User talk:EstherRice

Welcome!

Hello, EstherRice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 13:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Investcorp wiki page[edit]

Hi EstherRice, I noticed that you marked the Investcorp article for deletion and I know that the current article looks more like a copyright material - but actually most of it is freely & publically available on the company's annual reports, its websites etc.

Could you suggest the objections that you have with the page ... that way I can work on to improve the page ...

Honestly, I never meant that page to look like an advertisement - only to give some genuine information to anyone who could be searching for it !!

Could you sign your comments if you want a reply?EstherRice 10:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

I see someone already gave you the "welcome" template, but just thought I'd say Welcome to Wikipedia! Smeelgova 11:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, Smeelgova.EstherRice 11:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read content a while before editing[edit]

Hello. I don't know why you feel you think "ontology" is senseless. The Landmark page is a highly contested page- please do not make changes without disucssion on the talk page first. If you don't understand Landmark's pedagogy please don't edit it references to it. Thanks! Alex Jackl 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJackl (talk • contribs) 16:11, 15 December 2006.

Thanks for not explaining your point. Also, thank you for choosing not to sign properly. The usage of 'ontology' makes no sense in either accepted sense of the word (which I won't spell out for you). I read pretty much the whole turgid thing, the page up to 'Criticism' is like a pamphlet for the 'group'; no wonder it is 'contested'.EstherRice 09:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synanon[edit]

I am not that familiar with this group. Do you know of any references/citations comparing it to Landmark Education? If you cite them, it is more likely that your "see also" will stay in the article longer. Also or alternatively, you could add these citations and perhaps some additional information to the article Synanon. Smeelgova 11:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

By the way, I was happy to be able to protect your well-researched contributions to *that* article and to see that you are not on here all day every day. I guess you have read the article on Synanon. I initially came across them in a behaviourist-inclined university course on psych., they were mentioned in the same lecture as the "human potential movement", which sounded worthy at the time, but I wonder ... I don't have first-hand knowledge of Synanon, the reason I make the comparison is that the techniques are similar, the use of random verbal abusiveness, deprivation, humiliation etc. to break a person down. They are also one of many phenomena that has become less notable given the WWW and short or non-existent memories. In the case of Synanon, the stated goal (at least at first) was drug rehabilitation; break down the personality, and you relieve the subject of addiction. They were the main model for the New Path organisation in A Scanner Darkly (a work of fiction that I think you would particularly enjoy for the depiction of said organisation). Perhaps I will have to do some research, but doesn't demonstrable (simply from the cited sources on this site) similarity of technique justify a "see also"? I have come across "believers" who perceived or were aware of a more explicit connection (between est et al. and Synanon), but that was not recent. I can assure you that the techniques have essentially the same basis.ER ^Talk 12:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though certain editors' personal opinions after reading over the two articles may be that Synanon belongs in the "see also" section, it seems that on Wikipedia this is not enough, and for your link to have staying power you'll have to make a case for it - either with citations or with a mention in one of the 2 articles themselves somehow. Thank you for saying that my contributions are "well-researched"! It is most appreciated to know that there are some people out there that appreciate my edits. It is not often that I get any compliments. Smeelgova 13:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Esther. I don't know how familiar you are with Landmark Education, or if you have just heard about it. I have quite a bit of experience both in participating in and around the company and in researching its past. I am writing this to try and explain why I reverted you Synanon reference on the Landmark page (and I was the editor that did it). I am not trying to convince you that "Landmark is a good thing" or "est was a good thing" or anything like that - I am extending an olive branch by explaining my point of view so you are not left with that your content was spuriously deleted. There are two core issues that have made the Landmark site so volatile:

(1) There is a group of people who see Landmark as the SAME as est and believe it is nothing more than an "est in Sheep's clothing" :-). These people also believe est was a cult and a bad thing. I personally (just so you know) have no real opinion about est and Werner Erhardt- I will leave that to the historians and the people who had a real experience of it. However, I am one of the group of editors who believes that the link between est and Landamrk, while noteworthy and interesting in itself, is primarily of historical interest and of little primary importance on the Landmark Education page. Coming from that world view you can imagine that anyone attempting to draw a link to Landmark because there might be a link to est is met with considerable skepticism.

(2) The basis of your comparison is that the "styles" of the Synanon Game" and Landmark's programs are similar. This is possibly the most divisive point between the editors of the Landamrk page and where the greatest gulf is. One stance is that Landmark is a cult of some kind and utilizes cult-like practices. On the other side (of which I clearly am a part of) is that there is NO or poor evidence of that and it isn't. I know NOTHING about Synanon but am willing - looking through the links on the Synanon page and taking you at your word- to believe it is a destructive and hurtful organization. But the horrible activities described on the Synanon page- humiliation, emasculation, forced marriages, shaving of heads- that is crazy! Nothing like that goes on at Landmark. People get fired from Landmark if they make an innappropriate pass at someone. Because of the bad press- primarily from its relationship to est- Landamrk is extremely sensitive to creating a professional safe environment for its courses. There is nothing like that kind of stuff going on. If you were going to accuse Landmark of being manipulative in its marketing practices or pressuring people to buy their product - that kind of stuff has happened on occasion. It is aggravated sometimes by well-meaning people who volunteer and overly enthusiatically press people to register. Landmark tries to manage that and sometimes fails. That is literally the worst of it. There is nothing more sinister.

Now there are editors who disagree- they claim that Landmark is harmful and manipulative. That is why we debate and discuss and use the Talk page. It is my firmest belief that the opinions about it being harmful are old conversations and if people saw Landamrk as it is today with unfiltered views they would go - "Oh, that isn't bad" or "Wow- that is actually pretty great!". Perhaps I am naive and overly optimistic in saying that. This long winded response is to atteppt to give you a sense of why people have some of the stance they do- from this editor's point of view.

Alex Jackl 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I appreciate the detailed reply (to remarks that weren't addressed to you, but I think that is better than not bothering, and it is relevant to the page). Anyway, I will try to respond in kind, except less circuitously. Since est and Mr. Rosenberg are the basis for Landmark Ed.'s "technologies" and you are openly a supporter of Landmark, it seems disingenuous to claim no personal interest in them.

These people also believe est was a cult

in conjunction with

One stance is that Landmark is a cult of some kind and utilizes cult-like practices. On the other side ...

seems to imply a perceived connection on your own part.

The major supporting link seems to be The Best of Est.

I still intend to establish the link between Synanon and Landmark, but of course that will take time. I have had very creepy experiences with a large clique trying to pressure and trick me into taking Rosenberg-related courses. Worse for supporters of them, I have had close friends who took them, were only shocked and irritated by the "techniques", and were thus subsequently willing to talk openly about what went on (which, as you must know, is supposed to be against policy).

From here I will veer on and off the central topic. The only part of the Synanon history that I really know about is the use of verbal and other forms of humiliation to break down the subject (in theory to break the addiction), and that this was (and no doubt still is) oddly seen by some in psychiatry and particularly psychology as having a connection with Esalen and HIP. My opinion of Esalen is mixed at best. HP as a general goal accompanied by freedom of development of the person is great. This certainly doesn't mean breaking a person into a more profitable performer within the social environment while profiting therefrom.

However, I cannot see the connection between Esalen and HP on the one hand and est or anything derived from its principles on the other.

Essentially, people like the professor I first heard about these things from admired Synanon for using brainwashing techniques to bend the person rather than use a humanistic approach, seeing this as a valid way to achieve human potential. My subsequent reading assured me that he is not alone. Anyway, it is on this point that the basis of the "techniques" (i.e. est, the Forum), at the very least, has a direct familial relation with Synanon. They are, at least, first cousins, springing from the same intellectual pool in the same general climate. The big difference appears to be that the most direct antecedents (in terms of the school in which the founder was initially trained) were Alcoholics Anonymous for Synanon and Scientology for Mr. Rosenberg.

The forced marriages and emasculation (do you mean that in the literal sense?), although the article states that they started before the professor cited Synanon in lectures I attended, are news to me, but the flow rings true.

The shaven heads thing is interesting. All of the characters in George Lucas' first feature film, THX 1138 (a very interesting movie on many levels) had shaven heads as part of the scenario. Most of the extras in the movie (other than police and bureaucrats) are from Synanon (this is openly acknowledged by anyone involved in actually making the thing, including Lucas). A publicity movie made at the time (only saw it because it is on the DVD) plays on the trauma of the lead actress having her head shaved. So, did the characters have shaven heads because Lucas was using extras from Synanon and the extras had shaven heads, or was it the other way around?ER ^Talk 13:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very very interesting stuff. EstherRice, for a "family tree" of sorts of all these intersting organizations, see "The Awareness Page" Though not a formal source that one would normally be able to cite/quote within an article, it establishes some intriguing connections between certain individuals, courses they were active in, and then subsequent for-profit "awareness" companies that those individuals went on to become founder of, after leaving their prior groups... Smeelgova 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Here is an older article discussing both groups, albeit not comparing them: Special Report: The World of Cults, Newsweek, April 12, 1978. Smeelgova 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I came across the former but at the time was only looking for something to make the link stick. Intend to look at it in more detail, I have read the other but can't remember it well.

By the way, I wonder why Alex Jackl is so reluctant to sign things? I notice the last 'please sign' was erased with an untrue edit summary. Must be a technique. Anyway, must go.ER ^Talk 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! (looking hurt and injured) What do you mean I don't sign things? If you look at the VAST majority of my posts I almost always sign- when I haven't it is only by mistake and I fix it when I catch or it is pointed out to me. I am not sure why this keeps coming up... Alex Jackl 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AJackl (talk • contribs) 19:16, Jan 8, 2007 (UTC)

humiliation, emasculation, forced marriages, shaving of heads - Some regard Landmark Education's tactics of using, ah, shall we say firm language when a "Forum Leader" is giving "advice" to an individual, whilst that individual is standing up at a microphone in front of over 100 people/strangers - as humiliation. Forced marriages at Landmark? This I have never heard of, but I have heard from others that it is an interesting phenomenon - where divorces will occur after one spouse has taken part in the coursework - and the other has not or refuses to. "Shaving of heads", ha ha, a friend of a friend of mine had once observed that there were a significant proportion of male staff/volunteers at Landmark with shaved heads - but I'm not sure I lend much credence to that one either - at least, not until I hear more about it from the individual directly - or from more reputable sources that is... Smeelgova 13:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that Landmark uses any but the first, and possibly the second in a figurative sense. I have seen the separation phenomenon in the predecessor organisations at first hand (second, really, as an onlooker), but it looked more like forced separation than forced marriage. Head shaving, well, a nice yolk ... perhaps.ER ^Talk 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four categories only the first is subject to debate. Landmark is all about individual choice. The idea of emasculation of course is ridiculous. Ther eare no forced marriages or forced divorces. Period. If people do divorce after I owuld be willing to bet- although I haven't got data o nmthis that the divorce rate of people going to graduate school or any other education is higher! People do choose ne wpaths when they do landamrk- it is about building your future. So divorces do happen diretcly out of choices people make out of doing the Landmark Forum but more marriages do then divorces. The shaving of heads thing is just crazy- if ther eis some social phenomonon linking people who hshave their heads with participation in Landmark I owuld lvoe to see that correlation! :-) Of course, there is nothing in the program that calls for that at all. Alex Jackl 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You mention above "Since est and Mr. Rosenberg are the basis for Landmark Ed.'s "technologies" and you are openly a supporter of Landmark, it seems disingenuous to claim no personal interest in them." Well- it is not disingenuous - I really mean it. I could care less. For all I know, many of the accusations people have about the est Trianing could be true. I REALLY don't know - I wasn't there, it is all before my time. It is like going to a tire repair place and someone claiming you should be interested in the former owner of the shop who invente done of the tire repair machines. I don't car eabout the former owner- what is relevant to me a little is the current owner but primarily I concern myself with whether the tire repair machine works or not. It is that way for me with est and Werner Erhardt. I just don't about it and him- except what I have heard. I have heard current Forum Leaders who knew Werner and know him say positive things about him. I have a lot of respect for the concepts Landmark uses and to whatever extant Werner Erhardt synthesized them into the technology that Landmark built itself on I admire that aspect. Whether he invented those concepts and distinctions out of whole cloth, stole some of them from other philosophies or even religions like Scientology. SHRUG. I am interested in those topics but it is ancient history to me and - form my world view- 90% of everyone else. But for some est and Landmark are the same and they ar estill comparing stuff that happene din 75 and then saying things like "therefore Landmark..". Alex Jackl 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I really want to get at the core of the disagreement that is happening between some of the editors on the Landmark site so we can move on. Alex Jackl 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The other interesting thing you said is "Rosenberg-like " courses. I think there were a lot of offspring form est- Trainers who left and did other things, started other courses. est was a major event and a lot of people were involved. I bet some of them were even total kooks. I bet your organizations have kooks in them. You get a sufficiently large human organization and you will have representation of all the bad and all the good in human society. Just because some est trainer in 75 left est and then started "Donut Worshipers of Argentina" (I making something ridiulous up just for us to talk about) ther eis NO connection - except historical between the "Donut Worshippers of Argentina" and Landmark Education. I surmise you have had bad experiences with est, Esther, or possibly with Landmark, but that doesn't make it a cult or like Synonon, or any of those things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AJackl (talk • contribs) 19:16, Jan 8, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really in the mood for Wikipedia today, but *will reply at length* the next time I log on. One thing I must say, however, is that having been wise enough to resist the manipulation and pressure and not sign up, I have certainly not had bad experiences with either est or Landmark. Rather, I have had numerous distasteful encounters with believers in these and similar programs.ER ^Talk 06:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time.ER ^Talk 12:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Wool; Shamsiel; Shinji and Good Friends; Chicksands; Culture of Nicaragua; Mario Scelba; Alessandro Fortis; MacDuffie School; Paolo Boselli; Ciriaco de Mita; Campton, Bedfordshire; Abdominal muscles (cat); Francesco Saverio Nitti; Luigi Luzzatti; Faces Down; Giovanni Goria; Trusted Solaris; Shinji Ikari Raising Project; Ferruccio Parri

Cleanup: Shiro Sagisu; List of video games featured on Nick Arcade; Aldo Moro
Merge: Aztec calendar; Huastec; List of Native American musicians
Add Sources: Untitled Evangelion Project; Gainax; Judge (2000 AD)
Wikify: Paratrooper; Strong language; Peace Learning Center
Expand: Tairona; Chinese tea; Alter ego

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you for your support on my Request for adminship, which finished successfully, with unanimous support of 40/0/0. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia and the community. Again thanks.
--Meno25 08:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, I hope.ER ^Talk 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question[edit]

Do you know of any other good references to find more citations for the newly-article, Scientology and Werner Erhard? At present the article's information is backed up by (29) citations, but I'd like to find more. Preferably reputable secondary sources, e.g. books, news articles, academic scholarly articles, etc...... Smee 03:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not offhand, but will look further. At a glance I found a few; it looks as if both organisations recognise the connection. Guess most that are also on the I'net are already in? Those I found in a quick look are. Unfortunately I don't currently have access to a large library (major university etc.).ER ^Talk 05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was surprised and pleased at some of the comments and positive feedback, when the article was nominated for deletion. Some neutral, previously un-involved editors went so far as to say this is one of the best written & best referenced articles I've ever seen , and fantastic sourcing, etc., so I was very pleased, had not expected those kind comments from previously uninvolved editors... Smee 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, I was surprised by some of those, too (and pleased for you, I wish I'd read the message a little earlier). How strange that the odd definition of majority reared its head yet again. Another wish: while looking into this odd majority (becoming odder now that supposedly naive users are coming out of the woodwork to claim that they think Landmark sounds like the bee's knees) I came across a comment about a disastrous or crushing defeat in the RfD—I can't recall if those were the exact words as I really should have been doing other things at the time (not work but important) and didn't bookmark it; it was quite funny. Given the nominator's history, the RfD should have been declared frivolous or disruptive in the first place and thrown out. Makes me agree with the recent anon. comment about wikipedia on the talk page for Landmark, seeing lots of the same kind of thing in other places, although this is the only one I have actually stumbled into ...ER ^Talk 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Education[edit]

Please don't start an edit war at Landmark! We have been struggling for so long to reach a balance and to start wholesale reverts is going to slow everything down. Lets discuss the points on the talk page and reach consensus. Perhaps you can say what you find most off with the current state of the page. Like really talk about it rather than defend this change or that change on the basis of verifiability of a source.Alex Jackl 13:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war has been started and there is no balance. A body of Landmark adherents and sympathisers has been built up to tire out anyone who might want the article to present any tiny smidgeon of a fact that casts a less-than-rosy light on Landmark. Alex, you are always polite, I appreciate that, but your words (both in discussion and edit summaries) are often misleading and intended more for presentation to a possible future intervener who will not bother to go into the tortuous history of both the article and its discussion page. I know I can't revert it again right now.ER ^Talk 13:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that that last paragraph reads to me exactly what you just accused me of. "tire out"? Have you seen Smee's edit history. Literally has made more changes to the Landmark page than almost all the other editors combined. It has been a relentless onslaught on the page that I personally have not been able to counter. Luckily there are other editors around that perceive it the way that I do. Now- I am not blindly lumping you in with Smee but you have almost always fallen in his side of the interpretation on issues. There are a group of editors : SMee, Pedant17, and yourself that have made the majority of edits to the page and a much larger cast of editors that have gone in a different direction. Please don't accuse me of waging a campaign to "tire out" people - the facts speak for themselves and the edit summaries make it clear who is on the "tiring out" . Frankly I am exhausted but committed. I want peaceful resolution but won't be run over by what I consider to be a minority-viewpoint driven by some personal antagonism to the subject of the article. I want you to know I WOULD LOVE to work this out so it isn't always like this... how can we best do that? We clearly have opposing views on this matter but I am willing to compromise. How can we move this forward? Feel free to contact me - all my contact info is on my talk page.Alex Jackl 14:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take the bit about politeness back, given your usage of 'vandalism' etc. (incorrectly and in very bad faith, but with intentions that are all too obvious) in edit summaries.ER ^Talk 14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize about the vandalism comment. It is turly how it occurred for me but it is also a loaded term and I take it back. I will publicly do so on the talk page at Landmark. Sorry, I don't mean to fuel any antagonism Alex Jackl 14:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...[edit]

For the most part I have ceased editing the Landmark Education article, or at least am taking a break from it. It was clear it was becoming used by publicists et al. to mold the article into some form of Web-based advertisement. My efforts are better focused at the moment in what I like to do best - which is to find lots and lots of reputable secondary sourced citations on issues thinly-covered on the project, and create new articles... Smee 07:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I can see why, but it seems important that the version with the critical information at least not disappear from the default history page. Did you read the earlier reply?ER^Talk 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, which earlier reply would that be? Smee 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Also, as an aside, I noticed your recent revert. Your edit history summary is fine, but you might not want to mark any revert as "minor", this is considered bad form on the project... Smee 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I was tired out by the dedicated crowd at the time and marked it as minor because it was a simple reversion. Earlier reply: the one just above sub-heading 'Landmark Education' on this page. In particular, thinking of this less-than-careful but apparently accurate anon. contribution.

Your opinion on new article...[edit]

I value your research opinions, and would respectfully appreciate your comments/thoughts on newly created article, PSI Seminars. The article has been created (so far), with 12 citations. Smee 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It looks good, but unfortunately doesn't bring out that extra special something that must come from a group ruled by a 'magnificent female guru'. One general point from a few non-reputable on-line comments: the pyramid-scheme side of LGAT (a strange and overly kind term) doesn't come out at all in the articles I've seen (and this is probably a crucial aspect of all of them, perhaps inherited from Scientology). Also, I note that PSI's own claim of 'more than 35 years' doesn't match foundation in 1973. Must go soon, but will try to look further over the weekend. ~~Perhaps this one is small and strange enough that its partisans won't try to control the article.~~—no, I've just checked and they at least claim to have 'trained' half as many people as LE. By the way, ~~admin~~ John has been rather entertaining. Isn't there a rule against user names like 'wikipedia bossman', '... admin', etc.?ER^Talk 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you find any more information from other reputable citations, let me know. Smee 17:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

speedy tags[edit]

There are several respects in which you are not correct in your comments at the Eileen Crimmins talk page.

A speedy is used only on unquestionably NN people, where there is no assertion of importance. If importance is asserted but undocumented, the usual procedure is to send to prod or put on a "notability" tag; If you think the person is NN, then it goes to AfD. If the importance is being asserted in good faith--and any claim to a professorship or public office or the like is good faith-- then the article is not a candidate for speedy. I quote from WP:CSD: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." See the discussion at WP:CSD for more details.
Any editor may remove a speedy--see the text of the speedy notice: "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."

and from WP:Deletion Policy: "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. If a page you created is tagged for speedy deletion, you may add the {{hangon}} tag, and either improve the page or explain your reasoning on the relevant talk page. The tag exists to give you some extra time; the page may still be deleted if it meets the speedy deletion criteria." If you think the policy is wrong, the Village Pump is the place to propose a change.

there is a community, and it expresses its decisions at AfD. We can talk about the notability of Prof. Crimmins there. If you think faculty in her program not notable because of the quality of the program, that is the place to say it. I have not myself concluded whether or not she is N, but since she may be, it has to be discussed.
(I haven no plans to follow your edits, but I am going to check your suggested deletions--though I am sure you will learn the rules. I edited Landmark Education because that page & related pages are on my watchlist--I've edited them before. )

I often rescue articles on academics from speedies, and advise the authors how to improve their bios.--and, if people still think them NN, defend them on AfD. I do 3 or 3 a week. There have been a number of ones from USC there before--I do not know why--most of them have been kept after improved documentation. DGG 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven no plans to follow your edits, but I am going to check your suggested deletions--though I am sure you will learn the rules.

Please don't be condescending and please don't threaten to stalk my editing.ER ^Talk 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Crimmins[edit]

Hi ER -- I made a few changes on this article which I think brings it into the realm of notability and verifiability, and made it read like an encyclopedia article. I'd like to ask your opinion again at the AfD. Thanks. --Myke Cuthbert 03:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lsi john[edit]

Hi, Esther. After a message from Lsi john, I checked out Talk:Landmark Education (dear me, I hope I never have to read the whole of that talkpage), and it did look to me like you were taunting him about his newbie mistake of creating an account containing the word "admin". I understand that you can't view the deleted brief history of that account, but I can, and I assure you that it's inappropriate to bring it up as an accusation, and especially in the tone you did. The "admin" account edited precisely once, in an attempt at self-defence against being called a sockpuppet... In fact, taking a belated look, I was very concerned to see the level of newbie-biting involved. I would certainly have intervened if I'd known about it at the time. I'm sorry to see you resurrect an old story you're not well-informed about, in such a manner and with such assumptions of bad faith. Regards, Bishonen | talk 17:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, pretty boy (that is what it means, I think). It is disingenuous to pretend that the former (and oddly deleted beyond hope of recovery: why was that, pray tell?) user name was not chosen in violation of this policy. Regards to you, too.ER ^Talk 18:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment about the talk page to the extent that it is difficult to read (although I managed to do so myself and it really doesn't take forever, but it seemed to at times), in parts it was intentionally made so by supporters of the topic. If you are going to intervene as an administrator, don't you think you have some obligation to become familiar with the background?

Making an account containing the name admin is a clear violation, and two long-term users were involved in the original request for checkuser (which has been made to disappear completely, hardly a transparent or inclusive process). I am not saying that Lsi john wasn't acting in good faith, just that deleting any and all comments that might raise doubt on that point, along with the account itself, is bound to make someone suspicious and, just perhaps, might not be an action in good faith. For that matter, how is it an old story? I am indeed not familiar with this. Accusing me of newbie biting given the threat below is a little odd. I would guess that by now I have far fewer edits, and indeed, far less time on wikipedia, than the newbie you accuse me of biting. What's more, I haven't been single purpose. So, do you make a habit of biting newbies yourself? My 'regards to you, too', was sincere, I really can't understand your extreme overreaction below.ER ^Talk 11:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esther, before you go and bite off more than you can chew, permit me to give some unsolicited advice. Stop while you are ahead. You are looking up the WRONG username. You clearly don't know the history, since you don't know the correct username. So telling an admin that they need to get familiar with the subject, is rather ironic, doesn't assume Good Faith about the admin or about myself, and in all honesty, is in very bad form. You are assuming that Bishonen isn't familiar with the history of this (which isn't true), you are assuming that the edits made by that username have been deleted (which is also untrue), you are assuming that I used that username in bad faith (also untrue), you are implying some conspiracy by wikipedia which is covering up the activity (also untrue)... thats a lot of bad faith assuming, especially when all of it is easily disproven. Lsi john 12:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to take that, but it seems I have simply confused Anynobody and Justanother (not difficult, and perhaps the intention, since Justanother is listed in the new request). There is a new request for checkuser, i.e., one that is not the same as the one which existed a bit over a week ago, presumably for some arcane wikipolitical reason. I just made another time-consuming attempt to find the original one, but it really does seem to have been made to disappear. Having thought about it, I do recall the correct username (LSI_admin), but the comments I made about it were not meant to be very serious and the exact user name was not the point, so I didn't use it.

However, I persevered until I did find your old account and the one edit. Good faith?

To claim that I perceive some kind of conspiracy, 'by wikipedia' is certainly too broad. Also, I can't take back the comment about transparency etc. (which is not related to you), because it seems very strange to me that a page I saw just over a week ago has been replaced by another that obscures the situation. Finally, however, thanks for your point about not biting off ..., and I guess I will have to take it.ER ^Talk 13:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Yes, that's what it means. I thought I made it clear that the history has not been deleted "beyond hope of recovery" since I as an admin was able to look at it. I assume it was deleted because the userpages for unsuitable usernames customarily are. I'm "disingenuous" and "pretending", am I? So soon after we met...? You're throwing about accusations and insinuations with remarkable recklessness, first at Lsi john, then at me. I'll take this to the next level, then. This is a formal warning against stinking up talkpages with personal attacks, insinuations, sneers, and ignorant taunts. If you keep doing that, I will block you for disruption. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This checkuser is not the original request for checkuser, which, if I remember correctly, originated from Anynobody. The only 'talkpage' being 'stinked up' here is mine.

What exactly are you threatening me with?

Reading random things on the site at some stage, I came across a comment by Mr. Wales to the effect that being an administrator shouldn't mean too much. Both of your comments indicate a very different us and them viewpoint

you can't view ... but I can ...

followed by a threat of some nebulous retribution, which can only be dished out on the basis of your status.

'Disingenuous' and 'pretending' are hardly attacks and not grounds for any serious action, this is the discussion page of a particular user, not an article, and not an associated or wider discussion page. If you barge in here (and you have done that in a major, very aggressive, and very threatening way), I can't see anything in policy that forbids me expressing myself freely to the extent that I did.

I very much doubt that the Landmark people would agree with your actions, debate on the page sometimes got a little out of hand (particularly regarding the user that contributed the well-sourced information they especially want to remove) but never reached the heights of temper displayed under 'Warning' above. The partisans of the topic have also constantly used diversion and red herrings in the argument, along with false edit summaries (something else you might have noticed if you'd even skimmed the discussion page or had a cursory glance at correlations between changes and comments).ER ^Talk 11:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Education[edit]

Hi Esther

I would like to work constructively with you to improve the Landmark Education article in compliance with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Please let me know how you feel we can resolve the impasse that has developed in the recent discussion on the talk page for that article. With best wishes. DaveApter 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that DaveApter has arrived here before me as well. I, too, would like to work together to obtain a form of the material that is acceptable to everyone. I regret that many editors have taken an all-or-nothing approach which is clearly not working. I have opened a new section in the article discussion page where we can work on one part at a time and hopefully arrive at a version of the material which is acceptable to all parties. Peace in God. Lsi john 20:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have not wanted to log in much lately. I have looked at the discussion page briefly, and it looks like business as usual. Anyway, thanks, and I will be back.ER ^Talk 11:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrire has opened a mediation page about the Landmark article. If you choose not to participate in the mediation, then it could impact your future ability to make or suggest changes to the article. Lsi john 11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are commenting there. good. thanks. Lsi john 11:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found it myself but tried to say thanks for the previous notification, and couldn't save the change (how odd).ER ^Talk 11:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure if you were still online or not. I have moved your comment from the inactive (discussion) page to the main article page with the other editors' comments. Regards, P.. Lsi john 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Barnstar[edit]

		The Purple Barnstar
		I, Smee, award this Purple Barnstar to EstherRice, for enduring personal attacks for being a good contributor. Yours, Smee 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much, Smee.ER ^Talk 11:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helloing[edit]

Your note about that LE topic:

I noticed that you contributed on the discussion page of Landmark Education and read your comment. However, you might not know that the page is currently in mediation here.ER ^Talk 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for your note! I surfed on LE for my private experiences of EST and deemed that cultists are active on the net. But ... despite what my pages might reflect, my temper can be explosively hot, so I have to carefully evaluate whether I may be of direct assistance or not. The trouble in the LE matter is that some people just can't respect the personal integrity of other humans. If I've had it my way, there shouldn't be any mediation whatsoever, but a few editors with a certain background, should be banned from Wikipedia forever. I'm not sure that that's a constructive position, so I'll instead considering digging some more in the behavioral policies of wikipedia. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I did guess what you say in the third sentence. Not experienced myself, but I have experienced the push to take the #$%*ing 'communications course' etc. and had friends with exp. leading to the same kind of knowledge as you.ER ^Talk 12:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical opposition[edit]

Hi Esther

Nice to talk with you. -- I've had little to do with overt conflicts of interest, and even less to do with writing about Mormonism. I imagine potential conflicts of interest become particularly insidious when the interested party (genuinely) sees no conflict. -- Within the mediation process, as always, we have to assume good faith. For me, disputes in this sort of area seem to boil down to using and demanding good references -- and I do NOT regard corporate web-sites as reliable references for anything to do with opinions. Personal opinions as to truth remain anathema under any circumstances.

As far as commenting on religions goes, I wonder whether the trend you detect (on who may criticize) relates to the generic accumulation of respectability as a splinter-cult moves gradually over time from dangerous sect towards notable/acceptable denomination. Roman Catholics, I surmise, can simply classify Mormonism as one more bunch of heretics with Protestant origins, Whereas Protestants have to take their own origins as self-aware heretics seriously. (Like the United States obviously should support popular national revolutions because of the importance of the American War of Independence. Obviously ...) -- I've long enjoyed detecting the religious elements within the overtly secular, so your thoughts give more grist to the mill.

Coming back to our mediation and related matters, I feel more and more opposed to:

attempts to constrain debate by specifying percentages for perceived pro- andperceived anti- material
attempts to prescribe lists of topics to include (as approved areas for controversy/debate) at the expense of other matters that may arise
disparaging good sources without offering reliable counter-sources

Thanks for the opportunity and impetus to muse on these matters!

-- Pedant17 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. This is my first experience of a mediation process, and I find it very difficult to respond to the mess that has formed under many of the sub-headings. Regarding your three points, I certainly agree with the last and second last, I'm not sure precisely what you mean by the first, the usual assignment of percentages on LE has been based on numbers of user names on the history and discussion pages. I probably didn't pick the best example for my explanation and didn't bother trying to contradict anything on the page I mentioned (I think it was the article about their book that vanished and could only be read through magical spectacles which also vanished), the gist of the statement from the LDS person being something like 'we had trouble keeping people who wanted to contradict our version of things away but now we have found evangelicals who are willing to go along with our point of view with little concession on our part so we have obtained NPOV here by letting them edit the page and they even help us to block any harsher dissent'. As you probably know, your point about the USA played out with particular irony in the case of a certain Indochinese admirer of the US constitution. Sorry, back to the mediation: the point of raising the CoI issue was that the policy makes all of the previous removals of sourced material invalid. I'm not arguing general bad faith or asking for anything draconian, just a request to stop removing anything unfavourable; perhaps that is beyond the scope of the process.ER ^Talk 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]