| Revision as of 10:17, 18 April 2014 editBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,214 edits →"Not appropriate EL"?: this is strange← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:08, 18 April 2014 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →"Not appropriate EL"?: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| {{od}} | {{od}} | ||
| ] is not for content disputes. As for "insulting behavior"—it ''is'' extraordinary for you to assume that my not responding for 2 hours is a reason to go ahead and revert your preferred text. Real life called me away from the keyboard for a while ... Generally, for a global encyclopedia, it's conventional to leave ''at least'' 24 hrs before assuming that "silence means assent" in an ongoing discussion. I'm sorry you seem to think I made a complaint-worthy observation: certainly no "insult" was intended. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 10:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC) | ] is not for content disputes. As for "insulting behavior"—it ''is'' extraordinary for you to assume that my not responding for 2 hours is a reason to go ahead and revert your preferred text. Real life called me away from the keyboard for a while ... Generally, for a global encyclopedia, it's conventional to leave ''at least'' 24 hrs before assuming that "silence means assent" in an ongoing discussion. I'm sorry you seem to think I made a complaint-worthy observation: certainly no "insult" was intended. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 10:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :], slow down and breathe. Your addition to the article is incorrect as is your going to ANI before discussion is allowed to unfold - as per ] talk things out, man. ] (]) 11:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Creating a separate article on this topic == | == Creating a separate article on this topic == | ||
Revision as of 11:08, 18 April 2014
"Not appropriate EL"?
Hi Alex - Could you please give me a link to the Misplaced Pages policy which supports your comment that the external link "Free resources for Mindfulness Meditation from the UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center, including guided meditations" is not appropriate to the article Mindfulness meditation? Thanks; Leo LeoRomero (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The guidance is WP:EL. I think providing a link to an organization's audio "meditations" isn't quite encyclopedic - and even if it were, I'm not sure any one organization's collection of material should be privileged by having an external link to it. Alexbrn 06:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Alex. Four points: (1) The links I provided are not just to the audio page, but primarily to the home page of an organization of high repute. (2) I reread all of WP:EL and find that my links meet all the guidelines on what to link - specifically #3, since the site I linked to does "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and "cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, and amount of detail". (3) My links violate none of the prohibitions. (4) I find no policy basis to support your opinion "I'm not sure any one organization's collection of material should be privileged by having an external link to it." Could you cite the policy basis for your opinion please? LeoRomero (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The trouble is, it's not providing "encyclopedic understanding", it's undigested material from an organization selling courses and soliciting for donations to help it "promote its programs". Adding a link to a such an organization risks being promotional in nature. Alexbrn 07:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying your opinions, Alex. In response: (1) WP:EL does not require that a link provide encyclopedic understanding. It requires only that it "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". The MARC@UCLA resources are neutral, accurate, and relevant. (2) WP:EL does not prohibit links simply because the material is "undigested". On the contrary, as I quoted above, the link is appropriate precisely because the site's information "cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to ... amount of detail". (3) The very valuable guided meditations I linked to are provided by MARC@UCLA for free, zero strings attached. (4) Even if MARC@UCLA were a money-grubbing bloodsucker (which it most definitely is not), a link to it would still be acceptable. As the link you yourself provided says: "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations." (5) The Wikimedia Foundation sells products (e.g. ads through Wikia), and Misplaced Pages itself regularly solicits donations. Following your logic, we wouldn't be able to link to any Wikimedia project or to Misplaced Pages itself. LeoRomero (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Alex - Having received no further comment from you, I am undoing your edit. I hope you don't mind. Cheers! LeoRomero (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- These things are bound-up together: the undigested nature of the material means that while it may be "relevant" to the subject, it is not relevant to an "encyclopedic understanding" of it: it's just providing raw information (and who knows if it's neutral & accurate?). If the EL was to, say, a collection of independent scholarly material hosted by the MARC@UCLA site, that would be a different matter. While links to revenue-generating sites are indeed not "prohibited" there is (as I said) a risk of spam; by the logic of such links being unproblematic, EL sections could incorporate any site claiming to have a valuable downloadable offerings - and that would not end well. (Add: oh, I see you've just reverted your preferred content back in - which is rather extraordinary behaviour. Editors don't sit in front of their keyboards 24/7!) Alexbrn 09:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have requested Admin assistance to resolve our disagreement over WP:EL, and to address your insulting behavior. Here's a link to the incident report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoRomero (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to me that these links are not appropriately encyclopaedic and overly promotional for our use. I support their removal. It is also premature for appealing to AN/I as the discussion has only just begun, rather than come to an end unresolved. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have requested Admin assistance to resolve our disagreement over WP:EL, and to address your insulting behavior. Here's a link to the incident report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoRomero (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- These things are bound-up together: the undigested nature of the material means that while it may be "relevant" to the subject, it is not relevant to an "encyclopedic understanding" of it: it's just providing raw information (and who knows if it's neutral & accurate?). If the EL was to, say, a collection of independent scholarly material hosted by the MARC@UCLA site, that would be a different matter. While links to revenue-generating sites are indeed not "prohibited" there is (as I said) a risk of spam; by the logic of such links being unproblematic, EL sections could incorporate any site claiming to have a valuable downloadable offerings - and that would not end well. (Add: oh, I see you've just reverted your preferred content back in - which is rather extraordinary behaviour. Editors don't sit in front of their keyboards 24/7!) Alexbrn 09:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Alex - Having received no further comment from you, I am undoing your edit. I hope you don't mind. Cheers! LeoRomero (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying your opinions, Alex. In response: (1) WP:EL does not require that a link provide encyclopedic understanding. It requires only that it "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". The MARC@UCLA resources are neutral, accurate, and relevant. (2) WP:EL does not prohibit links simply because the material is "undigested". On the contrary, as I quoted above, the link is appropriate precisely because the site's information "cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to ... amount of detail". (3) The very valuable guided meditations I linked to are provided by MARC@UCLA for free, zero strings attached. (4) Even if MARC@UCLA were a money-grubbing bloodsucker (which it most definitely is not), a link to it would still be acceptable. As the link you yourself provided says: "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations." (5) The Wikimedia Foundation sells products (e.g. ads through Wikia), and Misplaced Pages itself regularly solicits donations. Following your logic, we wouldn't be able to link to any Wikimedia project or to Misplaced Pages itself. LeoRomero (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The trouble is, it's not providing "encyclopedic understanding", it's undigested material from an organization selling courses and soliciting for donations to help it "promote its programs". Adding a link to a such an organization risks being promotional in nature. Alexbrn 07:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Alex. Four points: (1) The links I provided are not just to the audio page, but primarily to the home page of an organization of high repute. (2) I reread all of WP:EL and find that my links meet all the guidelines on what to link - specifically #3, since the site I linked to does "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and "cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, and amount of detail". (3) My links violate none of the prohibitions. (4) I find no policy basis to support your opinion "I'm not sure any one organization's collection of material should be privileged by having an external link to it." Could you cite the policy basis for your opinion please? LeoRomero (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANI is not for content disputes. As for "insulting behavior"—it is extraordinary for you to assume that my not responding for 2 hours is a reason to go ahead and revert your preferred text. Real life called me away from the keyboard for a while ... Generally, for a global encyclopedia, it's conventional to leave at least 24 hrs before assuming that "silence means assent" in an ongoing discussion. I'm sorry you seem to think I made a complaint-worthy observation: certainly no "insult" was intended. Alexbrn 10:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- User:LeoRomero, slow down and breathe. Your addition to the article is incorrect as is your going to ANI before discussion is allowed to unfold - as per WP:BRD talk things out, man. Jytdog (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Creating a separate article on this topic
Mindfulness meditation has been getting a lot of attention in recent years. There was a cover story on it in Time magazine several months ago. And there's currently a large amount of research going on, with a number of meta-analyses to draw upon. I'm intending to develop this article, and will also bring in some of the material that's scattered among a number of the other mindfulness articles. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that this topic differs from Mindfulness (psychology). The latter is the name for an alert nonjudgmental state. One can experience this state without practicing meditation. The goal of the meditation technique is to cultivate this state. TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)