This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Jayen, I find the documentation on what to do after obtaining permission for images confusing. Is this right: User talk:Esowteric/Archives/2008/November#Saira Elizabeth Luiza Shah image ? Cheers, EricT ( talk) 13:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, have just sent TS a grant form for SEL Shah image. Hopefully getting there after several botched attempts. As a newbie, what threw me was this: Wikipedia_talk:Example_requests_for_permission#No_mention_of_grant_form. Cheers, EricT ( talk) 10:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Done Sorted, thanks. EricT ( talk) 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting exchange that you and jossi are having with Ross. I am tempted to paint a bulls eye on my butt and add my two cents. Maybe I can find the time, prolly not. Ross is doing what many here do, creating a fiction in his own mind and perpetrating it as truth here. The fiction he is creating and promoting is that somehow editors that subscribe to a minority belief system have free rein to influence Wikipedia articles. As if! No, it is the critics of those belief systems that are given free rein here. The project even has a name for it systemic bias.
Hi, I noticed that you have been involved in previous WP:SYNTH discussions at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Would you care to comment on the section Wikipedia talk:No original research#Insidious OR? Thank you. -- Thermoproteus ( talk) 11:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a look on p chart.
Martin Segers
hello jayen would you please comment as to your position regarding the comments in .. move to america again.. on the osho page. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
could you move to this?
if not why not?
although when he went to america his health was poor (he was never a 'well' person) the entry on health grounds was a simple
deceit, the real purpose for going there was to build a utopian city in the desert.
Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters.
(
Off2riorob (
talk) 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
this is semiT standpoint... Osho entered America based on a false information and was found guilty of doing so, this is fact. The movement has their version of the story the authorities have another. There are also multiple sources that specifically question the motivation underlying the move to America and the means that were used to achieve it. This is relevant, notable, and there are multiple verifiable sources that deal with this..
here semiT agrees with my comment and mentions multiple verifiable sources..
and we can verify the utopian city part as that is what osho and his sannyasins immediately started to do. verifiaby in the same way that a man wanted to commit suicide so he does it . it is well published that ... as I have put it .. although when he went to america his health was poor (he was never a 'well' person) the entry on health grounds was a simple deceit, the real purpose for going there was to build a utopian city in the desert. Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters. do you disagree with this .. if not then we can source the multiple verifiable sources.. if you know what I mean. I actually like this stance and feel it takes nothing away from osho. can you agree with that simple deceit? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 19:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
so you could agree with me his intention was a big commune and he did'nt care where it was ! I think he was nervous to go to america it was a big move but once they had got him on that plane it was a done deal. sheela promised him it would all be ok and he went with it..she imo and in the opinion of the local indian papers at the time was that she pushed it through to avoid paying tax.which they did avoid until their return when the local papers wrote that an agreement had been reached on the back tax. the visa story should have been sorted properly. I can only imsgine they were still thinking they could deal with it later like they had been used to the way in india. so the visa was the technicallity that they used when they wanted to get rid of him. 'that simple deceit' lets go with it? semiT's gonna like it! and thats all it was ..a simple visa irregularity.. hardly mass murder was it? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
On your statement you state that the IPs registered to the Church of Scientology should be allowed to edit the site and the existing ban lifted. Could you point me to the enactment of the ban? A diff would do. Why do you think such a ban was placed?
What if significant disruption comes from the Church of Scientology IPs. If such activity comes from a random high school IP, it is customary to block them. There are several measures to let "good users" edit. For example editing anonymously (IPs) can be blocked while user accounts are allowed to edit. This would help filter any disruption coming from public computers. I do not believe this was available in September 2007. I am merely trying to investigate a possible way to make everything work with this. What do you think?
Could you demonstrate examples of poor sources used by different editors. I want to get the feel of what kind of sources you feel should not be used on the relevant articles.
To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
-- Cat chi? 18:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466, I read the above statement. You state some points that I find helpful, but you make some very colored remarks than lead me to question your interest in the scientology articles: You state that Stephen Kent is the most hostile scholar. Please show me that he is hostile and then show me that he is the most hostile. Factually, he publishes articles that the Office of Special Affairs does not like. You also divide editors into two camps, the scientologists and anti-scientologists. I think that is an over-simplification that obfuscates the variety of perspective editors of scientology articles have on the English language Wikipedia. Since you are relatively new to editing scientology articles, you may not be aware that there have been sincere attempts in the past of various editors to work with editors with differing perspectives on various scientology articles. This has had limited success after the last Arbcom when special rules were instituted on the scientology articles, but did not bring harmony to the editing process. I have my own views of why this did not occur and cannot occur. Over to you. -- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 06:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayen466, I've continued the discussion regarding OR on the OCRT page here. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Jayen, I find the documentation on what to do after obtaining permission for images confusing. Is this right: User talk:Esowteric/Archives/2008/November#Saira Elizabeth Luiza Shah image ? Cheers, EricT ( talk) 13:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, have just sent TS a grant form for SEL Shah image. Hopefully getting there after several botched attempts. As a newbie, what threw me was this: Wikipedia_talk:Example_requests_for_permission#No_mention_of_grant_form. Cheers, EricT ( talk) 10:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Done Sorted, thanks. EricT ( talk) 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting exchange that you and jossi are having with Ross. I am tempted to paint a bulls eye on my butt and add my two cents. Maybe I can find the time, prolly not. Ross is doing what many here do, creating a fiction in his own mind and perpetrating it as truth here. The fiction he is creating and promoting is that somehow editors that subscribe to a minority belief system have free rein to influence Wikipedia articles. As if! No, it is the critics of those belief systems that are given free rein here. The project even has a name for it systemic bias.
Hi, I noticed that you have been involved in previous WP:SYNTH discussions at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Would you care to comment on the section Wikipedia talk:No original research#Insidious OR? Thank you. -- Thermoproteus ( talk) 11:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a look on p chart.
Martin Segers
hello jayen would you please comment as to your position regarding the comments in .. move to america again.. on the osho page. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
could you move to this?
if not why not?
although when he went to america his health was poor (he was never a 'well' person) the entry on health grounds was a simple
deceit, the real purpose for going there was to build a utopian city in the desert.
Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters.
(
Off2riorob (
talk) 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
this is semiT standpoint... Osho entered America based on a false information and was found guilty of doing so, this is fact. The movement has their version of the story the authorities have another. There are also multiple sources that specifically question the motivation underlying the move to America and the means that were used to achieve it. This is relevant, notable, and there are multiple verifiable sources that deal with this..
here semiT agrees with my comment and mentions multiple verifiable sources..
and we can verify the utopian city part as that is what osho and his sannyasins immediately started to do. verifiaby in the same way that a man wanted to commit suicide so he does it . it is well published that ... as I have put it .. although when he went to america his health was poor (he was never a 'well' person) the entry on health grounds was a simple deceit, the real purpose for going there was to build a utopian city in the desert. Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters. do you disagree with this .. if not then we can source the multiple verifiable sources.. if you know what I mean. I actually like this stance and feel it takes nothing away from osho. can you agree with that simple deceit? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 19:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
so you could agree with me his intention was a big commune and he did'nt care where it was ! I think he was nervous to go to america it was a big move but once they had got him on that plane it was a done deal. sheela promised him it would all be ok and he went with it..she imo and in the opinion of the local indian papers at the time was that she pushed it through to avoid paying tax.which they did avoid until their return when the local papers wrote that an agreement had been reached on the back tax. the visa story should have been sorted properly. I can only imsgine they were still thinking they could deal with it later like they had been used to the way in india. so the visa was the technicallity that they used when they wanted to get rid of him. 'that simple deceit' lets go with it? semiT's gonna like it! and thats all it was ..a simple visa irregularity.. hardly mass murder was it? ( Off2riorob ( talk) 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
On your statement you state that the IPs registered to the Church of Scientology should be allowed to edit the site and the existing ban lifted. Could you point me to the enactment of the ban? A diff would do. Why do you think such a ban was placed?
What if significant disruption comes from the Church of Scientology IPs. If such activity comes from a random high school IP, it is customary to block them. There are several measures to let "good users" edit. For example editing anonymously (IPs) can be blocked while user accounts are allowed to edit. This would help filter any disruption coming from public computers. I do not believe this was available in September 2007. I am merely trying to investigate a possible way to make everything work with this. What do you think?
Could you demonstrate examples of poor sources used by different editors. I want to get the feel of what kind of sources you feel should not be used on the relevant articles.
To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
-- Cat chi? 18:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466, I read the above statement. You state some points that I find helpful, but you make some very colored remarks than lead me to question your interest in the scientology articles: You state that Stephen Kent is the most hostile scholar. Please show me that he is hostile and then show me that he is the most hostile. Factually, he publishes articles that the Office of Special Affairs does not like. You also divide editors into two camps, the scientologists and anti-scientologists. I think that is an over-simplification that obfuscates the variety of perspective editors of scientology articles have on the English language Wikipedia. Since you are relatively new to editing scientology articles, you may not be aware that there have been sincere attempts in the past of various editors to work with editors with differing perspectives on various scientology articles. This has had limited success after the last Arbcom when special rules were instituted on the scientology articles, but did not bring harmony to the editing process. I have my own views of why this did not occur and cannot occur. Over to you. -- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 06:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayen466, I've continued the discussion regarding OR on the OCRT page here. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)