Brussels) and I was about to put a reference up. If they can say "incarnation of god" "spiritual master" - impossible to prove... why can we not state otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceansweeper (talk • contribs) 06:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a reference then put it in. Please don't editorialize though.  See WP:OR for why unsourced material is often removed.  I've gone ahead and removed other unsourced material from the article.TheRingess (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Undid reference to Guru Siyag's Website of Siddha Yoga website
Just wanted to know why was it removed by you. What is your suggestion if I want to refence it somewhere. I think it relates to Siddha Yoga.

Thanks in advance. Will appreciate if you can respond on my page. --Mprakash100 (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am new here so please be easy. Did not mean to spam you.

Igor Kufayev
The subject's  profile  has  been  created  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  wish  to  evolve  on  their   spiritual   path. Deleting the  profile  would  not  conceal  the  fact of the  existence  of  subject's  popularity  among  those  with  whom  the  subject  worked  selflessly  in  the  last  8-10  years.

To base  a  judgement   on  the  validity  of  the  subject's  profile  solely   on  existing  articles  in  the  media,  which  in  any  case are   run  by  the  PR companies,  is  to  throw  into  jeopardy  the  very  essence  of   the  freedom   of  information  for  which  wiki  is  so  popular.

After all  the  main  point  in  the  profile  on  Igor Kufayev   is  the  beauty  of  evolution  and  strive  for  Beauty,  Purity  and  Love. Mahasidhi 12:11, 11 March, 2009

Nondualism
I have found that you have deleted the Francis Lucille name from Nondualism. Even though the Main Article on the Subject was deleted only means that as of today there was not sufficient material or sources(or I did not have convincing arguments to support the claim) to support the claim for separate article.Does that imply that we cannot use the name anywhere? Please see the references to article in The Francis Lucille is references in 3rd party ,Neutral Publisher --with books available in 24 libraries. Francis Lucille -Dennis Waite (2004) pp. 31,43,169, 220 ISBN 9781903816417 The book of one: the spiritual path Advaita The publishers –Publishes books in the following fields Philosophy & Reli...;•	Language, Linguis...;•	Psychology ;•	Government Documents ;•	Medicine ;•	History & ;uxilia... ;•	Business & Economics ;•	Library Science, ... ;•	Sociology ;•	Engineering & Tec...;•	Art & Architecture;•	Geography & Earth...•	Anthropology ;•	Performing Arts ;•	Physical Sciences;•	Computer Science ;•	Mathematics;•	Medicine By Disci...  ;•	Preclinical Sciences ;•	Political Science;•	Agriculture ; The author has written books in ;•	Philosophy & Reli...;•	Language, Linguis... ;•	Sociology ; I would like to know if there is another reason for deleting the same?
 * The book is found in 24 libraries world wide.

Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Marvelly, P. (2002). The teachers of one: Living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality. London: Watkins Pub The teachers of one : living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality Books published by this publisher: •	Philosophy & Reli... •	Psychology •	Medicine •	Language, Linguis... •	Physical Sciences •	Sociology •	Anthropology •	Art & Architecture •	History & Auxilia.. •	Library Science, .. •	Physical Educatio.. I have tons of other references. but I guess this will suffice. Amarhindustani (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Amarhindustani (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I vote no.TheRingess (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ! but I would like to know the reason. is it personal opinion? I have just given arguments[just a few] to support the claim. I would like to know the reasons. Amarhindustani (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why you removed the link in spirituality
Can you please explain your action of removing the link to spirituality and technology? This is also a part of integration and please read the matter in the link to familiarize with the concept rather than removing the link. This is an interesting dimension to the debate on spirituality.

218.248.79.4 (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chakras - Number of Petals
Hi TheRingess,

I welcome your involvement, please refer to my anwer to you and K2709 in the discussion page dealing with the "deletion consideration."

If you respond, please do so on my talk page.

Thank youwv (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ganesha
Dear TheRingess,

Why did you delete my sentence to "revert unsourced additions"? Why should we reference EACH and EVERY sentence in Wikipedia? I don't know where you live, but in India it is common knowledge that Ganesha's tusk represents a beam of spiritual light, and his trunk his far-reaching mystic power. There are plenty of sources that state it. I welcome you to read these and update your knowledge and the article. :-)

Warm regards. Ganaganaji (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anusara Yoga
Hello. I notice you seem to be having some trouble with this article and 87.187.91.50. If they continue to vandalize, please report them to the the noticeboard for 3-revert rule violations. Thank you. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 17:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why undo revision 289605143
This link points to a wonderful resource, which provides full text of many books, with the apparent consent of the publishers. The site has no commercial purpose. Please restore the link. If not, please justify your action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisargadatta_Maharaj
 * Justification? Please read WP:EL.TheRingess (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Please state exactly which guideline is violated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.158.27 (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should think that this link WP:EL will explain everything better than I could. I trust that once you read it everything will be clear. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Excessive duplicate reference removal
You removed the only reference to where the birth place of Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is mentioned. Even low rated reference is better than no reference.Atmapuri (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu
Hey Ringess, feel like taking action? WP:AN/I or your friendly neighborhood administrator? Drmies (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and filed a report at the BLP noticeboard, . Drmies (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove links then complain there aren't enough references?
You seem to be wandering articles, removing links from them, then adding tags that there aren't enough references. For example,. Doesn't this seem somewhat contradictory to you? After all, links are our primary source of references. Even if they weren't, they are very useful to readers of our articles, and represent a noticeable investment of effort by the editors who found them and added them. Please stop. --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:EL. No I don't think it's contradictory. There is difference between supporting material with an inline citation and a simple link to a website. Good day.TheRingess (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did. Let me quote from it.

What should be linked Shortcut: WP:ELYES 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The official site should typically be listed first. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

So please undo your edits removing links to official sites and interview transcripts, such as, , ... --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I probably won't. If those sites are reliable and contain information not already in the article, then I think it would be much better to add that material and use those sites as references.  In that way we improve the article.  Simply adding a link that can be found by a simple google search does not enhance the article.  I really don't see the need to have a link to anything except Giger's official site.  If those interview transcripts contain material that is relevant and interesting, then summarize it and add it to the article, providing a reference to the website.  That's a much better option in my opinion.  I don't agree that doing a simple Google search to find a link and then adding that link to an article represents a substantial amoutn of work, actually I believe that it's actually very little work. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust me, as someone who has written quite a few articles in just that way, searching for and organizing good links is substantial work. You seem to think that they are trivially available in search results; they aren't. Most search results have little relevant information. Finding good informational links from the less useful ones takes time and effort. Deleting, them, on the other hand, is trivially easy, as can be shown by the speed at which you do it.And it's actively harmful to the encyclopedia. Can you honestly say that the Tadanori Yokoo article is more useful to reader after your work than before when it had two more biographies linked from it? And what is the point of citing a Wikipedia guideline as your justification, if you then turn around and say you won't follow it when it says what you did was wrong? --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on what the definition of useful is. My point being that if an external link is useful, in that it contains information that has been peer reviewed and/or fact checked, then it's more useful to summarize that material and include it in the article with a reference.  In my opinion the addition of a link does not by itself improve the article.  It may make it easier for a reader to find more information, but I don't count that as an improvement, someone else might of course.   The potential exists for readers to form the opinion that the links included in an External links section are somehow "endorsed" by Wikipedia (or the Wikipedia community), when in fact they aren't, they generally are picked by 1 editor, whose opinion is that the links they chose to include are somehow better and/or more relevant than other links turned up in a simple google search.   In my opinion, this potential creates more problems for a community striving to create a reliable free encyclopedia than it solves.  A perfectly acceptable alternative is to use the DMOZ template as an alternative to providing a long list of external links. I can see your viewpoint but do not agree with it.  The great thing about Wikipedia is that I don't.  I hope that this will conclude this conversation.  take care.TheRingess (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The great thing about Wikipedia is that you don't ... what? That you don't agree? That you don't choose to follow the very guideline you cited? That when you make an edit deleting links and I disagree with you, and revert (per above guideline, mind), you redelete, and think that you don't need to discuss any further, but can just keep repeating your edit?
 * In general, Wikipedia works by a combination of rules and discussion. You say you don't agree with the cited rules, and don't intend to discuss... do you then, no longer intend to edit in the way objected to? --GRuban (talk)
 * Let me clarify, I don't have to agree with your opinion.  There's nothing in Wikipedia's rules/guidelines/philosophies that unequivocally states that "Every editor must share the same opinion as every other editor." Since I don't, and you keep stating your opinion, which I don't share, and probably never will, there is no need to keep the conversationg going.  I might suggest that we ask for a third opinion.  I hope this clarifies what I said.TheRingess (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Apologies for prolonging what is clearly a painful process for you, but I can't see a way around asking this one thing - is it correct that you won't edit war should I decide to restore those links that I believe are worthwhile and/or are supported by the WP:EL guideline? If so, then I will gladly leave your talk page alone, and go improve the Wikipedia. --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No I'm not going to edit war over a point like this. Nor would I categorize this discussion as painful, it's simply that, like you, I have a limited amount of time to participate in the Wikipedia project each day, and would rather not spend it simply repeating the same opinion.  It's still my opinion, that 1 link in the Giger article to his official website is sufficient.  It's also my opinion, that the article could be improved by including material from the links that are reliable, but then again I'm not the one who's going to do that.  Just my opinion, which I've already stated.  Good day.TheRingess (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, take care. GRuban (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your excessive removal of links
You removed some important external links in the Roberto Matta article. For example, you removed a link that substantiates the quotation from Professor Claude Cernuschi of Boston College. Look, if you don't like the formatting of a link, because it's not the proper in-line footnote format or whatever, then reformat the link. But don't just remove it; then the information is just gone, and the article is then full of apparently unsupported assertions. And sure enough, you or someone else will come along and tag the article as being deficient in references. If you are too lazy to reformat the links, then just leave it alone, instead of gutting the actual substance of the article. At least the information will still be there, and that's more important than good formatting. Tag it for cleanup, if you think there are formatting issues. MdArtLover (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:EL. If this link contains useful information for the article then include that information and use the link as a reference, better yet, if the link supports already existing material, then immediately add that link as an inline citation. A link in the External links section is generally not considered an appropriate way to reference the article. Good day.TheRingess (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You see what I mean? You write "A link in the External links section is generally not considered an appropriate way to reference the article.". In other words, the reference is there, but you don't like the way that it is done. That's not a reason to remove the reference link itself. Fix the references according to the proper etiquette, if that's your thing, and you have time. We are all building Wikipedia together; we're all doing what we have the time, inclination, training, and background to do. The article gives you the professor's statement, and a link to a reputable, corroborating academic source. Fix it, or leave it alone, but don't just trash it. Don't sacrifice substance for form! MdArtLover (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree.TheRingess (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing
Greetings. I just wanted to write to thank you for the excellent edits that you have provided since I joined Wikipedia over a year ago. I have appreciated your contributions very much.

Now I must confess that I have been a software engineering technical writer working in various computer companies for the past 30 years, and also edit engineering student lab papers at a local university. (-)

If you would ever like to correspond, my first name is Cindy, and I am listed in LinkedIn.com. Have a wonderful day.--Cminard (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects Hinduism and Taoism
How would one go about joining these WikiProjects? What would membership in them entail? I have a great interest in spirituality (particularly nondual spirituality), and so I would be interested in helping out in these or related projects. Rabble Rouser (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. You just sign up.  There are no requirements for joining the projects other than a desire to join.  Usually each project page has a list of participants to which you can add your name.  Then you can just look around the project pages for things to do, or add your own ideas and start your own initiatives.TheRingess (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Williams link...
The link I have posted to Williams lecture keeps getting removed. I feel it has merit to the article and a vast amount of info that can not be written down here. Seems to fall under this heading from your rules page: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." I have not added this link as Spam or advertising, just trying to do as Mr. Williams requested I do and share his lecture to those interested. Thank you for your time. Sketch V
 * Doesn't add anything to the article. Can be found through a simple google search.  See WP:EL.TheRingess (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's citing WP:EL. You promised not to edit war over this. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I said I wouldn't edit war on H.R. Giger. But I will respect your opinion that a youtube link on that article is appropriate.TheRingess (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

External links at K. Pattabhi Jois
Hi, Did you look at the talk page? It would take the next person who comes along a fair bit of effort to find these potential sources — don't you think leaving them there would help them? How will the article be improved without using any sources? Shreevatsa (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources can be books/articles. Online sources can be found through simple google searches.  Links don't need to be left in an article as potential future sources.  Please read WP:EL.TheRingess (talk)
 * They don't "need" to be left, but they're useful to future editors and saves their time and helps with poor Google searches. Please read Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. I'm disappointed by the bureaucratism here, but ok, you're right. I'll try to integrate the sources into the article soon. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

David Quinn Speaks!
Hi there again! It's been a while since we chatted and forever since I've logged in and visited. Wanted to thank you again for being such a fine editor of my page, even though you know I still wish it didn't exist at all! Without you watching over it, I'm sure I'd be credited for being an alien creature with 11 heads (hmmmm... that's a good one). ;)

Got an email from a student who wanted to know two things, neither of which I could answer: Can anyone upload a current photo of me to the page? She wanted to grab one from facebook and put it up, and I asked her not to. In order to prevent an idiotic shot going up, I think I'm willing to provide one, as it seems my lovely students simply will never stop editing the page. She also asked about the Life Cereal on YouTube deletion and wanted to know why it couldn't stay on as a reference. Frankly, I think it's hysterical that my old commercials are now on YouTube, but you are the wiki master, so again, I thought I'd ask you. I'd rather have nothing up, as you know, but I've long ago ceased to believe that is going to happen....

Hope you are well and enjoying the summer. -DQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightTOKer (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello there again. Yes I am enjoying my summer, am actually living in sunny Northern California right now, long story.  Regarding the photo, yes anyone can upload a photo as long as it is not a copyright violation (probably a low res version is best).  There are instructions for uploading photos and what documentation is needed to show that the photo is not a copyright violation, I don't have the link to them right now but am sure the student can find the instructions.  Regarding the youtube link, I deleted that.  Basically we tend to discourage simply adding links to articles for a number of reasons, most of which can be found at this link. Basically we tend to only want links that contain reliable information that expands on the information in the article.  Since the youtube link did not contain any new information and we already have numerous references that establish that you appeared in hosted a national tv program and appeared in commercials, I simply felt that the link was unnecessary (of course that's just my opinion based on my interpretation of policy established by the community of editors of Wikipedia).  Hope that helps, and I too hope that you are enjoying your summer.TheRingess (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tolle
Hi. You reverted my edit on Eckhart Tolle. The source is Channel Seven news, YouTube is just the hosting medium (we could not include the link to Youtube and still use the cite). Infact, that interview had already been cited; I didn't add it. I think we should include it under "Reception" because so far it shows the positive reception, in Oprah's webcast, but does not show negative reception by conservative Christians. I think the guy is crazy too but you must agree that it is an imoortant fact that much of the conservative Christian community is fearful of his teachings.Gregcaletta (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not Christian so I don't agree that it is an important fact. Actually it seems trivial.  As far as I can tell much of the Christian community is fearful of anything outside of their community (Islam, Hindus, Jewish people, other christians, dogs, etc.).  You state this as if it's an established fact yet provide only a video of 1 man's opinion.  Even if this were significant (and I doubt it) we would need much more scholarly research to back up your claim.TheRingess (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own opinions on the Christian community are not relevant. This man's opinion is relevant (even though unfounded) because he is a prominent figure in the Christian community and it is representative of the way the Eckhart has come under criticism by some members of (or at least one prominent figure in) the Christian community.  Under "Reception" it is biased to include only positive reception, when there are examples of negative reception.  Channel Seven is a reliable source and no further sources or scholarly research is confirm this man's opinion.  Also, please do not mark a reversion as a minor edit unless it is a reversion of vandalism.  Peace.Gregcaletta (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right regarding my opinions, however you made a specific statement along the lines "you must agree that it is..."; and no I must not agree, and I gave my reasons. I think that the "fact" you first mentioned is neither important nor relevant, nor do I believe it to be a "fact" merely an assertion by you that as with all assertions need careful sourcing.  Of course one man's opinion is just that, but you're original message made no mention of one man's opinion.  As long as the material is presented in the article as being no more than one man's opinion, then I see your point regarding neutrality, though I think that there probably are better ways to handle the neutrality issue.  I'm beginning to think that a reception section in Tolle's article is unnecessary and problematic (regarding neutrality).  Though that is just my opinion.  good day to you sir and I hope this rather unpleasant conversation is over.TheRingess (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The conversation is only unpleasant if we make it so, and I don't believe I have said anything unpleasant, and if I have then I'll be careful not to continue doing so. Wikipedia is about trying to reach a consensus so please try to discuss this with me.  A reception section appropriate in this article.  They are generally included in articles about writers and I don't see why an exception should be made in this case.  If you can find a better way to improve the neutrality of this section then please do so.  Until you do so, please accept my contribution.  Thank you. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

2
you reverted my post on spirituality. how do you know that it is not so? 98.96.132.102 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Supply a reliable source.TheRingess (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi this is about the bhagawan nityananda article
i think the siddha yoga template needs serious discussion.see there are lot of controversies associated with muktananda.even in ganeshpuri temple i have met many nityananda devotees who have criticised muktananda's approach.that is why the edit.your reply is awaited.thanking youSarangsaras (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of what you mentioned is relevant to the template. See WP:AGF and WP:OWNER.TheRingess (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking tool
I noticed that you have been using the new linking tool to add links to some articles. You may want to read this discussion about the tool, where the consensus seemed to be that while some of the links it suggests are good, it promotes overlinking and should be used and with editorial oversight. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have cleaned up some of the excessive linking the tool introduced at Ganesha. If you disagree with any link I included or excluded, we can discuss it at the article talk page. By the way, this tutorial provides useful guidelines on what should and shouldn't be linked. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.TheRingess (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Magoo Brothers deletions 09.11
Hello, I was wondering if you could assist - the information I entered onto the Magoo Brothers page today regarding Lorenz Maroldt I verified with a link to the German newspaper's Imprint page, on which it states that he is indeed Editor-in-Chief. I'd be obliged if you could reinstate that information please. My other question is - could you assist me in placing the photo of the Magoo Brothers album cover onto the relevant page? Wikipedia is mighty complicated for the lay-user. As to the photo, I personally own all rights to the photo, and designed the cover. I can provide references if you tell me which ones. Many thanks, paulwellard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulwellard (talk • contribs) 17:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Adi Da
Hi Ringess. Just a quick question ... you said you took out some redundant links. I was wondering if those were the ones after the term " devotional meditation?" If so the reason there were citations there was because one of the editors objected to the term "devotional meditation of the guru" So.. I cited non- Adidam texts that talked about this traditions guru meditation. thanks Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No I didn't, there was simply another wiki link to Muktananda, we had already linked it previously. A simple diff will shouw you the change I made.TheRingess (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification and yes I just saw thatJason Riverdale (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha!
Per this edit summary, it made me laugh! Haha! Heeeee! Tee-heeee!! Oh! hehe! ha! :) -- A3RO (mailbox)  06:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an image
Greetings. How does one go about deleting an image? I added SwamiRudrananda.jpg last year, and would like to delete it from the library. Thank you.--Cminard (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Eerie editing.
Hello Ringess,

The last time I logged on and edited (A Course in Miracles) document, I had a very eerie experience. When I clicked on the text I wanted to edit, the material in edit mode did not reflect what had been in the article. It was as if someone had already edited the same text. I tried several times to continue editing, but my changes were not being saved exactly as I had made them. Some changes were reflected and some weren't. And some were not the changes I made at all. Do you have any idea what might have happened? ThePlanter (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound familiar. No idea really, perhaps it was just that the servers needed time to catch up.TheRingess (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Urtext of A Course in Miracles.
I have just discovered while further researching the litigation that the urtext edition is indeed copyrighted and was obtained deceptively during the litigation. There is a reference in this article that links to a copy of the urtext. I think this link should be deleted. Do you have any objections? ThePlanter (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Be bold, if someone objects discuss it with them on the talk page.TheRingess (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming "References" to "Notes" and "References (reconstruction)" to "References" (ACIM).
Thanks, I was going to do something to try and fix that, but wasn't sure how. Glad you did it. I still have a lot to learn about the formatting and codes and whatnot. (I feel old and slow.) ThePlanter (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Osho in Vijnana Bhairava Tantra
Hello TheRingess,

Thank you for showing you prompt interest in polishing the article. Yet I am a bit curious as to what may be the reason for removing my edit. If you would be kind enough to guide me as to what is the basis for removing it, I would be really glad. Debnathsandeep (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because it looked like it was primarily an external link.TheRingess (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I have considered your issue. Instead of an external link, I have mentioned the ISBN code of the book.
 * I am new in editing over here and in case you have got time, please be kind enough to enlighten me whether providing external links is against wikipedia standards or no ?? Thank You Debnathsandeep (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For an explanation of which external links are allowed see WP:EL. The link you provided might have been okay, but in my opinion, an isbn code for a book is better, that way readers can search for the book by isbn number.  Take care.TheRingess (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My article on DMT
can you please stop deleting my info on DMT, i need it to stay up for a school project. i have referanced it all properly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samthechemnerd (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR.TheRingess (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tried editing Eckhart Tolle's teachings section but you undid it...
Hi,

I was describing one of Tolle's central premises, the starting point to all his theories (this is the first chapter of TPON, after all). Please explain how to edit it for compliance. I'm not done btw... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.51.111 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR.TheRingess (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

gotcha, trying again, gimme an hour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.51.111 (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu
I understand that my formatting leaves a lot to be desired since I don't know much about HTML, but most of what I had written was factual. There is coverage by major news organizations like Indian Express, Aajtak, HT etc. I had provided articles by newspapers related to the murder accusations and a video by a news channel where rape is alleged. Maybe you don't know, but in India cases against high profile people are hushed up easily and that is why there was not much publicity after the cases came to light. Also, the people in the ashrams are FORCED to sign blank papers. I know families where such situations have occurred, but obviously there is no official or written proof as these people are powerful and can easily buy the police machinery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.3.21 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

mediation notification
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Orgasmic_meditation has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Orgasmic_meditation and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Voila-pourquoi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC).

Deletion of link to BBC chaos documentary
Hi there. I notice you've reverted my addition of a link to the BBC chaos documentary at the Chaos theory page. Can you elaborate why you don't think it's a suitable link? It's a good documentary and absolutely relevant. -- Sunny256|&#9998; 03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Police Edits
TheRingess,

I wonder if we can discuss edits you made to the Popular Culture section of the synchronicity page. I made a small grammatical correction in the first paragraph, and added the second paragraph as follows:

{ In the 1983 release Synchronicity by The Police (A&M Records), bassist Sting is shown reading a copy of Jung's Synchronicity on the front cover along with a negative/superimposed image of the actual text of the synchronicity hypothesis. A photo on the back cover also shows a close-up, but mirrored and upside-down, image of the book. There are two songs, titled "Synchronicity I" and "Synchronicity II" included in the album.

At the time of the release of the Synchronicity album by The Police, Dr. Robert Aziz, who today is widely regarded as the foremost world authority on synchronicity, wrote an article titled The Police—Synchronicity and C. G. Jung that was included by A&M Records in the publicity package for The Police Synchronicity tour of that year. To read Dr. Aziz’s article The Police—Synchronicity and C. G. Jung please click here. }

Please let me know what disturbed you about these edits and we can discuss.

Sincerely,

Keegan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeganwade (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tolle edit
Hi Ringess,

Been meaning to thank you for removing that awful sentence about celebrities "touting" Tolle. It's presence in the article seemed to me a contrived attempt at appearing neutral by mentioning a few movie stars but at the same time using that weird word, "touting" as if Tolle were some kind of, well, I don't know what. Nice edit! Best to you, --Early morning person (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Psychonaut
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Psychonaut. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Psychonaut (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Paramahamsa Nithyananda
Hi TheRingess,

You are actively suppressing discussion on the talk page. Talk:Paramahamsa Nithyananda

You are deleting all discussion on the emerging sex scandal involving Paramahamsa Nithyananda.

You cannot use WP:BLP to justify this.

If you do this again, I will be forced to escalate the issue.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

--vvarkey (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Talk pages are not discussion forums about the subject, but pages for discussing improvements to articles.  Regarding this man, discussion regarding some breaking scandal hardly seems to me to be appropriate for the talk page.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but my assumption is that the policies discussed at WP:BLP apply to talk pages as well.  Let's not get into a revert war over this, but seek other opinions as well.  Good day.TheRingess (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Great way to avoid a revert war, by deleting all my changes. I have reported it as vandalism. --vvarkey (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it then that this discussion is concluded. Good day.TheRingess (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yogi Ramsuratkumar
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Yogi Ramsuratkumar. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Yogi Ramsuratkumar. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

E.J. Gold
Hi TheRingess,

I am wondering why the following addition to E.J. Gold's page was reverted: link to Gallery Arcturus's permanent collection and rephrasing of previously added material (i.e. info about public art classes) that remains unreverted. I think that it is constructive to provide a link on an artist's page to the site of a collector who fairly displays the images. Please explain the reason for your elimination of said addition. Thanks and Happy Wikipediaing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcchati (talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ajativada
Hello, it has been some time since we have had contact. I hope you are well. I noticed that you had made comments at Talk:Ajativada and I wonder if you can help clarify a request I just made there for more specific citations. I recall that I once had the opportunity to learn from you regarding a similar situation involving a modern version of Indian philosophy and perhaps you can help bring me up to date on this issue. Best regards! Buddhipriya (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Asaram Bapu
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Asaram Bapu. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Asaram Bapu (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

blp
From the link, also all over the news. “Our client dissociates herself from the said video which has caused danger to her life, limb and property,” a Delhi-based law firm representing Ranjitha said, adding, “our client strongly objects to being referred to as one of the persons in the video.” http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_nithyananda-scandal-actress-ranjitha-serves-notices-on-google-youtube_1377270

sometimes it all seems worthwhile.WP:BLP Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

General Help
I've seen your status on your profile, your experance in the field of maths and C++ is... well i'd like to talk

I'm alec, 17 year old Sixth Form student, studying the sciences and maths (seperatly) i'd like to talk to help me 1) decide on university choices (its a huge decission i want input) 2) so i may pick your brains.

please respond, email adress and msn adress is Alec{d0t}teal{(at})googlemail"d.t"com —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTeal93 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ringess, before you engage in edit warring and breaches of 3RR you might want to warn him first on his talk page. Otherwise someone might report you. He is new, after all. :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't consider it edit warring to remove original material from a major article. Since there were only 2 reverts at the time I was involved, neither he nor I had breached the 3 revert rule.  But thanks for the input.TheRingess (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Undoing of Guru Gita entry
Hi Ringess,

I'm new to wikipedia, so I'd appreciate your help. A friend of mine made this entry to the Guru Gita page:


 * Griffin, Mark E., Shri Guru Gita: 108 Sutras for Awakening, PodPublishing (Hard Light Center), October 2, 2008, ISBN 978-0-975902-06-6

and you undid that edit. Why?

Mark Griffin has a legitimate translation of the book.

Dougertman 01:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougertman (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your help and insights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougertman (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of legitimate translations of the work. This article should not serve as an attempt to list as many as we can.  I suggest expanding the actual paragraph of material to include more about the guru gita (using reliable sources of course). BTW, welcome.TheRingess (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of links to free text and Images
You cited spam as a reason to delete this link. The text and images were put for the benefit of seekers of Love and Wisdom. There is nothing in the text or images for The Sermon on the Mount that infringes, or degrades anyone. The material is freely given to anyone to use for the spiritual understanding of scripture. Yogarama (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:EL for a discussion of external links.TheRingess (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

About the "See also" section
Hey Ringess, I just re-inserted the "See also" section, not realizing that I was doing this for the second time. Then I saw that you had deleted it. I don't know if there is any official Wiki policy on inserting links into a "See also" section that are duplicates of links above, but personally I like doing this because it saves me the trouble of having to scan an article for the link to a closely related topic. Still, if you feel strongly about removing this section, or if you know of an official policy about this that supports such a removal, please feel free to remove both "See also" sections again in both this article and the Gary Renard article, without any further quibbling from myself. Thanks for all of your help with both of these articles, Scott P. (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the manual of style regarding wikilinks, I don't know if it's an official rule, but general guidelines seem to say that we should link to a term the first time it is used in an article and not after. Personally, I really don't see the need to have a see also section that consists only of links that were already in the first paragraph.  Cheers.TheRingess (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Shaktipat
With respect, would you kindly elaborate your beliefs that this section contains conjecture and original research? Thanks. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's start with these sentences: Shaktipat is not a characteristic of all kundalini experiences, nor of most schools of kundalini yoga. According to the literature, it is restricted to the Siddha Yoga path of Swami Muktananda.


 * According to what literature? Why not simply list the schools of kundalini yoga that include the concept of shaktipat, why try to characterize how many use it, obviously somewhere there is a list of schools who use it and those who don't, otherwise how can anyone begin to determine whether or not "most" schools don't?
 * That's just a start. For all schools that are relevant we should have an article anyway and those articles can include whether or not they talk about shaktipat.

TheRingess (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply. To my knowledge - and I live in the yoga world - there are just 3 organizations that propagate/teach/practice kundalini yoga.  By literature, I mean a study of all the printed and on-line material I have been able to locate on the subject in the 3 months or so I have been working on reorganizing this article.


 * There is no directory of kundalini yoga schools. By nature, these organizations are autonomous and naturally somewhat competitive.  What I have done in the "Linkages and Lineages" section is flesh out the various kundalini organizations so readers could do their own math on this subject.


 * Swami Muktananda (1908-82)'s Siddha Yoga organization (http://www.siddhayoga.org) and any derivative organizations, such as those of Swami Chetananda (http://www.chetanananda.org) and Da-Love Ananda (1939-2008) are associated with the practice of Shaktipat. While for the late Muktananda, it was clearly a central focus of his program, it is not clear to me whether his successors did the same.  I have no information that they did.


 * The organizations that clearly do not practice Shaktipat are Yogi Bhajan (1929-2004)'s 3HO Foundation (http://www.3ho.org) and Swami Sivananda Radha(1911-95)'s Yasodhara Ashram and Radha Yoga Centres (http://www.radha.org).


 * I feel the phenomenon of Shaktipat needs to be explained clearly in this article to avoid misunderstandings about the subjects of kundalini and kundalini yoga in general. The written accounts we have of Shaktipat are striking, perhaps even shocking to some readers.  I would like them to understand this is hardly typical of kundalini experiences. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically you are inserting original material into the article. Please read WP:OR and then we can have a further discussion.  You probably need to publish first in a reputable journal that does fact checking and peer review, then your material can be accepted by Wikipedia.  Regards the linkages and lineages section, in addition to being orignal material it's also very non-neutral in it's choice of which to list.  Many of the schools you mention already have articles (siddha yoga, Adi Da, Muktananda), it would probably be better to add to those articles themselves rather than try to simplify whole articles in 1 or 2 sentences. Regarding, shaktipat, it already has its own article that is in great need of expansion and improvement. It seems highly debatable that the idea of shaktipat originated only with 1 person, but Wikpedia is not the place to have that debate.  Take care.TheRingess (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. In lineages and linkages, I did not knowingly exclude anyone with anything to say on the subject.  Most of the writers cited in the article are there, including the important teachers/transmitters of this yoga.  You are right in that I should do more linking to existing articles, but I am not a professional scholar and unlikely to have my material accepted in an academic journal.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkages & Lineages
With great respect, would you kindly explain your reasons for deleting this section? - Original material? - Conjecture? - Unsubstantiated claims? - Overly simplistic summaries?

There are a number of kundalini linkages and lineages in practice and research that may prove helpful in coming to terms with various sometimes divergent understandings of kundalini.

Itzhak Bentov appeared to gain an interest in kundalini through his practice of Transcendental Meditation as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and by his association with his psychiatrist friends.

Lee Sannella collaborated with Bentov and went so far as to include an appendix written by his then-deceased friend in the 1987 edition of his book. Sannella was also influenced by Swami Muktananda and his disciple Da Love-Ananda.

According to Swami Muktananda, his "“path of Siddha Yoga is one in which the Guru awakens the disciple's inner Shakti, Kundalini, through the yogic practice of Shaktipat. As a result the seeker undergoes various spiritual experiences and ultimately attains the goal of God-realization while practicing spiritual discipline with implicit faith in the Guru.”" Christina Grof, wife and collaborator with Stanislav Grof underwent such a shaktipat experience and it affected her interest and writings on the subject of kundalini. Bruce Scotton gives an account of his experience of shaktipat in his paper “Phenomenology and Treatment of Kundalini.”

Stuart Sovatsky served for 15 years as Director of the Kundalini Clinic founded by Sannella in 1977. In writing “Words from the Soul,” he drew upon his experience there and also on his 25 years experience with what he refers to in his acknowledgments as several “full-time” yogis, including Swami Kripalvanand, Swami Vinit-muni, Swami Rajarsri-muni and Baba Hari Dass.

Yvonne Kason, a transpersonal psychologist, gained first-hand insight into kundalini and altered states of consciousness from her own regular meditation practice, beginning in 1976, and from a near death experience in 1979. She also with consulted Gopi Krishna from 1977 to 1983 on his experiences, and together with a number of collaborators formed the Kundalini Research Network 1990.

Swami Sivananda Radha is a westerner who went to India to study yoga. She was sent to the west to teach Kundalini Yoga by Swami Sivananda. Swami Sivananda Radha established a hermitage is remote part of British Columbia and, with the aid of a number of books she was able to obtain, did just that. She is the author of a number of books on kundalini.

Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda cites his own guru and likewise emphasized the importance of proper preparation and guidance: ""Kundalini is the divine mother. A true mother never causes harm or does anything bad to her children." . According to this view true kundalini awakening has no side effects other than pure joy, pure knowledge and pure love. Like every form of energy one must also learn to understand spiritual energy. In order to be able to integrate this spiritual energy, careful purification and strengthening of the body and nervous system are recommended beforehand. According to Maheshwarananada, it will often be found that negative experiences occur only when acting without appropriate guidance (self-realized master) or ignoring his advice."

Yogi Bhajan arrived in North America in 1968. He began to teach [Kundalini Yoga as taught by Yogi Bhajan]] in Los Angeles in January 1969. The International Kundalini Yoga Teachers Association and Kundalini Research Institute based in New Mexico derive from his teachings and inspiration. He has said: ""Think of kundalini in a different way. In reality, there is a God. He uncoils himself, opens himself up. This uncoiling process or manifestation process is known as kundalini. The kundalini that is going to be uncoiled in you is already in you and part of you. It is an unlimited power that is the essence of your consciousness. Your system is already built to contain the energy of kundalini. It is a normal capacity that you simply are not utilizing. If you start utilizing that energy, where is the danger? Kundalini is a latent energy that can be used for total consciousness. The kundalini is essential. As long as you practice a total discipline or a complete and balanced kriya (exercise), there is no difficulty.""

Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your latest edits at Kundalini Syndrome
Re the first edit, with all the writers on board - Bentov & Sannella (they co-publish and are basically of one mine), Krishna & Kason, and Greyson - it adds up to a consensus. Certainly there are no objecting voices. Is not this something the reader should know? Is it not relevant - or would you want the reader to read all the documentation - which took me 3 months - before they can draw such a conclusion?

Re the second edit, I am merely paraphrasing what Sannella himself said. If you would like, I could make it a larger quote and include his word for word. Turner et al paraphrased Sannella - without giving him credit - in a previous version of this article. Grof talks about the same. Clearly the idea is out there and not my original contribution. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR, there's really no need to draw conclusions for the reader, assume that they are smart enough to figure it out on their own. Since there does not seem to be a complete consensus, the article probably needs material from those researchers/writers who don't draw the same conclusions as the ones you listed (otherwise the section isn't very neutral and probably needs to be deleted).  Regarding other edits, I'm merely removing wording that makes the article read like a lecture/or and editorial.  No need to do either, just present what the writers have to say, again without lecturing, editorializing or trying to lead the reader to a conclusion.TheRingess (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing references and then adding needs reference tags on Jim Kent's Page???
Hi TheRingess - This is Jim Kent. I had my 15 minutes of fame about 9 years ago from work on the human genome project, and as a result Thaths started a Wikipedia page on me. This slowly accumulated information in the nice Wikipedia fashion. I look at it every now and then, but until a couple of days ago didn't actually edit it myself. Some friends recently suggested that I do edit it since not all of it was quite accurate, and I noticed that some of what I remembered being there was gone.

I traced the deletions to a series of edits you made in June of 2009. These included removing quite a few references, then tagging it as needing references, and then removing a section that you said had no supporting references. This all seems sort of bizarre and self contradictory to me, especially the removing references part. For instance there is now no longer any support for Tim O'Rielly's quote. That I live in Santa Cruz is not hard to verify, and with all of the mention of working at the University of California at Santa Cruz in the article itself and the hyperlinks in the article, seems hardly the sort of controversial statement that needs a reference. Yet you removed it with the comment there were no sources. I'm wanting to restore at least some of what you removed. Jimkent (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Gosh that was a while back.  I had to look back at the edits and summaries so as to remember why I made them.  Regarding references, it looks like I reduced the number of references on a single paragraph/sentence to 1.  It's not really an official policy, but I generally think that 2 or more references for a single sentence is excessive.  Regarding the refimprove tag, there's plenty of other material without references.  Regarding your current residence it's impossible to continuously verify that you still live there so that the accuracy of the article can be maintained, and probably doesn't fit in with WP:BLP.  Take care.TheRingess (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It sounds like you do quite a bit of work for Wikipedia. I poked around a little, and see that my initial unease about editing my bio page myself seems to be shared by many, and is codified to an extent in the Wikipedia autobiography policies. Next time I see something that needs changing I guess the better thing is to bring it to the attention of the Biography of Living Persons people, though maybe the extra couple of references I put in just before reading the policy this evening are not a bad thing.

I don't really miss the living in Santa Cruz bit, since it is close to obvious given all the UC Santa Cruz mentions there.

I do think that it would have been better to move some of the excess references to an external link section rather than to delete them, as that way information would not be lost. Occassionally I do get a student doing a report in school on me and the like who contacts me, and I presume there are probably a few others doing such things that don't contact me. The outright deletion makes their job harder.

On an unrelated note, I see you've been working on some of the tantric sections. That takes me back to my youth a bit when I spend 4 months in Switzerland learning Tibetan from an ex-Rimpoche so as to be able to talk with some of the Buddhists tantrics. Eventually I was overcome by the irony of rooms full of people chanting in unison verses that I would have translated more or less as "I will think for myself" in a language they didn't understand. I wish you the best of luck in finding a harmonious blending between your chaotic alignment and some of the social groups that tend to grow around the more charismatic individuals when they are alive, and that slowly weaken into lineage validating bureaucracies when they die.

Take care, Jimkent (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over some of your talk page archives, I see that in mid-2009 quite a few people complained about the references you were deleting. Looking at the relative silence on the subject now, maybe the feedback has already been enough to get you to ease up on this practice. On the chance that it's not, I'd like to offer another counter to your "why have links that you can just get in a Google search" argument beyond those other people mentioned. As time passes what is easy to get in a Google search changes. Back in 2005 for instance a Google search on "Jim Kent" would indeed turn up most of the references you deleted relatively easily - in first results page. Time has passed. There are many other people with the name Jim Kent in the world. Their collective actions have now pushed down these references quite some ways. The Wired article reference is now on the fifth Google result page. The O'Rielly interview wasn't in the top 10 pages, and I stopped as my eyes glazed over, even though the link is still live at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/04/05/kent.html. As more and more people contribute content to the web this push down effect is going to happen faster and faster. It is a very good thing indeed to put in the references _while_ they are easy!

Jimkent (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You make some interesting points, I will think about them. Regarding your page, I am struggling to remember how it even caught my attention, and can muster up no further interest in it, so if you choose to undo my edits/mistakes, then you will find no opposition from me to your actions.TheRingess (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lingam
Hello there. I corrected information in an article by going back to the source document and was immediately reverted by a new account. Could you see if you agree with my edits and act acordingly? Thanks. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I misinterpreted the article history. Please disregard. Thanks. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fractal-generating_software
Hi. If a link to a page on the software is required, would you be willing to create one? The site for the program I added, FastFractal256, is http://www.fastfractal.com/ and a free, fully functioning trial version is there. It renders static and animated (zooming) mandelbrots. Thanks! -Mike User:fractal_gpu —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC). Just signing, forgot first time.... -Mike Fractal gpu (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anti-racist mathematics
When reverting vandalism on this article, you didn't seem to notice that the version you reverted to had also been vandalised - see. I've reverted further to the last 'clean' version:. In future, always take a look at the recent history of an article before reverting. Thanks for reading, and happy editing. Robofish (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mantra-Rock Dance reassessment and PR
Hi. Thanks for rating Mantra-Rock Dance as start-class the other day. I have updated the article quite a bit ever since and am wondering if you would consider a reassessment, and/or if you feel particularly generous, even a peer review? Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Guru Gita
Hi TheRingess

I'm another newbie to Wiki editing and so happy to be educated about how it works. I added a link to the Guru Gita entry pointing to the page where I stream live video of the chant every day and others join me around the world online. I believe its relevant but I'm also aware that I may have stumbled into this environment with my boots on, so to speak. Any insight into how to go about adding a reference to the daily live chanting of the Guru Gita would be appreciated. Thanks. Leo

Leodale (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome. Please read this link: WP:EL.  It explains better than I can, the policies regarding external links.  If after reading it, you feel that your link is appropriate for the article, simply go ahead and put it back in, I won't object.  Take care.TheRingess (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read the link and consider over the next week if its appropriate to link to the article. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Leodale (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Igor Kufayev article
Dear TheRingess,

It seems you are very knowledgable on the subject of Oriental Philosophies, just wonder why do you find the article on Igor Kufayev [] so offensive that you keep deleting the chapters on the subject's spiritual journey? Don't you know that most true spiritual movements do not publicize their activity through the press, whence it is impossible to source the fact of initiation let alone the fruit of inner transformation rather than by direct communication with those who undergone the process.

You more than welcome to join the Discussion page where such matters should be brought to the consideration. If your interests towards Oriental studies go further than just an academic data, I think you would find that an article such as Igor Kufayev to be an inspiring source for those who tread the path towards greater happiness.

If however you have your own reasons against the subject in discussion, please share this with us.

With kind regards,

Mahasidhi (loyal supporters) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahasidhi (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Swami Nityananda
Hi, just a note - I requested semi protection but was refused and directed to use WP:dispute resolution - I removed the promotional copyright violations twice but had to leave them as I was in danger of being blocked if I removed again, sometimes the projects guidelines protect the vandal more than the editors. If it continues as I expect it will I will ask again for semi, keep your eye on it when you are online, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bangaru Adigalar
Hello, I noticed you've also been working on the page Bangaru Adigalar. I spent a while their a few weeks ago, trying to improve it and adding an info box, etc. All my revisions simple get reverted by, mostly, user: Boldandstrong. I'm not sure what to do next, and thought perhaps we could figure out the next step together. I'm going to approach BoldandStrong directly right now and explain why we've been editing the page, but I'm not particularly hopefull. Also, if we are able to revert the page, which version do you think we should revert to, bearing in mind that infoboxes can be retrieved and moved into a better copyedit version, if need be. Nihola (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've requested help with the issues of reverting that have been going on. This can be found at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.  Hopefully some outside assistance will help get the article on the right track.  Perhaps refrain from any more reverting/edits until we get some advice?  I did approach Boldandstrong directly, and put a note on the article talk page letting everyone know I've requested help.  Nihola (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page. :) -Pax85 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Lack of doubt about your 'mathamatical prowess' but the masses lack that!
you have some objection to Mathamatics not being defined to the highest of levels, you need to realise most lack that, turning something as simple as Z=Z 2 +C into horrid [and untill I know better, unnecessary] symbols Just wondered why? For Mathamatics, Leave Science behind (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Aditional: 2 minutes between a revert? show some respect and read additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTeal93 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mandelbrot set
I have posted a report about the edit warring at the Mandelbrot set article. I suggest you express your opinion on the dispute to the article Talk page before further editing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Duly noted.TheRingess (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Guru Gita live link
Hi TheRingess

I noticed you removed the external link I posted to http://mantralive.com where I chant the Guru Gita every day in a live stream and am joined by people around the world who chant the text at the same time. Occasionally I am unable to transmit the chant and then it is transmitted from Japan by Tim. Even more rarely the chant is not transmitted because of server problems (we changed servers recently) or illness. It goes to air about 98 days out of 100.

As such I fell this external link is highly relevant. I am not aware that this is happening anywhere else on the internet.

I'd be happy to put a strong case for the link if you wanted to discuss it.

I would certainly invite you to tune in. There is a countdown clock on the page to let you know when it is next being transmitted in your part of the world. I chant the text at 8am from Melbourne Australia.

the page is also accessible from http://gurugita.com

Please let me know what you think

Thanks

Leo

WitnessStatement 23:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leodale (talk • contribs)

Assessment of Pancha Bhoota Stalam
Hi, the article Pancha Bhoota Stalam has been rated as a start - any specific reasons? With the coverage and references, i feel it is 2 levels up S Sriram 23:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt (talk - my page - contribs)

Deepavali - Spiritual Significance
Hi,

I noticed you deleted the section "Spiritual Significance" stating "copyright violation from an indian newspaper".

I'm the one who originally wrote that section -- way back in 2006 (on my blog and to Wikipedia). If you click on my contribs history, you'll see the article verbatim posted back in 22-Oct-2006. The section pretty much has been there since then. Just this month the entire section was deleted without reason by someone and so I restored it.

I'm restoring the section again. If any journal falsely claims copyright they can contact me directly on my talk page.

Thank you. Matrix108 (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Gurumayi Chidvilasananda
Dear TheRingess,

good day to you, and I am sorry we meet in these circumstances. Let me assure you I am serious in my intention to - as I see it - improve this page by balancing its claims. May I also apologize at once for having to write at such length - I would be briefer if I could.

As you know I added a section "Other viewpoints" to the Gurumayi Chidvilasananda page today. As you also know, it was carefully researched, with 11 serious references - the New York Times, published books, and Hinduism Today among them; and you have seen that I took great care not to exceed what was stated in these strong, reliable secondary sources. I have attempted, quietly and soberly, to balance the claims made by the SYDA Foundation against the well-documented claims made by people with other opinions. I did this in the knowledge that these matters are controversial, so I phrased everything I said very quietly and politely. And I understand that the page is maintained, and that you are involved in that process, which is a serious responsibility. And, finally, I do not wish to indulge in edit-warring, especially on a topic such as this. However, I do not accept that this means that careful, sober, well-sourced accounts of matters that may well not be liked by all cannot be included in the article.

You make four very brief points in your edit summary. Assuming for the moment that all of them are correct, I do not believe that any of them (or all of them together) add up to a logical reason to delete the section. Let us look at them in turn:

a) The edit summary says these are not other viewpoints. If the term "viewpoints" isn't acceptable, then I'm happy for it to be replaced - "issues", "controversies", "public debates", "critiques" or the like would be fine with me. Whatever they're called, they definitely represent three strands of criticism that have certainly been levelled at Gurumayi and Siddha Yoga / SYDA, sometimes regrettably in a most hostile way, and the references do demonstrate that these strands exist (WP:V) and are notable (WP:N).

b) The edit summary says there is no confirmation of who guru is in eat, pray, love by author gilbert. However, accurate encyclopedic reporting of the facts here does not require that confirmation of a publicly-held and well-documented assertion is in fact correct: I am reporting that two people have recorded in print, in public, with supplied references, made that assertion. We Wikipedians do not claim to have access to ultimate truth, just to the documented facts (WP:V). And it is documented that people assert that Gilbert was plainly (but not openly) writing about Gurumayi, which is enough for the purposes of Wikipedia.

c) The edit summary says the list of celebrities is also not confirmed by sources. However, the list of celebrities given is a direct quotation from the inline citation given at the end of the sentence. Here it is in full:


 * "SYDA is headquartered in a large complex in South Fallsburg, N.Y., a town set in the Catskill Mountains. In the 1980s and ’90s — the decades during which the SYDA reached its height of popularity — the foundation was said to have some 70,000 followers across the world. Its devotees, mostly the wealthy and well-educated, included celebrities like Melanie Griffith, Isabella Rossellini, Diana Ross and Don Johnson." Riddhi Shah, Salon.com, August 14, 2010. (I kept the quotations to a minimum to avoid overbalancing the article; but I am willing if required to write with full quotations to make the necessary points, regardless of length. Please advise.)


 * I am somewhat at a loss to understand how this list can be described as not confirmed; though possibly you were misled by the way the article appears when first loaded - only the first two paragraphs appear until "Continue Reading" is pressed, when the rest of the text becomes visible? You'd certainly be forgiven, it's a bit of an odd presentation.

d) The edit summary (finally) says that the status of the brother is already in siddha yoga article. Well, I know, I checked with it (and the brother article) before researching further, and as it happens I described things briefly in a way I felt sufficient and necessary to make the point relevant to this particular article - in a sense, all WP articles are required to stand alone with their own arguments and their own evidence, even when this causes slight overlap with related topics. The relevance to this article is - do I need to say - that evidence of a split between the two co-gurus reflects directly on Gurumayi, so it is not enough for the matter to be discussed elsewhere. I am aware of the injunction on Wikipedians when discussing to state their claims as forcefully as possible; I did not want, however, to state things too forcefully in the article, being aware of the heat that could be raised. Let me say here, then, that there is definitely a powerful viewpoint to be stated here: that the split between the two co-gurus throws into question all Gurumayi's claims. So, yes, there is a viewpoint here.

I feel I still need to state what the three viewpoints are, since it seems their existence is disputed. In my first draft (not published) I did in fact create section headings for each of these, but omitted them as they seemed too heavy for the context. We could go for simple descriptive headings, such as 'Celebrity following', 'Eat, Pray, Love', 'Split between gurus'; or we could state clearly that these represent hostile viewpoints, as you think best.
 * 1) Some people have written that Gurumayi had (at one time at least), presumably by design, a celebrity following.
 * 2) Some people have written that Gurumayi and her ashram in NY State must have been the pattern for Eat, Pray, Love.
 * 3) Some people have written that Gurumayi and her brother split, and not amicably, over who was to be sole guru.

I believe I have supplied ample evidence for the purposes of a careful article under WP:BLP to substantiate that these claims have been made and are notable. Therefore, I would like to agree with you suitable wording for the section. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to provide a longer form of the section for you to edit, offline if you wish - I could load it onto the talk page, or here, or in a sandpit as you prefer. Please let me know how we should proceed.

With my best wishes, and in the spirit of determination to improve Wikipedia, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me.

I was confused by the title of the section and your first sentence in it. The title seems to suggest that the rest of the article is only a viewpoint and not factual. This is a simple, short biography of someone who only has an article in Wikipedia because she is the head of a religion (at least I think its a fact that she is the head of a religion, and not just a viewpoint). From what I understand of Wikipedia's policies, biographies should stick to facts and not viewpoints (I would hope that is the case even on an article about President Obama). I ask you, what in the article as its presently written is a viewpoint and not a fact? I would like to edit the present article so as not to include any viewpoint(s), merely the known facts. I do admit that the biography is as short as it is right now, because there simply doesn't seem to be a large body of biographical material about the woman.

For that reason, I would strike the first sentence that begins "Aside from the official....", to me, it makes the rest of the article sound like it contains no facts.

Then you say "Gurumayi is reputed to have had a celebrity following..."

A number of questions come up for me around this sentence.

Why is it written in passive voice? At least mention the author who compiled the list of names. Along the lines of: "(Insert name of author here) stated that the following celebrities were or still are devotees/followers.....

The sentence implies past tense. Do we know that some if not all of the names on the list are no longer devotees? Can we find confirmation of their status?

What is the definition of "celebrity following"? How do we know she no longer has devotees who are celebrities (the line is written in the past tense).

If the "celebrity following" was deliberate, how did she attract celebrities as opposed to other people?

Why is the fact that some of her devotees are/were celebrities, significant? Do we have confirmation from the celebrities themselves about their experiences? Do we know which ones still are?

My viewpoint is that adding a small list of names of celebrities who at one point or another identified themselves as followers and who might or might not still be followers, hardly seems to be a significant addition to this article.

Regarding the Roger Friedman article written for ShowBiz411, I notice that his only piece of research that he mentions was visiting a church basement in NY in the early 90s. Apart from that he never mentions having talked to Gurumayi or visited the other ashrams. He seems to draw one big huge conclusion from a single visit.

Yes I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines around verifiability, so we know this man Roger did publish this.

Given that Friedman is not a religious expert, I'd say including his quote is at best giving undue weight to his opinion and at worst a violation of wikipedia's guidelines around biographies of living people. Including a quote from a non-expert that states pretty unequivocally that a living person is the leader of a cult is, I believe, potentially libelous. Friedman actually says "cult-like" but can we get a standard definition of what he meant? His phrase seems to imply that in some ways it's not cult like.

I'm probably going to write something at the biographies of living people's noticeboard to get their opinion on whether or not Friedman's statement passes our blp policies.

What might be acceptable to print on a show business gossip website, might not be acceptable at Wikipedia.

At the very least if we include it (not my first choice), we need to find some statements that counter Friedman's that state that she is not the leader of cult, in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

With Szabo's book it looks like we are simply promoting it. We don't include any information that Szabo gives. Why not? Unless we include some information, that is not potentially libelous, I don't see why we need a line here. At best it could be an entry in a further reading section.

Regarding Gilbert's book, I'm sorry that I brought that up. The best that can be said is that "Some people believe that the guru mentioned in Eat, Pray, Love was Gurumayi, but some people believe otherwise, and Gilbert never mentions the name of the Guru." Hardly seems significant to Gurumayi's biography.

Lastly regarding the succession and her brother, there is already a sentence about that in the body of the article, it could be expanded to include some more information, but I would shorten the material on the brother, since he is not the topic of this article and has his own. At the very least the information you included probably shouldn't be in a separate section, as it is relevant to her life.

Let me know what you think, as I mentioned, when I get time, I'm going to run Friedman's comment by the biographies of living people noticeboard, to get another opinion on whether or not the sentence is potentially libelous.

Thanks for your reply, as you can see, my thoughts were too long to fit in an edit summary.

Happy editing!!!

TheRingess (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is going to take some thought, with mentions of libel and such. I'm glad you are onside as far as seeing potential edits is concerned. I think my goal here is to provide balance: the current article is not only short but entirely one-sided (rosy). I could reply point-by-point again now but won't - just want to say that the 3 (or more) threads of criticism can't be dismissed so lightly: they are serious: and we have to avoid libel. Keep me informed on what we can and can't say. I will let you have a draft when I'm feeling strong: it might be easier if I allow the draft to be too forceful so the WP libel team can then cut it back, rather than being so guarded no-one can guess what I'm saying! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Good enough, I notice that a thread has been started on the discussion page of the article, I suggest that might be a good place to continue all discussions just so that others may more easily join in.TheRingess (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

when you delete inputs of others please explain the reason
Xantolus (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 11:11 (numerology), Undid revision 460224199 by Xantolus: (1) wiki is not math reference: adding pictures improves it, (2) next time when you delete inputs of others please explain the reason better. explanation like "unnecessary picture" is not enough. regards

Assessment of Vaitheeswaran Koil
Hi, can i know the rationale behind assessing the article as a start? All the basic details relevant to the temple have been produced with marked references. I can add missing pieces based on your feedback. S Sriram(talk - my page - contribs) 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt
 * By all means, feel free to add to the article and/or change the rating. happy editing!!!TheRingess (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)