Revision as of 17:14, 25 October 2007 editEaglizard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,714 edits →Sarcasm: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:54, 25 October 2007 edit undoJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 edits →SarcasmNext edit → | ||
Line 857: | Line 857: | ||
And secondly, your tiny sarcasm was completely inappropriate, and annoyed the crap out of me. I feel you have not given me the simple respect of actually reading my comments, which were in fact directly related to Alice Bailey's text, which is (I believe) somewhat pertinent to the article. I believe Kwork is the only one debating Zionism itself with no connection to the article. Had you not been sarcastic, I might have responded ]. ] 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | And secondly, your tiny sarcasm was completely inappropriate, and annoyed the crap out of me. I feel you have not given me the simple respect of actually reading my comments, which were in fact directly related to Alice Bailey's text, which is (I believe) somewhat pertinent to the article. I believe Kwork is the only one debating Zionism itself with no connection to the article. Had you not been sarcastic, I might have responded ]. ] 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
: Ooops...! It was not my intention to be sarcastic. I was trying to encourage users to take their off-topic discussions elsewhere. I guess that sometimes I am not aware of the unintended perceptions that my comments can incite on others. Will surely pay more attention in in the future. ] <small>]</small> 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:54, 25 October 2007
Misplaced Pages ads | file info – show another – #294 |
“ | I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. | ” |
— Woodrow Wilson
28th President of the United States |
~ Post new messages to the bottom of the page ~
Comments which fail to follow these requests may be immediately deleted |
This is Jossi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
New articles are usually created and left in the Draft namespace (or a user's subpage) until they are ready for primetime.
{{Under construction}}
and {{In use}}
templates are intended for subsequent article tune-ups, and are posted at the article page top.
{{In use}} template is for articles actively undergoing a major edit for a short time to list them in Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit.
{{Under construction}} is for articles actively undergoing construction to list them in Category:Pages actively undergoing construction.
As the article is developed, {{stub}}
templates along with their switches (posted at article bottom) are used for articles still needing additional content.
Coca-cola
actually, jossi. the coca-cola page was hacked and there was no code with the hack on it so i guess it was some like fixed hack thing. sorry you missunderstood.
i have a wikipedia account its ryryion theryes nothing wrong i would never mess wikipedia up its helped me with alot of papers.
thanks
ryan..
(screen name (aol) westoceanlove16)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.183.240 (talk • contribs)
Jossi, please look at Generation Rescue talk page
We think we have materially improved the citation, and that problems have been created by people who violently disagree with Generation Rescue and want a very slanted entry. All we want is a Wiki page that is neutral and presents BOTH sides of the organization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Staff Writer Wiki (talk • contribs)
Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title
Please give your comment / suggestions regarding this in the Sathya Sai talk page. I have also requested comments from other editors. Wikisunn 22nd February 2007
You comments relating to an edit on Leonardo. 1. I bow to your editorial skill 2. I believe you are in error and obviously uninformed on recent theories regarding DaVinci's Mona Lisa. Therefore I would request you retract you comment of Vandalism as it is unwarranted. There was no nonsense in the comments appended. If you still believe there was, please be specific. I thank you for you concern and applaud you contributions but I do not want you to believe there was nonsense or malice. I would be pleased to have had the opportunity to append cites to support my comment had you not voided them. I would hope that actions were not homophobic and assume you are not involved in art history. I am university educated with an art history minor from Columbia University, N.Y. and studied in Italy as well. In any event, best regards. denidoc@gmail.com
Prince Henry
I will try to follow your suggestions. However, let me point out that the first to insult with vulgar terms like "asshole" was Dr. Lisboa. And it is difficult not to attack a poster who is constantly wrong, refuses to acknowledge his errors, and simply persists in them or drops one error and creates new ones. In short, how gladly must one suffer fools?
professional historian who has corrected Dr. Lisboa's many errors.
Another "Dr" Lisboa on Prince Henry the Navigator complaint
This has nothing to do with the content of the article, but simply the unneccesary insult directed toward me on the talk page. I noticed your post there, and this seems to be the only way of contacting you. I refuse to take abuse from another person, virtual or otherwise. Thank you.
Calligraphy
Hi Jossi. I note tonight that someone put a spam notice at the bottom of the Calligraphy page. I hope it was not you ? I have done most of the editing recently- I have contacted some 3rd parties about their own sites that I have put links to. My judgement is that the assistance and educational value of the ones chosen is significant. There are a number of editing decisions that I have made that exclude content on the basis of it being an invitation for all and sundry to post their own sites or books. I recommend that if someone has a specific objection that they make it public. Otherwise I think we're on the right track. What do you think about the prominent calligraphers list ? I don't think that it is useful and again poses a threat to the credibility of the main site. ayou may wish to read my recent contributions on the discussion board regarding some of the things I have had to correct- one example includes changing a short, direct quotation from a reputable source into a misquotation. Can we have a look at introducing some new images and perhaps removing "Urkunde" ? Please respond on my talk page. Regards.â Furminger â 19 April 2007
- I did not touch that article for a while. For an guideline on what is acceptable as an external link, see WP:EL. â jossi â (talk)
IRC cloak request
I am jossi on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/jossi Thanks. --~ â jossi â (talk)
backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages
how are you, i was at the help desk and couldn't find stuff on taking down a photo just 4.11 Uploading a photo. I wasn't the one who took down the "Kjærlighetspar" photo on the intimacy page, i just signed out of my accout to post a myspace and youtube vandal pic hoping someone would take down all the pics seeing how none of the pics are specific to the intimacy sentences. it worked, but on the Stephan Sinding page the back frame and caption for the pict "Kjærlighetspar" ("Loving couple") is still up just like on the intimacy article. i think the pics were deleted by you since User:Jossi was the last undo, and a administrator. can you send some pointers on how to get rid of that backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages and not just take them down Please.
pict frame backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages
Stephan Sinding pages, thanks.
sorry for that long letter since you werent even the one who undid the last message. i didnt even notice the Click here to ask your question about editing Misplaced Pages on the New contributors' help page. if your the one who got intouch with User:Ziji to take down the back pict frame on the Stephan Sinding pages, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.95.66 (talk • contribs)
How do I ask for protection on (a) page(s)?
How do i ask for protection on a page?
Please reply on my talk page
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 â September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!
This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless .
Article Protection
Please can you justify how issues regarding the trademark is relavant to the Royal Bengal Airline article? Please could you very kindly review this again and cut this out? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Airphantom (talk • contribs)
Can you please help me - again
Hi. On the Henry Keogh page there has been a debate going on about that there was no citing on whether he attended the school. One has been made, but how do we know that she isn't just lying to make sure it stays on? Surely there must be more than just writing something down and giving it an un-proven cite and that makes it able to be kept on. Can you explain to me more on that situation of whether you can just write it down or you have to actually have physical proof.
Sorry, some people must think they are you as they are asking a question I am asking you.
my edit to 2005
Might I point out the line concerning "Berticus the great"?
Your welcome is welcome
SociableLiberal has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for saying hello.
deleted help page
hi,
I was reading something on help page. After few minutes i went to have coffe some body have deleted or edited the content in my help page and saved the page how can i get back that content. Please help me in doing this. Thanks and regards, Y.Naganaresh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naganaresh (talk • contribs)
Mean Red Spiders
All the information is true.
David Humphreys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashumphreys (talk • contribs)
self published sources
"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability; * it is not contentious; * it is not unduly self-serving; * it does not involve claims about third parties; * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; * the article is not based primarily on such sources."
stop removing sections without discussing them on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.208.156 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for Extension
Dear Jossi,
Many thank for giving me (and everyone else out there) until the eighth to get the citations in.
RE: Categories
Ambox type=serious
I noticed you'd changed the type of {{POV}}, {{original research}} and {{blpdispute}} from "content" to "serious" a few days ago. I've reverted the changes, since the consensus on Misplaced Pages talk:Article message boxes seems to be that type=serious should be reserved for things like imminent deletion (i.e. {{AfDM}}, {{dated prod}}, {{db-meta}} etc.). If you'd like to discuss this issue, I'd suggest doing so here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will raise the issue there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ron Littlefield links per BLPN
Hi Jossi, you closed Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ron Littlefield (closed) a few weeks ago, and the editor has since readded the link. The article he mentions does nothing to establish the author/blog's credibility or notability, and there is no reporting or editorial oversite whatsoever -- one of the last entries consists of gossip received via emails from equally anonymous sources. Since I am no longer willing to assume good faith about this editor, I need to stay out of this issue, but I believe the link should not be on this site...will you take a look at the article? Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 19:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I have commented there and placed a warning in the user's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Jossi, if you look at the discussion page, I had left my argument/thoughts/response for why I thought the worstmayorever.com site was valid (though not "normal") to be in the External Links section almost a month ago, and no-one responded, so when I was cleaning up the article later, I added it back in. I don't see how that's disruptive (especially if you look at my other edits on that article and see how they were very much working towards improving the quality of that entry). Basically, this is a request to "assume good faith". Qmax 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- are you going to respond? I've been very polite and patient, and haven't touched the link in question since you left your comment, I think it's only polite and appropriate for you to take the time to respond to a fellow wiki editor that you reprimanded Qmax 02:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- If I did not respond is because I feel I have already made my argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Where? I agree links of that kind should normally be avoided, but I'm arguing that this is an abnormal situation, and I gave very specific reasons why. What do you think of those reasons? Qmax 18:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Pattern interrupt
Hi Jossi
I saw that you removed the ref to the Norwegian Dutch WP, and I understand your reason. Just wondering -Is there any way to link to a non-English WP article properly? or does it need to be translated first? I'd never encountered that kind of situation before. Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 02:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there is: Just use ] at the bottom of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do. --Parsifal Hello 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
editing
Jossi, as per your second "warning", I have just this to ask if I am bounced:
- that the block not just be one article, but all articles, and
- that the block not be temporary, but permanent.
Thanks. Kwork 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk: Alice Bailey
Hi jossi, thanks very much for your input on Alice Bailey. I especially appreciate the way that, after inserting a "nag tag", you didn't hesitate to follow up shortly by actually working to improve the article. That seems to be the very best way to use those, to me.
On the other hand, I am a bit dissatisfied with your behavior on the Talk page. Perhaps because of your adminship, I refrained from saying so there, and I don't wish this to be seen as a "warning", just a personal request. However, I am bold enough to treat you like any other editor if I feel you violate policy, and I trust that you would expect nothing else.
In any case, it's my opinion that, given the "intellectual debate" and furious haggling over some really obscure points on that talk page, going on full-steam for over six months now, using phrases like "obvious OR" and other bluntness is very likely to cause contention, and to ruffle feathers unnecessarily. cat, in particular, has shown she responds well to reasoned discussion at times, but can also be quite ... well, whatever. My request is simply that you make an effort to tone down your comments like this, because they will not help the article to progress. In other words, and with respect, please cool it a bit, ok? Thanks for your consideration, and again, thanks for your edits. Eaglizard 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, I will take that into consideration. OTOH, note that my comments have been direct and to the point. If it is ruffling some feathers, it may be because there are strong POVs at play. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I had not known that is is a wiki-crime to have a point of view. Kwork 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- We all have POVs, Kwork. The trick is to put Misplaced Pages's aims ahead of our personal views, and staying cool when discussing subjects about which we have strong POVs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Personal views? What personal views? I get all my views directly from God. (Well...perhaps, occasionally, I may take my views from wiki-administrators who think they are God.) Kwork 17:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I think your editing has improved the article. Kwork 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's a comment right there that I'm having to bite my fingers to keep from responding to. Anyways, jossi, yes, I've absolutely noticed and admired the directness and clarity of your comments. But you're right, there's strong POV present. I'm not condoning it, either. I'm just suggesting that ... well, I've suggested what I'm suggesting, and I'm sure you'll take it into account. Thanks again. Eaglizard 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Version of AAB bio from two ago
Hi Jossi,
I'm sending you a copy of what the Alice Bailey biography looked like two weeks ago. It was a version that the present editors and James1 (not here now) participated in writing, and painstakingly worked on to bring up to Misplaced Pages standards. This version was praised by 5 of editors. I know you're busy, but I thought you might like to see a relatively stable article. Thanks Sparklecplenty 15:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Your right, it's too heavy with quotes. I guess I was just longing for a more stable time. Sparklecplenty 04:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Alice Ann Bailey (June 16, 1880 – December 15, 1949), known as Alice A. Bailey or AAB, was born as Alice LaTrobe Bateman, in Manchester, UK, but moved to the U.S. in 1907, where she spent most of her life as a writer and teacher. Bailey's twenty-five books are published worldwide, and have been translated into nine languages, with three more in progress. Writing on spiritual, occult, esoteric and religious themes, Bailey was among the earliest authors to popularize the terms New Age and Age of Aquarius. Her humanitarian philosophy is still influential and there are many groups, schools and organizations that study and implement her ideas worldwide. She stated that most of her books were telepathically dictated to her by a "Master of the Wisdom" she referred to as "The Tibetan". Her writings range from the psychological to the cosmic, and expound a system of esoteric thought that includes subjects such as meditation, healing, spiritual psychology, the destiny of nations, and prescriptions for society in general. Her writings have much in common with those of Madame Blavatsky, yet they differ from Theosophy in many respects. She wrote about religious themes, especially Christianity, but her writings are fundamentally contrary to many aspects of orthodox Christianity and to orthodox religions in general. Her vision of a unified society includes a global "spirit of religion" different from traditional religious forms (which she regarded as largely divisive, human creations). Bailey's writings stirred controversy because she spoke against orthodox Christianity, American isolationism, nationalism, Soviet totalitarianism, fascism, and Nazism. She also critisized Zionism and the Jewish religion and history. Some have seen her writings on this as racist, and anti-Semitic. LifeChildhoodAlice Bailey was born to a wealthy aristocratic British family, and as a member of the Anglican Church, received a thorough Christian education. She describes a lonely and "over-sheltered" childhood and was unhappy despite the luxury of her physical circumstances. (Bailey, 9. 12). Of this early life she wrote:
In her autobiography she relates three suicide attempts. These occurred in childhood, the first when, at the age of five, she decided life was not worth living:
At age 15, Bailey was visited by a stranger, "...a tall man, dressed in European clothes and wearing a turban." She supposed this individual was Jesus, but later she identified him as a theosophical master Hoot Koomi. In her autobiography she identified the date of the visit as June 30th, 1895, and wrote:
Adult lifeAt age 22 Bailey did evangelical work in connection with the Y.M.C.A and the British Army. This took her to India where, in 1907, she met her future husband, Walter Evans. Together they moved to America where Evans became an Episcopalian priest. However, this marriage did not last. She stated that her husband mistreated her and in one of his fits of temper, threw her down the stairs. Bailey pushed for and received a divorce. (Bailey, p. 121–122) She left with their three children; after formal separation in 1915. Then followed a difficult period in which she had to work as a factory hand to support herself and the children. (Bailey, p. 121–122) Bailey's break was not only with her Christian husband, but with Orthodox Christianity in general. In her autobiography she wrote that “a rabid, orthodox Christian worker become a well-known occult teacher.”(Bailey, p. 1 & p. 47). In the United States, in 1915, Bailey discovered the Theosophical Society and the work of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Bailey, pp 134–136). In 1918 she became a member of the Esoteric section of the this society. She claimed to recognize Koot Hoomi, the master that had visited her in her childhood, from a portrait she saw in the Shrine Room of the Theosophical Society. (Bailey, pp 156) . Bailey wrote much about those she called the “Masters of the Wisdom,” which she believed to be a brotherhood of enlightened sages working under the guidance of "the Christ." In part, she stated her writings were an effort to clarify the nature of these Masters, and their work.
In 1917, Bailey became involved in the Theosophical Society. "She quickly rose to a position of influence in the American Section of the Adyar society, moving to its headquarters at Krotona in Hollywood. She became editor of its magazine, "The Messenger, and member of the committee responsible for Krotona." Bailey wrote that, in 1919, she was contacted by a Master known as The Tibetan (later associated with the initials D.K., and eventually the name Djwhal Khul):
Bailey states that she was eventually persuaded to write down the communications from this source. She wrote for 30 years, from 1919 to 1949.. The result was 24 published books on ancient wisdom, philosophy, religion, contemporary events, science, psychology, nations, astrology, and healing. Also in 1919, 32nd degree Freemason Foster Bailey (1888-1977), who was to be her second husband, became National Secretary of the Theosophical Society; (Bailey, p. 157) they married in 1921. "The Theosophist published the first few chapters of her first work, Initiation, Human and Solar, but then stopped for reasons Bailey called 'theosophical jealousy and reactionary attitude.' Bailey, "objected to the neo-Theosophy of Annie Besant" and worked with Foster Bailey to gain more power in the American Section" She became part of a progressive, " 'Back to Blavatsky movement, led mainly by Mr. and Mrs Foster Bailey," She outlined her vision for the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society and by annuciating ideals of tolerance and brotherhood. However, her efforts to influence the society failed, and she and her husband were dismissed from their positions. According to author Olav Hammer, Bailey's early writings of communications with the Tibetan were well received within the society, but society president Annie Besant questioned Bailey's claims of communications with "the Tibetan" and expelled the Baileys from the organization. According to Bailey, she had come to see the society as authoritarian and involved with "lower psychic phenomena.". In her writings, however, she continued to acknowledge the importance of Madame Blavatsky's works, and saw her own task as the continuation and further development of Blavatsky’s teachings. (Bailey, pp. 168–177) In 1923, with the help of Foster Bailey, Alice Bailey founded the Arcane School, which gave (and still gives) a correspondence course based on her books (Bailey, pp. 192–193). The Arcane School is part of the Lucis Trust, a not-for-profit foundation that also publishes Bailey's works. Together with Foster Bailey, she organized an International Goodwill Movement About 100 of Alice Bailey's public talks and private talks to her more advanced Arcane School students are available online. Bailey continued to work right up to the time of her death in 1949 .
TeachingsComparison with Theosophy
Campbell writes that Bailey's books are a reworking of major Theosophical themes, with some distinctive emphasies, and that they present a comprehensive system of esoteric science and occult philosophy, cognizant of contemporary social and political developments. Sutcliffe points out that both Bailey and Blavatsky's work evoke a picture of Tibet as the spiritual home of the Masters and that Bailey claimed a more-or-less direct lineage to Blavatsky. Sutcliffe writes:
Dr. Jon Klimo, in Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources, writes, "As with Blavatsky/Theosophical material, and more recent contemporary channeled material from other sources, we find in the Bailey work the same occult cosmological hierarchy: physical, etheric, astral, mental, causal, and higher inhabited levels of existence." Hammer, in the book Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of epistemology from theosophy to the new age, highlights Bailey's Theosophical similarities as well as noting what he thinks are some differences between them:
In contrast to the above, some Theosophical critics of Bailey contend that there are major differences between the Theosopy of H. P. One key differences relates to Bailey's embrace of some mystical Christian terms and concepts.
Theosophists are divided on their assessment of Alice Bailey's writings. For instance, the noted contemporary Theosophical writer Geoffrey Hodson wrote a highly favorable review of one her books, saying, "Once more Alice Bailey has placed occult students in her debt." And Gallagher writes, "Her first book, Initiation Human and Solar, was at first favorably received by her fellow theosophists. Soon, however, her claims to be recipient of ageless wisdom from the Masters met with opposition." The conflict is understandable since her works contain some criticisms of Theosophy, and at the time of the break she voiced her criticism of what she saw as dogmatic structures within the society, while questioning the pledges of loyalty to Theosophical leaders that were required. "During the annual convention of 1920 in Chicago, there was a power struggle between forces loyal to Besant and the Esoteric Section and others who believed that the ES had become too powerful. Below the surface was a hidden controversy regarding Alice's work with the Tibetan." For a more recent example of Bailey/Theosophy division, see the Theosophy in Scandinavia With regard to terminology, Reigle points out Blavatsky's aversion to the word "God," then in a critique of Bailey's acceptance and use of the term he writes:
With respect to the similarities of the two schools, in her book The Key to Theosophy, in a subsection titled "The Unity of All in All," H. P. Blavatsky writes:
Like Theosophy, Alice Bailey’s writings repeatedly emphasize unity. A representative example is:
She believed her works were part of an unfolding revelation of ageless wisdom to humanity, of which Theosophical teachings were the predecessor and preparation. Her writings have much in common with Theosophy, and both contain these ideas.
There are several themes that, in some degree, distinguish her writings from Theosophy and related traditions. These include:
The Seven Rays of energyUnderlying her writings is the idea that all is energy and that spirit, matter, and the psychic forces intermediate between them are forms of energy. This energy is life itself. From one essential energy, divinity, procedes seven rays that underly and shape the evolution of human life and the entire phenomenal world. On a cosmic level these seven rays of energy are the creative forces of planets and stars. On a microcosmic level they are the creative forces conditioning the physical, psychic, and spiritual constitution of man. (Jurriaance, p. 73-152) In Bailey's concept the rays and all things manifest in centers of energy and their relationships. All rays and centers are focuses of some type of evolving life or consciousness. (Jurriaance, p. 35-52) This includes everything from atoms to centers or chakars in the human consitution, and upwards through the human aura to groups of humans as centers, and cities and nations as centers. (Jurriaance, p. 79- 90 ) Humanity as a whole is conceived as a center of energy as are the masters of wisdom of which she writes. Likewise, planet Earth as a whole, with all its subsidary centers of life, is viewed as a center of life within the large life or divinity of our solar system. The concept of the rays can also be found in Theosophical works. Campbell writes that Bailey, "...was the first to develop the idea of the seven rays, although it can be found in germ in earlier Theosophical writings." The constitution of manIn line with previous Theosophical teachings, Bailey taught that man is a soul working through a personality where the personality consists of mind, emotions, and body. Mind and emotions are conceived, not simply as ephemeral brain effects but as psychical energies that are part of the aura or inner constition of individuals. She uses the traditional terms for these of etheric body, astral body and mental body. These auric aspects of the human being are defined as partial eminations or expressions of the soul. "Soul" is the synomym for evolving consciousness. In Bailey's writings, evolution is defined as a process of personality integration and alignment of personality with soul. It is this transformation that leads toward right human relationships and spirtual revelation or awakening. (Bailey, p. 378) Steps on the spirtual path are "initiations," which is to say an evolution that is an entering into new and wider fields of consciousness, relationships, responsibilites, and power. In terms of her ray concept, the note of the soul is imposed on or superimposed on the note of the personality. The spiritual hierarchyShe wrote that, behind all human evolution stands a brotherhood of enlightened souls who have guided and aided humanity throughout history. For Bailey, the evolution of humanity is intimately bound up with its relationship to this spiritual hierarchy. The stimulating and uplifting influences of religions, philosophies, sciences, educational movements, and human culture in general are the result of this relationship. Though in time humanity debases all these developments, they are all in their original impetus, conceived as the result of spiritual hierarchy working in concert with evolving human potentials. DiscipleshipBailey elaborates the relation of humanity to hierarchy in her teaching on "Discipleship in the New Age." In this scheme, all awakening souls stand in some relationship--offen unconscioussly but sometime conscioussly--to a particular "Master of Wisdom." The integrated personality, coming under the influence of the soul, is simultaneously coming under the influence of Master. This relationship is said to be conditioned by karma, by evolutionary status, and by the potential for work to be done on behalf of humanity. This "service" aspect is greatly emphasized in Bailey's writings. In her concept, the evolutionary master-pupil relationship is made possible in and through service to humanity. Bailey's writing downplays the devotional and aspirtional aspects of the spirtual life in favor of service or work on behalf of humanity. According to her, this is primarly, and everything hinges upon that. "Discipleship" in her thought means work, service, and the evolution of those sensitivites and powers that enhance that labor. (Bailey, p. 38) Unity and divinity of nations and groupsUnderlying Alice Bailey's writings are the central concepts of unity and divinity . And with regard to races and religions she asserted that, "Every class of human beings is a group of brothers. Catholics, Jews, Gentiles, occidentals and orientals are all the sons of God." She believed that an individuals primary allegiance is to humanity and not to any subgroup with it: "I call you to no organizational loyalties, but only to love your fellowmen, be they German, American, Jewish, British, French, Negro or Asiatic." Douglas Russell, who cites Alice Bailey, writes of the "one humanity" concept as as belonging to Psychosynthesis:
This philosophy derives from the influence of Alice Bailey as Dr. Roberto Assagioli, founder of Psychosynthesis, was closely associated with her:
Human equality and religionBailey emphasized the equality of all men everywhere, and believed that national and religious affiliations are accidents of birth and they should see their group identifications as something enabling them to contribute to humanity as a whole:
Ross describes her writiings as emphasizing the "underlying unity of all forms of life," and the "essential onensss of all religions, of all departments of science, and of all the philosophies" She believed that all religions originate from the same spiritual source, and that humanity will eventually come to realize this. As they do so, she claimed that it will result in the emergence of a universal world religion.
Campbell notes that the New Group of World Servers, was established for "...promotion of international understanding, economic sharing, and religious unity." On orthodox ChristianityBailey believed in the return of "Christ" but her concept had little in common with that of the orthodox Christian churches. She saw Christ as essentially the energy of love and his "return" as the awakening of that energy in human consciousness. She introduces the radical idea that the new Christ might be "no particular faith at all":
In Bailey's thought, no one group can claim him—the new age Christ belongs to whole world and not to Christians or any nation or group. Bailey was highly critical of orthodox Christianity, and according to her, the Church-based theology about Christ's return is false:
The divorce between orthodox Christianity and Bailey's thought can be seen in the fact that the book Nature Religion Today: paganism in the modern world contains seven references to Alice Bailey. , and the affinity of some of Bailey's concepts with paganism is also cited by Kemp in New Age: A Guide. On fanaticism and intoleranceAlice Bailey spoke out strongly against all forms of fanaticism and intolerance." She saw this fanaticism in churches, in nationalism, and in competing esoteric schools. (Bailey pp. 15 & 453) She associated this fanaticism with unintelligent devotion:
RacesFor Bailey, the matter of prime importance was not race or religion but the evolution of consciousness that transcends these:
Bailey criticized many nations, groups and religions based on what she believed were violations of the spirit of unity and brotherhood. For example, while praising them in some respects, in the United States and France she saw political corruption. She regarded the talk about a free press as largely an illusory ideal and stated, "… particularly is it absent in the United States, where parties and publishers dictate newspaper policies." She believed the source of human problems is the spirit of separation that causes individuals and groups to set themselves apart from the rest of humanity:
On the Jewish peopleShe criticized the Jews and spoke against Zionism, believing it to be, "… contrary to the lasting good of mankind." (Bailey p. 680). At the same time she spoke out strongly against hatred of the Jews and believed in a future in which they would "fuse and blend with the rest of mankind." In her autobiography Bailey stated that she was on Hitler's "blacklist," and she believed it was because of her defense of the Jews during her lectures throughout Europe. Bailey also criticized the cruelty of the Gentile for his treatment of the Jews:
InfluenceSir John Sinclair, Bt., gives a commentary on the seminal influence of Alice Bailey, which he says underlies the consciousness growth movement in the 20th century. In Perspectives on the New Age we find, "The most important—though certainly not the only—source of this transformative metaphor, as well as the term "New Age," was Theosophy, particularly as the Theosophical perspective was mediated to the movement by the works of Alice Bailey." In a book on history of the Bollingen Foundation and its pervasive influence on American intellectual life, William McGuire wrote:
Bailey has been cited in numerous professional journals, and Wessinger cites Bailey as one of the liberated women, "… sixty years before it became popular." She writes:
Bailey's thought has had an influence in the field of Psychotherapy and Healing. "In Tansley as in Brennan you will find descriptions of a hierarchy of subtle bodies called the etheric, emotional, mental and spiritual that surround the physical body. (Interestingly Tansley attributed the source of his model to Alice Bailey’s theosophical commentary on The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the locus classicus of Hindu teaching.)"Pdf Dr G. D. Chryssides of the University of Wolverhampton, cites Bailey's influence on the ideas of the Order of the Solar Temple and related organisations. An article in Encyclopedia Britannica says that Alice Bailey founded the Arcane School to disseminate spiritual teachings and that she organized a world-wide 'Triangles' program to bring people together in groups of three for daily meditation. Their belief was that they received divine energy through meditation and this energy is transmitted to humanity, so raising spiritual awareness. "After Bailey's death, former members of the Arcane School created a host of new independent theosophical groups within which hopes of a New Age flourished. These groups claimed the ability to transmit spiritual energy to the world and allegedly received channeled messages from various preternatural beings …" Alice Bailey's influence can be found in the many groups currently disseminating her teachings and practicing her meditation methods, some of which have an active presence on the internet. ControversyRacism and antisemitismIn 1998, Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, surveyed modern Neopaganism in Russia, drawing particular attention to "… groups take an extremely negative view of multi-culturalism, object to the 'mixture' of kinds, support isolationism and the prohibition of immigration." He noted that a number of Bailey's books, as well as those of her contemporary Julius Evola, had been recently translated into Russian, and said that "… racist and antisemitic trends are explicit, for example, in the occult teachings of Alice Bailey (founder of the New Age movement) and her followers, who wish to cleanse Christianity of its 'Jewish inheritance' and reject the 'Jewish Bible' as a prerequisite for entering the Age of Aquarius." Monica Sjöö, a Swedish-born British artist, radical feminist, and advocate of the Goddess movement, wrote in her book, New Age Channelings - Who or What is being Channeled?, of Bailey's "reactionary and racist influence on the whole New Age movement."
Prophecies and obscurityStephenson analyzed the prophecies contained in the Alice Bailey works, breaking them down into dated and undated prophecies, prophecies confirmed, and non-determinable. While some some her prophecies appear to have been accurate, others do not. For instance, Bailey states, "From the chair of the Pope of Rome, the Master Jesus will attempt to swing that great branch of the religious beliefs of the world again into a position of spiritual power and away from its present authoritative and temporary political potency." Roberts criticizes Bailey's writings as not empirical, naturalistic or humanistic but rather romantic and symbolical with a bewildering variety of terms. Conflicts with competing schools of thoughtWriting from a Christian church perspective,Bromley says: "After World War II, Eastern thought was filtered through (and more or less distored by) the likes of Manley Palmer Hall, Alice Bailey, Baird T. Spaulding, and Edwin Dingle. Possibly more important than their individual teachings, however, occultists as a group hammered home the central idea, 'The East is the true home of spiritual knowledge and occult wisdom.' Bailey has been criticized by some religious writers because she wrote of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Theosophical beliefs with authority while expressing non-conformity to the orthodox belief systems of these varied religious traditions. Bailey's books have also been criticized as a form of Neo-Theosophy by mainstream Theosophists who say that a great many of her ideas were borrowed from Theosophy while also including perspectives that were not part of the original Theosophical teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. BibliographyThe Lucis Trust is the official publisher of Alice Bailey's books. A few books of Alice Bailey that are no longer under copyright are also available online at independent web sites. Credited to Alice Bailey (works containing the prefatory Extract from a Statement by the Tibetan, generally taken to indicate the book was a "received" work):
Credited to Alice A. Bailey alone (works in which Bailey claims sole authorship of the material):
See alsoReferences
External links
de:Alice Bailey et:Alice Bailey es:Alice Bailey fr:Alice Bailey it:Alice Bailey nl:Alice Bailey pl:Alice Bailey pt:Alice Bailey ru:?????, ????? fi:Alice Bailey |
This version is way too heavy on quotes from primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman
Ready to swab the deck! | ||
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman 03:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
entries that urgently need tags
My friend who is looking at Mensa connexions here says he knows only two other members of Mensa, Carol Vorderman & Clive Sinclair. Their articles are like fan pages, more than this one (Brian J. Ford page) ever was, and nearly all statements made have no sources. These need the famous tags put on them. This article (Brian J. Ford one)no longer needs tags. Will check to see standards are all the same for these pages, looks like just the Ford page is being bombarded and other bio pages are being built by people who know their subjects better!! Biggish Bertha 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- If these other articles are "fan pages", please fix them. There are many articles in Misplaced Pages that are badly written, lack sources, etc. As we say in Misplaced Pages WP:SOFIXIT. As for the Ford article, please do not add superlatives and unsupported statements to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Your contributions are appreciated .
Less than 2 months ago the Bailey article was ruled by the Alice Bailey fan club. They fought Cat and Kwork tooth and nail in an attempt to keep all references to Ms Bailey's antisemetism and or racism off the article. Thanks to the help of an admin named AnonEmouse and a member of the arbitration committee named Jpgordon (who is also and admin) the tables were eventually turned. To make a long story short the impression that you are getting is a very lopsided one. My guess is that you have no idea of the fact that they did things like refer to us as the Jewish Defense League , and accusing us of conspiring to ruin Ms Bailey's reputation. We just shrugged such comments off for the most part and tried to explain our position. Jpgordon did no editing whatsoever and AnonEmouse did almost none if any,
There is also a dandy case of Attempted Meat Puppetry that may eventually need to be dealt with. I say attempted but the fact of the matter is that the attempt was trailed by the appearence of a few single purpose editors. This information was kept from Jp Gordon and AnonEmouse until after the edit warring stopped.
As for the here and now I truly hope you stay. I am surprised that you took offense to what Catherine and Kwork had to say today. Maybe I missed something. You suggested that when we hit snags we can use the dispute process to help settle such disputes. I think everyone agrees with you about that. You know that process better than any of us do. Anyway consider this a belated welcome to the article from me and a sincere thank you for what you have contributed thus far. I do hope you decide to stay even if it is a little like pulling teeth at times.: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome. I have read the archives and I am aware of the history of this article and POVs at play.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- You are probably already aware of the insincere arrogance of this group. Posted just before his "welcome" to you:
- I am now fully aware of why you are concerned about Jossi. As you know Parsifal defended you. I am going to assume that Jossi has concentration problems. Please be careful Cat. You may be dealing with a loose cannon. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 16:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- You are probably already aware of the insincere arrogance of this group. Posted just before his "welcome" to you:
Plácido Domingo article - Vandalism continues
As soon as the restriction period over, it has been 4 edits done by 24.222.2.179 and 84.44.145.179 to mess-up the whole article and change of his birth year again. What shall I do? Is it possible to ask for permanent restriction to protect the article? Hopefully you could help. The article was put under protection before for the very same reason. Those people know exactly the duration for the protection, and now that it has over, they start doing it again - Jay 14:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Your Warning to Rex Germanus
I've made good on your implicit warning with this block Please feel free to refactor the block if I've misunderstood the situation. - Jehochman 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks
Hi Jossi:
You have placed this on another user's talk page:
Regarding this: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Misplaced Pages.
It seems to me that you are not distinguishing between a discussion on user talk pages and personal attacks on an article talk page. I could collect at least a dozen statements about me on user talk pages that are far worse than this. I have occasionally argued over those statements, but never issued a warning which I think would amount to trying to inhibit free speech in the context of user pages. I have no idea what Misplaced Pages rules are about this, but the result of warnings over such discussion would be to have editors turn to email for discussing issues that would be better discussed in the open. Kwork 17:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- About "free speech", please read WP:NOT: Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Jossi, on this we do not agree. Certainly civility is a wonderful thing. But, if you think it can be imposed through Misplaced Pages rules, you are wrong. All such rules can produce is an 1984 style thought police enforcment of rules against thoughtcrime. So the beauty in civility becomes degraded into the ugliness of secret surveillance, warnings, and enforcement through penalties or the threat of penalties. I want no part of that. Kwork 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
not easy
Hi Jossi. When you started editing I said this: "out of fairness, I should tell you at this early point, that you are likely to regret taking on editing this article". The editing situation for this article is difficult, and I hope that what I said is not already coming true. (I know that I am one reason that it is difficult, but there is a reason I do things the way I do.) In any case, the view I always try to maintain is that people always do what they think is right, and it is not possible for other people to see things the same way I do. Under other circumstances those same opponents might well become friends.
Anyhow, Jossi, try to be patient. The article has gotten better, and you have been a help. But it is natural for people to argue. To put it in Alice Bailey terminology, humanity itself, as a whole, is ruled by the 4th Ray which is called "harmony through conflict". Kwork 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a thick skin, but I will not tolerate uncivil comments regardless who is making them, and regardless of the context in which these are made. A good and vigorous debate is appreciated, but the arguments have to be made about the edits, and not about the editors. Now, if we can move on from this, that would be indeed appreciated.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- No "uncivil comments". That is a beautiful dream I have had. For the past seven months my personality has been the favorite subject of most editors who oppose me. Perhaps you would like to add some items to this list.Kwork 20:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE
Hi jossi,
User:ScienceApologist is attempting to edit war his changes into FRINGE, and refuses to discuss them on the talk page, accusing me of gaming the system. I don't know what should be done in the situation, but I ask you to take action and do whatever admins do here. I tried earlier to revert to the stable version, and he just reverted back and made accusations. Thanks (; ——Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologise
From now on I will make any comments that may be taken out of context via Wiki Email. With that said. I said what I said in response to the way you accused Cat of making obvious original research. She took it as an insult. I have concentration problems. I misread texts on a regular basis. What I said was not intended to be hurtful. I apologise. Albion moonlight 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes the loose cannon reference.
I was warning Cat because your status as an admin caused me to be concerned. I did not realize that you came to the article as an editor only. I apologize for that too. I can walk on eggs with the best of them.
I think you are over reacting too but I also now know that in terms of wiki civility policy you have that right. I apologise. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 00:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. Let us put all that behind without bad feelings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes please lets do that, I have no bad feeling towards you. I think you are a valuable asset to that article : Albion moonlight 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC): Albion moonlight 02:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk page change
You're aware of User:Kwork changing the signature of one of my talk page comments. I've never seen this done before, and I really don't know how to react to it. It's not even clear to me why he'd make that particular change. I'm a bit baffled, but I was willing to ignore it when it happened. It isn't really shocking to me, just bizarre. Wearing your admin hat, do you feel some action should be taken? I assume if you did, you'd have asked another admin to have a look? Eaglizard 08:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you linked to Loose canon, which is a redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monster. I bet you have in fact never been called that. ;^) Did you actually mean Loose cannon, or were you just being clever? Eaglizard 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A very similar thing happened to me on this particular page, pursuant to what I had said on Cats page but it also contained message that alerted Jossi to what I said on cats talk page. It contained my signature but I never copied any of it to this page . It was very Bizarre indeed. I thought of it as a glitch of some sort. I cannot figure out who did it or why. : Albion moonlight 09:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
please respond on my talk page
Dear Jossi, after reading your Wiki bio I can see that you're a compassionate man. I am making an appeal not only to your compassion but also appealing to your strong adherence to Misplaced Pages guidelines, rules and standards. This may not be a good time because I feel ill and shocked at the mean spiritedness that I just read on the Alice Bailey discussion. I would not be writing to you now, if not for the spark of decency from someone--asking them to stop. And another for timidly giving a good explanation for what may have occurred. I am guessing "timidly" because anyone that dares to defend a spokesman for Alice Bailey has been repeatedly accused of being an Anti-Semitic or a racist. The discussion section verifies this.
The Alice Bailey article is currently being shaped by those with a "personal view". The editors are biased, have little or no knowledge of the subject. And are not following Misplaced Pages rules of finding the the best verifiable sources, but are selecting sources that support what they want to say. And will insult and delete the work of anyone who tries to give a more balanced and scholarly picture. My personal talk page is still active if you want to reply there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklecplenty (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Sparklecplenty 16:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yahweh
Just saw your long sequence of edits on Yahweh. Maybe you should compare start and end once more yourself. Many things are improvements, but some destroy the grammar of a sentence - e.g. in Noun Phrase started when ..., which you changed into Noun Phrase. It started ... - or cause unbalanced parentheses. In some cases a reference with less reputable source lost the source URL, turning it into something unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.53.62 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks of the feedback. I will take a look and see if I made any deletions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Brettingham
Is there a point to wikifying all the years like that - also I was making some changes with the in use tag on! Giano 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Did I mess anything? Sorry. As for wkfying years, why not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to undo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not worth undoing, but the corrent thought is that there is no need to link every year unless it is very important to the article Giano 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see. Let's just link then to the decade only such as 1740s, where useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not worth undoing, but the corrent thought is that there is no need to link every year unless it is very important to the article Giano 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Fringe again
Would you mind reverting to the stable version and then protecting FRINGE? SA has continued to edit war his new changes to the text, before achieving consensus on the talk page. Thanks again, ——Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Martin, you have refused to discuss the rationale behind your version on the talkpage. At this point, it looks like you are trying to get a meatpuppet to help you own the guideline by asking for this. ScienceApologist 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
And yet again. I was hoping, per requests on talk page, that he'd discuss the reasons for his changes before inserting them. I want to know exactly how the changes might change the articles before they are inserted. ——Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Berlin article
Please change the version to the established one before the page gets protection. The version you protected is the disputed one. Lear 21 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Another request: can you convert the huge tag into something discreet? The current tag distracts the readability of the articles introduction. Lear 21 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The version that is disputed is actually Lear21's version which insists that Berlin is the 2nd largest city in the EU. I understand Lear21 is from Berlin, and we all like to present our cities as the best this or the biggest that, but it is quite POV to use one narrow definition of city (administrative limits of the central municipality) to claim that Berlin is the 2nd largest city in Europe, when in fact its urban area is only the 9th most populated in Europe, way behind cities like Paris, London or Madrid. Lear21 has preserved his disputed wording of the introduction (what he refers to as the "established version") by systematically reverting editors who tried to UNPOV that "2nd largest city" claim, and this for many months now (see ). So it's a bit of bad faith for him to claim that his version of the article is the undisputed one. Keizuko 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I will respond in article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There are discreet options protecting an article. Using an oversized template at the top of the article is out of proportion considering a minor incident (edit dispute) like this. Please reconsider changing the tag. Lear 21 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can request unprotection, if ready to resume editing without edit-wars, at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, here IS the request for unprotection. YOU are the one, responsible for the actions. Here is the place for asking. So please, again, reverse your measure, remove at least the tag or the protection at all. There is no justification to clutter an 80kb article with a tag in an edit dispute over half a phrase for a whole week. Thanks in advance Lear 21 02:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is not the process. I have protected the article because there was edit warring, false WP:ANI/3RR reports, etc. You can contest the protection by asking another admin to review it. Do so at WP:FRPP. Any further comments here will be ignored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Your actions have proofed a lack of proportion. You also proofed unable to apply the administrative functions in a flexible manner. This procedure is hardly convincing to be responsible. Lear 21 12:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Please change the tag to a discreet version as long as the article has to be protected. You are responsible for that. Lear 21 14:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- You know what? I will remove the protection and keep an eye on the article. Note that any further recurring edit warring by you or others in that article, will result in the temporarily loss of your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Johnny Cash
What did I do to Johnny Cash?
Please respond on my talk page, I'll never find my way back here...
Thelegendarystm 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
German Neo Nazis
Hi Jossi
I would like to urge you very importantly to look at all the Pages containing references to the Holy Roman Empire in the Misplaced Pages german, swiss, Luxembourg etc. sites: Here NeoNazis are at work, who try by stealth to place their ideology in wikipedia. See Celle "Bunny Hunt" Roman Holy Empire, Goslar etc. Get the editor of this article and hold him responsible. Other Nations are offended by this and the facts of the Holy Roman Empire do not mirror the reality: as well as that of the Reichszirkel. Here history is being perverted and the least thing i would like to see is that Misplaced Pages is used as A PLATFORM FOR NAZI idiology. If this continues, i shall refer this to the press that you habour Nazi writiers amongst your contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merleauponty (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Teachings of Prem Rawat
Hi Jossi,
Yes I agree, it is just a stub, but I am having a little trouble proceeding. Any helpful advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Rumiton 14:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am sure you can do much better without me... but I will try and offer some ideas.You also need to add {{Teachings of Prem Rawat}} at the beginning of the section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Calligraphy
Good morning Jossi.
How are you ? I have returned to Misplaced Pages for the first time in a couple of months today- my traditional long weekend contribution was due.
I haven't had a look for a couple of months due to falling pregnant and hence being rather busy and tired. However the content of Western Calligraphy has been entirely hacked apart. My bibliography remains at the end of the article but the refences to which they refer have been entirely removed along with the text.
I see that this process was started in July and again further pursued this month by two different writers of no evident merit on trhis subject. Are you able to take the page back to what it was in say May and we can work from there?
I am surprised that I have not been told of this as we could have saved the page from the ruinous consequences of these editors.
Look forward to hearing from you. Certainly the edits that have been performed no longer allow te page to be regarded as based on reliable published authority. I would appreciate it if you could email me directly please. Calligraphy@xtra.co.nz
Kind regards, Alison Furminger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furminger (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Alison. Nice to see you back. I think that what editors are doing there is to add inline citations rather than Harvard style citations. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Celts
I have reverted your edits to the modern usage section, as the article states the nations are based on the "criterion employed by the Celtic League and the Celtic Congress. In this sense, there are six modern nations that can be defined as Celtic: Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales". To replace Ireland with the republic, in my opinion is unjustified, as well as being secterian. If you do want the republic listed as a seperate entity to Ireland, it would not be unreasonable to add Northern Ireland to the list as well. Some would class using the poliitical entities as WP:OR (It has been quite heavily warred over in Template:Celtic_nations), I would be quite ambivalent. Fasach Nua 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Irish flag was changed from the four provinces flag to the tricolour Ireland by this user edit. I don't think it was intentional. I've changed it back to the four provs flag. Wiki01916 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is a vast improvemment Fasach Nua 16:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
God
Hello Jossi, thank you for your message and invitation to discourse with you on your talk page. I would like to add the following information to the "God" article under the entry "El" as a Name of God: According to The Oxford Companion To World Mythology (David Leeming, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 118), "It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the 'God of Abraham'...If El was the high god of Abraham - Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh - Asherah was his wife, and there are archeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect 'divorced' in the context of emerging Judaism of the seventh century B.C.E. (See 2 Kings 23:15)"
However, there is no ability to edit that page, presumably because of sensitivity concerns. How do I raise this issue and/or make this suggestion? Thanks for your attention, Bartbandy 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The page is semi-protected, meaning that new users or anonymous users cannot edit it. We semi-protect pages when there is a lot of vandalism... I have unprotected it, so you should be able to edit it. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Berlin semi-protection
Hi Jossi -- thanks for stepping in on the Berlin stuff. Per the semi-protection though there's no evidence (or as I've seen it reason to believe) that Lear 21 was the one that vandalized the page anonymously. I just reverted his pre-block edit along with a vandalism edit. The vandalism was just the garden variety junk. In my opinion, unless there are reverts to the contested content during Lear's blocked time there's no reason for the semi-protection. Cheers! Scott.wheeler 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Unblock Lear 21
Your actions leading to the block of user:Lear 21 are unjustified and baseless. There has been NO vandalism. There has been NO violating of 3RR Rule. There has been neither disruptive editing, apart from reinserting monthlong sourced and established content at the Berlin article. The revert has also been credibly reasoned. There has been nothing done, justifiyng any blocking and neither an "out of proportion" one week block. Unprotect this account as soon as possible or a procedure of abusive administrator behaviour will be initiated. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can use the template in your talk page to contest the block. In the meantime I am blocking this IP as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for fairness, but for all practical purposes the 3RR rule was broken. You reverted three times within 26 hours, plus there was one identical revert, referencing the same argument, from an anonymous Berlin-based IP address in that time span. Scott.wheeler 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Gene chip analysis
While I in no way object to your speedy deletion of GENE CHIP ANALYSIS, could I just ask what your comment of "WP:ORD" means? Cheers --Pak21 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Spelling mistake, I mean WP:OR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
TNE
Thanks for protecting the TNE page. Such an action was long overdue. Now that there's some protection from the constant vandalism by unregistered users, I'll actually work to improve the article and add some specific sources that I have access to. BlueGold73 13:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm
Jossi, I was tempted to curtly tell you that you are welcome to take your fascinating sarcasm elsewhere. Upon reflection, I realized that the most effective response to sarcasm is probably not more sarcasm. Instead I'll just share with you two things: first, my experience has been that sarcasm is a uniformly bad idea: someone almost always misunderstands me, and someone else will almost certainly be offended, no matter how mild I think I've been about it In the ensuing emotional reaction, any valid point I might have had is usually ignored. I have had so many negative experiences as a result of my own intensely sarcastic nature, both here at WP and in "real life"; I strongly recommend that editors avoid sarcasm altogether.
And secondly, your tiny sarcasm was completely inappropriate, and annoyed the crap out of me. I feel you have not given me the simple respect of actually reading my comments, which were in fact directly related to Alice Bailey's text, which is (I believe) somewhat pertinent to the article. I believe Kwork is the only one debating Zionism itself with no connection to the article. Had you not been sarcastic, I might have responded very differently. Eaglizard 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ooops...! It was not my intention to be sarcastic. I was trying to encourage users to take their off-topic discussions elsewhere. I guess that sometimes I am not aware of the unintended perceptions that my comments can incite on others. Will surely pay more attention in in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)