User talk:Jayen466

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HI! IF YOU LEAVE ME A MESSAGE HERE, I WILL USUALLY ANSWER HERE, RATHER THAN ON YOUR OWN TALK PAGE, SO PLEASE CHECK BACK.


Contents

[edit] Osho

I'd be happy to do the move, probably tomorrow so I can give it my full attention. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 02:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Will Beback · † · 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi I see that you have reverted the position of the wikiquote link on the Osho page. Do you have any way of restoring the appearnace of the link symbols at the end of the first and third external links as they are not showing properly? 89.240.2.20 12:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The disappearing symbols are a glitch in Wikipedia; it happens in other places in the text as well. I can get the symbols to display correctly by changing the text size in IE or Firefox. As for the position of the Wikiquote box, I randomly checked some other articles that have links to sister projects -- Rabindranath Tagore (a Featured Article in WP), Karl Marx, Gandhi, J. Krishnamurti -- and they all have the box positioned at the top of the relevant section ... so I thought, well, let's go with that, since it seems to be the standard style. Cheers, Jayen466 13:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lo, Don't really understand much of how Wiki works at the moment for the actual editing process and leaving coments and the like. I was wondering if you could check out this Critical Assessment of Osho. It seems to be non biased from what I read and also detailed http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html Silveranstavern (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC) silveranstavern.

Welcome and thanks. I'm familiar with the site. However, have a look into WP:SPS, which is part of WP:V, and WP:RS; Wikipedia is quite stringent with the sort of sources it allows. Cheers, Jayen466 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Candiru Picture

I have indicated that the ruler is in Inches, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Takedashingen620 12:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:I'm lLOST

No problem. I'm only watching the page in waiting for a question I left on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments

I have commented here: Talk:Osho/Comments

WP:BIO might be able to recommend a suitable infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Hey, just wondering: isn't there a template for a teacher or a spiritual teacher - is the "artist" the closest we can get? I am guessing you already searched for templates and the "artist" seems the most suitable for Osho and Gurdjieff. If you want me to help you look for another say so. Aeuio 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aeuio, I took that info box from the featured article Tagore (where it's subsequently been replaced, though). I think it fits quite well, because it allows for specification of "movement" and "key works". What do you think?
I couldn't find any template specifically designed for spiritual teachers. Looked at the philosophy templates, and they didn't seem right. Have used the artist one in Idries Shah as well now. If you should find something better, do let me know. Cheers, Jayen466 11:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The philosophy one looks pretty good too. I'll put it on the talk page to see what others think. Thanks for the template idea. Aeuio 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I had the Osho article reviewed the other day, and the absence of an info box was one of the main shortcomings the reviewer wanted fixed. The G article has some of the same shortcomings. For example, we don't mention biographical details like his brother, the death of his wife etc. Cheers, Jayen466 12:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the Gurdjieff article: We are currently doing a revision and you are more than welcome to help. Concerning your "history section" comment, If you are interested then this http://www.gurdjieff.org/chronology.htm is a good place to use to improve the bio. Aeuio 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, that chronology looks like a great reference source. Too busy to help today, but will check in again. Good luck. Jayen466 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Osho.jpg

Glad to help out, only the job's not quite finished. The image still needs a use rationale. Perhaps you can add one before someone flags the image again? Thanks, and thanks for cropping the messy bottom! -- But|seriously|folks  16:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That should take care of most of it. Just stick it into a template like {{Non-free use rationale}}, add the missing fields and you'll be done. Thanks again! -- But|seriously|folks  18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Scleromochlus / Ornithodira

Current phylogenetic analyses places Scleromochlus as the basal most-member of Ornithodira, and not within Pterosauropmorpha. Even if Scleromochlus was within Pterosauropmorpha it does not necessitate that it was in fact an 'ancestor' to the pterosaurs. All it would tell us is that both the pterosaurs and Scleromochlus shared a more recent common ancestor than that with the dinosaurs. Sister group relationships does not mean one taxon is ancestral to none-another. Take the example of humans and chimps+bonoboos. We are their sister taxon, but we're not ancestral to either, and neither of them are ancestral to us. This is a common misunderstanding of cladistic methodology and theory. There is no current Scleromochlus-pterosaur explicit ancestor theory (as no-one would/or should ever try and postulate direct ancestry as it is untestable)that I'm aware of. Simply that some analyses that placed it within the pterosauromorphs, whilst others places it as basal to both pterosauromorphs+dinosauromorphs. It is worth noting that Scleromochlus appears earlier in the fossil record than pterosauromorphs, so it cannot be the direct ancestor to pterosaurs in any case. Hope this helps. Mark t young 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The only image of use that I noticed at [1] was "imm003.jpg". What do you think? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

  • However if the current Osho pic doesn't hold on WikiCommons, that Rolls Royce pic is the next best iconic, free-use pic to use to represent Osho on Wiki. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
Yes, we could use that as a fall-back. -- Jayen466 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Kewl. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Barnstar!

Image:Halfstar.png The Half Barnstar
Awarded to you and to Curt Wilhelm VonSavage. For the most civil disagreement I have ever seen on Wikipedia, at 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Very impressive. Keep it up! Katr67 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! In fact, I have been thinking of inviting him (I'll assume with a name like that it is a he) to revise the Osho article with me. :-)) Best wishes, Jayen466 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think attempting to revise the Osho article is not something I am interested in at this time. It would take an incredible amount of work and time and effort to get the article from its current puff-piece/hagiography/whitewash to a state where it could be considered neutral. However, as I said before it might be fun to work on other related articles, or to create relevant articles that don't yet exist on the project. I already have quite a few in mind. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tamara Davies

Sorry for the late reply. I responded on my talk page. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

 This is not a forum for general discussion of this subject.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Jay,
Did you actually put this tag on a discussion page (Talk:Idries Shah)?
Was it not you who spotted that the psychology section of the article needed lots, lots more work...?
Is there anything wrong with the verifiability of the information ?
Or did I forget to ask the teacher ?

Lunarian (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am not that much interested in what wikipedia is not, I just contribute to what it is
I did, because I could not see where you were going with your comments. Otherwise I appreciate your adding sourced info to the article; it definitely can benefit from further expansion. -- Jayen466 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, in any case the article is now much improved through your intervention also.
I must also conclude from our interchange that I am not that great with irony . It affects my tone in a manner that invites reprimand.
I stand corrected.
Thanks for your fine contribution.
Lunarian (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comments. -- Jayen466 04:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gratias tibi ago pro labore tuo

You are of course right, refero/referro's the indicative pr 1.sg. Can't imagine how that's slipped by me all this time. Part of the explanation being that one hardly ever looks at one's own userpage. Thanks again for taking the time. Relata refero (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Sigma

In your recent edits, you deleted the reference to the 1988 Motorola pamphlet, "The Nature of six sigma quality". Did you know that this pamphlet is regarded as the publication that introduced the "rest of the world" to Six Sigma? It probably should have been kept in.

Additionally, why did you feel the need to de-link Image:OneAndAHalfSigmaDrift.svg?

Hi Daniel, I would suggest that we start a Literature section for the article, and include Harry's book in it. The article is generally short on references right now; many key statements are not verifiable for the reader. I am busy at the moment but will try to do some work on that. The section on the 1.5 sigma shift that I deleted (and which included the picture) was unreferenced and seemed like a Wikipedian's private critique of Harry's approach, rather than something verifiably based on available literature. The article needs a lot of work, based on academic sources -- I believe it is one of the articles most frequently accessed in WP, and at present woefully short of encyclopedic standards. Anyway, that is my view; what do you think? Best wishes Jayen466 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand the issue:
  • The first statement in the "The ±1.5 Sigma Drift" was cited until you deleted it, making the article even "shorter on references".
  • The reference you deleted was a citation used to properly cite the source of that statement, consistent with WP:CITE. Separating the citation from the statement (e.g., in a "Literature section") makes it more difficult to verify, not easier.
  • Per Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, "[m]any people learn better, and many technical concepts are communicated better, through visual depictions". De-linking the image does not help these people.
  • Finally, the edits you made contain no citations (except the one you moved), which seems contradictory in the face of your insistance WP:VERIFY.
I agree completely with your premise (that the old section was WP:OR), but it seems to me you replaced somewhat sourced material (e.g., the Harry pamphlet) with less sourced material. Did you really improve the article in the end?
Guilty as charged, what I inserted lacked references. However, there are published references available for what I inserted, and I am not so sure that is the case for everything else we had. The old section on "The term Six Sigma", for example, had things back to front, stating that the 1.5 sigma is added to an existing 4.5 sigma, as though the 1.5 sigma shift assumed processes were going to be more capable over the long term, when it is in fact a subtraction from the 6 sigma capability that practitioners want to observe over the short term, made so as not to make an unrealistic overestimate of long-term capability. So to that extent I am absolutely confident that I have improved the section concerned, making it easier to understand what this 6 sigma thing is about, and why the given 3.4 ppm correspond to a 4.5 sigma quantile, rather than 6 sigma. I have now inserted the Harry as a ref for the discussion of the 1.5 sigma shift where it is first mentioned. Jayen466 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now added the missing references. Jayen466 02:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self revert?

Sorry, Jayen, this is not a self-revert diff - the last version of the intro before yours was Lawrence Cohen's (see left side of the diff I gave). Self-revert means you revert to the version before your own (regarding the part of the page you had been editing). Self-revert is a wrong term here, you're simply supporting the version without the intellectual content criticism in the lead section. No problem with that, but it is not correct to indicate it as a "self-revert" in the edit summary then. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Jayen466 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC resolved comments

Diff - If this particular issue with this specific set of instances of usage of the Garrett cites has been resolved, per your statement here can you please restore the caps that I had added to the FAC, so that it does not take up as much room in the FAC discussion page? Cirt (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wagner on Hegel

Wagner is a notable individual, an expert on music, and a crackpot on politics. Randi is a notable individual, an expert on spiritual techniques, and an award-winning skeptic. Watts is a notable individual, an expert on Eastern religions, and a supporter of the spread of Eastern religions in the West. Collier is a non-notable individual, an expert on nothing, and merely a memoirist, an entrepreneur, and a philanthropist (no mean feats, but irrelevant to the topic). She is just a minor participant, akin to a bystander - a "nobody". If we're going to include the opinions of "nobodys" then we should also include those of "somebodys".

Frankly I think these Prem Rawat articles are quickly turning into quotation files. It's lazy editing, and I'm partly guilty too. While noteworthy or scholarly quotes are easy to plug in, people come to encyclopedias for summaries of information rather than just assemblages of quotations (there is Wikiquote, after all).

Anyway, it's all just article editing. If it's not one topic it's another. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Will. I wouldn't say that Randi is an expert on spiritual techniques; he is a self-confessed bright and takes a stand against all religion. The problem is, I agree with much, if not most of what he says, as far as objective reality is concerned. Yet I also have sympathy for the subjective view, as expressed for example here by Arthur J. Deikman:

... it is possible that the conclusions of scientific materialism are wrong. From time to time we sense a larger reality than the one science provides, a subtle perception pointing to a better, meaningful existence. The dissonance between the scientific view and the one we intuit produces restlessness and a need for resolution. Even the pursuit of material goals may be a blind response to the urge to attain a dimly sensed reality in which purpose and meaning are facts, not fantasies. Our ability to progress in that direction is severely hampered by our not understanding the nature of the problem, by restricting reality to the empirical realm. Indeed, Western psychological science tends to regard the very consciousness through which we know the physical world to be no more than a product of that world, an epiphenomenon less real than that which it comprehends. No wonder meaning vanishes. A physicist commented on this assumption:
Most painful is the absolute silence of all our scientific investigations towards our questions concerning the meaning and scope of the whole display. The more attentively we watch it, the more aimless and foolish it appears to be. The show that is going on obviously acquires a meaning only with regard to the mind that contemplates it. But what science tells us about this relationship is patently absurd; as if the mind had only been produced by that very display that it is now watching and would pass away with it when the sun finally cools down and the earth has turned into a desert of ice and snow.
It is as if Descartes had been stood on his head and made to declare, "I think; therefore, the world exists and I am an illusion."

– Arthur J. Deikman, The Observing Self, http://www.deikman.com/observingself.html

Religion is, by definition, concerned with the subjective, and you can't do it justice by a reductionist approach that would equally seek to reduce an essentially subjective experience like love to a matter of hormones. It's one reason why scholars of religion don't usually argue this way, but instead simply describe the psychological aspects – beliefs, states of mind and so on – of religious practicians.
The argument about the objective and subjective world views belongs, to my mind, to a different level of discourse; Randi's views are apposite at a higher node, for his rejection of these methods stems from his a-priori rejection of all religious practices, regardless of whether we are talking about prayer, yoga, meditation, mantras, dhikr or what have you, based on the fact that he has no personal interest in transforming his own psychology.
As for Collier, I understand your concern; I suggest the correct way to go might be to restrict our citations of her book to those passages that are cited by scholars. Otherwise I would agree that we are in danger of citing a primary source and engaging in OR.
I also agree with you about the danger of this turning into a quoting exercise. We should strive to provide narratives, not quotations.
And thanks for hanging in there. ;-) Jayen466 18:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Jayen, for the intelligent and scholarly approach you are bringing to these articles. Hope you don't go away. Rumiton (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't able to keep up with everything for a few days, due to work. Are you still translating? (It's what I do for a living, hence the occasional deadline trouble. You probably know what I mean. ;-) ) Jayen466 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I do. I seem to have the sort of brain that comes up with a great phrase at about 3 a.m. a week after the deadline expires. Today I am just a happy dilettante. I am working on a new translation of Die Zauberflőte, for my own satisfaction and of course to ensure my immortality. :-) See you. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For making the effort to locate a difficult to find and out-of-print source. If only more editors would go beyond Google in their research! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. :-) Jayen466 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Sigma

Don't take this personally, but I don't have a high opinion of your current editing style, though that's not to say that you can't improve your editing skills. In particular, I'd like to see you improve your understanding of the subject matter and of Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible before making significant edits to Six Sigma. Until then, why don't we use some peer review mechanism like Talk:Six Sigma or Wikipedia:Third opinion to review your changes.

Here are my specific objections:

  • You give the impression that you have not widely read up on the subject before editing the article.
  • Simply adding more words does not improve understanding in and of itself. For example:
  • "Six Sigma is a set of practices originally developed by Motorola to systematically improve processes by eliminating defects." is much more to the point than "Six Sigma is a set of practices originally developed by Motorola and today widely applied in industry. Its aim is to systematically improve business processes so as to eliminate defects."
  • "Continuous efforts to reduce variation in process outputs is key to business success" is again more to the point than the long-winded "Continuous efforts to achieve greater uniformity (or reduce variation) in process outputs are of vital importance to business success"
  • &c., &c., &c.
  • We really don't understand what it is about Six Sigma that so bothers people that they express their disgust on Talk:Six Sigma—they are uniformly unable to articulate anything actionable, despite repeated encouragement.
  • It may be that the best solution to the issue lies outside the article, e.g., in providing some introductory material.
  • Per Six Sigma itself (and other process improvement methodologies), if we don't put forth the effort understand what's bothering these people (define the problem), how do we stand any chance of improving things by making changes based on little more than "gut reaction"?
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on the article's talk page. Jayen466 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Sigma

what do you understand by variation my friend? Do you believe Six Sigma is only used to remove defects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.134.248 (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cf. [2], itself citing Snee. We are not talking about removing defects, but about removing the causes of errors and defects, where a defect is anything that could cause customer dissatisfaction. DPMO plays a crucial part in measuring Six Sigma quality. Note that the concept of variation is introduced in the "Historical overview" section. Cheers, Jayen466 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission has become active. Your participation is required to make it a success. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] from sakal

Hello Jayen! INTERESTING SITUATION regarding hostile editing, I should be interested in your opinion. A co-ordinated group of "skeptics" appears to police certain pages of metaphysical import around here. They try to pick fights, they revert and report vandalism but refuse to discuss. They engage in retaliatory trashing. They are very keen to keep as many "James Randi" refs as poss in wiki. None of them seems to know much about the subjects in hand. For a start, take a look at my comments on the page "new age" - anonymous reversion, then a respondent tries to start a fight, because I have "insulted" some anonymous editor, then he diverts to another page energy (spirituality) and suddenly three or four people absolutely trash it. But nobody can offer any expertise on the sociology of "new age"!

Interesting, like I said! Redheylin (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Catholicism, etc

Over at WP:AE you made a statement that we don't view the Vatican critically.[3] We should discuss all topics with the neutral point of view. But there is no lack of critical material on Christianity and Catholicism. We have very full categories devoted to Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Christianity. And the article on Papal Apartments really does mention the marble.

The family background of Prem Rawat helps explain his later lifestyle. He came from a wealthy family and lived accordingly. The issue of religious/spiritual leaders who lead luxurious lifestyles financed by the contributions of followers has always been a cause of controversy, whether the leaders be televangelists, the Pope, or Osho. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but that's not for us to judge. If an Indian who is familiar with gurus and the norms of the culture thinks that the residence of a guru is notable then that's part of the material we're here to summarize. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RS

Jayen, I will try to provide a short history on your talk re the evolution of RS and the debates over merging/redirecting etc. It will probably take me a few days. I have talked about it so much in the past, I fear I come off as rigid now. Sorry. Marskell (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's alright. I think I understand where you're coming from. Thanks. Jayen466 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lean Six Sigma

Hi Jayen. I trawled through the revisions, and all of them were fairly promotional in nature; it read like a jargon-packed advertisement for how incredible Lean Six Sigma is, rather than a viable encyclopedic article. I appreciate Six Sigma, Lean manufacturing and the like are magnets for promotional spamming, but this was a step beyond that. I think it would be better for an article to be written from scratch - there was virtually nothing usable in the deleted revisions. I agree that the concept could warrant an article, despite my personal dislike of anything to do with Six Sigma - however, the deleted versions had very little about "Lean Six Sigma", rather it showed how various companies used both Lean principles AND Six Sigma ones, and synthesized this into an article on "Lean Six Sigma". Neıl 龱 11:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. I agree that the hype is very off-putting and has no place here. If I get a rainy afternoon with nothing to do, I might have a look for secondary literature and put together a sober paragraph or two. Jayen466 13:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Great - good luck! Neıl 龱 13:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] QT Inc. and ionized bracelet

Jay - there's an issue with the above pages. If you'd care to investigate and tell me how you think it best to proceed. The former links to an outfit notable for having scammed millions with a fake alternative medicine bracelet. The latter is a page maintained and run by a single editor, who has managed a series of mutually-contradictory reasons that the page goes on advertising direct-mail internet sites to buy these things. Please respond on my talk page. Hope you have time. Redheylin (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm… Anyway, I think you were right about WP:ELNO, Jay. Thanks for the guideline link. I was just copying the pattern seen on other product pages of linking to the manufacturers' homepages. (Example) –Gunslinger47 06:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)