User talk:TimidGuy: Difference between revisions

Warnborough College

Hey, I was interested to see your recent edit to Warnborough College. You removed the word "prestigious" and, in your edit summary, wrote "more neutral wording". Do you honestly feel that calling Oxford University prestigious violates WP:POV? I would say it's a controversial statement. Surely the whole essence of Warnborough College's existence was to trade on Oxford's prestige? Shouldn't the article should make that clear? I'd be interested in your thoughts. Happy editing, Lincolnite (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It is indeed a value judgement but one that would, I hope you'll agree, be the consensus of the vast majority of readers and Wikipedia editors. What's more, it was the most fundamental element of Warnborough College's business model, it would seem. And therefore I'd argue it's worthy of inclusion. Don't you think? — Lincolnite (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Hi, you flagged me for vandalism, but when i made my post on Deepak Chopra's page, i was simply quoting Futurama professor Hubert Farnsworth, when he explains:

"As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason. Also eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war, who's the real animal?"

if i post a link to the video in which he says this online, will it be acceptable?

Altamira

Hi there... I have been making some research: Apparently the issue is due to the fact that the World Heritage Site was listed as "Altamira Cave" by UNESCO; but this name has been changed to "Cave of Altamira", in "Cave of Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain", which is the full name of the property after having been recently extended.

While English grammar would make both equivalent names possible, the original Spanish name is just "Cueva de Altamira" (with no possible alternate forms). This could be an explanation for this sudden adoption of an English name that is the most similar option... Ignis Fatuus (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cohabitation

Thank you for the fix on Neandertal. (I should have thought of it myself...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

H.N.

Hi. it is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neanderthal

r. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility and link

Hi TG. I am asking for comments on the Civ talk page, but for some reason the template is not linking back to the RFC page. I'm missing something obviously, but after several attempts still can't see what that is . Would you mind, if you have time, taking a look to see if you can see where the problem is. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

I did it last night. That seems time enough. I may have made a mistake somewhere, though. Well I guess I could just give it more time if it looks OK to you. Thanks for looking .(olive (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Dreadstar looked at it, and may have found the problem. Lets see if that works. Thanks TG.(olive (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Maharishi article

Hi TG. Thanks for your kind welcome. I read this talk page and see you've been suitably scorched in your time. I'll put some remarks on the Maharishi article talk page to see what people think. I hope I've got my account working now, but if not I'm Ber. Ber (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Re "we can figure out something that's compatible with the guidelines", thanks. I think I can see a framework for the new material; will put a subpage on the Maharishi subpage so drafts can go there. Ber (talk)

RFC Bates method article

I am contacting you quite randomly. For the following reason. The reason is the Bates method article, which in my opinion is edited by parties who are far from objective. Most logical associated party ophthalmology or a group focussed on just being skeptic. I am hoping for your comment on some current essential and interesting issues. Issues in which presenting objective strong arguments are completely neglected and ignored. If you have time and are willing to share you opinion and arguments, please do. My goal is to come to some kind of decision tool. By clearly stating if an argument is valid or not by the objective editor. My request is also to give a weight-factor for example between 1 and 10. For exmple1 for a valid argument but not very important and 10 for a very important argument. And zero for a fake-argument. Please feel free to comment and look at the current three RFC. Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 on the talkpage of the Bates method article. Seeyou (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Maharishi Vedic Medicine. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:204.82.28.211‎

Hi, I noticed that User:204.82.28.211 has vandalized a previous vandalism warning on his own talk page. I can't revert it due to conflicts; but in any case, what is the policy with this sort of "self-vandalism"? Thanks.—Tetracube (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maharishi Vedic Science

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Maharishi Vedic Science, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Conflict of Interest

You are in blatant violation of WP:COI with respect to the TM article. This is not the first time you have been warned about this. There are consequences to ignoring this policy. Do not remove the COI tag from the article

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently. In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

Fladrif (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello TimidGuy. You've been mentioned at WP:COIN#Article: Transcendental Meditation, Users TimidGuy and Littleolive oil. You are welcome to join that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TimidGuy, I don't see any response from you on the the noticeboard. I'd like to hear your side of this.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard you may have broken your arm. Ouch! I saw you'd made an edit today, so I'd assumed you were online, but I know there's a difference between a revert with a short summary and typing out a whole comment. If you can manage to type a little to let us know what your status is that'd help move things forward. Or if you're in contact with any other editors who can write on your behalf that'd also work. Get well soon!   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Yes, fractured in two places. I won't be participating in the discussion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your arm. Get well soon. Fladrif (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fladrif. Took a bad fall playing tennis. TimidGuy (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're in touch with Littleolive oil then perhaps he could speak on your behalf.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

TG

We do not perhaps always see "eye to eye" on the TM article - perhaps you are a little to close to the subject - however it will be a pity to see you leave WIKI completely and hope you reconsider. Also, I hope that the arm is healing well and quickly. Namaste The7thdr (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"“Meditation brings wisdom; lack of mediation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what hold you back, and choose the path that leads to wisdom.” Siddhattha Gotama

File:Http://www.lifedynamix.com/articles/files/LakeMeditationB.jpg

Cleaning Up References in Neanderthal Article

Hi, TimidGuy! I am a new user/editor who mainly works with California Indian group articles, but who has loved prehistory studies all my life. I just stumbled into the Neanderthal article, find it rather dis-heartening, and notice you have been one of the heroes trying to maintain neutrality with regard to the "inter-breeding" question. As a beginning contribution, I would like to tackle a rather neutral problem that would help people more quickly understand just who is being cited in the overall article. Currently it has both "Notes" and "References" but most of the references are spread through the extensive notes. I would be willing to repeat all of them down in the "References" section in standard alphabetical order by author. However, each article's reference history is supposed to be honored by new editors. What do you think? Should I expand the references by copying them from the notes? Or will I get clobbered for ignoring some ancient edit battle?Middle Fork (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say TimidGuy no longer edits Wikiepdia but is retired. He may check his email account every now and then, so you might email him, although I have no idea of he does or not. Sadly, other than that he isn't available to any of us anymore.(olive (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Welcome Back, but....

You have been directly told by multiple Admins at multiple COIN Project pages not to directly edit the TM-related pages. I doubt that you have simply forgotten those admonitions but have instead chosen to ignore them. I suggest that you follow those directions, and confine your activity on those articles to the Talk pages. Fladrif (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed. I believe Olive clearly explained to you why you are mistaken, and that Atama said that she was correct. Please see WP:HARASS. I will continue editing. I have always edited within the policies and guidelines, unlike you. No one has ever produced evidence of disruptive editing. TimidGuy (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

MUM/MVAH

We're back to discussing a topic which is very closely associate with MUM and its faculty. I'd like to know where you think the "COI" line exists in regard to MVAH. Would the VP of MAPI have a COI? Or an MVVT practitioner? If Orme-Johnson or Chopra started editing here would they have conflicts of interest? What about their friends and professional colleauges? This topic already has COI issues outside of Wikipedia, so it's a relevant matter. Now that I'm coming to understand the structure of the movement better I see that MVEDC controls the trademarks of MUM, MVAH, MAPI, TM, TM-Sidhi, etc., and that it has overlapping involvements so that one entity isn't distantly separate from another. In that respect it's not so different from many enterprises, even General Motors or the Catholic Church.   Will Beback  talk  11:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing

IIRC, back in the days before Youtube, a video clip was often played on TV, perhaps in the title sequence of a PBS nature series. It showed several small ants carrying a large leaf fragment. (Probably not Leaf cutter ants, who have leaf-carrying down to a science.) Anyway, the little ants are holding up the edges of the leaf, but they're all pulling in different directions. Despite this the they managed to make forward motion toward their goal. Each of those ants was doing his best to move the leaf in the right direction, and somehow they got there though they didn't agree exactly. That image comes to mind in good faith editing disputes. Another analogy is to the oars of a boat - you can't make forward motion by only rowing on one side. Balance is required to keep from going in circles.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lonnie Gamble and MUM alumni

Will and I have been going through the various alumni listed in the MUM article. It seems in most cases there is not a reliable source to verify their attendance at MUM, so I have temporarily removed them until good sources can be found. Interestingly, even John Gray's MUM attendance is not definitive as the sources vary between MIU and MERU. Go figure.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

TG, my comment was not limited to you, sorry if it gave that impression.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TG, you gave an extended discussion of your IP usage, much of which I assume applies to other editors of the TM articles from Fairfield since they are all using the same networks. Since LISCO provides internet access to MUM, it isn't always clear which IPs are specifically registered to MUM versus the non-fixed IPs given out to dial-up, DSL, or cable modems. In any case, I said that "Logged out edits show that some editors have used IPs registered directly to the Maharishi University of Management (MUM)." That is true. "Using the MUM network, and perhaps using MUM computers, while asserting that one has no conflict of interest regarding MUM strains credulity." Do you think that's true or not? "Is it possible to be a member of the 57-person faculty of MUM and be neutral about it, its research, or its cause?" I know that you believe it is possible, even though you've deleted well-soured negative material and added poorly sourced positive material. It's hard to believe that the nine editors from Fairfield, at least a few of whom are on the faculty of MUM, do not know each other in real life, and it's apparent that there is off-Wiki communication related to the project. If I'm wrong please say so.   Will Beback  talk  10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to fix any errors, and I'm sorry that I don't see the error here. My recollection is that many, though not all, of the Fairfield TM editors have denied having a conflict of interest and/or have claimed to be neutral. Do you consider yourself neutral? If so then the message I wrote seems to apply. I recall you saying that there were no neutral editors on the topic, but I assume you were excepting yourself. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the salutation to "@TimidGuy and others", because parts of it apply to other editors as well. But the whole message is in response to your posting about IP addresses and the general issues concerning all of the editors. I think some of this miscommunication may come from the unusual format of these RfARs, in which everybody only editors their own little sections. It's not really designed for a discussion.   Will Beback  talk  11:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Limits on MEDRS

Hi TimidGuy,

I was looking over the ArbCom case, and wanted to tell you that MEDRS doesn't really apply to every single sentence in a medicine-related article. It depends on the subject of the sentence.

For example, Wikipedia prefers high-quality legal sources, rather than scientific sources, whenever an article discusses legal issues, and we want WP:BLP-compliant sources whenever it discusses a living person. A reputable newspaper article is just fine for discussing 'who said what when' -- including statements like "This person said it's a bunch of nonsense". However, a newspaper may not be the best source for scientific facts and figures, such as "People doing TM were twice as likely to report this outcome".

Consequently, your complaint that other editors didn't always follow MEDRS' sourcing standards may be dismissed as unimportant: the specific statements in question may not have been subject to MEDRS. I hope this helps clarify the situation, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Whatamidoing for your feedback. I guess my feeling is that if someone holds the hypothesis that research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals is nonsense, that person should himself support the hypothesis and publish the evidence in a peer-reviwed journal. Parity of sources may be relevant here. TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the details. Certainly, as a general rule, you don't want to use primary sources to debunk secondary ones. However, I've seen editors argue successfully that whatever Oprah said on her television show is WP:DUE for inclusion. That's not only a primary source, but also a self-published one, and by a non-expert, in most cases. You also don't want to present a low-quality or outdated secondary source as being the unquestioned Truth™ if multiple high-quality primary sources directly criticize it.

Additionally, the lead is a complicated place, because you're trying to give a simplified summary that catches the overall flavor without explaining any of the complexities. If mainstream opinion is that TM is a bunch of unscientific nonsense with uncontrolled studies or overblown claims or faked data (or whatever), then the lead must communicate that. I'd say "crackpot", despite being insulting, accurately sums up the mainstream scientific view of the health effects of TM: the mainstream is, in fact, openly scornful of nearly all claims for health benefits from TM. While I don't think that the "crackpot" quotation is required (permitted, yes; required, no), the lead must effectively communicate the mainstream perspective.

I've got to run -- good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to the TM case

I've started a new section for you as you can't put your proposals in someone else's section. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. All new to me. I tried to figure it out and couldn't quite see how to do it. Really appreciate your help. TimidGuy (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

TM arbitration

Please reduce the size of your section on the evidence page. Sections are limited to 1000 words in total and this requirement is stated twice on the arbitration page. Many Thanks Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Trademarks

"...except where any other usage would be awkward." Changing every instance of "TM" to "the Transcendental Meditation technique" strikes me as awkward. I notice you didn't use any other variation and instead always used the officially approved version. The evidence I added accurately depicts the edits by you and Olive, both of which brought the TM article closer to the MUM style guide and further from common usage.   Will Beback  talk  16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. There's no question that Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures are open to interpretation- that's axiomatic. I'll double-check my comments, but I'm short on time until next week. Should I just strike out the whole thing until then?   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions

TG, there are two issues at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop#Allegations of sockpuppetry and review of parties to this case which concern you that you should be able to answer. One concerns why you didn't identify yourself while editing as 76.76, despite my repeated requests. The other concerns your alternate account which you say was blocked. I'm sure you can clarify these issues with your responses. Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the workshop proposals are just suggestions for the ArbCom. I'll check on that issues and see if I can improve my proposals.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

RFARB Workshop page

TimidGuy in case you missed this post from the Workshop talk page I am posting it here. I believe it indicates it is helpful for the Committee to have direct links on the Workshop page that lead to relevant evidence that has been presented on the Evidence Page. I hope this is useful.

• It would be very helpful if those proposing findings of fact would provide diffs and/or direct links to evidence supporting those findings of fact. Those diffs and/or evidence should appear on the evidence page in a broader context; if they aren't, then I would hope to see an explanation for that absence posted by the proposer of the finding of fact. Risker (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vedic meditation

The article Vedic meditation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as an unsourced orphan since 2006.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Excuse the boilerplate warning. The article seems to be unredeemable, and it must be among the oldest pages with those tags. Any objection to deleting it?   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs

Thanks for your note. I found the correct diff and fixed it.   Will Beback  talk  15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Gee, maybe I should asked you to prepare that evidence in the first place. ;)   Will Beback  talk  17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"My preference would be to remove the Maharishi Effect from Wikipedia altogether." Why would you wish that? The movement seems to put considerable effort into creating the ME, and promotes its benefits extensively.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you write: " Will vigorously argued for their removal." If I recall correctly, I argued vigorously to condense the lengthy material added by Luke, but not its outright removal. Are there diffs?   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

In reply to your question about duplicating material, if I recall correctly editors on both "sides" have done so and if you want to support your assertion of being a neutral editor it might be wise to avoid focusing only on the transgressions of some editors. That said, I can't think of a particular policy or guideline barring or discouraging duplication, though it seems like common sense. WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT don't address it directly though they do deal with related issues. If this is in regard to TM & TM-Sidhi, some duplication is probably inevitable since the topics overlap so much, but it should be kept to a minimum.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't kept track of this issue, and after all that work on the ArbCom case my enthusiasm for searching through archives is low. But if you find the guideline you can post it somewhere central where everyone will see it. As for the archive bot, I don't know of any special template to prevent archiving. Just keep posting an occasional message. If it still gets archived prematurely just move it back.   Will Beback  talk  11:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't move a discussion from a month ago, but if it's just been archived then there's no harm in moving it back.

I don't recall the conversation about Google Scholar. However I don't believe it's a complete reference, but Google keeps improving its products so previous views may no longer be accurate.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouting is almost never appropriate

...except when one intends to shout. Fladrif (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Those who..."

• But the problem is that those who oppose TM have done this very thing in dozens of instances in the article, yet for some reason that's allowed.

Do you think it's really wise for us to make general comments about editors on article talk pages with characterizations like this? Kbob just posted a request that editors comment on the content and not the contributors.[1] While we all necessarily discussed each other's behavior in the ArbCom case, that's a very different venue. We should leave our outside affiliations at the doorstep and try to regard ourselves and each other only as Wikipedia editors.   Will Beback  talk  17:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. The point that I was trying to make is that there are many similar instances of undue weight in the article that need to be addressed. TimidGuy (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Best to make that point without pointing at a purported faction, lest you open yourself to similar accusations. I'd dispute your basic point, but we can discuss that elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also say something to Fladrif. It seems like this was a bit over the top: "pushing the POV of your employer. If you think that pushing this now, just before ArbCom acts, is a good idea, you've got another think coming.'" TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

re: A question

Hello, TimidGuy. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 07:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Broken link

Rather than start a whole fresh thread on the article talk page, I'll just post this here. You added a link as a citation,[2] but it doesn't take me to any specifci source. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22science+of+creative+intelligence%22 Also, "however" is no longer listed at WP:WTA.[3]   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Thanks, Dmitri. I really appreciate the time and attention that the Arbitration Committee gave to this case. The editing environment in these articles is now much improved. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Balancing points

I'm guessing that you're busy elsewhere. If not, I just wanted to remind you that you hadn't responded to my question about your edit summary that said "add balancing point per NPOV". By my reading, NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view according to their prominence, but it does not mandate or even mention including "balancing points", nor does it require that all POV be "balanced" with equal amounts of the opposite POV. For example, the article on the geology of the Moon does not include balancing points from the "made of cheese" POV. Anyway, if you have an opportunity I'd be interested to hear from you on this. Otherwise, I hope not to hear about it again.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

This is just a friendly reminder that COI applies to you when you are working on the MUM article. Adding poorly sourced material which is favorable to the university is an example of a POV problem, which is why the WP:COI guideline suggests that people in your position refrains from editing the article directly. If I see further POV edits to the article I'll have to ask that you receive a formal warning, per the ArbCom's decision. There are millions of other articles on Wikipedia - it's not necessary for you to edit the MUM article.   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies - I had mis-remembered and thought you had added the journal material. I see you haven't edited the article in a long time, which is appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Will. No problem. But I don't think it's appropriate for you to suggest I shouldn't edit the MUM article. Please don't ever again try to constrain which articles I edit. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who would be constraining you. That would be the policies and guidelines, including those reiterated in the recently closed ArbCom case.[4] I'm just reminding you, perhaps unnecessarily as it turns out, that they are still in force. Of course we all have to follow NPOV, V, etc, whether or not we have a conflict of interest. It's just naturally harder when we do which is why there's a special guideline about it. Given the ArbCom case, MUM faculty and other highly involved members of the TM movement need to pay close attention to the policies, especially when there's an issue of adding or keeping positive material, or deleting or arguing against negative material. Accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative is inimical to good editing. Wikipedia article should be in-between. (Sorry Johnny Mercer). Do we agree on that?   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that says that I shouldn't edit any particular article. The Arbcom decision didn't say that I should refrain from editing any articles. It said just the opposite: "For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies." It says that I should take care to follow policy. In fact, I always have. I couldn't agree with you more that it's important to follow the policies and guidelines. I just wish that you would adhere to them more closely. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Contributing to the TM article

I am the anon that made recent contributions to the TM talk page. Thank you for your invitation to pursue my contribution directly in the TM article. However, I don't see what can be accomplished without opposing directly two or three editors of this article who have brought into it their own POV by misusing published materials. Direct fight (i.e. edition without consensus) is not my way and there would be no other way to remove all their personal POVs because there is no way to reason with them. Even if we were a majority of neutral editors, I would not like it. 67.230.155.152 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was imagining that you might draft something and then post it on the Talk page for discussion. Since the lead is obviously in violation of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, I think we can get consensus to change it. I really appreciate having a fresh pair of eyes looking at the article. You are focusing on some key shortcomings in terms of compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this last one from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmh649:

I think one could say that independent studies have NOT found specific physiological changes [due to TM] compared to relaxation.

This is from a physician! He must know how to read review papers. He simply did not read them carefully, did not trust in good faith that the authors were neutral because their conclusion was positive and perhaps he has some conflicting interests (fundings, personal business, etc.) and beliefs. The explanation is not so important. I can see by looking at the history of the article and its talk page that this is a recurring pattern. This recurring pattern is why I did not believe that we would get a consensus. BTW, I felt that your paragraph was good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.154.243 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel that my paragraph is good. Please participate in the discussion. We'll focus on Will's suggestions. I think we can get consensus. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The last one from Will Beback

Here he goes

I don't care where in the intro we mention the fees controversy, but we should include it because it's one of the more prominent controversies about the technique. Which we all know because we've discussed this already - remember?

He does not realize that he just admitted that his goal in mentioning the fee was to raise the controversy. He is so attach to his purpose of raising scepticism that he don't get that the role of an editor is only to present POV that are verifiable, noteworthy, etc., not to push our own agenda by mentioning an info that supports it indirectly in an insidious way. He would need to have a citation from a notable source where this controversy is presented, not only the price. Then we would have to agree on the prominence that we can give to this POV. I totally disagree that it deserves to appear in the first paragraph. I am not sure that it even deserves to be in the Intro at all. Of course, many people would like TM to be cheaper. This is not the criteria. The criteria is the prominence that this POV has outside wikipedia amongst the verifiable sources. I don't think that this obvious fact that many people would like TM to be cheaper has received much attention in the media. Moreover, when it appears, the pro-TM view, which is that today every thing that is useful is expensive, is also presented. If it is done right, perhaps a paragraph at the end of the Intro on this subject could be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.25 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right. I've made a similar point in the past -- that if it's a major controversy, it should be possible to find media reports that focus on this controversy. I've never seen more than a passing comment about the price. To be this prominent in the article, it should have been an ongoing, major controversy, but there's no evidence of that. TimidGuy (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you give up?

I would understand if you decided to give up. It is not easy when you have some editors that rely on a few reviews that were prepared for non typical publishers, such as gvmnt agencies and organizations that are strongly involved in influencing healthcare practices, to conclude that all the studies that have shown the benefits of TM are not reliable, including many meta-analyses that have been published in standard peer-reviewed journals. In other words, they believe that the normal scientific process is biased, but somehow these governmental agencies and special organisations are the only organizations that can bring light in this darkness. Oh well! They believe it so much that they argue that, in accordance to NPOV, we must not present anything else than these special reviews in the Introduction. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Edit. No, I didn't give up. Unlike editors who spend many hours a day in Wikipedia, I only have an hour or so every morning before 6:30 am. TimidGuy (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning the recent MUM-related sourcing issue. [5]   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation: TM lead

I will ask for formal mediation for Lead (research content): Transcedental Meditation in the next few days. Would you like to be included as an involved user. I’ll check back on your user page for an answer. Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. Does my ban extend to this? TimidGuy (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know TG... I would think not since its not a TM related article. (olive (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

I am not sure either, but I would think Olive is right. In any case, I see that the three of us are not so sure about the rules. I think I will contact User:JamesBWatson. He listed himself as someone willing to help here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance. He is a mathematician. Also, should we appeal to the last decision using Template:Arbitration_enforcement_appeal before we move ahead with a mediation? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning the recent edit warring. [6] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that under the discretionary sanctions rule I have imposed the sanctions I drafted earler at the AE noticeboard [7]. You are therefore topic-banned from all edits relating to TM topics for two months. In addition, you will be bound to a collective 1RR/24hrs revert limitation together with Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) and Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You take it so easy ... Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Take it as it comes. ;-) TimidGuy (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

TG, I have included your name in a formal request for mediation.[8]. If you would like to be part of this process then you may agree on the project page. (olive (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC))

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Lead: Transcendental Meditation, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

AN/I notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which your name was discussed specifically in regard to the behavior of User:Doc James The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility / harassment by User:7mike50007mike5000 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee

[9] Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification

A request for clarification [10] has been filed per [11] Although it may not affect you directly, your name has been mentioned or referenced.(olive (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC))

RFARB

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Springer Science+Business Media

Thanks for your note. You're correct that "Spinger" is a misspelling. In the old days, Wikipedia had a simple search engine that couldn't handle misspellings. So folks would create redirects to handle likely errors. This appears to be one of them. Springer has many subsidiaries, and the article has many redirects. The correctly and incorrectly spelled ones are listed here: [12]. I think what you're looking for has already been created.   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor input requested

In trying to get a sense of where editors stand on the TM article split merge situation It would help to have a definitve statement from each editor. This is not as I see it, to determine a change but to determine whether we can agree on this important issue and if we can't to get outside help. Input here: [13](olive (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Citation tools

Wikipedia:Citation tools. Have at it. Let me know if I can help further.   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Also: WP:CITE.   Will Beback  talk  11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Peremptory deletion

• Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.

You deleted this cited sentence from Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health without any comment in the edit summary.

• A 1991 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal says the "company will not disclose the product's exact composition".

I'm sure this was an "innocent error". Please be more attentive.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC regarding Transcendental meditation

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Integrative Cardiology

Your input would be helpful in this thread, which concerns your editing: Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique#Integrative Cardiology.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc regarding a renaming of Transcendental Meditation movement to Transcendental Meditation

See Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Rfc:_Should_the_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_article_be_renamed Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I will be requesting formal mediation. Please let me know if you wish to be included or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thank you.(olive (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Tendatious

Not a silly thing at all. And not a mistake on my part. I am deliberately using "tendatious" (sometimes I'll spell it "tendacious") rather than "tendentious" - a portmanteau word combining tenacious and tendentious all rolled up into one. Thanks anyway. Fladrif (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Didn't realize you were intentionally using your own coin. I went ahead and changed it at AE, since Rumiton used "tendentious." TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that and making the change. I did not intend to change Rumiton's comment, but only to quote it, as opposed to when I'm using a portmanteau of my own invention. Fladrif (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Very sinsnickety yours (portmanteau of sincerely and persnickety), : ) TimidGuy (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion #5 in the TM article

There is a discussion about the interpretation of suggestion #5 in the TM article. Your input would be appreciated. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Medical articles on Wikipedia must be cited by the best available evidence and written in a consistent format. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. Additionally, the diberri tool will aid in the formatting of references; all one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please format the references you add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've italicized the journal names. Anything else need to be fixed? I'm gradually becoming familiar with the template, and hope to soon use that for all of my citations. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Implemented the cite template for the refs I added recently. Thanks for the encouragement. But one thing I don't understand is whether to give the page range for the whole article or to just give the page number for the material that's cited. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Warnborough College

Your comments here would be appreciated. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A question

I asked a question that you might be able to answer, at Talk:Transcendental Meditation research#Meta-analysis of over 100 studies.   Will Beback  talk  18:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Going... Going...   Will Beback  talk  11:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for agreeing to participate in mediation in the past. We don't seem to be able to resolve this "bone of contention" on our own. I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks. (olive (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Confused

I'm confused why you'd add a report on TM research published in the popular media to one article,[14] then in your next edit, a mere four minutes later, remove reference to views of TM research published in the popular media from another article.[15] Do you think we should include discussions of TM research that have appeared in popular media or not?   Will Beback  talk  12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using popular media as sources for discussion of research. I added the NY Times because there was already material from The Guardian. It seems important to adhere to WP:NPOV -- there are multiple points of view on the topic in the popular media. My preference, of course, would be to delete both. Feel free to reinstate the topic sentence I removed. But it seems odd, since there is now no information on research quality sourced to popular media. TimidGuy (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV would seem to require including the popularly expressed view of TM research. Do you think MEDRS overrides that core policy?   Will Beback  talk  14:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the policy or interpretation of policy, it should be applied consistently throughout the entire range of articles. For me that is the most important point.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello. You made a comment on this thread and I want to be sure that I understood correctly:

• Are you saying that this source should be eliminated per WP:SPS?
• It is another questionable source at the same article: [16]. Is it unreliable too? Please express your opinion on the wp:rs/n thread (Iaaasi (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC))

I'm generally too busy to be on Wikipedia other than very early in the morning. Will respond then. TimidGuy (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Franklin coverup hoax

Hello, you seem to be a regular at WP:RSN . I would appreciate your opinion on the reliability of the Bryant source in the following discussion: [17] Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some TM research article that may be of interest to you

Hello Timid Guy, I know you have a strong interest in TM Research especially its relation to Science. Nova Religio has just published two articles on the role of Science in TM movement. I do not know whether you have access to these article but if you do not shoot me an Email with an Email address and I will forward them to you.

They are

• Roping Outsiders In Kathinka Frøystad; Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May 2011), pp. 77-98
• Transcendental Meditation, Vedic Science and Science Scott Lowe; Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May 2011), pp. 54-76

I would be more active in the TM topic area but Eastern religions have always been one of my weaknesses. Hope these sources are helpful. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 16:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for the sources and for taking the time to pass them along. TimidGuy (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis at RSN

Hi! I just wanted to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for your careful analysis and corresponding comments at RSN recently, concerning a thread I've contributed to extensively there. It's really quite generous to be willing to sort through so long a thread, and to comment with the obvious care and understanding of policy that you brought to the discussion. I'd expressed my thanks on that page, already, of course, but your effort and follow up seemed to me to merit a more personal note as well, so thanks! Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TimidGuy. You have new messages at WP:RSN.
Message added 02:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since its been a dead thread for few days I thought you might like to know its been responded to.

  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian National Authority

Hello TimidGuy. Per User talk:EdJohnston#Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority I noticed you recently offered an opinion to two users at WP:RSN who were disagreeing about a source. Optimistically, I'm hoping that you might be willing to give further advice to these users. Unless they get a third party with some common sense who can advise them, I'm afraid that the article could wind up getting fully protected. Would you have an interest in helping, and if so could I suggest to them that they very briefly present their current disagreement on your talk page? If you are too busy, no response to this request is needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sparing some time. I think this might be to do with the other user's objections to some sources I've provided. First there was the statement from Curtis Doebbler that you commented on in the above-linked RS thread, now I think it's an article published by the Palestine News Network. I don't really see what the issue is, since they're not even being used to support a claim—the two entries concerned are marked as being "inconclusive" re their positions (i.e., sources are conflicting). Nightw 18:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I explained the problems with the generalizing source at the noticeboard page - it is dubious from the beginning, and it was later confirmed by official sources that the generalizing claim is incorrect, so I don't see any reason to use such generalizing claim. Also, it's published on partisan website.
2. The PNN source that Night w mentions has multiple flaws - see here and here. Among these - it contains self-contradictions and contradictions with official sources (see linked discussions); its publisher states that it "strive to empower the Palestinian people and their cause"; and also - it doesn't mention Syria/Turkmenistan at all in the text (about the inaccurate map see linked discussions - it's entirely unreliable and contradicting the source itself and other sources) - so it can't be used to support Night w claim.
3. There is the general problem with usage of unofficial sources to support such special nuances such as the difference between "recognition of the State of Palestine - as declared in 1988" and "recognition of a Palestine state - PNA/Palestinian people right to establish such in the 1967 borders, as envisioned in the Oslo Accords" (the PNA has announced its intentions to do so in Sep2011 - [18][19] - maybe this Sep2011-PNA-declared state will get somehow related to 1988-PNC-declared state SoP - we shall see). The nuance between the two positions is too subtle (see here 09:00, 22 January 2011 comment) - and we should strive to use the official press releases of governments - and quote verbatim what they recognize (e.g. for recognition by Zambia we should preferably get an official Zambian source). IMHO unofficial sources such as journalistic interpretations, blogs, etc. may be also mentioned, but these should be clearly differentiated from official sources (see proposals at sandboxA, sandboxB - these were prepared following discussions with another editor - analitic114). There are many examples where unofficial sources that contradict official sources - this only shows that we should take unofficial sources with great caution - because the nuances here are too subtle - and we should not rely primarily on interpretations, but only on not altered verbatim quotes. Alinor (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is quite a lot to assimilate. Do I understand correctly that there are two countries at issue? Which are they? And could each of you tell me which category you feel these countries should be placed in? TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. They should both be left where they are: i.e., in the section specifically set up for cases where sources are conflicting and the situation is not clear. This is important especially in these two cases, since a) there is a great deal of contact between them and the Palestinians and, more importantly, b)there are no sources that state they do not recognise Palestine as a state. Nightw 12:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"there is a great deal of contact between them and the Palestinians " - for Syria sources show contact with the PLO, so it should be in that section. But we don't have source showing relations between Syria and SoP. For Turkmenistan we don't have sources for "great deal of contact" - actually the article doesn't have any source. What analitic114 found for Turkmenistan were only a few "congratulations" notes (see here) by PLO-EC chairman and PNA president (and no mention of SoP President - unlike in congratulations send by Abbas to other states). We don't have any source about established diplomatic relations, these congratulations amount to "contact" at most. And there is no "State of Palestine" there.

"there are no sources that state they do not recognise Palestine as a state." - are you saying that we should apply negative logic here and assume that all states recognize SoP and search sources for the opposite? I don't agree. If we don't have a source we should place the country in "no information about the positions of". Alinor (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you not do the opposite? You are not trying to move Syria into that group, you are instead trying to move it into the section for those that do not recognise Palestine and that only have relations with the PNA. Also, "no information about the positions of" is not an accurate description for either, since we have sources stating that they do recognise Palestine, and nothing that immediately contradicts this, so we're not applying "negative logic", we're in fact doing the opposite by taking sources that say they do recognise Palestine and using them cautiously due to absence of any official statement (hence their placement in the unclear section). Nightw 16:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't have sources stating that Syria and Turkemnistan recognize the State of Palestine. Can you give such quote? For Syria we have sources showing that it has PLO relations - that's why it goes into that group. For Turkmenistan we don't have even that. And one more on Syria - they are not accepting Palestinian passports [20]. It would be very odd combination if at the same time Syria has diplomatic relations with SoP or had already recognized it. Alinor (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, two countries - Syria and Turkmenistan. The Doebler source that was dismissed at the noticeboard was used to keep them in the "inconclusive sources about recognition of the State of Palestine" section. For Turkmenistan we don't have any other source, that's why it should be moved to "no information about the position of" section. For Syria we have other sources (including from its official website) showing relations with the PLO, that's why it should be moved to "no recognition of the State of Palestine, but conducting relations with the PLO or PNA" section. That's what I think. Alinor (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So we have multiple sources stating that Syria does recognise the State and no source stating that it doesn't, and you want to move it out of the section which states "sources are conflicting on the position of" to the section for "no recognition of the State of Palestine"? Without a source that directly supports that claim, it's original research. Nightw 16:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So far we don't have any quote stating that Syria recognizes the State of Palestine. Let alone "multiple" sources. Are you still referring to the dismissed Doebler generalizing claim? Alinor (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So does this correctly summarize your views?

Syria

-Alinor - not recognising -Nightw - conflicting or inconclusive

Turkmenistan

-Alinor - not recognising -Nightw - conflicting or inconclusive

How are recognizing and not recognising defined in this context? The country has explicitly and officially stated that they do or do not recognise the State of Palestine? TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. Recognising and not recognising depends on whether we have a source that states their governments have officially recognised/not recognised. Alinor, however, insists on the actual official documentation as a sourcing requirement, something contrary to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and not currently practised on similar pages (like International recognition of Kosovo), probably due to the lack of accessibility to such sources. Nightw 17:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of Kosovo is pretty straightforward - a state either recognizes Republic of Kosovo or it doesn't. In contrast, in the case here we have countries recognizing the State of Palestine (as declared in 1988) and countries recognizing "a Palestine state" right to exist/PNA intiative to establish such state (currently it's unrelated to SoP-1988) - see my 06:31, 15 April 2011 comment above. Diplomatic announcements often use obfuscated language, the difference in wording between the two positions is very subtle and as consequence journalistic reports and other unofficial secondary sources make mistakes. On most Wikipedia pages secondary sources are preferred - because they allow the content to be distanced from the POV of the primary source (e.g. a company claiming "our product is one of the best" and a secondary source stating "it's good, but there are others that are better"). But in this case the main topic is exactly that - the position (POV) of each state - we have to show what the state official sources say - not how somebody else interprets what they say (as this adds a layer with potential mistakes).

I don't say that we don't use secondary sources - I say that it should be clearly marked what information comes from official sources of each one state and what information comes from unofficial sources. And of course in cases with contradiction between official sources and unofficial sources we take the official ones only. When there is no official source - we rely on the unofficial (marked as such) until we find an official source.

I don't say that we use only "actual official documentation" - we have few full quotes (or even full scans - with signatures of presidents and everything) of the official documents for establishing relations, etc. and these are the best sources in such cases, but I don't say that we should use only such sources. I say that we should use information that's published on the official websites of the states - that's what I mean by "official source" - this includes websites of MFA, President, Government, etc. - press releases about recognition/relations, lists of embassies/ambassadors, press releases about embassies/ambassadors, etc. Alinor (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And in the cases of Syria and Turkmenistan - we have neither official nor unofficial sources stating that they recognize SoP. On the contrary - all circumstantial indications in the sources that we have are that they don't recognize it. Night w, please provide a quote stating that Syria/Turkmenistan recognize the State of Palestine, if you have such to support your claim. Alinor (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All of the points stated are very helpful. So let's look at each country in turn. Let's start with Syria. Could you provide the links to the evidence? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The only sources that relate to the position of both states in question are Curtis Doebbler, who stated: "The 21 other states of the Arab League [includes Syria], for example, already recognise Palestine as a state. So too do the 56 other member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) [includes Syria, Turkmensitan]."; and the Palestine News Network, which published an article which claimed that "all but three of Asia's 53 countries—Japan, South Korea, and Israel being the key holdouts" had recognised Palestine. It also attached a map in which both states in question were shown as recognising. Nightw 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The generalizing claim that all AL/OIC member states recognize SoP was doubtful from the beginning (AL/OIC as organizations recognize SoP - but we don't know if decisions for SoP acceptance were taken unanimously and even if they were this doesn't mean that each AL/OIC member individually recognizes SoP) and was proven wrong by the Government of Guyana, who recognized SoP in 2011, years after the Doebler generalizing claim. This is discussed at large on the FR of PNA page and at the noticeboard. Not to mention that he doesn't mention Syria or Turkmenistan at all - it's just a generalizing claim. Also, specifically for Syria and Turkmenistan this claim isn't supported (if we don't say simply "is contradicted") by the official Syria source (showing PLO mission instead of SoP embassy[21]) and by source showing non-acceptance of Palestinian passports[22]) and by the official Turkmenistan sources (showing official congratulations notes from PLO/PNA,[23][24][25][26][27] but not from SoP - unlike Cameroon and others where such documents are on behalf of all three - SoP,PLO,PNA[28][29]).

For the PNN article see point2 of my 06:31, 15 April 2011 comment above. It's totally unreliable, including the map that among other contradictions colors French Guyana differently from France. This article also doesn't mention Syria and Turkmenistan. There are some vague phrases about 'key holdouts Israel, Japan, South Korea' (are there more, non-key holdouts?) and unknown numbers such as "53 Asian states" (can someone count 53 states in Asia? I can't find that much). The article is full of such contradictions and mistakes (for example it also contradicts Guyana official source). And its publisher does "strive to empower the Palestinian people and their cause".

For other states we find various sources, official and/or unofficial, but for these two - even after much efforts - we can't find anything reliable to support the thesis "Syria/Turkmenistan recognize the State of Palestine" and the official sources we have imply the opposite. Alinor (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I have emailed the Syrian office related to Palestine and asked whether Syria recognizes the State of Palestine. Will be interesting to see if we get a response. Thanks for your comments and explanations. I agree with Alinor that those aren't the best sources. But I don't understand how we can definitively state that Syria doesn't recognize Palestine without having a source that says it directly. It seems like placing Syria in the recognition category implies that such a source exists. It appears that the situation is unclear, with no official statement either way. Maybe the category heading could be "Unclear — no official statement regarding recognition of the State of Palestine available." What do you think? TimidGuy (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a category "no information about the position of" (where Turkmenistan goes - see here), but there are listed states that don't have any relations with PLO, PNA, SoP - for these that we have source showing PLO/PNA relations we place them in "PLO/PNA relations, but no recognition of the State of Palestine". I think Syria should go there unless we have a source stating that it recognizes SoP. Alinor (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, thanks for going to the trouble. The section it's under now is entitled, "Conflicting or inconclusive sources regarding the recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988". Is this adequate, or would you suggest something else? Nightw 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no source about recognition of SoP remaining (inconclusive or not; and there are no conflicting sources - actually there aren't any sources remaining) - the two you gave above (one of them a new one, not part of the article so far) are unreliable and inadequate to support such claim. So, Syria can't be placed in this section. And the assertion that "we can't place it in 'PLO/PNA relations, but no recognition of SoP'" applies to the other states listed in this section too - for most of them we don't have a negative source "X doesn't recognize SoP". States rarely issue such statements anyway. They issue statements of the positive type - "X recognizes Y" (and then, they go into the "recognizes SoP" sections - for official or unofficial sources). Syria is not different from Eritrea, Belize, Papua New Guinea and others in the section "PLO/PNA relations, but no SoP recognition". Alinor (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm, sorry, I don't have much time today. Thanks for your comments. I took a very brief glance at the Sandbox version, and my quick impression was that it's too involved, and not reader friendly. It feels like there are two many categories, and with the added color coding, it's hard to assimilate. I wish we could do a simple tweak to the existing page, especially since you seem to be agreed on the categorization of every country except for Syria and Turkmenistan. TimidGuy (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with unofficial sources isn't solved in the existing page. Anyway SandboxB has only 1 section more than the existing page - and colors can be easily removed, if needed. You can also check SandboxA which utilizes the existing article sections, but adds colors to distinguish official from unofficial sources. Of course - more suggestions for different arrangements also based on the existing page are welcome. Alinor (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting challenge. I'm starting to feel that part of the difficulty may be that this article is, in a sense, presenting original research, in that it relies on Wikipedia editors interpreting sources and making fine distinctions regarding whether it's an official source, whether it's a vague or clear reference, etc. It's an editor's observation that there's no official source, for example, but we shouldn't be making our own observations, right? Another consideration is whether it's appropriate for an editor to distinguish whether a source is official or not. Wikipedia policy simply stipulates reliable secondary sources. If a high quality secondary source clearly states that a country recognizes the state of Palestine and presents solid evidence for that, do we, as editors, have a right to deprecate that as unofficial? I'm just sort of brainstorming here, but the problem seems systemic — and therefore prone to dispute. And the solution may be simplification, and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may help with that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable unofficial sources are hard to distinguish from unreliable ones in this case (the detail between "a Palestine state" and "the State of Palestine" is too subtle), that's why IMHO it's better to distinguish between official (published on state websites) and unofficial (published elsewhere). This may not be the common arrangement across Wikipedia (stating where the source comes from), but it's needed in this particular case IMHO. And after all - there is WP:IAR. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I did some searching on G.books:

• This one discusses the ambition of a "Greater Syria".
• This one discusses Syria's non-acceptance of PA travel documents, which could simply be put down to the fact that Syria doesn't recognise the PNA.
• This one says what we're looking for but it's published in 1990, and this one is speaking retrospectively.

So I'm not sure what to do. Perhaps it's best left in the "conflicting sources" section with a couple of these added, or maybe just wait until September...? Found nothing on Turkmenistan not recognising. Nightw 01:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. And they highlight another challenge -- knowing whether the information is current. I really admire the work you guys have done and hope that we can resolve this in a way that is satisfactory to both of you and that's in accord with policies and guidelines. And I'm still inclined to think that there's some way we can simplify or name the categories as a solution.TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Night w, the sources you found about Syria state that it doesn't recognize SoP. Why should we place it in "conflicting sources"? There are no conflicting sources - only such that show non-recognition. So it should be in "PLO relations, but no SoP recognition". For Turkmenistan we don't have anything, so it should be in "no information about the position of" (like many other states that we don't have information about).

About the date of the sources - the Syria ministry source (showing a PLO mission and no SoP embassy) is a much more recent one - and doesn't contradict these books showing no SoP recognition.

I think that we can reduce interpretations on our side if we report what the sources say - e.g. to have separate groups for recognition of "a Palestine state" and "the State of Palestine". So, we will avoid making interpretation what this means. See for example here (coloring can be removed/reduced if needed). Alinor (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have just spent spent some time reading the article and familiarizing myself with the issue. Will be back tomorrow. I don't understand the difference between State of Palestine and Palestinian State. I don't understand why the UNESCO document is the seemingly the source for "official sources." TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Answers: There isn't one, and it isn't. Alinor's workpage is an OR mess, in my opinion. That's why it isn't the article, which is what we should be focusing on. Nightw 03:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the insight that Alinor brings to this, and his understanding of the nuances of diplomacy. I think we can come up with a workable solution. Hope to hear from Alinor. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO document is source only for the date - in the other columns you can find the official sources showing "State of Palestine" recognition/relations. Most of them don't include dates, so that's what the UNESCO document is utilized for. In some cases the official sources contradict the UNESCO document (such as giving a different date) - then the official source date is used. The UNESCO document is submitted by a few states on behalf of SoP and if we have an official source from a state listed in UNESCO document as recognizing SoP as of date X, then obviously we should rely on the official source and not on a date given by the few 3rd party states submitting the UNESCO document. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Recognition/relations with the "State of Palestine" as declared in 1988 by the PNC of the PLO means that the state in question accepts PLO-EC (the SoP provisional government) appointed persons as its ambassadors, treats them as "equal" to any other sovereign state ambassador, etc.

Recognition of "a Palestine state" most commonly means that the state in question is supportive of the goal of Palestinian people to establish a state (along 1967 or other borders) in the future, based on the PNA administrative structures. This is also envisioned in the Oslo Accords signed by PLO, Israel, USA, Russia.

There are many indications that in Sep2011 the PLO will take some actions at the UN trying to get some UNGA resolution in support of establishing a PNA-based state. What will be the exact nature of this resolution (and what the enforcement options would be in case Israel objects) is of course unclear yet. Whether this future PNA-based "a Palestine state" will be merged somehow with 1988-declared-SoP is also unclear yet - there are some indications that the PLO will make some internal re-arrangements before Sep2011 - these may be limited to Hamas-Fatah reconciliation inside the PNA or to Hamas joining the PLO or to constitutional SoP-PNA merger. We shall see. Anyway, at this stage recognition of the State of Palestine shows more engagement and commitment than recognition of "a Palestine state" - and I don't agree that we lump these two together by our own decision. We should show what sources say - whether it's about SoP or "a Palestine state" - this should be reflected in the article. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I don't see any OR in the SandboxB version - acutally it sticks more closely to the sources. The OR is in the interpretation that recognition of SoP as declared in 1988 and recognition of "a Palestine state" in general are the same thing. This is the problem that SandboxB tries to solve. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful, as always. Thanks much. I don't have much time today. Will look at this more tomorrow. Alinor, have you addressed my comment above? -- part of the difficulty may be that this article is, in a sense, presenting original research, in that it relies on Wikipedia editors interpreting sources and making fine distinctions regarding whether it's an official source, whether it's a vague or clear reference, etc. It's an editor's observation that there's no official source, for example, but we shouldn't be making our own observations, right? TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, SandboxB doesn't say "there is no official source" - it basically either says "here are official sources about X" or "here are unofficial sources about X" (and this is not 'static' - we constantly update it - yesterday analitic114, an editor who have found many sources so far, found official sources for Benin and Sudan). In addition it doesn't make OR interpretations and reports what the sources say - either "recognition/relations with the State of Palestine" or "recognition of a Palestine state". OR is used in the opposite proposal stipulating (wrongly) that these two have the same meaning. About the 'ambiguous, conflicting or inconclusive' sources - both proposals have such section - you can see that some sources are such - they can't be arranged in any 'clear cut' category - and so that we don't have constant edit wars moving states back and forth - we have a 'middle ground'/'gray zone' section with these. They are not so much and hopefully we will find better sources over time (we have already for some of the states). Alinor (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful replies and patience with my lack of familiarity with this. I have to admit that the current article seems so much simpler, and easier to assimilate. I find Sandbox B difficult. We can resolve the OR question at the noticeboard. But first, if you'll bear with me, I need more clarification. In the current article does the category "Recognising the State of Palestine ..." also include countries that recognize "a Palestinian State"? Is your motivation, Alinor, to separate these out? If so, why couldn't one simply rename the category "Recognising the State of Palestine or a Palestinian state"? TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging recognition of the "State of Palestine" and "a Palestine state" is wrong, because these are two very different positions. Almost the entire world supports to a high degree the idea of creating "a Palestine state" by the PNA, many have issued official statements about that - actually I don't know a single example of state that doesn't support the PNA initiative to strengthen its institutional capacity so that it can become the administrative foundation of a Palestine state in the future (nominally even Israel supports that - it's envisioned in the Oslo Accords it has signed with the PLO, USA and Russia). The State of Palestine is a different entity - it's not related to the PNA (yet, but maybe soon there will be some SoP-PNA relationship established) - it's a state declared in 1988 that doesn't have control over any territory (besides embassies, etc.) Control over permanently populated territory is considered by some highly important statehood requirement (see here) and lacking it is a defining feature of SoP and any potential future PNA-based-state (assuming that Israel occupation continues). That's why official diplomatic recognition of SoP or official diplomatic relations with SoP shows much higher level of commitment than whatever level of support for future undefined "a Palestine state".

SoP is a currently 'existing' (de jure, without de facto control over territory) specific state - that declared in 1988 by the PNC who also has given the task of performing provisional government functions to the PLO-EC; the PCC has appointed a president of SoP (see here), PLO-EC and the SoP president have established official diplomatic relations with many states around the world in the name of SoP, there are SoP embassies with ambassadors, there are foreign non-resident ambassadors accredited to SoP.

'a Palestine state' is something much different - it doesn't have any practical effects besides increasing the political arguments of PLO/PNA officials and supporting the Palestinian people statehood cause in general. It isn't about a specific state. Recognition of 'a Palestine state' means recognition of the right of the Palestinian people/PLO to establish their own state (e.g. confirmation of Palestinians' right of self-determination, sovereignty and statehood to be eventually achieved when Israel occupation ends). It is expected that the PNA-institutions will be utilized as foundation for this future state (and they get financial and technical support from the UN, EU and many states around the world so that they are prepared to assume this role and so that they have sufficient administrative capacity to perform all state and governmental functions).

Lumping the two concepts together is misleading (SYNTH/OR?). So yes, one of the things I propose is that we somehow note the difference between these two - either by section, by color or otherwise. So that it's clear what sources say for state X - whether it recognizes SoP or 'a Palestine state'. The other thing is the problem with distinguishing between unofficial sources (journalistic/analyst reports, blogs, yellow pages directories, etc.) and official sources (like government websites).

Currently we have three proposals - current article, sandboxA, sandboxB and we can also do a sandboxB-without-colors. In all of these the world states/entities are arranged in a list divided in categories depending on their recognition/relations with the three Palestinian entities - SoP, PLO, PNA.

• There is a group of states/entities about which we don't have any sources. CurrentArticle titles that "The PLO and the PNA have no official relations with the following states and entities, which additionally do not recognise the State of Palestine", but I think nobody will object using the sandboxA/B title "There is no information available pertaining to the official position of the following states and entities" instead.
• All proposals have a "Not recognising the State of Palestine declared in 1988, but conducting official relations with the PLO and PNA" group.

And then we come to the problematic groups. For the remaining states we have various sources about recognition - official/unofficial, explicit/inconclusive&ambiguous, SoP/'a Palestine state' - multiple combinations are possible here (e.g. official ambiguous, unofficial ambiguous, unofficial explicit, official explicit, etc.) - let's see how each of the proposals arranges these:

CurrentArticle - only two sections - separating explicit/inconclusive&ambiguous, but lumping together unofficial and official, SoP and 'a Palestine state'

• Recognising the State of Palestine declared in 1988, or establishing diplomatic relations with it
• Conflicting or inconclusive sources regarding the recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988

SandboxA - like CurrentArticle, but adding colors across both groups so that three color types are established (explicit official SoP, official vague SoP or official 'a Palestine state', unofficial regardless of explicit/vague or SoP/'a Palestine state'):

• no official source confirming recognition of the State of Palestine
• official source only with vague reference to recognition of the state[note:Such as "recognition of a Palestinian state" or some circumstantial State of Palestine reference]
• remaining without coloring - these are the official explicit SoP

SandboxB - three sections according to the colors of SandboxA (colors can remain or be removed):

• Official sources explicit regarding recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988, or establishing diplomatic relations with it
• Official, but ambiguous, conflicting or inconclusive sources regarding recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988 or recognition of "a Palestinian state"[note:Such as official source, but only with vague reference to recognition of the state similar to "recognition of a Palestinian state" or some circumstantial State of Palestine reference.]
• Unofficial sources regarding recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988 or recognition of "a Palestinian state"

The reasoning for sandboxB third group is that when the source is unofficial it's an interpretation thus the distinction between SoP and 'a Palestine state' is lost, thus all states/entities where we have unofficial sources only are in one group. The middle group is made of states/entities where we have an official source, but with vague wording (ambiguous&inconclusive) about SoP (e.g. mentioning SoP in such a way that it isn't obvious whether they 'recognize' it or 'acknowledge/know' that it was declared, but haven't taken the decision to recognize it yet); in the same group go official statements about recognition of 'a Palestine state' (maybe we should utilize the colors to distinguished these instead of the current sandboxB coloring). The first group is made of the states/entities where we have official source explicit about SoP recognition/relations. Alinor (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Alinor, for your clear, and patient, explanation. I hope to hear Nightw's view. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Content noticeboard

Hi Ocaasi. At RSN Talk you mentioned in passing a content noticeboard. I wasn't aware of that. Could you point me to it? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard. It's not oft used, and might get merged soon. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 12:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)