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.

I'd be happy to do the move, probably tomorrow so I can give it my full attention. Cheers, - Will Beback · † · 02:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Will Beback · † · 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi I see that you have reverted the position of the wikiquote link on the Osho page. Do you have any way of restoring the appearnace of the link symbols at the end of the first and third external links as they are not showing properly? 89.240.2.20 12:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The disappearing symbols are a glitch in Wikipedia; it happens in other places in the text as well. I can get the symbols to display correctly by changing the text size in IE or Firefox. As for the position of the Wikiquote box, I randomly checked some other articles that have links to sister projects -- Rabindranath Tagore (a Featured Article in WP), Karl Marx, Gandhi, J. Krishnamurti -- and they all have the box positioned at the top of the relevant section ... so I thought, well, let's go with that, since it seems to be the standard style. Cheers, Jayen466 13:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lo, Don't really understand much of how Wiki works at the moment for the actual editing process and leaving coments and the like. I was wondering if you could check out this Critical Assessment of Osho. It seems to be non biased from what I read and also detailed http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html Silveranstavern ( talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC) silveranstavern.

Welcome and thanks. I'm familiar with the site. However, have a look into WP:SPS, which is part of WP:V, and WP:RS; Wikipedia is quite stringent with the sort of sources it allows. Cheers, Jayen 466 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I had added 3 very useful links to Osho literature and discourses, but you removed them citing copyright violation. I don't understand why, when those pages specifically mention that they do not make any copyright claims, rather subscribe to a free 'copyleft' policy which can be viewed at http://www.oshoworld.com/copyleft/copyleft.asp.

I appreciate your good-faith effort. Wikipedia policy demands that any copyrighted material linked to in External Links should be licensed by the copyright holder (see WP:ELNEVER). That's clearly not the case here, and WP could incur a liability for contributory infringement. Sorry. Jayen 466 10:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have indicated that the ruler is in Inches, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Takedashingen620 12:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm only watching the page in waiting for a question I left on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have commented here: Talk:Osho/Comments

WP:BIO might be able to recommend a suitable infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just wondering: isn't there a template for a teacher or a spiritual teacher - is the "artist" the closest we can get? I am guessing you already searched for templates and the "artist" seems the most suitable for Osho and Gurdjieff. If you want me to help you look for another say so. Aeuio 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aeuio, I took that info box from the featured article Tagore (where it's subsequently been replaced, though). I think it fits quite well, because it allows for specification of "movement" and "key works". What do you think?

I couldn't find any template specifically designed for spiritual teachers. Looked at the philosophy templates, and they didn't seem right. Have used the artist one in Idries Shah as well now. If you should find something better, do let me know. Cheers, Jayen466 11:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The philosophy one looks pretty good too. I'll put it on the talk page to see what others think. Thanks for the template idea. Aeuio 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I had the Osho article reviewed the other day, and the absence of an info box was one of the main shortcomings the reviewer wanted fixed. The G article has some of the same shortcomings. For example, we don't mention biographical details like his brother, the death of his wife etc. Cheers, Jayen466 12:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Gurdjieff article: We are currently doing a revision and you are more than welcome to help. Concerning your "history section" comment, If you are interested then this http://www.gurdjieff.org/chronology.htm is a good place to use to improve the bio. Aeuio 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, that chronology looks like a great reference source. Too busy to help today, but will check in again. Good luck. Jayen466 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help out, only the job's not quite finished. The image still needs a use rationale. Perhaps you can add one before someone flags the image again? Thanks, and thanks for cropping the messy bottom! --  But| seriously| folks  16:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That should take care of most of it. Just stick it into a template like {{ Non-free use rationale}}, add the missing fields and you'll be done. Thanks again! --  But| seriously| folks  18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Current phylogenetic analyses places Scleromochlus as the basal most-member of Ornithodira, and not within Pterosauropmorpha. Even if Scleromochlus was within Pterosauropmorpha it does not necessitate that it was in fact an 'ancestor' to the pterosaurs. All it would tell us is that both the pterosaurs and Scleromochlus shared a more recent common ancestor than that with the dinosaurs. Sister group relationships does not mean one taxon is ancestral to none-another. Take the example of humans and chimps+bonoboos. We are their sister taxon, but we're not ancestral to either, and neither of them are ancestral to us. This is a common misunderstanding of cladistic methodology and theory. There is no current Scleromochlus-pterosaur explicit ancestor theory (as no-one would/or should ever try and postulate direct ancestry as it is untestable)that I'm aware of. Simply that some analyses that placed it within the pterosauromorphs, whilst others places it as basal to both pterosauromorphs+dinosauromorphs. It is worth noting that Scleromochlus appears earlier in the fossil record than pterosauromorphs, so it cannot be the direct ancestor to pterosaurs in any case. Hope this helps. Mark t young 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The only image of use that I noticed at [1] was "imm003.jpg". What do you think? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage ( talk) 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

• However if the current Osho pic doesn't hold on WikiCommons, that Rolls Royce pic is the next best iconic, free-use pic to use to represent Osho on Wiki. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage ( talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes, we could use that as a fall-back. -- Jayen 466 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Kewl. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage ( talk) 23:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

		The Half Barnstar
		Awarded to you and to Curt Wilhelm VonSavage. For the most civil disagreement I have ever seen on Wikipedia, at 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Very impressive. Keep it up! Katr67 ( talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! In fact, I have been thinking of inviting him (I'll assume with a name like that it is a he) to revise the Osho article with me. :-)) Best wishes, Jayen 466 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think attempting to revise the Osho article is not something I am interested in at this time. It would take an incredible amount of work and time and effort to get the article from its current puff-piece/ hagiography/ whitewash to a state where it could be considered neutral. However, as I said before it might be fun to work on other related articles, or to create relevant articles that don't yet exist on the project. I already have quite a few in mind. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage ( talk) 00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

Sorry for the late reply. I responded on my talk page. -- David Broadfoot ( talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about this subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about this subject at the Reference desk.

Jay,

Did you actually put this tag on a discussion page ( Talk:Idries Shah)?

Was it not you who spotted that the psychology section of the article needed lots, lots more work...?

Is there anything wrong with the verifiability of the information ?

Or did I forget to ask the teacher ?

Lunarian ( talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am not that much interested in what wikipedia is not, I just contribute to what it is

I did, because I could not see where you were going with your comments. Otherwise I appreciate your adding sourced info to the article; it definitely can benefit from further expansion. -- Jayen 466 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in any case the article is now much improved through your intervention also.

I must also conclude from our interchange that I am not that great with irony . It affects my tone in a manner that invites reprimand.

I stand corrected.

Thanks for your fine contribution.

Lunarian ( talk) 23:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. -- Jayen 466 04:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right, refero/referro's the indicative pr 1.sg. Can't imagine how that's slipped by me all this time. Part of the explanation being that one hardly ever looks at one's own userpage. Thanks again for taking the time. Relata refero ( talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In your recent edits, you deleted the reference to the 1988 Motorola pamphlet, "The Nature of six sigma quality". Did you know that this pamphlet is regarded as the publication that introduced the "rest of the world" to Six Sigma? It probably should have been kept in.

Additionally, why did you feel the need to de-link Image:OneAndAHalfSigmaDrift.svg?

Hi Daniel, I would suggest that we start a Literature section for the article, and include Harry's book in it. The article is generally short on references right now; many key statements are not verifiable for the reader. I am busy at the moment but will try to do some work on that. The section on the 1.5 sigma shift that I deleted (and which included the picture) was unreferenced and seemed like a Wikipedian's private critique of Harry's approach, rather than something verifiably based on available literature. The article needs a lot of work, based on academic sources -- I believe it is one of the articles most frequently accessed in WP, and at present woefully short of encyclopedic standards. Anyway, that is my view; what do you think? Best wishes Jayen 466 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the issue:

• The first statement in the "The ±1.5 Sigma Drift" was cited until you deleted it, making the article even "shorter on references".
• The reference you deleted was a citation used to properly cite the source of that statement, consistent with WP:CITE. Separating the citation from the statement (e.g., in a "Literature section") makes it more difficult to verify, not easier.
• Per Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, "[m]any people learn better, and many technical concepts are communicated better, through visual depictions". De-linking the image does not help these people.
• Finally, the edits you made contain no citations (except the one you moved), which seems contradictory in the face of your insistance WP:VERIFY.

I agree completely with your premise (that the old section was WP:OR), but it seems to me you replaced somewhat sourced material (e.g., the Harry pamphlet) with less sourced material. Did you really improve the article in the end?

Guilty as charged, what I inserted lacked references. However, there are published references available for what I inserted, and I am not so sure that is the case for everything else we had. The old section on "The term Six Sigma", for example, had things back to front, stating that the 1.5 sigma is added to an existing 4.5 sigma, as though the 1.5 sigma shift assumed processes were going to be more capable over the long term, when it is in fact a subtraction from the 6 sigma capability that practitioners want to observe over the short term, made so as not to make an unrealistic overestimate of long-term capability. So to that extent I am absolutely confident that I have improved the section concerned, making it easier to understand what this 6 sigma thing is about, and why the given 3.4 ppm correspond to a 4.5 sigma quantile, rather than 6 sigma. I have now inserted the Harry as a ref for the discussion of the 1.5 sigma shift where it is first mentioned. Jayen 466 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now added the missing references. Jayen 466 02:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jayen, this is not a self-revert diff - the last version of the intro before yours was Lawrence Cohen's (see left side of the diff I gave). Self-revert means you revert to the version before your own (regarding the part of the page you had been editing). Self-revert is a wrong term here, you're simply supporting the version without the intellectual content criticism in the lead section. No problem with that, but it is not correct to indicate it as a "self-revert" in the edit summary then. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Jayen 466 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Diff - If this particular issue with this specific set of instances of usage of the Garrett cites has been resolved, per your statement here can you please restore the caps that I had added to the FAC, so that it does not take up as much room in the FAC discussion page? Cirt ( talk) 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 16 March 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/Prem Rawat/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/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wagner is a notable individual, an expert on music, and a crackpot on politics. Randi is a notable individual, an expert on spiritual techniques, and an award-winning skeptic. Watts is a notable individual, an expert on Eastern religions, and a supporter of the spread of Eastern religions in the West. Collier is a non-notable individual, an expert on nothing, and merely a memoirist, an entrepreneur, and a philanthropist (no mean feats, but irrelevant to the topic). She is just a minor participant, akin to a bystander - a "nobody". If we're going to include the opinions of "nobodys" then we should also include those of "somebodys".

Frankly I think these Prem Rawat articles are quickly turning into quotation files. It's lazy editing, and I'm partly guilty too. While noteworthy or scholarly quotes are easy to plug in, people come to encyclopedias for summaries of information rather than just assemblages of quotations (there is Wikiquote, after all).

Anyway, it's all just article editing. If it's not one topic it's another. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Will. I wouldn't say that Randi is an expert on spiritual techniques; he is a self-confessed bright and takes a stand against all religion. The problem is, I agree with much, if not most of what he says, as far as objective reality is concerned. Yet I also have sympathy for the subjective view, as expressed for example here by Arthur J. Deikman:

... it is possible that the conclusions of scientific materialism are wrong. From time to time we sense a larger reality than the one science provides, a subtle perception pointing to a better, meaningful existence. The dissonance between the scientific view and the one we intuit produces restlessness and a need for resolution. Even the pursuit of material goals may be a blind response to the urge to attain a dimly sensed reality in which purpose and meaning are facts, not fantasies. Our ability to progress in that direction is severely hampered by our not understanding the nature of the problem, by restricting reality to the empirical realm. Indeed, Western psychological science tends to regard the very consciousness through which we know the physical world to be no more than a product of that world, an epiphenomenon less real than that which it comprehends. No wonder meaning vanishes. A physicist commented on this assumption:
Most painful is the absolute silence of all our scientific investigations towards our questions concerning the meaning and scope of the whole display. The more attentively we watch it, the more aimless and foolish it appears to be. The show that is going on obviously acquires a meaning only with regard to the mind that contemplates it. But what science tells us about this relationship is patently absurd; as if the mind had only been produced by that very display that it is now watching and would pass away with it when the sun finally cools down and the earth has turned into a desert of ice and snow.
It is as if Descartes had been stood on his head and made to declare, "I think; therefore, the world exists and I am an illusion."

— Arthur J. Deikman, The Observing Self, http://www.deikman.com/observingself.html

Religion is, by definition, concerned with the subjective, and you can't do it justice by a reductionist approach that would equally seek to reduce an essentially subjective experience like love to a matter of hormones. It's one reason why scholars of religion don't usually argue this way, but instead simply describe the psychological aspects – beliefs, states of mind and so on – of religious practicians.

The argument about the objective and subjective world views belongs, to my mind, to a different level of discourse; Randi's views are apposite at a higher node, for his rejection of these methods stems from his a-priori rejection of all religious practices, regardless of whether we are talking about prayer, yoga, meditation, mantras, dhikr or what have you, based on the fact that he has no personal interest in transforming his own psychology.

As for Collier, I understand your concern; I suggest the correct way to go might be to restrict our citations of her book to those passages that are cited by scholars. Otherwise I would agree that we are in danger of citing a primary source and engaging in OR.

I also agree with you about the danger of this turning into a quoting exercise. We should strive to provide narratives, not quotations.

And thanks for hanging in there. ;-) Jayen 466 18:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayen, for the intelligent and scholarly approach you are bringing to these articles. Hope you don't go away. Rumiton ( talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't able to keep up with everything for a few days, due to work. Are you still translating? (It's what I do for a living, hence the occasional deadline trouble. You probably know what I mean. ;-) ) Jayen 466 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do. I seem to have the sort of brain that comes up with a great phrase at about 3 a.m. a week after the deadline expires. Today I am just a happy dilettante. I am working on a new translation of Die Zauberflőte, for my own satisfaction and of course to ensure my immortality. :-) See you. Rumiton ( talk) 12:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For making the effort to locate a difficult to find and out-of-print source. If only more editors would go beyond Google in their research! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. :-) Jayen 466 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't take this personally, but I don't have a high opinion of your current editing style, though that's not to say that you can't improve your editing skills. In particular, I'd like to see you improve your understanding of the subject matter and of Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible before making significant edits to Six Sigma. Until then, why don't we use some peer review mechanism like Talk:Six Sigma or Wikipedia:Third opinion to review your changes.

Here are my specific objections:

• You give the impression that you have not widely read up on the subject before editing the article.
• Simply adding more words does not improve understanding in and of itself. For example:

• "Six Sigma is a set of practices originally developed by Motorola to systematically improve processes by eliminating defects." is much more to the point than "Six Sigma is a set of practices originally developed by Motorola and today widely applied in industry. Its aim is to systematically improve business processes so as to eliminate defects."

• "Continuous efforts to reduce variation in process outputs is key to business success" is again more to the point than the long-winded "Continuous efforts to achieve greater uniformity (or reduce variation) in process outputs are of vital importance to business success"
• &c., &c., &c.

• "non-fulfilment" is more jargonish than "nonconformity" (and sounds like Doublespeak, IMHO). Furthermore, Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible encourages us to "not "dumb-down" the article".

• We really don't understand what it is about Six Sigma that so bothers people that they express their disgust on Talk:Six Sigma—they are uniformly unable to articulate anything actionable, despite repeated encouragement.

• It may be that the best solution to the issue lies outside the article, e.g., in providing some introductory material.
• Per Six Sigma itself (and other process improvement methodologies), if we don't put forth the effort understand what's bothering these people (define the problem), how do we stand any chance of improving things by making changes based on little more than "gut reaction"?

-- DanielPenfield ( talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. Jayen 466 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

what do you understand by variation my friend? Do you believe Six Sigma is only used to remove defects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.134.248 ( talk) 08:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cf. [2], itself citing Snee. We are not talking about removing defects, but about removing the causes of errors and defects, where a defect is anything that could cause customer dissatisfaction. DPMO plays a crucial part in measuring Six Sigma quality. Note that the concept of variation is introduced in the "Historical overview" section. Cheers, Jayen 466 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission has become active. Your participation is required to make it a success. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jayen! INTERESTING SITUATION regarding hostile editing, I should be interested in your opinion. A co-ordinated group of "skeptics" appears to police certain pages of metaphysical import around here. They try to pick fights, they revert and report vandalism but refuse to discuss. They engage in retaliatory trashing. They are very keen to keep as many "James Randi" refs as poss in wiki. None of them seems to know much about the subjects in hand. For a start, take a look at my comments on the page "new age" - anonymous reversion, then a respondent tries to start a fight, because I have "insulted" some anonymous editor, then he diverts to another page energy (spirituality) and suddenly three or four people absolutely trash it. But nobody can offer any expertise on the sociology of "new age"!

Interesting, like I said! Redheylin ( talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Over at WP:AE you made a statement that we don't view the Vatican critically. [3] We should discuss all topics with the neutral point of view. But there is no lack of critical material on Christianity and Catholicism. We have very full categories devoted to Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Christianity. And the article on Papal Apartments really does mention the marble.

The family background of Prem Rawat helps explain his later lifestyle. He came from a wealthy family and lived accordingly. The issue of religious/spiritual leaders who lead luxurious lifestyles financed by the contributions of followers has always been a cause of controversy, whether the leaders be televangelists, the Pope, or Osho. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but that's not for us to judge. If an Indian who is familiar with gurus and the norms of the culture thinks that the residence of a guru is notable then that's part of the material we're here to summarize. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, I will try to provide a short history on your talk re the evolution of RS and the debates over merging/redirecting etc. It will probably take me a few days. I have talked about it so much in the past, I fear I come off as rigid now. Sorry. Marskell ( talk) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's alright. I think I understand where you're coming from. Thanks. Jayen 466 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. I trawled through the revisions, and all of them were fairly promotional in nature; it read like a jargon-packed advertisement for how incredible Lean Six Sigma is, rather than a viable encyclopedic article. I appreciate Six Sigma, Lean manufacturing and the like are magnets for promotional spamming, but this was a step beyond that. I think it would be better for an article to be written from scratch - there was virtually nothing usable in the deleted revisions. I agree that the concept could warrant an article, despite my personal dislike of anything to do with Six Sigma - however, the deleted versions had very little about "Lean Six Sigma", rather it showed how various companies used both Lean principles AND Six Sigma ones, and synthesized this into an article on "Lean Six Sigma". Neıl 龱 11:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. I agree that the hype is very off-putting and has no place here. If I get a rainy afternoon with nothing to do, I might have a look for secondary literature and put together a sober paragraph or two. Jayen 466 13:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great - good luck! Neıl 龱 13:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay - there's an issue with the above pages. If you'd care to investigate and tell me how you think it best to proceed. The former links to an outfit notable for having scammed millions with a fake alternative medicine bracelet. The latter is a page maintained and run by a single editor, who has managed a series of mutually-contradictory reasons that the page goes on advertising direct-mail internet sites to buy these things. Please respond on my talk page. Hope you have time. Redheylin ( talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm… Anyway, I think you were right about WP:ELNO, Jay. Thanks for the guideline link. I was just copying the pattern seen on other product pages of linking to the manufacturers' homepages. ( Example) – Gunslinger47 06:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The page was deleted. But now there's a problem at orgone. Please can you help? I have an editor who has made no other contribution to this or any related subject but insists that the usual skeptical crew must appear in the lede saying "pseudoscience" - no other word will do, this cannot be balanced by any other view. The same change has been made persistently for several days, though the charge also appeared further down the article. No non-skeptic source can be found to back the claim. Editor has posted sources which he was unable to quote, removed citations, walked away from every discussion saying it is all "psychobabble" and is becoming increasingly abusive. Cannot find a psychology category talk page with any activity. There's an rfc up but only one response. Advice needed. Redheylin ( talk) 05:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin‎ has been severely struggling with Wikipedia:Etiquette, but he has essentially asked me to stop my attempts to help him. You appear to be a friend of his, and possibly the only one on Wikipedia who he might listen too without reservation. Would you consider a mentorship or otherwise help him resolve his disputes peacefully? – Gunslinger47 05:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. You might be interested in this discussion [ [4]]. Cheers! Rumiton ( talk) 15:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your most recent comment at talk:Prem Rawat seemed out of place so it was copied to User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Further discussion. I've responded there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7‎#Draft 6 and see if this is what you had in mind? I will be very busy over the next day or so ... so please see if you can improve upon it and create a Draft 7 that we can all be proud of... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Divine_Light_Mission#Counter-argument_to_Foss_.26_Larkin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. There were a couple of text glitches which I fixed; there seem to be a few more gremlins in the penultimate para (mainly the first few lines of that para), but without the original I'd have to guess what the actual text was. Do you happen to know anything further about the author? -- Jayen 466 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He is a sociologist. [5] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Name correction :-) -- Jayen 466 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your intervention in the Six Sigma article runs counter to what’s written further on in the article (and to what’s at the historical roots of Six Sigma):

“Sigma (the lower-case Greek letter σ) is used to represent the standard deviation (a measure of variation) of a statistical population. The term "six sigma process" comes from the notion that if one has six standard deviations between the mean of a process and the nearest specification limit, there will be practically no items that fail to meet the specifications. This is based on the calculation method employed in a process capability study.”

On the other hand, I’m not going to bother – one more hole in Wikipedia is nothing. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 19:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What you were describing is the aim of Taguchi methods -- robustness, or insensitivity to noise. While that does play into Six Sigma, it is only a part of it, and is not what the "Six Sigma" are meant to refer to. The Six Sigma concept is not about allowing wide variation around target by designing the product in such a way that it is not affected by this variation, but primarily about reducing the actual variation around target so that Sigma is small, and 12 Sigma (±6 Sigma) will fit into the tolerance range. Sure Taguchi methods can be used in Six Sigma to make the tolerance range bigger, but that is another matter. Cheers Jayen 466 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the other user you posted to me about, I've placed 3RR warnings on both his talk pages, and given some other pointers on editing too. Your earliest recent revert is almost 24 hours old, so if you want to revert the article again shortly it'll be legal. I'd prefer not to get involved in editing or reverting in order to stay uninvolved and thus be able to act administratively if need be. I'll watchlist the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I've written the user an explanation on the article's talk page. Jayen 466 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I made a mistake in setting the protection, and didn't notice until the user had started to edit again. There's saying that the wrong version is what always gets protected and I guess that's a law. Anyway, the main thing is to get the user to discuss his edits. If he does the page can be unprotected early. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Ah well, I can take a rest then. :-) Cheers, -- Jayen 466 21:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • My apologies for violating the 3 revert rule. I plead ignorance and promise to do better. denton ( talk) 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Denton ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's alright, let's discuss the contentious issue on Talk:Six Sigma. See you there. Cheers, -- Jayen 466 22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just to let you know, I wasn't ignoring your request. I've been watching the article assiduously, and saw that the edit war stopped and productive discussion was underway. I'm still watching. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tx. Jayen 466 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Your attention at the above article would be appreciated. No need to respond here. Redheylin ( talk) 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your view that a given text requires a commentator who is recognised as notable IN REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC TEXT is liable to cause difficulties. In the present case I am unable to access any academic treatment of the various Upanishads severally, and no such text has been used in the preparation of a great many such articles in Hinduism and other religions. Osho offered some sort of outside view, has been hailed for his thoughts on Vedanta - and you have "nixed" him, as O Govind would say. Now I am faced with hostility from a variety of editors who consider, of course, that their particular guru or view is the only notable one. For example, Prabhupada is now the only "authority" on the present text, as he was when I began work, and there is no support offered for his notability as a Vedantic scholar, let alone as a recognised exponent of the Isha. It raises problems, and requires thought. Redheylin ( talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the same requirements apply to Prabuhpada as to Osho – there has to be evidence that his views are significant, e.g. by virtue of citations in other reliable sources. If there are none, there is no justification for having them in the article, as per WP:DUE. I'll have a look at the discussion. Jayen 466 00:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It has led to a dramatic cutting of the article, since Prabhupada only represents one corner of Vedanta. Finding good academic reviews of every school's position is impossible without a library. So the only possibility is to cut the undue weight, and we are left with very little. It is a pity to decide that Osho is unacceptable as a secondary source, since he does not represent any traditional school and has some philosophical weight. He seems to be the only notable teacher who teaches nothing of note! Redheylin ( talk) 01:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As this entry from the Six Sigma talk page contains a request for you in particular, it’s probably best to repeat it here on your user talk page.
Thank you for your “To answer your question, yes I do.” <Ed. The question was: Do you think that a Six Sigma process that over the longer term produces 3.4 defects/million outcomes and that has built in 3 sigmas for the combination of longer-term drift and longer-term variation in the standard deviation produces at any particular moment (that is, without the effect of the two longer-term phenomena) widgets with not more than 2 in a billion defects?> I took the time to follow up on your Google scholar list, searching for empirical, WP:RS evidence that a so-called Six Sigma process indeed produces at any particular moment widgets with only 2 in a billion defects (emphasis on empirical, as we are in agreement on elementary statistical theory). I couldn’t get to the first article (the GE one) on the Google list but I found the second one, the article by Robert Binder. Conclusion: Binder does NOT provide empirical evidence that some Six Sigma process at any particular moment produces widgets with only 2 in a billion defects. Binder talks about 2 in a billion only in the theoretical. (“With 6 sigma tolerances, a single part, and a stable production process, you’d expect to have only 2 defects per billion.”) Before spending more time checking items from a mechanically-produced Google list, may I ask you to point me to one, personally-verified, easily-accessible article that provides empirical evidence of a Six Sigma process with a momentary 2 in a billion defects. Thanks in advance. Presence or absence of empirical evidence will guide my future editing of the relevant parts of the Six Sigma article. (P.S.: It’s worth reading the whole of Binder’s article, particularly where it comes to the this conclusion: “Used as a slogan, 6 sigma means some (subjectively) very low defect level. The precise statistical sense is lost.” In due time, I will also return to this WP:RS quote, particularly “The precise statistical sense is lost”, and will add it to the Six Sigma article. For sure, Six Sigma is a positive thing, however, its strength is not in mathematics. The latter too should come across in Wikipedia, and not just at the tail-end of the article.)
I’ll monitor your user talk page. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is moot, because the article does not mention the 2 per billion. All we are saying is that short-term σ should be 1/12 of the tolerance width, or less. That is a straightforward, and easily verifiable goal. Jayen 466 09:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't spend much time looking at forums, so I appreciate any pointers to interesting postings. Someone had already linked to that one, so I saw it recently. Based on Wikipedia standards, I'm not sure that a posting by Dettmers is any less reliable than the Cagan book, but I'm not proposing to use either. The Colorado state and local tax investigations were reported in the press, but I don't think the IRS audit ever was (which is typical - audits generally aren't newsworthy unless they find something notably irregular). As some of the press reports noted, successful enforcement actions regarding the finances of churches are rare in the U.S. because the protection of religious freedom is taken so seriously. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the AFD, and here was the page. I agree with your assessment that Kingsley does not seem involved with this anymore... might be one of these development-hell projects. Let me know if you want to hash out a different solution for handling the content. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have opened an RM at Talk:Gibraltarian general election, 2007#Requested Move to move the three articles on elections in Gibraltar. I thought you might be interested as you were involved in the previous RM on referendums. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help cleaning up after the wrath of Primetime. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Good thinking, but there's no connection to Lemonsquares. Primetime was just reverting the sock notice I'd put on Lemonsquares' page the same way he was reverting all of my other recent edits. It's part of his revenge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one scholarly book about the topic, and numerous entries in books about NRMs. But the article would have to be rewritten almost from scratch to cut down the reliance on primary sources. Perhaps that wouldnt be a bad idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of Coney/Fox. Other than some medical papers on the effects of the meditation, I don't think there are many papers devoted to the movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel ( talk) 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayen, an admn has reverted my whole copy edits on a couple of articles, and that too with out citing any particular reason on both occasions. To the best of my knowledge, these articles are not under the scanner. I do feel that the reversions were made rather hastily, and are unconstructive. Though, as an admn, he might have a certain degree of immunity, I should like to appeal against the revision. I solicit your attention to the articles to see by yourself which version reads well and looks good.

Articles: C K Nayudu

Rahul Dravid

Admn: BInguyen

User: OpelC

OoOpS 06:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Uday Mehta (sociologist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- JediLofty ^User _Talk 13:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the issues of "chauvinism" vs. "nationalism" were related to you in some way. Please join the discussion at the Sangh Parivar page. Pectore ^talk 17:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the page! I like that you too try to edit the page in a totally neutral fashion and are more focused on actually improving the page than making sure it says what you (impersonal) want it to say. Pectore ^talk 01:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Jayen 466 03:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark on the adjuncts in the 'France' paragraph (half-chapter? :-), I had been hesitating in putting it in the Scientology controversies. And it did seem not generic enough to quit fit in that 'French' section. I really have no qualms people fiddling with what I write, u welcome to it - I only get annoyed at people who slash info without sticking it somewhere else as or more sensible. Bad manners. You good manners very much appreciated, and useful :-)) Need a clearer head than right now to do it, but assoonas. Ta :-) Basicdesign ( talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[6] - Where exactly have I made this mistake? D.M.N. ( talk) 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

From the very first line of your weblink: This is one of those errors typically made by a person more familiar with the spoken than the written form of English. - I am, that's probably why I've made those sort of errors. D.M.N. ( talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to conversations about twelve year old admins. My first thought was "What's wrong with this practice? Let me list the ways."  :) It worries me a lot that children are even editing on wikipedia, because there's really no way for the Wikipedia community to protect them from internet predators, and no way to know if they have their parent's permission to be here. I wish I had time to address it, but unfortunately, I don't, and even if I did, I just don't see how the practice could ever be avoided given the anonymity option for users. I hope Wikipedia doesn't have any liability for children who may become prey for internet predators. It's a real problem for children's safety everywhere and this website isn't immune. Well, I'll hope for the best and hope adult editors will look out for those children here they know about. Thanks again, and be well. Sylviecyn ( talk) 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayen,

Could you please explain why my adding link of "Osho World" website has been marked as an act of vandalism.

thanx Amit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandamit2004 ( talk • contribs) 08:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's just an automatic edit summary provided by WP:TWINKLE, a revert utility. As for the content of User:Jalal's edit, I would support his reversion; see WP:ELNEVER and the last couple of paragraphs in the discussion under #Osho, above. Jayen 466 03:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unexpected problems with the above geezer (see ancillary pages and my talk page) and past edit wars evident. Apparent sectarian POV fork. Please advise. Redheylin ( talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I've met Pectore ( talk · contribs) elsewhere (at Sangh Parivar); he seems like a capable editor. Hope we can sort it out together. Jayen 466 02:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes he does and so do I and so I noticed. Bit busy these days, scuse. XX 78.149.111.113 ( talk) 23:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I let myself edit ex pectore there. Thanks for catching me. Pectore ^talk 02:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this about? The arbs are clearly not going to support this request. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the case should be archived (it wasn't, it was just deleted). If I am mistaken about that, and requests for clarification are not normally archived, then please accept my apologies; I am not overly familiar with procedure on the Requests for Arbitration page. The other thing was that User:Coffee retained the admin category on all of his user pages until tonight, and some still have it now; editors visiting his user page should not be led to assume that he currently is a sysop. Jayen 466 01:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Done. Semitransgenic ( talk) 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally got a scan of that article. If you email me, I will send you a PDF of it. Best, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was to merge the content of the film article. Trimming down the content resulted in the eventual removal of the project in its entirety. Notability cannot be argued, either... it applies to the existence of an entire article, not content within. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 00:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely puzzled by your insistence on having obsolete and factually inaccurate information included in the Osho article. Not to mention Christina Aguilera's voiceover exploits. :-) In terms of the overall scholarly and press sources that would be available to make this overlong article even longer, the handful of articles that briefly reported on this abortive film project last year do not fulfil WP:DUE requirements IMO. And IIRC, the author of the script now plans to write a book about Osho; the film was scrapped, for whatever reason. Jayen 466 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.-- SaraNoon ( talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, added to my watchlist. Jayen 466 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyediting of Millennium '73. No matter how many times I check I always seem to miss things. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was the easy part – you've done a stunning amount of work there! Brilliant, and a very informative article. Jayen 466 02:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting, I've not heard of that before. I'll keep it in mind for next time. Thanks! — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 11:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. It is disappointing though; it seemed such a good idea for adding value to the cite refs. Cheers, Jayen 466 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Cirt. Jayen 466 00:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you also for existing in general, Jayen466. As regards Cheraman, since you brought Taylor forward, I suspect that there's a body of scholarship available that is better than anything that has been used so far, and to which I have no access. It's unsatisfactory, but I think the matter has to go on hold until a decent modern academic text can be accessed. Obviously a Cheraman associated with Cuntarar has to be c800CE, a time associated with Muslim presence in Kerala - and that is as far as it goes. There's no way to tie a later Cheraman into the general wiki accounts of history and geography etc of the region, a lot of which need a lot of work. It's beyond me right now! Redheylin ( talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 05:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I've sent you an email with a URL to an interview with Catherine Hayter about the early days of the joint Paris group prior to the brothers' agreeing to disagree.

May be possible to extract something about group work and exercises currently missing from the WP articles?

Have asked the poster if he can provide a reference and page numbers.

Think I gave you a duff link. Try: http://hiddenrecess.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2018168%3ABlogPost%3A4131

Enjoy! EricT ( talk) 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric. The question is whether or not it was published in what could be regarded as a reliable source (even a London paper, e.g., would do). I have a book by Augy Hayter that discusses this too (as well as discussing Ikbal Ali Shah's writing workshops turning out potboilers to pay the bills), but with a title like "Factions and Fictions", and the book being self-published, I am a bit wary of citing it as an encyclopedic source. Best, Jayen 466 17:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the comments to the thread at HR, no reference has as yet been forthcoming, Jayen. Of course it could be a transcript of a taped interview rather than a printed interview. All I can suggest, if you get nowhere at HR and want to follow-up is to try:

http://www.augyhayter.com/ Cheers, EricT ( talk) 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's getting less and less likely as the years go by and newsworthiness is lost that we'll get fresh reliable sources for the Shah brothers. You could always check out a yahoo! search of Alfredo Offidani / La Via / Life Quality Project if you want something fresh to get your editorial teeth into. Might fail on lack of notability? EricT ( talk) 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably. The Spanish WP has an article on their Life Quality Project, but even that is a badly sourced fragment at the moment. Jayen 466 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)