Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:23, 7 October 2007

Parsifal is on extended wikibreak. Talk page message response will be delayed. Emails are welcome for quicker communications. Click here to send Parsifal an email.

Friday 24 January     14:55 UTC     (Purge Server Cache)

;Welcome...

• I prefer keeping discussions together in one place
  

— so please watch this page for my reply if you post here.

• I'll watch your page for your reply if I post a message there.

• On the other hand, I like the snazzy "new messages" alerts too, so if you'd rather reply here to my post on your page, that's fine as well.

Thanks! Parsifal

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break User name change: I got tired of having numbers after my name (plus, people had trouble remembering the numbers), but my name was not available without numbers. So, I've changed the spelling to another version of the same name, now without numbers... --Parsifal _Hello 03:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1 (31 August 2007)

Template:Multicol-end

Electronic music (classical)

Thanks for the extensive work at electronica. I've decided to have a look at the classical article, but I'm concerned that the entire article's copyright status may still be uncertain. Could you offer your thoughts? –Unint 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi -Thanks for your work as well. I'm glad you brought this up, I've been thinking about that article too. Where did you find the copyright problems? Something copied from a book or website?

That article has several problems, including that someone moved it from its prior title of Electronic art music. Not all electronic art music is "classical". Plus, the main article at Electronic music overlaps Electronic music (classical) and Electronic musical instrument.

Maybe we should consider a re-organization of those three articles, using the main Electronic music article as an overview, with links to the various related articles for both art music/classical and popular forms such as Electronica and Electronic dance music. That way, the copyright material you found can be reworded, or it might be that some of that overlaps Electronic music and we can move content from there that might not be copy-vio.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this. If we come up with a good plan, we could present it on the article talk pages. --Parsifal _Hello 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have linked to the talk page as well. The issue is that most of the article is copied from someone's dissertation. Someone contacted the author a while ago to ask for permission, and as a result there is a "Copyright" section with author attribution (which seems to have gone unnoticed by all of us thus far, and leaves ambiguity as to which parts were copied). I'm worried there might not be enough documentation to establish permission (no OTRS ticket linked, for one thing). –Unint 03:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a dilemma! It's pretty much the whole article except for a couple paragraphs and a few words here and there. It could have already been copied onto other pages too and we wouldn't know. Also, the email of the supposed copyright permission is not dated and does not include permission, it's just a question where she asks if her attribution can stay with the text. The GFDL does include that, but I can't find anything on the page to indicate that she said yes.

On the other hand, Asmadeus says he has written permission from her, I wonder what that means. He's been away for a few weeks, but his contribs go back to 2005, so maybe he knows what he's doing and does have a written release. It seems he wants to move that info to a history article anyway: diff.

The choices seem to be: email her through her webpage and ask, per Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission, or ignore it and keep an eye on Asmadeus page for when he returns and then ask him for the documentation, or - I wonder if the admins or Wikimedia foundation can email him even though his regular user page email link is not set up, or - remove the content until it's cleared up.

I don't know what to do at this point. My time is getting more limited so I can't do the follow-through. Do you have time to work on this? Good catch by the way. --Parsifal _Hello 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This gets very complicated. I first noticed that this article, purportedly about electronic music in general, seemed to be obsessed with the flute, and began removing flute-specific material wherever it did not contribute to the article's purpose. I also began to be suspicious of the citations, and with justification—many are to the wrong page numbers in the cited sources, and, worse, some of the sources are wrong. Quotations were mostly from secondary sources (especially from Herbert Russcol's 1972 book, of which the article proved to be virtually a paraphrase), and those sources were sometimes not scrupulously accurate, so I set about rooting out the correct material. It took me a little longer to figure out the article originally was simply copied from an online chapter from a dissertation (and I am ashamed to say this dissertation was approved by the same school from which I received my Ph.D. in 1981, though standards are much lower for the written paper for the DMA). Other editors have added material, and corrected other mistakes along the way. It would be a difficult chore by this point in time to sort out how much of the dissertation's original material remains (and this may be limited to what is referenced in the first three footnotes which, since they are short quotations and properly documented, would be covered by Fair Use).--Jerome Kohl 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. it's very frustrating. But I think a lot of it was directly copied. Before many of your edits, I had copied out the text from both the article and the dissertation and used MS Word to compare them. Around 85% of the words were the same. Maybe it would be a good idea to rephrase the article as improvements are made, to make it more different from the original. That way after a while the copyvio would disappear. The other option, to contact the person for permission, seems like it could get complicated. But I can't advise on this, I don't know enough about the licenses, I brought it up with you because Unint had pointed it out to me and then I saw you were working on the article - I didn't want you to have to do the work twice! --Parsifal _Hello 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your considerateness. You will probably have noticed a number of "cleanups" in the past 24 hours, which are aimed in part at doing just what you suggest, and in part at converting Dissertationese into readable English (which should in the long run shorten the text by about a third!). Since there are practically no original ideas at all in that diss (who was it who once said that writing a dissertation is like transferring bones from one graveyard to another?), you are I think quite right in saying that copyvio will disappear.--Jerome Kohl 15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your notes

Thanks for your notes. GlassFET 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Yes, I saw your note about the checkuser request. IPSOS (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, to address the concerns you raised in your note on IPSOS' page: I just want to make it totally clear I do not doubt the good intentions of IPSOS here in tackling clear sockpuppetry on these AfDs, I'm just concerned that a potentially innocent individual (of this charge, at least, not of disruption/incivility and the like) has been caught up in it. I was hoping a checkuser would just resolve that issue. I also do not question the objectivity of the closing admin, but the normal process hasn't been followed and recruitment of an admin to close a case might open itself up to accusations of subjectivity. It's better to be safe than sorry, is the line of thought: people have been been mistaken before, so it can happen. Anyway, as I say here's hoping that these articles and the subject matter will be a little quieter from now on! I saw the note you made about the hundred-year long debate! Wow! It's become nearly as traditional as its doctrines...! Coldmachine 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. It seems I misread your intention, sorry about that.

I don't think checkuser can help, because the admin considered that they might be meatpuppets and not sockpuppets. If that's the situation, the IP info won't shed any light.

Also, I don't want an innocent person to be blocked either, so we agree about that. But in this situation, I believe the blocking admin made the correct decision. If you look at the contribs of the two users, they overlap almost exactly. They stopped editing within two days of each other - July 5 and July 7, 2006 and resumed within two days of each other - May 2 and May 4, 2007. All the articles are the same. It would be extremely unlikely that they are not at very least working closely together, more likely that they're one person.

The other thing is that blocked users have the right to email the blocking admin, or any admin, and request review of the block. They are not banished forever. I've seen blocked users apologize, or come up with new evidence, and be unblocked. If Kephera975 is actually innocent, there are ways he can work to clear his name. It's not likely though, mostly because it's not likely that he's innocent. Even if he's innocent of being the same person as the other guy, he's certainly was a single-purpose account and created a lot of disruption.

Anyway, no offense was intended by my comment earlier, I hope we're all cool. --Parsifal _Hello 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertising tag

Hi! I'd like to know if you still feel that Nouveau Riche University should still have the {{advertising}} tag. Thanks, Billgordon1099 17:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for asking. I replied on the talk page of the article. --Parsifal _Hello 07:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed reply on the talk page. I appreciate the time you spent on it, and will make those changes when time permits. Billgordon1099 04:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for your work

		The Electronic Music Barnstar
		I, Zeibura S. Kathau, hereby award Parsifal the newborn electronic music barnstar, for excellent contributions to topics relating to electronic music, and for keeping a cool head throughout the recent renaming debate over the top level articles, and administrating it brilliantly. - Zeibura 21:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a nice day, - Zeibura 21:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - what a cool surprise to find this here today! Thanks!

It has indeed been a challenging run with those articles lately. Your presence and actions made a big difference too. I think we have enough good editors involved now that we can keep confusion in check if it heats up again. The electronic music group of articles is challenging enough anyway, even when the editing is peaceful!

Thanks again for the barnstar; I'll display it proudly on my user page. I look forward to working with you on the various music articles. Best Wishes --Parsifal _Hello 01:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I second this - you've done great work on bringing the Electronica article up to par! Denaar 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Denaar - thanks for your note, much appreciated! --Parsifal _Hello 08:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Space music

That Karlheinz Stockhausen quote you "scored" is an impressive verification of the psychoacoustic character of space music. Congratulations. Nice Barnstar, too. Milo 06:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, that quote was a real serendipity, I was researching something else at the time. His quote helps the article but even more, it's just plain cool to know that Stockhausen and his listeners were thinking of it in that way. --Parsifal _Hello 08:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GP is complaining via edit summary (00:59, 3 October 2007) "(restore properly sourced introductory paragraph. please do not mis-quote sources again.))" Have all the references in red been previously vetted on the talk page? If so, got links to them? Do you have any idea what specific misquotations he's claiming, if any? Milo 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what specific misquotations he's claiming, if any? No, I don't know what he's trying to say. He's been using that phrase ever since I did the major referenced rewrite several months ago; at the time he accused me of adding lots of references and misinterpreting them to say what I want them to say. But he has never (that I know of) shown any particular reference and explained his objection clearly.

Have all the references in red been previously vetted on the talk page? If so, got links to them? Which references in red are you referring to? Currently in the footnotes, i see only one red references, and that's a result of GP's removing a named reference from the first paragraph that was used in several other places, this one (not wiki-formatted, just copied from the rendered prior version of the page):

^ a b c d e f Significant Works of the Berlin-School. Star's End Radio (2001). “Among the core albums of this genre were Rubycon and Phaedra by Tangerine Dream, Picture Music and Mirage by Klaus Schulze and Inventions for Electric Guitar and New Age of Earth by Ash Ra Tempel. Released in the 1970s, all were considered to be ahead of their time. ...Yet, it was the more aesthetic based elements of the day that molded Spacemusic into a musical form. Music from Karlheinz Stockhausen and his groundbreaking electronic work Hymnen as tempered by the psychedelic improvisations of rock groups like the Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd as well as epic sized classical compositions by the venerable Richard Wagner informed this movement with a sense of scale. The result of these cultural and technological influences is a timeless and unique music characterized by a mysterious mood and evocative atmosphere.”

Regarding further vetting of the references, I don't think anyone other than me has really read them all. No-one other than GP has questioned any of them, and his questioning has been completely non-specific. Viriditas may have made a comment here and there, but I haven't seen anything from him implying that he sees any problem with any particular reference.

Also, I should say that I am not attached to any particular phrasing of the intro, though I do feel it's important not to equate spacemusic to ambient music; that is not supported by references and is simply incorrect.

As an aside..., have you heard of a book called "The Ambient Century" by Mark Pendergrast? I've been reading it, and it's the ultimate all-is-ambient tome imaginable. Everything is ambient, from Debussey, to House music, and best of all - did you know that "Sergeant Pepper" and "Abbey Road" are ambient?... especially "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". And of course, the Grateful Dead, oh, and ... Bob Dylan! It seems that his hypothesis is basically any music that is either electronic, experimental, strange, or influenced by drugs in any way, all is considered ambient.

Except, there's one thing completely missing from the book. It does not even mention the term "space music" that I can find. The term "spcae rock" appears, but not "space music". It's not in the index, and I've not seen it in the text anywhere, and though I haven't read the whole book yet, I have read the parts around the late 60's through the early 80's. Eno has a whole chapter, and New Age music... that gets a whole two and half pages... but no mention of space music.

Aside from the aside about the Ambient Blob Ambient Century book,... I think I answered your question, If you need anything further, please let me know. --Parsifal _Hello 08:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

electronic-a

Hello Lancelot, according to allmusicguide, electronic-a is a catch all term, and it seems that now you are using it in the same way; on the contrary, the existing template and related categorization still regard it a "sub-genre" of (the common mistaken way to address to) electronic music. Also, I hope you understand that a text you just placed inside that article, gives full support to my assertions, that is that the electronic technology is so common up to the point that everything is electronic, that means that the adjective "electronic" is useless, best regards--Doktor Who 09:9, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. Also, I think it would be best to discuss this on the article talk page and not my user talk page, so the others can participate more easily in the conversation. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You dont want to understand, that's it, and it's not due to my "poor command" of the English language; you just have decided to ignore my point. Btw, addressing specific issues at editors' talk pages is not something that should not happen, otherwise, why talk pages are here? Anw, I'll post the message at Talk:Electronica, just to prevent you from accusing me to take things too personally.--Doktor Who 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean that I don't understand your English. I meant I didn't understand your point about the use of the word electronica. --Parsifal _Hello 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have two music magazine in english dated early 1990s (a "Rolling Stone" issue with Jiimi hendrix on the cover and a "Q" issue, with Nirvana on the cover): there is no mention of this word (unlike ambient, as referred to the ambient techno scene), so I should assume its usage is very recent. Furthermore, I watch CNN programmes from time to time and MTV, the latter broadcasts here in south europe the same shows that can be seen in USA, and well, ....I've never heard the word electronica. None of the artists that are interviewed has ever mentioned electrtonica, everybody uses electronic music. You can say whatever you want, but I'll never believe you. Never. Never. Never. please also read Google bomb, so you can understand where do I ground my assumptions.Doktor Who 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to raised concern

I have made a response to the concern raised by Eliz81. Be well, Gregbard 20:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. --Parsifal _Hello 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Electronic Music Barnstar
		I, Hirunobu Tsunoda, hereby award Parsifal the outstanding electronic music barnstar, for excellent contributions to topics relating to electronic music, and for work hard, dilligence, add source, remove OR. - --Susume-eat 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, Hirunobu-san. I appreciate your positive gesture.

Best Wishes... --Parsifal _Hello 18:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied to the above barnstar before I saw the insulting comment you made elsewhere about me today. Sorry to say, the barnstar doesn't remove the insult. And it doesn't make up for the way you disrespected the several editors discussing that article by ignoring the conversation and changing the title without consensus. --Parsifal _Hello 03:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey

Your contributions might be helpful at Alice Bailey and Alice Bailey Discussion James 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the talk page (wow - that's a long talk page!)... I can see the kind of conflict that's happening, but there is too much for me to read in detail without knowing what to focus on.

Would you give me an idea of what you're looking for? Is there a particular section of the talk page or article that you would like me to comment about? --Parsifal _Hello 03:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping for some general input from an outsider's perspective. A few of us at the Alice Bailey article are interested in developing it in a way that's in line with Misplaced Pages standards. The trick is that Bailey said some highly critical--what I call "politically incorrect" and "tough love" things--about the Jews (about 1% of her writing relates to it but its become a "big deal"). Consequently, the article has attracted a group of folks with Jewish identifications who took her comments very personally and are, in my view, intent on branding her (unfairly in my view) as anti-Jewish. And this is the theme that has made the discussion so long, and progress difficult. The theme in the discussion is not, "how can we work together to make a better article," but rather what can we find to insert into the article to prove to the world that Alice Bailey was a Jew-hater. Well, this is tragic, but there it is. James 22:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not necessary to have know Bailey's writings. What we need is common sense, reason, and the following of Misplaced Pages rules.James 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmm...."intent on branding her (unfairly in my view) as anti-Jewish". I seem to be the person Jamesd1 is talking about. Actually all that I want is a small mention that Alice Bailey made some comments aboput Jews that are problematic. That is not, as Jamesd1 has called hijacking the article. If you take a look at that section of the article is small. It took six months unpleasant arguing to get that, and it is still under attack. Of course you are most welcome to look at the article, and outside opinions are VERY welcome. But please do not let Jamesd1 per-program your thinking. Kwork 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. My view will not be biased either way by the comments here. What matters is that the article is NPOV and referenced. Since there is controversy on this topic, it's important that the controversial elements are addressed and not hidden, and without undue weight; the controversy should to be discussed in proportion to its presence in her teachings or writings. I don't know enough about the details yet to make a determination about the article, but I have in the past seen some of her writings that seemed of concern with regards to anti-semitism and racism. I will do some learning and check in when I can find the time. --Parsifal _Hello 23:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All Bailey's works are available for download online here here. She was prolific and her books take up about three feet of shelf space. When all Bailey's references to the "Jews" and "Jewish" and "zion*" are extracted and loaded into MS Word and compared with the size of the text of all she wrote, then we find that somewhere between 1 and 2 percent relates directly to the Jewish people and 98 to 99 percent is about other things. James 14:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Parsifal, since I do not want to turn your user talk page into an Alice Bailey discussion board, I will keep this short, and say no more here. If you have any questions on the subject of Bailey and antisemitism, you will notice it is under discussion on the Bailey talk page...as usual. Any questions or observations you have about any aspect of the article will be welcome. In my view the amount of words that have gone into discussion of one very small section, at the very bottom of the article, is excessive. I see you have already contributed to editing the article. I appreciate your presence, and wish more people with a fresh viewpoint would get involved also. Kwork 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Visual kei

Hi, thanks for your major contribution to the article. Your approach of directly presenting readers with the mixed views among the press regarding the subject's nature definitely blows fresh wind into a discussion that has become somewhat stale and regrettably also a bit tense. There's a catch though: While there's nothing wrong with being bold, your edit also foregos a still pending request for comment, that attempts to build consensus on exactly that issue. I will leave it up to you, whether or not you revert your revision for the the time being, but in any case, I'd certainly like you to join us on the talk page, as the discussion really needs participants with less strings attached to this and related articles. - Cyrus XIII 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and invitation tothe talk page. I have posted some comments there. I see no reason to revert my edit pending the RFC. RFC's can take a long time and there's no reason not to improve the article while the RFC proceeds. If a consensus from the RFC causes edits to be changed, that's OK, that's the point of the RFC, to find the consensus and direct the article accordingly. --Parsifal _Hello 01:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Flamenco Sketches

HoS program 814 ("Keys to Contemplation") made me think about "Flamenco Sketches". Do you think this piece could be considered space music? I think it could. —Viriditas | Talk 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for sure! I've only heard it once, a long time ago, but you've inspired me to buy the CD. Both Miles Davis & Bill Evans are among my top favorite artists. They both fit into space music with some of their tracks; when they play together, it's a perfect match.

Are you thinking we should add this into the article? I welcome you to do so if you wish, or if you'd like me to add it, do you have a suggestion for where it would be mentioned?

As far as the music itself, thanks for your note, I'm really happy to re-discover that album! --Parsifal _Hello 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No action as of yet; it's just an idea I've been thinking about. I'm fairly certain Flamenco Sketches meets the requirements for "space music", but I've never heard anyone refer to it in that way. —Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your work on Tension myositis syndrome. So simple, yet so elegant; edit the page to make it notable. The article may be on a subject of dubious merit, but your work to bring it out of AFD deserves recognition. Huzzah! WLU 00:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the acknowledgment. It may be a dubious theory as you say, but worthy of a small article with careful sourcing to make sure it doesn't veer off-course. Thanks again & best wishes.... --Parsifal _Hello 00:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hi,

Are you aware of Citation templates, and User:Diberri's template generator (here)? All you need is the PMID and it automatically generates the full citation. Handy!

WLU 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I've never seen those before. I've seen the templates used but haven't checked out the formatting yet. The template generator looks really cool... I'll read up on them, thanks for the tip. --Parsifal _Hello 00:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I stole it from someone else, so I can't take the credit.

Thanks for understanding on the TMS page, I'd rather hammer it out on the talk page than the main page, so I can comment a bit more easily. I really do think the entire section is scrap, but I'll try to have a look at it again later. WLU 01:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tension Myositis

Just wanted you know, even though I stood against you in the AfD, I did appreciate your efforts for the article.

Regards, Djma12 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second that sentiment. You took a situation where a good faith AfD on a poor article got turned around by making the article acceptable by wikistandards. Good job. -- Fyslee / talk 02:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey New

In case you missed it in the avalanche of discussion text:

When you have time, I'd appreciate your take on the "Criticisms of Bailey" section, especially the "Racism and antisemitism" subsection" and its relation to the discussion here: Shnirelman James 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC) and here Shnirelman2

James 13:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article

The Alice Bailey Fan club has repeatedly made agreements and backed out of them. They have referred to us as the Jewish Defense League and have resisted having any mention of Alice Baileys antisemitism what so ever.

There is only one professional writer contributing to that page. Her name is Catherine Yronwode . She is a true gem.

None of us want to to make that article about Ms Baileys antisemitism. They are the ones who have been extremly reluctant to expand it. Anyway welcome and thanks for what you have done thus far, and hopefully you will not have to learn first hand just how disingenuous the Bailey fan club can be. : Albion moonlight 09:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, I personally feel badly about this. When I said that you were VERY welcome to participate in and edit the article, I was sure you would soon regret it if you did. I could have warned you (as I did warn Albion moonlight), but did not because I suspected you would not believe me. Sorry. Kwork 12:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Don't feel bad about it; if I didn't want to help with the article, I would drop it. Also, James invited me first, though I don't know why. I'm familiar with the signs of group-editing; it's happening more and more all over Misplaced Pages. But there has been some progress with the article already and I believe there can be more. It's still a long way from being NPOV, not just about anti-semitism, other elements too. I have some ideas for improvements I'll bring up when I have the chance.

About Catherine, her recent sarcastic talk page post totally cracked me up! But she made a serious point even while she was joking around, that takes real skill. --Parsifal _Hello 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jp Gordon

Is a memeber of the arbitration committee and of course an administrator. On his user page there is a quote by him that says. "Do no harm. Everything else is wikilawyering"

He brought peace to the Bailey by letting people know that he would not allow an edit war to continue. I alerted him to the fact that it was about to start up again a week ago and asked him to put the article back on his watch list, I am almost positive he did. I am telling you this because he is a friend of common sense and an enemy of antisemitism.

I am glad you are helping out with the Bailey article. Very glad. : Albion moonlight 06:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Peace at last (I hope)

If there is no further attempt to remove the criticism section of the article, I will not be participating much in future editing. As a result things should be more quiet, with less dramatic discussions. Thank you for helping to calm the situation.

I do think your suggestion, that there should be some extra consideration of Alice Bailey's channeling, good. In that regard, my attempt to insert this link in the article got a very negative reaction. The subject of how the books were written, if discussed completely, could also be controversial; but I am disinclined to push the point. Kwork 14:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do continue editing the article, because you have a lot of knowledge on the topic, and the article still needs much improvement, beyond just the criticism section. I have some suggestions I will post on the talk page soon for alternate ways to organize some of the topics in the article, especially the section that discusses the philosophy taught in her books. For example I would like to see separate sections for spiritual/occult philosophy and political/sociological teachings, because she wrote extensively in both those areas.

Regarding adding more information abut channeling, that would be good for the article, but I think she referred to it as "telepathic dictation" or something like that. Whatever she called it, we should use that term, unless others wrote descriptions of her method that we can quote in their words. My impression from what I've read so far on this is that her process was not like "possession" in the sense that Ramtha or Seth/Jane Roberts did their channeling. Bailey's seems more like the way Aleister Crowley received the words of the Book of the Law, in that the entity Aiwass dictated words that he wrote down, but Crowley was not possessed by the entity speaking through him. I could have missed something, but that's how it seems from what I've read of Bailey so far.

Either way, whatever it was, an examination of the psychological aspects would not be appropriate for the article because it would be WP:OR, unless someone else has written an analysis of Bailey's methods that we could quote. We can't do the analysis ourselves in the text of the article.

On the other hand, the reference you provided would be interesting applied to the article on Channelling (mediumistic), though it may be off-topic for your interests. --Parsifal _Hello 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Even more Alice Bailey!

Hiya Parsifal, I've been meaning to say hello for a few weeks now. Your contributions to Alice Bailey have been very reasoned and well-stated, thanks so much for injecting a voice of experience, and of calm! As you've seen, this article has a very interesting dynamic, given that it borders on all-out war like Freemasonry or others have had, but it never quite gets there. I believe this is because every editor involved is genuinely well-intentioned — if sometimes not so well-behaved.

I just wanted to share with you one thing I've learned in trying to play the same neutralizing role: in highly factionalized discussions like this, it can be shocking how easily some editors become convinced of your bias for one faction or another. For instance, when I came along, Kwork was behaving rather badly. At first, he welcomed me, but when I admonished him about personal attacks and such (and I'll agree, Kwork, I was not perfect in my handling), he quickly declared me to be among his 'enemy faction' so to speak, and I have been identified with that group since. I personally don't believe there's any evidence in my editing to support this idea, but that's been irrelevant.

I mention this because recently you have had good and deserved occasion to admonish James for his abuse of the talk page. While I agree completely with your comments (I've told James the same thing several times in the past), you are now in danger of being perceived as "in the other camp" by one side. I might suggest you take pains to admonish Kwork or cat in an equal and even-handed fashion, but a) that's difficult, and ofc dependant entire on their doing something worth admonishing, and b) Kwork is just going to castigate me for having even suggested it. So, I'm not sure why I wrote this, really. Well, whatever you do, I strongly suggest you avoid any mention of your personal opinions of Mrs Bailey -- that mistake has also colored how I am perceived on that page. Well, I just wanted to say hello, and share my thoughts. Thanks again, and keep up the superb editing! Eaglizard 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your "hello" and your helpful suggestions. I understand your points well. I've appreciate your positive well-balanced influence in the discussions and look forward to further collaborations. --Parsifal _Hello 03:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps the only reason I wrote this is to help me codify what I'm learning for myself. Thanks for allowing me the space. :) I look forward to the same, as I've already learned from your approach. Eaglizard 07:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey Too

I put the following comment on the Talk page. I think I understand Jame's concern. It has to do with balance and tone.

I strongly suggest that the introduction of this article includes the fact that Ms Bailey is considered to be a Humanitarian. We mention her racism and her antisemitism in that intro so why not something positive to balance it out. The first few lines of any article tend to paint a picture in the mind of the reader so let us make it balanced from the get go. I will try to come up with something tonight but I am not a writer so feel free to write it yourself or edit anything I may come up with. I think this will help bridge the gap that James complained about. Lets see if we can balance the tone from the onset. : Albion moonlight 07:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight 07:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Seven Rays

The reasoning for capitalizing "Seven Rays" is the same reason as for capitalizing 'Seven Wonders of the World'. Arion 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

a reply...

Hi Parsifal. I saw your reply on Eaglizard's talk yesterday. I will not be helping with the article. Over a period of close to forty years I have gone from thinking that the Bailey teaching was extraordinarly good to (now) thinking it is irredeemably defective. There is no point in my cataloging what I see as the defects of the Bailey teaching, but her antisemitism is the very least of it. I can not bring myself to help write an article that would put the Bailey teaching in a positive light. Kwork 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nouveau Riche U.

Actually, you did a better job reverting than I did. Thanks. It will be interesting to see the response.

PhGustaf 17:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New Age

Hey, nice job on that New Age journal, I'd never heard of it before. And neither has the article New Age heard of it, apparently. That info would make a very nice addition the "History" section there, I think. Would you care to add it? ;) Eaglizard 11:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; good idea, I added the info there. --Parsifal _Hello 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: too many in one edit to see what was done

Kindly refrain from reverting any of my edits with a "too many changes in one step" rationale, please? Not only are wide-reaching changes encouraged by WP:BOLD, step-by-step editing is also somewhat problematic in the light of WP:3RR - so on my part, it's simply not going to happen. When a lot of changes are made to an article, either in a single step or over an extended period of time, I consider it common courtesy towards my fellow editors to generate a diff and go through it line by line. Too me, that's an integral part of assuming good faith and surely I can expect no less from my peers. - Cyrus XIII 19:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi - In general I agree, though in this situation there was a reason. Sorry if it caused a problem. I replied in more detail on your talk page...--Parsifal _Hello 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

LOHAS

Done! Basically, someone replaced it with a direct copyvio, and I didn't realise there were acceptable older versions because, you know, who replaces a perfectly good article with copyvio? I've restored 47 revisions from before the copyvio, just revert to the version you prefer of those. Probably the last one. Adam Cuerden 14:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sparkle Plenty (A suggestion)

I am sure you are aware that you have the right to report these attacks to the administrators notice board but perhaps if you can get James and Eaglizard to tell her to knock it off you avoid polarizing the situation. I will support your decision either way. Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight 07:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, much appreciated. I've considered posting a report, but generally I prefer if that can be avoided. I plan to ignore the negativity and see what happens. Your support is welcome of course on both the talk page and avoiding destructive edits to the article if/when that begins. Thanks again... --Parsifal _Hello 10:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal, you might want to put something on the Administrators Notice Board now, just to establish the record. If you editing continues to frustrate their goals, it is likely they will take some action against you. I know this from personal experience. (I never bothered to take that precaution because, even if they can get me kicked out of Misplaced Pages, I would not be troubled.) Kwork 11:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add that your edit of the section, called "On the Jewish people", did create a much better balance in that section. I had been thinking of removing that section altogether, but in its present form it is more acceptable. Kwork 11:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research?

Hi Parsifal, I have not heard from you about the the current disagreement with Jamesd1 about OR. If you think I am wrong about this (or anything else), never hesitate to tell me. I can live easily with being told I am wrong; and there are, in any case, other ways to deal with what bothers me in the article. I have asked AnonEMouse to give an opinion, knowing that it is quite possible I will be told I am wrong. I am trying to do what I consider the right thing, but sometimes run up against Misplaced Pages rules in the process. Kwork 15:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

links/footnotes

Parsifal, could you help with a technical problem? All the links/footnotes in the Alice Bailey article, below #87, seem to have disappeared. I have no idea why. Kwork 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Kwork 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

not a neutral article yet? oy vey!

Hi Parsifal, I hope that the way things are going are not getting you down. I know that you truely hope that reason will prevail. I would love to see such a development too. A wonderful thought. But I have been through over six months of this. I know that my methods seem rough. I don't know much about Misplaced Pages rules, and have often carried on this unending argument alone. Albion and Catherine helped for awhile, but they don't come around much now. Who could blame them? The whole approach being used is to make editing so unpleasant for those who oppose Jamesd1 that those other editors will give up and go away. I would like to go away too, but remember the famous quote: "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Not that I think any of the editors are evil. But their methods are so deplorable, and their goal so one-sided, that I could not forgive myself for running away from this fight. I do feel bad about others (such as yourself) who have gotten into this without realizing how bad it would be. At least I knew. (Sorry about the somewhat stream-of-consciousness message.) Kwork 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your request

Hey, I just had a very few minutes before going to work, not enough to review the edit history I missed over the last 2 days, so I can't really comment on the request you made on my talk page, but I'll take the time later tonite, and do so. I will say that James seems to be getting a little over-excited, but just a little, and it's usually not been a serious problem in the past. On the other hand, the few edits I did look at recently have contained some problematic changes, by James, and by others. I wonder if you'd comment on any other editors you think have been editing on a non-policy basis recently? Eaglizard 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any problems other than the repeated disruptive editing by James. It's pretty clear in the edit history. He's had support from Sparkle, in that when he approached his third revert, she posted the 3RR reminder on the talk page, and at the same time, she restored his major reverting of many edits that I had previously undone. It's an issue of WP:OWN and possibly WP:COI. Both of them have never edited any other articles.

Renee made one edit yesterday, reverting one of Kworks', but her edit was OK, she was just moving a paragraph for better readability - I did not see that as a problem. Kwork's edits today seem good, I liked the one where he added additional information about Bailey's teachings on the constitution of man, but James removed that information too, and I don't know why.

James claimed on the talk page that most of this is about racisim and undue wieght, but his major reverting of my work removed lots of other information I added that had nothing to do with the Jewish issues. For example, he removed my addition of sources and text showing Bailey's influences on several major new age teachers; referenced information about the Arcane School and its teachings, sources on Bailey's use of the term "new world order" and "new world servers". He also reverted my removal of some original research that I discussed in detail in a section on the talk page, although he did not reply to show the sources support the information he re-added.

That's a quick overview. I'm not trying to make trouble for anyone, my goal is a good WP:NPOV, WP:V article; and to reduce the absurd amount of time it's taking to get any of it done. --Parsifal _Hello 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, Parsifal, I've had the time to click my way through all the edits of the last 3 or 4 days, and frankly, I don't see what you could be talking about. I do see the cases where James reverted you in a very ugly, non-WP kind of way, but — given the history of this page — to call that "outright edit warring"? I don't see it. There are other, equally questionable edits. For example, I wonder that you don't notice what appears to be non-consensual removal of, I think it was, 4 or 5 "pre-summary" paragraphs on the grounds that paraphrases are "OR" — even tho friend Kwork also added two quotes, including his own paraphrasing pre-summaries. I don't expect you to be Kwork's conscience, but are you sure you're examining everyone's edits equally? Parsifal, I have a lot of respect for what I take to be a very sincere effort on your part to be a policy-driven editor. In that light, I will take the risk of giving you my personal reaction. I was thinking, "I didn't see you complaining quite so much about James until he screwed up your work." I also think there are few of your edits that need (and I hope will get) further discussion, like the "new world order" quote, and the insistence on that particular quote from pg 79 — both of which seem to read with a subtle bias (to me). Frankly, my friend, your comments on my TP, the unannounced insertion of the issues box, and your rather severe use of WP:COI all strike me as over-reaction. But I'm not going to make accusations here — I think that's useless, and would be beneath us both, I hope. And I don't know how to end this, Parsifal, except to say that I will accept your own self-evaluation of neutrality and "policyism" on good faith, and on the strength of your many, many excellent edits to the article. But I have found that I get lost in this page, and need to constantly re-examine my own motives. May I offer you the same advice, in my best approximation of True Misplaced Pages-ship? :^) Eaglizard 08:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

ps. Pls make sure you see my comment re: the issues box on the talk page, in the sadly-named section "big square box etc", because I really need you to defend that box before I remove it, ok? Eaglizard 08:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

pps. I forgot to mention, I will absolutely cooperate with you in any policy-based edits to prevent 3rr circumventions, if need be. I would have agreed with you here, but it doesn't seem necessary now. Pls don't hesitate to ask in the future, I'll be happy to look and see if I agree with you on the issue. Eaglizard 08:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I can't shake the feeling that this is entirely too harsh, so let me just add, Parsifal, that I consider you one of the finest editors I've had the chance to work with on WP. When I said accusations above, I meant, literally, that I don't mean to accuse you of anything. Ok, I'll stop now. :) Eaglizard 09:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries. I removed the article issues box. I'll reply further when I can. Have a good one...--Parsifal _Hello 10:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sparkle

You have the support, James did not. By the way I have the same print on my wall that you have on your user page. Sparklecplenty 03:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sparkle... That's quite a coincidence you have that same painting on your wall! It's a beautiful image.

I hope you know, I didn;'t see this as a fight between me and James. I'm not anti-Bailey; I'm pro-fairness and accuracy. I'll reply with a further note on your talk page. --Parsifal _Hello 04:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a beautiful image. And it's especially important to me, since I had a wakening dream, of a cosmic kind, that is related to that painting. I like the knight images. I also had a wakening dream that it was my responsibility for checking the chinks in the armor of each knight before he goes into battle. I remember the sunlight striking silver, to reveal the weak link. I also know there is more to us than a weak moment. Perhaps you can get beyond finding me insulting and uncivil, or maybe not. Sparklecplenty 06:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a beautiful dream to go with the image...

Yes, I can get beyond those problems, certainly. I didn't take your comments personally even when I first read them. When I replied to tell you they were insulting and uncivil, I wasn't angry, I was just pointing out what you were doing so you could relax and try a better approach.

Anyway, don't worry about it; it's in the past. What matters are the choices we make with each new step. --Parsifal _Hello 06:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

219.90.164.94

Thanks for your note, but I'm not editing those pages currently, so I can't help you with that. --Parsifal _Hello 04:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, but I don't know anything about that topic, so I'm not able to be of assistance. --Parsifal _Hello 05:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-Delusion, you are pathetic! 219.90.164.94 05:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)