User talk:MaybeitsMir

Hello! Welcome to my talk page!

I am very easily distracted, and very forgetful. If you start a conversation here, but find that I'm still making edits elsewhere well after the fact, then it's probably completely slipped my mind.

Feel free to reply to your post to send another notification my way (I won't mind as long as you keep it reasonable), and I'll do my best to reply as soon as I can!

Signature

Hello, Miranda. Your signature appears to link to your old username, Maybeitsmir, as opposed to your new username, MaybeitsMir. Per WP:SIGLINK, please fix the link. Thanks! Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 05:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sure enough. Thanks for the heads up! miranda ^:3 05:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Guru Ghasidas

The resion is Guru Ghasidas is Dharmguru of Satnami caste in India , and he isn't belong to Chamar family.this 'chamar' word make people's as lower cast mentality . Atleast for reader , it will great if you publish it as "Satnami" in place of chamar ChetanBaghel12 (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to object to the contents of the article, bring it up on the article's talk page, or provide a reliable source and change it yourself. You can't just remove reliably sourced content because you disagree with it. miranda ^:3 06:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

YGM

Hi there - I have emailed you, hope it reached you well. Best, Patient Zero^talk 03:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Fabelmans undo in 'Critical Response'

You removed this addendum from the Critical Response section:

"In the end, the critical response you have just read is all just intellectualizing about a story told in a film. The story, however much based on facts, is not the truth. The story in the film is not reality. It is just forms in light temporarily projected on a screen. The reality is this. Spielberg's story, Spielberg's film, is not an object to be objectified by critics, but an experience. Your response to that experience is the truth. And that truth is a very individual thing. The only way for you to discover that truth is to notice how you feel before you watch it. Remember that as your baseline. Watch the film. And then notice how you feel at the end of the movie. Any change you notice is what is real about the film for you. Any change that you notice has the potential to change you. That is also true of life. This is what Spielberg has revealed about his own life. And this is what he has revealed about Art."

The reason you related to me was that I had violated the Wikipedia manual of style, without telling me how. However, in the actual history page you said "commentary like this is not appropriate in an encyclopedia." You do not appear to have been fully honest with me, which makes me wonder about your true motivation. Is it that you just disagree with me ideologically, and are hiding that behind Wikipedia boiler plate? I wonder if you had considered that what I wrote was also critical response. In fact, everything in the Critical Response section is "commentary like this." It is all just repetition of personal opinions about the movie.

I think you are putting form over function in a rather rigid way. You have the editing power, I don't. So I won't try to convince you to replace my edit. Your decision may well be correct from the Wikipedia corporate viewpoint.

However, I think you might actually read again what I wrote and consider what meaning it has in your own life. Ask yourself whether it actually contains some wisdom you can learn from. Take the time to digest it.

Remember the tale of Diogenes, who wandered the streets in daylight with a lighted lantern. When asked why, he said he was looking for an honest man. When you look at American culture, it is remarkable how much of what we think is real is actually fantasy. Hollywood. Disneyland. Politics! The stock market? Much of it is superficially interesting, entertaining, but not real. What is real, is that we react to it. And our reactions to what we perceive eventually shape our reality - a reality not of beliefs and misperception, but of what we eventually become. "Feels Like" is not "Is", but "feels like" can result in behavior, and habitual behavior in a way of being. And a way of being in January 6th and the eventual failure of American democracy.

The truly valuable thing about Spielberg's movie is that he discloses this from the first scene. Two parents. Two ways of being. Two ways of explaining what a movie is. And a young boy whose future is molded not by their ideas and explanations, but by the direct experience of the movie itself. And the Auteur, a seventy-something who is the living evidence of what the movie suggests. And his 'Art', the use of the imagination to disclose something of potentially healing value, even though the vehicle itself is an artifice.

I have found in life that rigidity can come from prolonged exposure to chaos, and a pledge a child makes to oneself never to submit to chaos again. Most often, that chaos arose close to home, as it did in Spielberg's case. But one is so dependent on one's parents and close community that the Stockholm syndrome raises its ugly head. One cannot blame the real source, but one can look for a scapegoat somewhere else in society. Post-traumatic stress is turned against the world.

Or one can take Spielberg's path. Not to try to control, but to creatively contribute to the wisdom and stability of one's culture. This is not either-or. It is not all or nothing. We are complex beings, and post-traumatic stress can be triggered even in one who has chosen the path of healing. But a more positive direction can be set.

Any of us can have scars that may be triggered. When one of them is touched, it hurts. And the normal response is to try to avoid the pain: shove it down, push it aside. But when we do this it all piles up, like dirt swept under the same corner of the carpet. And eventually that uneven spot can trip us up and land us on our face.

The alternative is to face that pain, really look at it, and consider it with deep compassion. The things that affect us in a deeply positive way, when concentrated on, can develop a strength of heart which can be brought into that compassion when we are triggered. The trick is to remember that healing quality while we are focused on our pain.

This is not a magic bullet, but over time it helps. Spielberg is Jewish. I am Christian. But I deeply respect a Jewish spiritual practice of thanksgiving which can be of value in such cases. It is known as the Hundred Blessings, or Hundred Benedictions. It goes like this: "Baruch ata, Adonai, Melech ha-olam," [followed by something we have just noticed for which we might give thanks. For example "for the fresh green leaves of springtime."] The ideal is to find something to be thankful for and say this blessing or benediction a hundred times each day.

The Hebrew words mean "Blessed are You, oh Lord, ruler of the universe,". Now this is a paradox. Why would a being considered to be the creator of the universe need our blessing? The answer is this: by blessing anything or anyone, we open the gate of blessing in the perceptual field of the heart. And that gate operates in both directions. When blessing flows out, Blessing can also flow in. The Muslims say, "When you remember God, God remembers you." The Christian word for remembrance is based on a Greek verb cognate with another verb which suggests that one remembers with the expectation of the possibility that something will happen in return. "Remember me to one who lives there, for she once was a true love of mine."

You may not be religious, but this is not about religion. If one does not believe in a religious god, one can choose some aspect of the universe to which one can direct one's thanks. This is about a practice that educates the perceptual field of the heart, just as Spielberg's practice of his craft educated him about how to connect with a movie audience. It is an education of the spirit, not a doctrine of beliefs in opposition to other ideas. Everyone has this capacity, regardless of beliefs. Not everyone chooses to develop it. I have met a lawyer who is constantly and eagerly on the attack. You can see this in his face.

I have given you some clues. More words will not suffice. May you Bless and be Blessed. May you Thank and be Thanked. 50.100.148.64 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with ideologies. I don't revert edits based on whether or not I agree with them, but on whether or not they follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. This is an encyclopedia, and so articles are meant to remain encyclopedic in tone, which your edit certainly was not. If I hadn't removed it, someone else would've, regardless of whether or not they agreed with you.

You are clearly passionate about the subject. If you need an outlet for thoughts like these, I suggest a social media site where it can remain for others to share and ponder, rather than an encyclopedia, where it will (rightfully) be removed for breaking guidelines.

I do hope you have a great day! miranda ^:3 18:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)