User talk:Sparaig

Joe I 11:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lawson! I noticed your entry on the TM talk: page and recognized your name from

Lawson, your addition of your personal point of view into the Transcendental Meditation article and unjustified deletion of material you don't like -- along with Peterklutz' repeated violations of NPOV and other rules -- has caused a lock to be placed on the TM article. I had to ask for this protection to stop these violations. Please respect Wikipedia rules in the future.Askolnick 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please what? I blocked Peterklutz for personal attacks and incivility. Do you disagree with that? Have you looked at the post I blocked him for? If you have an accusation of similar, or any, violations on the part of ASkolnick, please make them in a more direct manner. Violations of the

Hi, Sparaig. Thanks for your contributions to the TM article and for fixing Hagelin. I had been meaning to make that change regarding Ig Nobel. I had fixed that same thing on the TM-Sidhi page. If you're so inclined, you might also want to fix it in the article on What the Bleep Do We Know!?.TimidGuy 12:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI, Sparaig. Thanks for your participation in the TM article. The info about Skolnick was helpful and explained a lot. I disagree with Sethie -- I think it's appropriate to bring any relevant information to bear in the context of the Talk page. TimidGuy 18:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just about everyone disagrees with Sethie on this point, I think. The talk page is for hashing things out. It's not the final draft of the article so its ok to bring in usually questionable sources in order to further the discussion. In fact, my source really isn't questionable, because Andrew is quite proud of all of his writings, on newsgroups or in professional publications, and wouldn't deny he wrote the article if asked. He seems like generally a very nice guy, but has extreme blinders concerning New Age type stuff due to his family background. On the topic of TM, he's exceptionally biased: in his eyes, he was sued for no good reason by a deceptive, literally evil, organization. -Sparaig 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sometime e-mail me via my Wikipedia e-mail about his family background. Curious. TimidGuy 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't about TM per say I have moved my response to you here.

LOL, Seithie, the MEDIATOR isn't that worried about it. What is your thing about newsgroups? If ASkolnick wants to denounce my selective quoting of our online discussion that we had 7-10 years ago he can come back and say "that wasn't really me." I'm telling you outright, that I know for a fact that the posts by "Lawson English" ARE by Lawson English (me) and by extension, since Andrew (ASkolnick) Skolnick's own website selectively quotes me from those same discussions and never says "I didn't say this particular article, XYZ," that the entire series of articles attributed to him in the newsheaders from the Google newsgroup archive IS by him. Since I'm not proposing to include any aspect of the material as source material in the article, what can possibly be the point of your objection? They are the record of a public argument explicitly acknowledged by me and tacitly acknowledged by ASkolncik. I stand by all that I said, allowing for inadvertent factual and grammatical errors on my part, and I'm pretty sure that Andrew does as well. -Sparaig 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that our mediator is not concerned with you bringing up newsgroups here.

As for my thing with newsgroups, well they don't qualify as a WP:RS. For me, since they don't count as sources, they don't count as reliable, well sources ABOUT sources either. Why would I use something unreliable to make decisions about what is reliable? For me, they cloud issues, not clarify them.

On the other hand, anything off Andrews' website, in my book has a higher level of reliability (not neccesarily accuracy mind you), so if there are any quotes there that are relevant to the discussion, please bring those.

My "thing" with newsgroups is that, there are A LOT of discussions going on right now on this page, and I would enjoy it if there were less, especially discussions that can and will have no impact on the actual article. Can you show me an instance in which reffering to newsgroups actually moved an article along/resolved a dispute/etc. here on wikipedia? Maybe I am all wrong about newsgroups, maybe they do really serve wikipedia. I am open to being wrong about them.

When I want to get clear on something in wikipedia, I sometimes ask myself would editors of the Briticana look at/talk about/use this? For me they wouldn't give newsgroups the time of day and hence I would enjoy it if you brought them up less here and brought up other sources.

I guess I am partially resentful that you bring them up, because I don't, and I want to! There is soooooooo much critical stuff of TM on newsgroups, some even posted by people who would pass WP:RS, and yet my understanding is that this is outside what is allowed in WP.Sethie 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But again, I never advocated quoting Andrew or myself in those discussions in the wikipedia article. At most, they were being used to support TimgidGuy's statement: an encouragement to look for more RS if necessary. And, it seems to me, that Andrew's admission that there WAS a secret "agreement" kinda reinforces TimidGuy's claim that he's seen a copy of the court order. Afterall, you haven't asked him to furnish that copy, now have you? -Sparaig 21:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, sometimes I want to focus or help a conversation, and I end up distracting it, this appears to be one of those times. You and the others found value in what you posted, so I drop my complaints about them. Sethie 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sparaig, for making those points about COI. TimidGuy 17:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spairig, I thought the assessment at the COI noticeboard was fairly clear. However, I notice you are actively disputing that, even at the COI noticeboard. I feel that this chronic, unresolved issue is significant enough to require resolution. While it appears incidents like this have motivated a strengthening of COI guidance, I have asked a number of editors involved there to comment on the following based on your position, you may want to reply, and I hope we can finally get this issue finally resolved one way or the other:

(Tearlach): "Is it just my perception, or are infringing editors getting wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they don't actively break major policies? We seem to be getting a lot of "I hear what you say but that doesn't apply to me because ... fill in excuse"."

Considering oneself neutral and providing character witnesses are thought enough make COI a non-issue. Besides the criticism of the COI Noticeboard editors in claiming "an extreme misconception on the part of everyone here: WHY would someone being at the TM university for decades be construed as evidence of COI in regards to editing the [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi] article?", and claims Paul Mason "throughly despises MMY", Spairig said:

"I gotta wonder at your obsession here, given that the description of COI says that one must be PAID or expect to be compensated in some way for editing the Wiki page in question in order for there to be a financial COI. The Maharishi University of Management employees are all posting anonymously because, as I understand it, the general policy of the various TM organizations is to "stay out of the mud" of arguing about TM in public unless you are a lawyer or PR person working in your capacity as such. None of the TM-related editors are being paid to edit this page as far as I know. the close relationships COI might apply, but only if you can demonstrate that the editors are not keeping a NPOV in what they post. That also doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that some "experienced Wiki editors" don't appear to understand the issue and support your claims is trumped by what the WP:COI page actually says."

I have Mason (both versions), easy to get. Mason "thoroughly despises MMY" seems both inaccurate and irrelevant. Mason states the TM organization fought publication but failed. Unjustified personal attacks on Mason from TMers are just one example on one subject of a COI undermining NPOV. One example of individual editors now feeling free to dismiss COI concerns based on personal interpretations of COI, with a sense of impunity and indignity. I see need for a global Wikipedian solution. Comments? --Dseer 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was interesting to see their responses. Athaenara deleted your post saying "To Dseer - please do NOT spam my user talk page. Thank you.." Durova asked for evidence. And EdJohnston, bless him, was extremely reasonable in his view [1]. TimidGuy 11:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about Mason was not along the lines of inclusion or not inclusion, but merely to point out that he has biases against the subject [Maharishi] he wrote about. Whether or not these biases crept into his bio on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, I couldn't say but it seems to me QUITE clear that anyone who allows themselves to be identified as "part of the team" on a blog called "TMFree" is not pro-TM, and that anyone who writes the following about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, has a definite bias, justified or no, about the topic:

Q. In conclusion then, isn't it true to say that the Maharishi is nothing other than an opportunistic, self-promoting maverick who, although probably well-meaning, wilfully misleads his supporters and anyone else who has the time, the inclination and the money to listen to him?

A. Some say the TM method is a good one, some say not. --Paul Mason

-Sparaig 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]