Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:18, 8 August 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Shannon Rose, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Ryan4314 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kriya Yoga‎

XLinkBot can sometimes miss a link if it is reposted after being removed. See {{uw-spam1}} for the first of an increasing series of user warning templates for this type of thing. --Geniac (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shannon Rose. I also recently came upon the Hariharananda article. Aside from the Miami Herald story on his death, have you ever come across any reliable sources? The individual seem to be short on notability and reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Ism schism! Unfortunately I have not come across any reliable source other than that Miami Herald one, which could very well be nothing but paid PR. I sincerely believe that if there are ever any those sources should have already come out given the seeming desperation of a certain editor to put the man in a pedestal. The subject appears to be a non-notable lightweight in the field, no landmark achievements, no bestselling book, no substantial following like Yogananda, Ammachi, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, etc., and his only claim to fame (being a disciple of Sri Yukteswar) is not accepted by people outside his cult. I sincerely believe that an AFD is in order at this point. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paramahamsa Hariharananda

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paramahamsa Hariharananda, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Hariharananda. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sankara_Saranam

Well spotted! That means it can be speedied (Db-repost, recreation of previous deletion). Except, I know nothing of the area, do you know if circumstances have changed or is there anything missing that might make him notable? Ben--Bsnowball (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MCGI

Thanks for stopping vandalism in the Eliseo Soriano article. Although you did remove what I wrote last time. Dar book (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You might want to look at Talk:Eliseo_Soriano#"Vandalism" (News_Quotes), There's a discussion of what should be put in and how we should put it into. --w 20:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kriya Yoga: Difference in Techniques

Shannon Rose: You yourself use Swami Satyeswaranada's "Kriya, Finding the True Path" when making an argument regarding Hariharananda: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Hariharananda. I used the same source to ascertain that the original Kriya Yoga differs from what is now taught by SRF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterelyon (talk • contribs) 30 August 2008

Your checkuser entry

How did you come to include RainbowOfLight (talk · contribs) in your Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dar book? You didn't mention how she might be connected and she is a very-long-term vandalism fighter in good standing here. Was it a typo perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheree Silver

Hi, Shannon. The deletion of Sheree Silver was discussed at deletion review and it was decided to restore and update the article based on new sources that had been provided. You can see the discussion here. It will need to go through the articles for deletion process again, if wanted, and I have accordingly declined your request for speedy deletion. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Rose, I recently put in a Template:RFCbio_list for Sheree Silver because another editor and I are having a disagreement on inclusion of the aforementioned sources. Feel free to comment; visit User_talk:Kaiwhakahaere for the info. (P.S. - I responded to your question about Eliseo Soriano on my talk page) Spring12 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You notified me of this AfD. My assumption is that you did this because I participated at the first AfD not so long ago, and that you have similarly informed all such editors. If you could confirm that all involved parties have been notified with a note at the present AfD discussion, I would appreciate it. Regards, - Eldereft (cont.) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind - I just checked that you did indeed notify everyone who participated in the first debate. Further comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Sheree Silver (2nd nomination). - Eldereft (cont.) 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for notifying me about the Sheree Silver thing - I cannot believe I wasn't told about the DRV, even as the person directly attacked me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

On a more personal note than my above comment - yeah, what SH said. The lack of discrimination in the source list presented at that discussion may have the effect of discouraging fair analysis via argumentum verbosium. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Removing Critics

Greetings Shannon Rose! From what I have seen, I think the sources are primary rather than self published. And we can always quote from primary sources. A source becomes self published when it is not backed by any organization, but I think in this case, it is backed by the organization (not sure, pls check). So If some chap from the society tells that Hariharananda was not a disciple, we can always quote him, as follows: According to so and so, "...." ; Having said all these, I am not an expert when it comes to Kriya Yoga institute and Paramahamsa Yogananda. And also inaccessibility is not a reason for a reference to be removed; for ex: several journals at sites like jstor.org are not accessible to public, but they are widely used. Also we can use references from other languages as well, the Citation templates provide the language parameter exactly for this. Cheers. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are completely off in everything. Sanskrit Classics Publishers is Swami Satyeswarananda, it is not a registered entity and it only carries titles by him. Here I quote from Sanskrit Classics Publishers "About" page "That was the main reason Swami Satyeswarananda Vidyaratna Babaji Maharaj had to start 'The Sanskrit Classics, Publishers' for self publishing in 1984." Satyeswarananda don't belong in any organization, and he is openly against organizations Please see Satyeswarananda on Organizations). You also said that inacessibility is not a reason for a references to be removed, that is completely wrong. If a so-called reference can only be seen by one person, and that supposed source provides germain information to the article, then it should be accessible to everyone (verifiability), else we will never know the nature of that article (whether it is an ad, an opinion piece, or news reporting) or if it exists at all. Now, with regards to the French language book that I removed, the policy is quite clear (please read WP:RSUE) "Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly." Since no information is sourced from the French language book anyway and it is just hanging there as suggested reading for whatever reason we do not know, it is best to remove it. It is a foreign language book that makes no contribution to the article, what the hell is it doing there? Just to prove that there exists such a book? It's nonsense. – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User Page

Hi Shannon, can I recommend that you redirect your userpage to your talkpage, or just even put a "." on it. Doing this will stop your name appearing as a redlink, which is usually an indicates someone is new. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back! Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Utter nonsense"

On this edit: As you know very well, you have not obtained consensus for removing this material.

As it happened, you seemed on the way to getting agreement for deleting some part of this. But you may have blown your chances by calling it "utter nonsense" as you prematurely removed it.

Obviously you take great offense to the presence of some of this material in the article. So wait till others agree with your reasoned argument and one of them removes it.

Or just keep on editing disruptively and be blocked again. It's your choice. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But he has not obtained concensus to add those materials either. The agreement is not to touch anything within 48 hours. Why am I being reprimanded for removing the material and TallMagic is not being reprimanded for adding a new section? Since when did being unaccredited became a "controversy" and since when did Chadwick's problem became Clayton's "controversy"? It's "utter nonsense"! — Shannon Rose 02:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is material that was already in the article when you removed it three days ago. In what sense is it a "new section"? -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In the sense that the old material was used to create a new section "Controversy". Like when you recycle an old plastic bottle to make a new plastic bottle. The accreditation information used to have its own section, and the Chadwick information is under a different section. Now, these two have been merged to create a new section: "Controversy". When I removed it, the agreement is not to touch for 48 hours, his restoration and creation of a new section broke that agreement. You should not have condoned it, it is self-contradictory and immoral on your part. — Shannon Rose 02:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If moving large, easily recognizable chunks of text within an article is like recycling plastic bottles, then you've lost me. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit I made prior to the 48 hour period ending didn't add or delete anything. It just moved some text. You had argued that the information on the unaccredited status was given undue weight in part because it was in it's own section early in the article. It was an extremely small section anyway. Combining it with another section I thought would be an obvious improvment. Shannon, I made the change because I thought it was something you suggested that I could agree with and I was simply trying to improve our working relationship. My understanding of the 48 hour period was that it was referring to more substantive changes like adding or deleting material that was in disagreement not a change like what I thought that one was. TallMagic (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The agreement was "not to touch the article" and not " do not add or delete anything from the article," which you actually did, by the way, by ADDING a Controversy section. There was no Controversy section before, how can you not understand that creating one is actually ADDING something to the article? The way by which certain editors feign idiocy and use every trick in the book to rationalize their extremely-obvious POV edits just show why WP is in dire need of a new breed of editors. – Shannon Rose 19:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I am not and did not feign idiocy. Perhaps YOU were told not to touch the article for 48 hours. I was never told that nor did I ever agree to that. It seems that you were temporarily blocked. The administrator was simply trying to wisely defuse the situation by trying to help you learn to get along better with your fellow editors. Part of that effort was he asked that one of the bits of information that you keep trying to delete not be added back into the article. As for the rest of your comments, they are rude, wrong, and uncalled for. Based on your apparent violation of 3RR today, I suspect that you'll be on a short wiki-break. I respectfully suggest that you consider spending some of this time on honest self reflection. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of warnings

Hi. I got your email about Clayton College of Natural Health and have been watching it for a few days trying to get my head round the issues. I see it as a good faith content dispute. I very strongly recommend against issuing vandalism warnings in cases such as this. Verbal's edits do not seem to fall within the definition of vandalism and you weaken your case if you are seen to be making spurious or exaggerated accusations. I see that he has done the same thing to you so I am going to leave him similar advice. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Shannon, do not refactor comments made by other users. You may remove them, but you may not add formatting or otherwise change the meaning or force of their comments. –xeno 19:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

xeno, you have already edited your comment three times but up to now you are unable to present a single policy or guideline clearly stating that I am prohibited to refactor other editors' comments on my talk page. If you cannot show me any such policy or guideline then I am left with no choice but to reject your "do not" nonsense as a worthless fragment of a Misplaced Pages administrator's moronic lack of knowledge of Misplaced Pages. – Shannon Rose 20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Click the link that is piped to "refactor": Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable - As a rule, do not edit others' comments. Adding formatting to change the force or effect of sentences is not one of the permitted exceptions listed further down the page. –xeno 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already done that and saw nothing that prohibits me from refactoring other editor's comments on my talk page. Now it is very clear that indeed there is no such guideline or policy, it is just your personal interpretation of "do not edit others' comments." Does "editing comments" in this context includes refactoring? The answer to this question can be found on the link to "exceptions," which you provided: "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (ref. Editing_comments). Therefore, based on this elaboration, the context of "editing" as used in the previous sentence is specifically "striking-out and deleting comments," which I never did to DanielRigal's post anyway. It also says "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page." Again, my actions are consistent in keeping with this prohibition as I never edit any of his "words," I merely bolded a portion for emphasis, it did nothing to "change its meaning." Anyway, knowing that you will insist on this nonsense to show others that you know what you're doing I will, out of pity for your struggles (imagine, three times editing a single sentence to change the links), voluntarily desist on touching DanielRigal's comment. – Shannon Rose 21:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you continue in this vein you will probably find your editing privileges of this page also revoked. I suggest you don't refactor others comments, except to remove personal attacks or some other rare exceptions. Verbal chat 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shannon, I am shocked and appalled at your blatent lack of courtesy and respect for editors with far more knowledge and experience than yourself. You're going to have a very short history here at this rate. Incivility is a serious matter. Just take a look at this:

• xeno: "abusefilter, sysop, 46434 edits since: 2006-07-14"
• Shannon Rose: "BLOCKED, 598 edits since: 2008-01-02"
• TallMagic: "2399 edits since: 2007-08-22"
• DanielRigal: "10916 edits since: 2006-03-26"
• Verbal: "12046 edits since: 2008-05-24"
• Brangifer: "autoreviewer, rollbacker, 23232 edits since: 2005-12-18"

That's what comes up when I highlight all those user links. I use a tool available here at Misplaced Pages, which, among other things, quickly gives a summary about any editor. Now experience and edit count may not mean much to you, and in the end it isn't all-determining in some situations, but it should give you pause to think and be a bit more humble. You have received plenty of good advice that is designed to help you, but you reject it, delete it, and treat others very poorly. Your edit history is not erasable. It will haunt you here and will be used against you if you don't quickly change your course and show an ability to cooperate, admit your mistakes, and learn from them. Without a positive learning curve, you have no currency or good reputation to help you. Please, please, start listening and learning before it's too late. Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)