User talk:Tao2911/Archive 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, Tao. I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know some of your edit summaries could be improved. "Wikify" means to add HTML coding such as internal links, or perhaps to encase a filmography into a table. You have been using this description when what you did could more accurately be described as "copy edits" or "removal of un-encyclopedic content." Just thought you might like to make this small improvement. :-) See you around. --Diannaa ^TALK 20:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for JS input

Hey Tao,

I appreciate your opinion in regards the the Joseph Smith GA and the reverts by John Foxe. I completely agree with your opinion that the article should be neutral in its scope and sequence. Your point that the article errs in declaring Smith a Mormon prophet is perfectly valid. I would rewrite it to read that Latter-Day Saints and others within the Mormon movement identify Smith as a great prophet. This maintains neutrality while at the same time showing respect to the members of the LDS faith(s). My problem with the article is that the majority of the information presented resembles 'gotcha' journalism. It looks like someone scoured the planet for anything critical of Joseph Smith and then gave greatest attention to those written by members of the LDS faith (even those whose views were radically different from those held by most LDS people). It then accepts little, if any, evidence which may reveal Smith in a positive light by dismissing it as proselytizing or bias.

You will notice a lot of commentary by me in the discussion page. You will also notice absolutely no editing or work done my me in the past 6 months. The problem, as you have stumbled upon, is that there seems to be an intellectual wall put up around the article. This has resulted in the fact that the article has very few mainstream LDS contributors involved. While it could be argued that this has its benefits (reducing positive bias) it has even greater negative consequences. It has resulted in a closed and stagnant (though some would like to view it as 'stable') article. Please visit articles on Lutheranism, Masons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Judaism,... and see how healthy the discussion is when members of those faiths are included in a respectful way and not dismissed off-hand as biased.

I don't think I'm asking for our faith to be treated with kid gloves, just the same fairness and respect that should be shown all faiths and religions.

Post Script: I read the article on Adi Da. You're right. It seems unfairly cynical. Those visiting the page will likely be most interested in his teachings or doctrines (he is a religious leader). But the heavy emphasis on his drug use and the phrasing "Adi Da stated that devotional worship of him is the sole means of spiritual enlightenment" is quite insensitive to both his work and his followers. Even I, a so-called "bias[ed]" Mormon can see the unfairness in that one.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.112.66 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems much of this might be better discussed on the Smith page. Any religious figure is going to create a whole ball o wax in an open site like this - especially more controversial ones. I just tried to make a few changes, I felt of lack of NPOV both directions, in hopes of assisting the page move toward its proposed "Good Article" status. This was met, I felt, with a certain lack of perspicacity, but for perhaps different reasons than the problems you've encountered.

As for Adi Da, he was something of a J Smith of his day, though only time will tell if he is able to attract 1/10,000(000,000) of the LDS following. For, you see, he did indeed say that it is only through devotional worship of him that any sort of enlightenment/salvation shall be achieved for anyone else (check footnotes, links; esp read 'philosophy' section). That point is one of the areas where followers and critics have little debate, funny enough. And he did indeed take a lot of drugs, by his own description - mention of drug use into his last years is not made in entry, though some sources report it continued. Another discussion entirely, one for which I have no appetite. All in all, Da gets a fair treatment, after long years of difficult editing. Our job here is to fairly and proportionally cover the figure as reported in tertiary sources. The few on Adi Da report on him very much as described here.Tao2911 (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The new link to the Tricycle blog on the Eido T. Shimano page does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.232.82 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This might be of value: http://www.shimanoarchive.com/PDFs/AitkenODP.pdf Kobutsu (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kobutsu - I am full aware of the archive. However, if you review the 'talk' thread for the Shimano entry, you will find that that source is simply not allowable as a source for WP. We need accepted tertiary coverage and analysis - hence my use of Tricycle as soon as it appeared, in order to at least get mention of Aitken's letter. I think that proportionally, we are close to a representative corss section of the allegations against Shimano. They are at the very least alluded to now, and somewhat up to date, with links to other sources.Tao2911 (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That URL is to a few pages from Robert Aitken's book "Original Dwelling Place" - I just parked the file in the archive site for you to look at, it's not part of the archive.Kobutsu (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Tiptoety ^talk 22:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The results came back negative, and as such I would like to apologize. I hope you can understand that given the evidence I felt the need to pursue this. I appreciate you remaining calm during the case, and will let you get back to editing. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Eido Tai Shimano case

Dear Tao, I am dumbfounded as to what the editors have let happen with the Shimano page. There are eight references to what someone refers to as "Lou Nordstrom." The book being referenced is "Namu Dai Bosa" and the sections referenced were written by Shimano himself. Lou was only the editor and wrote the introduction. This is a travesty.... they have put up essentially an "auto-hagiography" written by Shimano. Here's a sample: The shock of Senzaki’s death and years of overly intense practice resulted in illness and Shimano had to spend half a year in hospital, after which he returned to Ryutaku-ji. Soen Roshi again asked him to go to Hawaii to help to lead a small Zen group founded by his lay students, but Shimano lost his enthusiasm about going to America. After Soen Roshi’s persuasion that going to Hawaii would be good for both his on-going recuperation and his academic studies which he could continue at the University of Hawaii, Shimano agreed to go.[8] This is complete rubbish... Shimano never even met Senzaki, why was his death so "shocking"? He was in his mid twenties at the time, just how many years of "overly intense practice" did he do? And what sort of disease required six months of hospitalization? Was it a psychiatric institution? Then six months might make sense.... How can Wikipedia allow this? All the references supplied at the www.shimanoarchives.com site are "invalid" but a Shimano auto-hagiography is acceptable? What on earth is going on? Kobutsu (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I know. I'd suggest saying this there - of course, you will simply be accused of being a partisan nutcase out to defame Shimano, and nothing will change. Hence why I am steering clear of that page. It is run by pro-Shimano fascist sexist trolls, with periodic admin intervention characterized by total ignorance and unwillingness to maintain an even hand, or exercise even basic due diligence. Is that too harsh?Tao2911 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

note

Personal attacks against editors will get your editing privileges restricted and I recommend you remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

really? wow! thanks. I will pursue your model of sane and balanced editing.Tao2911 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you refuse to redact it? Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

redact what? No one leaves any edits I make there anyway. I assumed this one would be immediately removed as well. Have you not done so? I'm shocked! You LOVE censoring my edits! It's like a chosen pastime for you.Tao2911 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't remove it, that is up to you, it does you no favors attacking users personally. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Eido Tai Shimano

With respect to your recent edit to this article:Please Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Yworo (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adi Da

The article Adi Da you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adi Da for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Aaron north (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A special barnstar for you

		The Special Barnstar
		Well done Tao for your indomitable persistence and final success achieving GA status for Adi Da - Epipelagic (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's unexpected. Thanks. I don't know how, but we finally got the page I hoped to read when I first stumbled onto it years back, wanting to know the real story about Adi Da, and not propaganda or disinformation slanted either way. Happy to have it stable and admin approved.Tao2911 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Eido

There was claimed to be a general support for the content Sip added, if you want to edit it please discuss on the talkpage. ThanksOff2riorob (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please stop warring on the Eido article and move to the talkpage and seek a new consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eido Tai Shimano. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Who is warning me (you're supposed to sign)? If it's off2riorob, I simply disagree. You are a biased editor. I am not edit warring. I am making organization edits. I haven't reverted anything three times. But you are on the verge yourself. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Eido Tai Shimano. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tao2911 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I ask simply that an admin carefully look at what the substantive issue are on the Eido Shimano page. All I did today was take one run on paragraph that was poorly crafted, rearrange it to fit chronological format of page as it exists, and add headers to the page to break it up. My edits were reversed over and over, with no explanation given in talk except to say that consensus had been reached. However, that version had since been removed without protest by anyone except me. The re-added version was different than previous "consensus" version in any case, nullifying said claims of consensus. My changes were minor and no specific issues were raised with them. I have been bullied previously on that page by biased editors who are dominating it. This is grossly unfair.

Decline reason:

It looks like you were edit-warring at that article. When you say "my edits were reversed over and over," you are acknowledging edit-warring: after all, your edits can't be reversed 'over and over' unless you are reversing them right back. Edit-warring is always against the rules, even when you are sure you are right, because it's disruptive, makes everyone involved angry, and keeps the participants from finding consensus. When your block expires, try one or more of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE to resolve your disagreement without edit-warring. FisherQueen (talk

No that is not what I am saying - separate and discrete edits were reversed. As has been the pattern there. CAREFULLY look at the page. "My" version is virtually identical to the one being falsely claimed as previous "consensus" version - which wasn't actually the supposed weeks' previous consensus version, that had since been censored by biased editors without protest, except mine. Please, read more carefully.Tao2911 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC) · contribs) 19:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Topic ban request

Hello Tao2911. I really am sorry that it has come to this, but my patience has been exhausted and I have requested that you be topic banned from the Shimano page. You will probably want to comment at the discussion, which you can find here --Slp1 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dae Gak

I agree that his disciplinary action should not be mentioned on his page without further documentation. I am discussing it here and would appreciate your opinion. User_talk:Jikaku —Preceding unsigned comment added by UhOhFeeling (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Now the discussion is on Dae Gak's talk page.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is resolved. Thanks.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

some reminders about wikipedia guidelines

With regards to the discussion over here Talk:Beat_Generation:

If you start from here: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

You are immediately pointed at: Wikipedia:Five_pillars

I could suggest you re-read the fourth pillar, but it's not a big concern with me.

The fifth pillar is my main interest at the moment:

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes."

I also find I often have to remind wikipedians about this, Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"... in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed"

There are, of course, continual attempts at reminding people not to be too dogmatic: Wikipedia:WIARM

In case it isn't obvious, I'm writing in reply to this dispute: "you can start with your impression of what's correct, and then see if you can find references to support it." This is simply not correct. You can have an idea of a more accurate page, based in personal experience or knowledge of the subject - but wikipedia, if you are at all familiar with the editing guidelines, is emphatically clear: entries are to summarize and reflect secondary and tertiary source material, secondarily primary sources, IN ALL CASES. You don't just write your opinions and hope everyone likes them. It is first last and in between about sources.

-- Doom (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that in disputed cases (like this one on the Beat page) it comes down to good source citations. Period. Please carry on any further discussion on the Beat Generation talk page.Tao2911 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm specifically attacking the quoted claim above. You're shifting the ground to a completely different claim. -- Doom (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Frank O'Hara, Anti-Beat?

Seriously, dude, you've been blocked and you can't get me blocked? Hurry up already. But seriously, you said Frank O'Hara criticized the beats. I'm genuinely interested in following up on that since that is an area of my interest. Where did you actually read that? I've been screwing around with you but this is seriously, safety word, an interest of mine, so if you could provide back up for that in a non-antagonistic way I'd be interested in hearing. And hurry up with that block already, Jesus, what's keeping you!F. Simon Grant (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Consider this an official request for you to not comment on my talk page. You clearly have no wish for civil discussion of the page in question, and I have no serious beef with the page, or with you. I don't really know what your problem is, but I'll kindly request that you take your issues to the actual pages you have concerns about, and not harass other editors.Tao2911 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, serious stick-up-the-ass-itis. But seriously, thanks for getting me blocked. Always wanted to do it. Thought it might be fun for a while, but turns out all the admins are the same variety of lame: lazy fascist. Sound familiar? Anyway, seriously, since I'm taking a (permanent?) break from Wikipedia, just leave that info here. I'm very serious about following up on that since Frank O'Hara is a subject of research in non-toilet-backwoods-punchline style research. Ya'll have fun wasting your lives on futility while the sticks up your asses keep you from having the real kind of fun you should with crap like this. But seriously, let me know where you got that O'Hara info. I'd like to follow it up (I know you'll ignore me, it's your pattern, but thought I'd give it a try -- do you need reading lessons or something, it's like you have paragraphs on auto and are unable to read what others say). Anyway, just a citation or something, "Frank O'Hara hates beats found here:" Citation is another shortcoming of yours, but please try. Thanks! Happy Thanksgiving!68.220.76.174 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already expressed that I have no wish to interact with you. I once again kindly request that you refrain from commenting on my talk page. As you point out, you have been banned (all three of your different user identities in fact) from participation on Wikipedia for your uncivil behavior. Please, for your own sake and well-being, take the hint.Tao2911 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)