User talk:EPadmirateur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial

Welcome!

Hello, EPadmirateur, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Lradrama 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposophy pages

Hi! I periodically go through the anthroposophy-related pages and copy edit them. I see that you have also been working on various pages. If you ever see anything that I changed that you felt could have been done differently or better, please let me know. I usually don't add much content but simply edit for clarity, grammar, etc. I also have been working on the Waldorf Ed. page for a long time, again mostly copy editing but also working on the discussion page to promote consensus. Thanks! Henitsirk 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been focusing on getting a number of articles with proper references and promoting neutrality and objectivity in several articles, including Waldorf education. I also have worked to clean up articles in neuroscience. Many thanks for all your work! --EPadmirateur 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd Nerdrum

Very happy you fixed up the bibliography on Odd Nerdrum. I had intended to do so now or at least soon, after saving the bibliography in its present format on the talk pages, but I like referencing and bibliography work least of all, so delighted you've done it .... Whew! Thanks!(olive (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Glad to help. May I suggest using WorldCat for bibliographic references. It has a good search and shows all of the relevant information about the book. It's pretty easy to put a bibliographic reference together with it. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. I should be able to reference easily given my background, but I hate doing it for some reason. So any shortcut is good. Salut!(olive (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Sheldrake

How's it going with the Sheldrake article? Haven't read through the talk page, but wondering what your perceptions are. Feel free to get in touch by email also if you wish. I'm unable to do much editing at this time, but I do watch Sheldrake, and would not want the article to degrade. Though it looks like there is some good new material. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support! It's a real contest of wills and logical reasoning. I'm not the source of all of the good material: I'm just trying to keep all the good stuff there and keep it balanced. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On the JSPR, they are peer-reviewed, and in that way the epitomy of a RS. They are also somewhat fringe, so articles in more mainstream sources are to be preferred, if you can get them. But if you had a general press article up against the JSPR, the JSPR should win, IMHO. Have little time. Will try and look later. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, somebody HE REALLY GET EXCITED ABOUT STUFF, EH? I do agree that we should leave that paragraph out, as it just isn't necessary, and will also be in for no end of nitpicking. You may already have it, but Sheldrake has also been cited in [1] this paper, but I'm not sure how mainstream that is (or where I got the pdf- it may already be in the article). What do you think about the sandbox draft?

Thanks for your comments and for your work on the article! I think the overriding policy here is WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. The article does not give sufficient weight to balancing statements which is why I re-added the paragraph listing citations. We need to let others give their opinions on this. Thanks for the Parnia/Fenwick citation. I will add that also. (I was familiar with this paper from other work but didn't recall the Sheldrake reference). Regarding the sandbox draft: I need to look at it in more detail. Removing the "technical minutiae" of the Rose experiment, the cited p-values and the Tucson reference to the apparent mother-baby telepathy are all problematic and "appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view". In general the present article and the sandbox both suffer from this lack of balance, especially the latter. The WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise policy requires "not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints". --EPadmirateur (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps put a short bit in the "reception" section, instead of a seperate subject heading? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pete K

I'm not an administrator. You need to find someone who can help you. Try WP:ANI. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize, it's just that I can't help you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mae-Wan Ho

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mae-Wan Ho, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mae-Wan Ho. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rob (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Steiner

no worries, it's not that I'm unhappy with it, it's the problem with interest groups controlling pages in a manner that excludes legitimate dissent that I think we should be concerned with. For me it's not even about the defensive of science against pseudo-science, as it may be for some, everyone to there own, but some editors have agendas that need to be dealt with, just wish I had the time and resources to actually tackle this problem. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that interest groups can be over-protective of pages they're interested in. I am always trying to find balance and neutrality in the articles I work on, but I recognize that I can't always judge when there is insufficient balance, especially if I'm very close to a subject and have personal knowledge of it. That's why I am always grateful for outside views that point out where there are flaws, in particular if there is not an agenda behind those views! So thank you for pointing out the Hammer references. I think they are worth adding to the Rudolf Steiner and possibly the Anthroposophy articles. I will try to work them in. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lusseyran

That's fine with me. If you have time, it would be good if you could perform the move back, as I have to leave unexpectedly in a second. Academic Challenger (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

Be careful that you do not give undue weight to critical views in articles. They should be fairly represented, but not over-represented. One test might be to examine the number of critical and the number of positive commentaries on the topic and to ensure that they are mentioned in representative proportion. At least as important: are the critics actually experts in the field of the article? A botanist's critique of modern physics should be given far less weight than a physicist's.

From WP:Undue:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
• Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Hgilbert (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Flowerdew

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I get a lot of contested PRODS but rarely, if ever, do I see one so well contested with sources and a full explanation on the talk page. That's a barnstar in my book! Cheers, CP 03:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cookie

User:Florentino floro has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks so much for your important revert edits against my stalker User:Maxschmelling, who since 2007, daily edited and reverted some of my contributions. I decided to instead let other editors revert Max's disruptive editing, since I, as Filipino devour Filipino crab mentality. Your 2 reverts, are important for Wikipedia scholars and researchers, worldwide. I predict, these 2 articles will reveal what really these landmark researches on the vast unknown would be. So be it, I say.

• Near death experience 20:28, 18 September 2008 EPadmirateur (Talk | contribs) (46,762 bytes) (Undid revision 239349525 by Maxschmelling (talk) large on-going studies are notable. This is WP:RS & widely reported) (undo)
• Out-of-body experience 20:23, 18 September 2008 EPadmirateur (Talk | contribs) (35,187 bytes) (Undid revision 239348668 by Maxschmelling (talk) on-going studies are valid. This relates to OBEs and is WP:RS.) (undo)

If you have some time, may I please request you to share some comments on our Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro and User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling. As Filipino editor with over 5,800 contributions in Wikipedia, I have had no problem with foreign 100,000 editors and 1,500 administrators; but it is the saddest day in Wikipedia, that: a co-Filipino editor, does nothing but does stalk me and my edits here - User:Cma, "Dominique Gerald Cimafranca"[2] my very own co-Filipino Ateneo de Manila (he is student of Ateneo de Davao, while I am an alumni lawyer-judge of Ateneo de Manila University, 8 years schooling). Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Relates to OBE?

I see you reverted my revert. Can you explain to me how a study about near death experience "relates" to out-of-body experience? The researchers clearly hope that it will relate, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Let's wait for some results before deciding that it is an important study about OBE, for now the links seem decidedly speculative. Am I missing something? maxsch (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A major component of many NDEs is the OBE, where purported veridical perceptions of the surroundings (the person's body, the accident scene, the resuscitation efforts, etc.) are reported and frequently verified, at least informally. This study is focusing on the OBE veridical perceptions during NDEs from cardiac arrest, with target symbols put in places that are visible only from out of body perspective. So it is very much related to OBE and is the largest such study to date (expecting about 1500 200-300 NDE reports from perhaps 8000-15000 1500 cardiac arrest incidents in 25 hospitals). Just the fact that the study is being done is notable for WP, at least to the extent of the one paragraph. There are numerous reports in the news all around the world about this study. A good video report featuring Penny Sartori, one of the researchers in this field, is located here. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, and the shortening of the section for undue weight. I'm not sure that the number of cardiac arrest incidents is relevant, though 1500 cases is quite a few. The reference for the article doesn't seem to indicate that all 1500 will have reportable experiences, only that 1500 recussitated cardiac arrest patients will be studied. I don't think all of them will have OBEs. Anyhow, those numbers are not the most important thing. What continues to bother me is that the study has yet to even begin and nothing has been discovered. It may well be groundbreaking research that fundamentally changes the way we understand death and the soul, but it just as easily may not. I fear that hype is driving its notability. News reports may satisfy WP:RS for many subjects, but scientific studies pretty much need to be published in scientific journals to be notable, and that usually happens after they discover something--like three years from now in this case. Anyhow, I'm sensitive about it partly because Florentino Floro, as he mentioned above, is crying persecution for me reverting many of his clearly non-notable edits. I see you were acting in good faith and know more about the topic than I do. I'm going to make a small NPOV edit and then I'll be done with it. best, maxsch (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Florentino Floro

Hi, I didn't want to drag you into this, but Floro has requested your input on the RFC. If you do take the time to write something, I'd like to ask you to actually review the RFC before adding any input--I noticed that the people who write in support of Floro take only a quick glance at his work, noticing that the majority of his edits are well-sourced, but not noticing that these edits are often irrelevant, slanted, and even flat out copyright violations.

Sorry to bring this up out of nowhere; I just didn't want more people commenting on that RFC without fully reviewing the history of the editor in question; this edit to the out of body article is not indicative of his performance as a whole. --Migs (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, EPadmirateur. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kubler-Ross

Left message for you on discussion page. You have a lot to learn. See my user page.Kazuba (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What about being duped by con artists? Even academics can go over the edge, especially when when one has lost a dear loved one and is surrounded by hopelessess, suffering and death. As dark as it is this is my playground. I am not trying to run down Kubler-Ross I am only showing that she was a fallible human being like the rest of us. My wife was in hospice for about a week before she died. I admire their skills and compassion. Kubler-Ross was a babe in the woods. This happens often when one ventures into unexplored territory. The occult. How do you know the mechanic is correct when he tells you that you need a new fuel pump? Sometimes we can put our trust in the right people and the wrong people. Howabout you assumming good faith from others beside yourself. Snide remarks? Kazuba (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do assume you are acting in good faith and I am sorry about the loss of your wife. I agree that Elisabeth Kübler-Ross made a terrible mistake of judgment, but your opinions (or mine) about her should not determine what is in the article about her, only reliable sources. I did not remove the statements about the incident with the medium -- on either occasion. I can't put them back in because I don't have access to the cited Playboy interview. If you know what it says, you can put it back, as perhaps you have. I don't oppose that and I won't remove them. Your snide remarks were "You have a lot to learn" and "You are expected to read other material, that is not on-line when you do research. Not every thing can be found on the net." I still think both of these comments were unjustified and lacked basic civility. In the future, please be careful before you attack a fellow editor. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Manipulative therapies

The definition of the category is "Alternative therapy that is based upon manipulation and/or movement of one or more parts of the human body." You are moving a part of your body (via dance etc) so it is a manipulative therapy IMHO. Do you see what I mean? You don't need to be manipulating something with your hand, just moving a limb etc. The reason being if you look at [[Category:Alternative medicine]] the instructions are that hardly anything should be directly in there, only these subcategories. The other alternative is [[Category:mind-body interventions]]- "Alternative therapies that cover a variety of techniques designed to enhance the mind's capacity to affect bodily function and symptoms." The Alexander technique is in there so maybe this should be there. My only concern is that Category:Alternative medicine tells people to make sure hardly anything is in there and it all should be in subcategories. All I'm doing is making sure it's organised into subcategories to help people browse similar articles which they find in the category, or edit them. Take a look at Category:Alternative medicine and pick the subcategory you think suits it:) Or you may decide it should just be in Category:anthroposophy or something (I'm not linking directly to them because otherwise your talk page ends up in them:) Sticky Parkin 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I understand the need to move articles out of the alternative medicine category, but "movement" is not included in the article on manipulative therapy. Also, Brain Gym and eurythmy are not listed among the therapies in the article. I suggest that you change the manipulative therapy article itself before you redefine the meaning by simple asserting it in the definition of the category. I would agree with the categorization if "movement" is explicitly included in the article -- but it's not. That's why I object to using this subcategory. Maybe there should be a subcategory of "movement therapy" which is what both of these modalities are. And perhaps there are other therapies that are really movement therapies. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Informationtennis.com

I noticed this today. I don't have the article on my watchlist and hence had no idea you requested explanation on removal of the link. I have previously had discussion on the subject with editors which can be seen here and here. Based on this, I'm removing the link. If you need further explanations, please let me know. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

IP hopper

I removed your report from WP:AIV about the IP hopper. I placed a notice at WP:AN, requesting that an admin familiar with blocking ranges to block the IP's range. If any other pages are hit, submit a request for protection here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this! --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Werdna has blocked the range for a few hours. Hope the vandal scampers off now :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

format for vandalism warnings

I noticed you reverted vandalism but didn't warn the IPvandal; without a warning, a block is unlikely even in case of further vandalism. Should you need a convenient warning template, the following is good (and there are others): {{subst:vandal2|Free will}} Best wishes - hgilbert (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks: it's a lot of extra effort. Is there a way to include these messages using one of the Gadgets, like WP:Twinkle? --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are using twinkle to revert, it should automatically open the user talk page; you can then use twinkle's "warn" tab or leave a message manually. hgilbert (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Toni Packer

Thanx for taking an interest in the Toni Packer page, even though i wrote what you deleted, i agree with your deletions and reversions, however have improved (i hope) the wording on one of the reversions.

Having some access to what went on at the time of the schism, i would say the differences of packer with kapleau were mroe fundamental than just the abrogation of liturgy by packer but extended right into the zen/buddhist belief system

the public front was polite but the actual division process was not pleasant and acrimonious, a combination of leaving and being booted as i wrote Osip7315 (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and for all your additions to Toni Packer's page. I was there too at the time and it was clear what the issues between them were: the rituals and the religious orientation that Philip Kapleau wanted to retain which Toni Packer wanted to eschew. I don't agree with the "booted out" part. That was not evident at all: strong disagreement, yes, an ultimatum from Kapleau (I would expect but don't know specifically) and a parting of the ways with Toni Packer starting a separate center.

In any case, many of these details are really original research which WP editors ought to avoid. I don't know what is documented in reliable sources but it's fair to say there was a disagreement over how Toni Packer would carry on as a teacher; she left and founded a completely different kind of spiritual path. Whether she was "booted out" should be avoided in WP:BLP unless it can be sourced.

I will make one more change, to bring back the word Japanese (i.e. Japanese Zen) to the description because those specific rituals (e.g. gassho, prostration, etc.) and various Japanese accouterments were what Toni Packer seemed to dislike, even though Kapleau did much to "westernize" a lot of the practices. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I was never at the rochester zen center but in the springwater archives there is a tape recording of a meeting at which toni was really asked to leave, not directly but in as many words. I found it searching through the tape archives at springwater and i doubt anyone else had listened to it for many years. a very hostile tense atmosphere. she couldn't have stayed after that meeting, lets put it that way. Osip7315 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

the sentence as stands at the moment is "Her eventual departure from the Rochester Zen Center was due in large part to her disagreement with Kapleau's adherence to Zen liturgy and beliefs." i think it needs reworking entirely, maybe you could add the bit about her aversion to specific rituals etc. you would be welcome to rewrite it, i won't challenge anything you write that comes form your direct observation. theres practically nothing written in books about this so personal observation is the only source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osip7315 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I really thank you for this information. I was a student of Kapleau at the time and Toni Packer was a good friend. From what I could see and overhear (and also what Roshi Kapleau later said), Toni Packer really objected to all of the Japanese rituals and especially the Buddhist religious orientation that Kapleau felt were integral parts of the practice: the reverence toward the figures of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas as the embodiment of ideals for all people, the Buddhist sutras and traditional books of koans, the Japanese Zen terminology (zazen, koan, dokusan, teisho, sesshin, kinhin, etc.), the gassho, chanting (although done in English), prostration before the teacher in dokusan, and elements from Japanese culture that Kapleau was fond of. Kapleau felt the religious aspect especially was essential, Toni Packer did not and I got the impression that she was especially averse to the religious aspects.

It must have been a deep quandary for both of them but I don't think Kapleau could have done anything else but to ask her to go as I believe it was beginning to create discord among his other students, and he could not in good conscience make her his dharma successor. Likewise she could not in good conscience continue to be his student when there was so much at the Center that did not fit her own sense of what was right. My recollection is that only a few of his students at the time (maybe 6?) left with Toni. From all that I saw, it did not appear to be a big "schism". Toni and her students remained friendly with everyone else at the Center. But it was a great disappointment for Kapleau, to lose a beloved student, who I believe was his most advanced student at the time -- and must have been for Toni Packer as well. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido List

I've read your comments on Talk:Literarische Donaugesellschaft‎ and Talk:Iduna (literature society). If you want to merge the articles into the Guido von List article, please do it. I won't do it, because I don't have any sources about them (one of the societies is mentioned very marginally in The Occult Roots of Nazism I think, but that's it) and I don't have the time to search more sources. If you merge the articles there, that is someone else's problem. Zara1709 (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Satwant Pasricha

Why so much stress on the fact that she belongs to which faith etc. ? She is a doctor and her work has nothing to do with Sikh or any religion for that matter...Jon Ascton (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is This ?

I don't think there is a word Persection...do you ? Then why do we have a page called Persection of Muslims ? Of course it directs to Persecution of Muslims but why it needs to be so...? Kindly reply on my talk page ...thanks Jon Ascton (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Same Problem Again

I don't think there is a word Persection...do you ? Then why do we have a page called Persection of Christianity ? Of course it directs to Persecution of Christianity but why it needs to be so...? Kindly reply on my talk page ...thanks Jon Ascton Jon Ascton (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dannion Brinkley

Good work on your edits. Just so you know, Moody did endorse Brinkley's account in a review on Saved by the Light's dust jacket, but your rewording is okay. 75.5.15.170 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you for your work to trim it down. The "endorsement" on the current dust jacket is by Melvin Morse, another NDE researcher. It's very likely Moody wrote a review for a previous edition or maybe you are getting this from Moody's introduction to the book.

"Endorse" for an NDE researcher is usually something like "yes, this is a bona fide NDE, very detailed, extraordinary, etc." but it is very unlikely that a research will mention afterlife, as in "evidence or proof of". I think Moody is pretty careful about this in his written statements -- I don't know what he says in talks. But "endorse" implies wholesale acceptance of all aspects of the NDE as "real" and of the NDEr's interpretation of it. It's a term that it would be best to avoid.

BTW, I think it would be appropriate to mention he is a Marine veteran (even if just a truck driver), in relation to his veterans work. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I have heard that Dr. Moody is now rather sceptical of Brinkley, so your edit on that is sensible. I am surprised that Dr. Morse endorses the book. Perhaps that quote was made before the critics. 75.5.15.170 (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I just clicked on your Amazon link and the front cover of the book has Moody's endorsement. 75.5.15.170 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, "endorse" for an NDE researcher is usually something like "yes, this is a bona fide NDE -- that is, a subjective experience similar to other NDEs -- very detailed, extraordinary, etc." and that's what Moody is saying: 1) it is a bona fide NDE, 2) the most complete (it has the most of his 14 NDE elements), 3) the most amazing he has encountered in his research. What his is not saying is it is evidence or proof of afterlife, even though Brinkley (and most other NDErs as well) thinks it is. Moody's book Last Laugh takes Brinkley and several other NDErs to task for making NDE stories (and one's supposed new psychic powers) into a new form of entertainment. Brinkley is especially prone to this, apparently.

However, I have to say that in researching Brinkley's support of hospice for dying veterans and veterans health care, I suspect that these actions do not fit a former Marine truck driver who wants to lie about his service and his NDE to gain fame. First, Brinkley did not write his book until 19 years after his first NDE and 10 years after starting his veteran hospice work. In the early 1990s with significant heart problems, he wanted to die. Moody persuaded him that he was needed and Brinkley consented to his heart operation. He had his second NDE when he almost died during the operation. And secondly, lying, deceit and the desire for fame and money don't fit the other part: very focused, on-going volunteer help for veterans which Brinkley says is motivated directly by the life reviews of his two NDEs, in particular the sniper kills he says he did. You wouldn't expect to see that consistency of volunteer work over 25 years if this is just a story about deceit. So we need to be extra careful in our portrayal of his story: I don't think the answer is clear cut either way. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Lievegoed

Thanks for the reflist! Drmies (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

American Express article

why do you continue to undo what i have put up there? If this is to be a site that allows for true information, why are you constantly erasing a fact? i have done what has been asked of me, not only do you earse it but then you block me... you block me even when i do what you ask of me. why is it the little guy doesn't get to have his voice heard?

DiNello DPS

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for personal information, not a soap box for personal gripes, not a blog for commentary, and not a repository of indiscriminate information. Your "true information" may be true indeed, but does not belong in Wikipedia. I didn't block you personally but I support that you have been blocked because your editing has been disruptive. On the other hand, if you would like to make constructive edits to WP, that would be great! --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That is my point... i agree i was a soap box, which in turn i was told to write more like an encyclopedia. I believe that what i did next was more like that. If you are not the one who blocked me, how may i correspond with those who made that decision? I do not believe that what i'm writing hinders wikipedia in any way what so ever. in fact, if this becomes as big as it may, wikipedia could become a source for truth beyond the watered down "truth" we get through every other media outlet. it's people who make unilateral decisions, such as yourself who present a version of truth, and that version is usually the one the "haves" want everyone to see. I truly thought wikipedia was a place where the truth could be expressed, i am finding an unpopular truth is put away. what is more, i have edited in wikipedia before... i can't believe you all fear the giant, if that is your motivation, or maybe the giant has a part to play in this saga that no one has let me know about. Or maybe you all are blind and are happy to let the giant stay in control and the little guy get nothing though it is his due!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.37.85 (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The person who blocked you and the reasons are given your IP address user talk page at User talk:24.127.87.194. I would say that it's not the style of writing but what you are writing about that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. When an editor continues to put a personal gripe in Wikipedia, it is taken to be WP:Vandalism and is WP:Reverted. If you find that a number of other editors are saying the same thing but then you still persist, it is taken as disruptive or WP:tendentious editing and you will be blocked from editing. The only way to get some of your point made is to find reliable sources that make a similar point about AmEx and put that in. An editor's personal opinions are just not acceptable for WP. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not, Epadmirateur? You seem to brandish your personal opinion on a regular basis while deciding what or what isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. This is sad. *You* are one of the reasons I tell my students to avoid wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.125.170 (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Howard Storm

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Howard Storm. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Storm. 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) 01:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

COI tag at Shadi Bartsch

Hello EPadmirateur. I just put semiprotection on this article, and while doing so, I noticed it is still tagged for COI. It appears that the subject may have created the article in December 2008, but does not seem to have edited since that time. In your opinion, is a COI tag still required, or has the article been checked out sufficiently that the tag could be removed? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, EdJohnston! I reviewed the article again and its history and it was considerably cleaned up in January. I think the COI issues have been taken care of, so I removed the COI tag. Thanks for your help on this. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect

Hi. This article is currently redirected, see [3], but I really don't see a problem with it. I wonder if you could take a look at it please and restore it if you see fit. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Linn Ullmann

Hello. I work for Linn Ullmann's publishing house, and I wonder why our english page keeps getting deleted? Marte Nøklegård Dahl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktober1 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles about books

Hi. I wonder if you could look at what has happened recently to some book articles please. Life After Life is a best seller which sold 13 million copies yet it has been tagged for notability. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation has again been over-tagged and some useful edits have been undone. Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect has again been deleted by re-direct. Thanks for any help you would care to offer. Johnfos (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for all the good work you have been doing in the areas of reincarnation research and near-death experiences. Johnfos (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mt. Barker Waldorf School Motto

G'day. Undid your revert at Mount_Barker_Waldorf_School. What you're putting back there seems to be a quote (presumably from someone involved at the school), not a motto. A motto, is usually a phrase or a collection of words, not a lengthy explanation of the school's mission. There's no other school (as far as I've seen) which uses a lengthy quote as a motto, so it's inconsistent. If it is the motto of the school, then I'll ask for the reference which explains that.

That being said, it seems like a good quote. If you can find the reference for it, it could be used to bolster up the content of the article? Is this a good compromise that allows you to keep the content that you want? -Danjel (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are right [4]. This is a quote from a book, not the school's motto. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RS article

The user concerned has been blocked for a day, I see. We should work toward a resolution. hgilbert (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you have a look at the situation? hgilbert (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please help again. An editor reverted my rollback because this is reserved for vandalism (which I wasn't aware of) but it would be better if someone else restored the last good version. hgilbert (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The talk page was so overloaded I missed your request for a citation, and no longer know exactly what it refers to. I've provided a direct weblink to the Google Books text for the relevant page in one case; as the passage is rather extensive, I didn't try to quote it inline. If this wasn't the right reference, please let me know what else you need. hgilbert (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking at the exact wording for Ref #6, p. 291 (Robert A. McDermott, "Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy", in Faivre and Needleman, Modern Esoteric Spirituality, ISBN 0-8245-1444-0, p. 288ff). This was not for my benefit but Masteryorlando's. Since Mastery has left the discussion, the point is moot. It's good that you added a link to p. 32 of the other reference -- that helps make the case that the reference is well researched. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner dispute

There has been a complaint about this article at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result: ). Let me know if you have any suggestions for what admins should do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry about that! Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Reincarnation research

Wonder what you think of this edit: [5] -- Johnfos (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Johnfos, I don't think it is justified but I can only scan Roach's book at Google books/Amazon: I don't think the statement that there is no scientific evidence is supported by Roach at pp. 28-30. And I don't see it anywhere else in the book. She doesn't use the term pseudoscience.

A better statement would the one from the reception section: "Deducing from this research the conclusion that reincarnation is a proven fact has been listed as an example of pseudoscience by skeptics." referencing Kurtz. So I think the edit should be reverted and the link to Kurtz added in the lead. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help... Johnfos (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Sorry to barge in like this but I'm trying to get Antrhoposophical Medicine out of the list of pseudoscience topics. I don't have much experience with AM, except as a patient. As a researcher (I hold a PhD in biology) it is clear to me that AM uses the scientific method to publish results such those on Cancer treatment wit Mistletoe, but I am not experienced in debates with wikipedia editors. Your contributions to the AM page make me think you could also contribute to Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience Asinthior (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Asinthior, the consensus among numerous editors is that if these topics have ever been characterized as "pseudoscience" in reliable sources then they can be included in this list. The entry needs to include the reliable source making this attribution. No arguments to the contrary such as what you are proposing may be used and would be original research in any case. However, if a reliable source were to come out with an explicit statement that AM is not pseudoscience, then that might be used. I suggest that your line of reasoning will not get very far in this article. However the information you have compiled may be useful to add to the Anthroposophical medicine article. Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had the feeling it was a lost cause, but I had no idea how much of a lost cause. It seems unfair to lump together topics that have no scientific foundations and topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience by someone at some point, but I hear that's already been agreed. Also, I don't seem to agree on the concept of what should be considered a reliable source... Anyway, now it's more clear to me how AM ended up in that list. Asinthior (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Me again. I'm not an experienced contributor to Wikipedia, so I went on to read WP:OR and I don't get how my argument would be considered original research. I'm just asking because I want to learn how things are done around here. Asinthior (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Asinthior, the basic idea of WP:OR is to include facts, ideas, etc. that are the result of "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". In other words, the material is put together by an editor to make a case which is not present in any of the sources. The main point you were making here could be taken as original research. On the other hand, in this particular article references must be given that show that the subject has been characterized as pseudoscience and, by WP:NPOV, counter evidence should also be allowed, as Hgilbert is currently arguing. The ideal would be to show that AM is not pseudoscience by quoting a WP:RS that says it isn't or makes the case that it isn't. Short of that, a brief case might be made that there are studies in mainstream medical literature dealing with AM (list of references), there are university positions devoted to AM (list of references), etc. -- as Hgilbert is now doing. This might be acceptable. However, these references need to hold up under skeptical scrutiny.

The reason there is such sensitivity about AM and other alternative/complementary medical practices is that people use Wikipedia as a personal reference for medical information for self-care and there needs to be extra caution taken that dubious medical practices are not promoted inadvertently. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to interject a comment here. I'll take my starting point in this phrase from above: "...to show that AM is not pseudoscience..." As far as the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, the question of whether something "is" or "is not" pseudoscience is completely irrelevant. We stay away from that except in exceptionally clear cases per the Psi ArbCom, quoted at the top of the List's talk page. OTOH, whether a subject "is" or "is not" pseudoscience might well be relevant for the subject's own article, and in some cases for the pseudoscience article itself, where, IIRC, a few examples are used for illustrative purposes. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice of you to stop by. Sorry but I could not follow. I didn't get any of your abbreviations: Psi ArbCom, OTOH and IIRC. Apparently I don't speak "wikipedian". That, or I'm just really slow. Would you mind translating? Asinthior (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OTOH = on the other hand; IIRC = if I remember correctly. The Psi ArbCom was the arbitration committee on (I believe) paranormal and psychic articles (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal). The ArbCom's arbitrate disputes among editors, settle issues and set policies. Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Sorry about the abbreviations. The ArbCom was this one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The results are summarized at the top of Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you mean, and after reading all "the rules" about how to write articles... I don't know. It doesn't feel right. It argues against making a logic argument. You can put the first premise if it comes from a reliable source, you can put the second premise if it also comes from a reliable source. But drawing a conclusion from those premises, God forbid! But I can see how that would fall under original research, 'cause that's what I do as a researcher. I thought the "No original research" was meant to avoid self-promotion. Clearly I was wrong.

Anyway, I anonymously quoted you on NPOV at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. I didn't give your name as to not to drag you into the debate. I hope you don't mind. If you do, just erase it.Asinthior (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Asinthior, as a researcher you are frustrated, and I can understand that frustration! Original research is what you do, and it's good you do it. Many of us find this frustrating because in real life it's perfectly legitimate to do that. Wikipedia just happens to be a place where we can't do it. We have to let RS do the synthesizing, and then report what they say. In that sense, Wikipedia's job is to always stay "behind the curve". We always follow and document facts and opinions in the real world. We never precede it or anticipate them. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

You restored some poor sourcing to the WP:BLP article William_A._Tiller. I suggest you do not restore material based on poor sources. If you disagree that a source is a unreliable take the issue to WP:RSN, they will tell you the same thing I have. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Reincarnation research

Hi. There has been a large addition to this page which I don't think belongs there. Discussion on the Talk page has left the matter unresolved. Would be grateful if you could take a look please... Johnfos (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Waldorf education

You might want to have a look at the latest addition. Blogs are not usually reputable sources. hgilbert (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I accidentally reverted to the wrong version, and cannot revert again without exceeding my 3RR limit. Can you have a look again? hgilbert (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Reincarnation research

Hi. There has been a lot of Talk page discussion here. Would be most grateful if you could look in please and offer a comment or two. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Waldorf redux

What about Waldorf education#Criticism of Studies? Seems a bit more assertion than grounded... hgilbert (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Lancaster Steiner School

Hey, I noticed you undid my redirect of this article which had been sitting unreferenced for over three years. If you think it is worth keeping, can you find some sources and add them? I don't think it is viable as it stood, which is why I redirected it. I've restored the redirect meantime. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted, then why not follow the normal process and nominate it for deletion, rather than deciding just by yourself that it should be deleted without any discussion? You can then present your case and allow other editors to argue whether to keep the article and also to improve the article. You say it is unreferenced, so perhaps that can be fixed. Are there other reasons to delete it? --EPadmirateur (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You can safely assume I looked for other sources and there aren't any obvious ones that I can see. I don't just say it is unreferenced, it is unreferenced. If it cannot be referenced, it doesn't belong here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than unilaterally deleting articles, please follow the normal process. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than reverting my policy-compliant edits, and wasting both our time with nonsense arguments, please add some sources that establish the subject's notability. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit reversion for Rudolf Steiner

I notice you have reverted an edit I made to this article today on the grounds that "using quotes from Steiner is not permitted per Arb Cmte" and that my edit constituted OR. Looking at the arbitration outcome I cannot see any prohibitions on including quotation from Steiner — and indeed the article as it stands does just this a number of times. I also do not see what OR is present, as the Steiner quotation is presented fairly directly without a layer of editorial interpretation. What am I missing? — I would be grateful if you could provide a fuller explanation of your revert. Alexbrn 17:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I was also going to ask about the quote thing. a13ean (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Remedies section, the explicit point is

Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications.

When this was discussed with User:Fred_Bauder it was clarified that all quotations from Rudolf Steiner lectures and books should be omitted. The rationale was stated in the Findings of Fact:

Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles contain large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement.

--EPadmirateur (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I consulted the arbitration page before editing, which is why I am surprised by your revert. It now appears from your reply that your stated reason for the revert ("using quotes from Steiner is not permitted per Arb Cmte") is a misrepresentation of the arbitration outcome. As to your second reason, that my edit was OR – you have not directly answered. My edit did not, I believe, constitute OR; it was a fairly bald, terse and verifiable statement of fact, of the form "Steiner stated X; these are the words he used (quote)" - sourced directly from a published lecture of his, and without editorial interpretation. This is different to the "large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources" which worried the arbitration panel. Do you still maintain your revert was justified? Alexbrn 22:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the revert was justified. If you want to make the point about gnomes, what's needed is a reliable secondary source that says that. That would be completely acceptable. There are plenty of secondary sources published in non-Anthroposophy related publications about what Steiner thought. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am addressing this issue on the article talk page, as it concerns the article more than the users. hgilbert (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification about reliable sources for Waldorf education

I am requesting clarification of the arbitration ruling on reliable sources at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. You may want to add any thoughts on the subject there. hgilbert (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion has been passed regarding an Arbitration clarification request which named you as a party. Please view the wording of the motion, feel free to discuss the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for help with expanding Robert Zimmer article

Hi! I've noticed that you have done a lot of the editing on the Robert Zimmer article. I am trying to expand this article from a stub to a fully fledged article, and would appreciate your assistance. I have a conflict of interest in editing this article as I am an employee of the University of Chicago. In cooperation with some other employees, I have created a draft of an expanded Robert Zimmer article and attempted to make it neutral and well-sourced. I'd appreciate any assistance you could offer in implementing as much of this expanded draft as possible.

FYI- I am also going to reach out to Ckhenderson to ask for assistance on the mathematical section in particular. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns! Fallentomato (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Fallentomato! I saw your request but I haven't had the time to look it over in detail. On the surface, your draft looks great but I think WP editors might object to the tone, which is more like a PR piece than a factual encyclopedic article. A lot of the content is written in the present tense or present perfect.For example,

Zimmer's presidency to date has been marked principally by his pushing for major academic initiatives at Chicago.[4] This includes increased financial aid for students...

might be better worded in the past tense:

As president, Zimmer pushed for major academic initiatives at Chicago,[4] including increased financial aid for students...

BTW, I couldn't find reference [4] with the link you gave. You should check that all the web-based links work, maybe using archive.org like here to recover them. In any case, reference [4] was an event in the past (2007) and can be reported in the past tense, even though Zimmer is still president.

One other suggestion: use {{reflist|2}}. Maybe you could revise your draft with some of these ideas. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I went through the draft to make the tense more consistent and fixed that broken reference (I noticed the reference is broken in the actual Robert Zimmer article as well, so I can fix that). Thanks for the reflist suggestion too, I was trying to figure out how to do that, but didn't know what to look for. Fallentomato (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help refining the Robert Zimmer article! Fallentomato (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)