Welcome!

Hello, Edith Sirius Lee, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krisanaprakornkit and his team [the authors of the Cochrane review] studied only meditation practices that could be used in clinical settings. "Meditation as a part of religious or spiritual practice wasn't considered to be meditation therapy," he said. http://www.wellsphere.com/meditation-article/meditate-your-anxiety-away/369 Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two studies included in the review and only one of these two was about TM. See http://thediabeticnews.com/news/860.shtml . The only included study on TM seems to be http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6986134?dopt=Abstract . Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considered for help User:JamesBWatson Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great points. Can't wait until you bring up at TM:Talk. I can't believe that there are those who claim that there is no credible scientific research on TM. They seem most often to cite this one very poor metastudy, which is about the only research to condemn meditation (in general) as producing no significant results. This doesn't stop many, if not most doctors from prescribing meditation for a variety of conditions in which stress is a player. My own published research on a similar method for transcending shows a dramatic and statistically significant decrease in both state and trait anxiety in only two weeks of practice. David Spector (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the explanation of WP:RS that I have seen in comments from User_talk:Lar. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an essay that supports a sceptical view [1]

...about this.[2] The discretionary sanctions adopted at ArbCom apply to any editor of the TMM Movement articles. Do not make the mistake of thinking that, as a "new" editor, or an old editor under a new name, you are exempt from the TM ArbCom decision. Fladrif (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother trying to intimidate me. I carefully read all these arbitration decisions before starting to edit. If anyone should take note of these decisions, its you. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your baseless accusations of intimidation against other editors violate half-a-dozen Wikipedia policies, starting with WP:AGF. If you have indeed read the TM ArbCom decision, then you should know, contrary to your earlier claim, that the discretionary sanctions do apply to you, and your claim of exemption is baseless. If you think that my editing violates in any way the spirit or letter of the TM ArbCom decision, you are free to raise the issue before ArbCom or AE. Fladrif (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you want to accomplish here. I am calling this intimidation for a lack of better words. I am not going to raise anything to ArbCom or AE, not just for one interaction. Arbcom has already given you some good advices. Take it easy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can shed some light on what Fladrif is trying to accomplish. He or she has proven to be a bully, plain and simple (a bully is one who tries to hurt others, in compensation for some psychological problem, such as lack of self-esteem or, worse, a diagnosable condition such as Borderline personality disorder). In fact, as you obviously saw, the ArbCom sanctions he himself references to intimidate you singles him out as a violator deserving of sanctions; this clearly shows that he is incapable of seeing faults in himself, which is a primary sign of egoism. Further, he has a previous record of incivility and sanctions at WP. I applaud your assertive response. If you look at Fladrif's contributions, you will see that many, perhaps most of his editing at other articles is very intelligent and balanced. Why does he act so different at certain articles? I have no theory yet, just vague ideas. It is clear that he has a special problem with either the editors at this article or with TM and similar techniques (including Natural Stress Relief, an article he singled out and attacked by managing its quick deletion). Whether or how that prompts him to act like a bully (something that would seem inconsistent with his evident intelligence) I have no idea. Actually, I came here to ask you something different: you just showed up recently, but you seem like an experienced WP editor. You must be aware of the 'no Sockpuppets' rule. So I'm a bit befuddled and was hoping you could clear up my confusion. Of course, you could just reply 'well, it's your confusion--I can't explain that', but I'm hoping you won't hide behind the anonymity that WP permits. I find such lack of candor disturbing. Perhaps that's because I'm the only editor I've seen in 9 years of editing who provides on his/her User page a detailed and honest background. I think anonymity has no advantages. I will watch here for your response, if any, on both issues. David Spector (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CHECK. Oh, and if you continue to be evasive with your answers, I will track down a CU right now and get one started, I don't technically need your permission to do so. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask for formal mediation for Lead (research content): Transcedental Meditation in the next few days. Would you like to be included as an involved user. I’ll check back on your user page for an answer. Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't have much experience with this process, but when I read the Dispute Resolution procedural policy, I noticed the following "When requesting formal mediation, be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute using the steps listed above, ... " Does not that mean that we should first do an informal mediation? Did we do that already? If not, do you know that we can be dispensed? Beside, I see that a formal mediation has an advantage over a formal one. In an informal mediation, we might have a few "cool heads", whereas in a formal mediation, we have only one mediator and he can easily be biased. Many people don't know TM and will prefer to be on a safe side, for example, by falling into the argument that we must be suspicious of papers where some authors are TM affiliated, more than we should be suspicious of papers with passing comments that suggest that TM has no effect at all. This is very likely. In Wikipedia, we have the policy and we have how it is applied in practice and these are two completely different things, even during a mediation. Also, a formal mediation only helps the dispute resolution. In particular, correct me if I am wrong, but the mediator does not take position on how to apply the policy (but he will indirectly). Not clear in which way it is "formal".

My suggestion is to clearly determine the focus of the mediation on one specific part of the research in the lead, so that we can well document it and not remain superficial. For example, the focus could be one meta-analysis that we think should be included. We want to make the connection between the policy and one well delimited point. It will not be a small step, because even a small point will involve many aspects of the policy. In any case, if you believe you know what you are doing, I am with you and will participate as an involved editor. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning the recent edit warring. [3] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that under the discretionary sanctions rule I have imposed the sanctions I drafted earler at the AE noticeboard [4]. You will therefore now be bound to a collective 1RR/24hrs revert limitation together with TimidGuy (talk · contribs) and Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), on all edits related to TM topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Giving more weight to points out of the main scope of a source rather than to its main conclusions and findings. Using this to include the details in the Intro instead of including the main conclusions and findings. (violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:LEAD)
2. Evaluation of the content of a source to give to the source a lower or higher weight. (misinterpreation of WP:SOURCE to violate WP:NPOV)
3. Using the personal opinions of editors (involved or external) about a source to give to this source a lower or higher weight. (misinterpreation of WP:SOURCE to violate WP:NPOV)
4. Giving low weight to a paper because of some authors affiliation, despite the fact that it has been published in an independent respectable peer-reviewed journal. This ignores the fact that affiliation is already taken into account in the review process. It also ignores the fact that other papers also have authors with the opposite inclination. (violation of WP:DUE and WP:SOURCE)
5. Incorrect description of the results and conclusions in some reliable sources. (violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE)
6. Misinterpretation of a sub-policy or guideline to contradict the main policy. Especially, misinterpretation of WP:MEDRS and indirectly of WP:SOURCE to contradict WP:NPOV. (This is often a subcategory of #2)
7. Refusal to discuss an argument of the other party, arguing that a consensus with the larger community exists already or that because the argument comes from the other party we must use outside help. (violation of Wikipedia:DR#Discuss_with_the_other_party )

What you do with comments people leave on your talk page is your business, but you cannot delete comments that other editors have made on article or Wikipedia talk pages, as you did here. I have reverted your deletion. I agree 110% that it is "bizarre" that a number of editors have left comments on a closed RAE that has specific instructions not to modify the page. If one of the Admins running that board deletes them as untimely or improper, that is one thing. But, that is not something that mere mortals are permitted to do. See WP:TPOC Fladrif (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you agree that it is bizarre, maybe I should bring this to an Admin then. Also, are you an Admin with the right to rule what happens in this closed RAE? Maybe what you did is only to participate in this "bizarre" edit behaviour under the false umbrella of someone that can rule this closed RAE. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question here [5]. If you feel you you were not treated in an appropriate manner and that your restriction was unfair, you can appeal it as an individual editor independent of restrictions or bans placed on any other editor. Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I completely forgot about the question you asked. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you Olive! Since I just came in and was working independently with my own perspective perhaps it is better that I also appeal independently. I say "perhaps" because I am not familiar with the environment and I am not sure about that, but it makes sense. However, I will certainly participate, if you wish, in case TG and/or you also appeal on your side. BTW, you should remove your comment in my statement in the closed RAE since Doc James took out his. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its odd that three individual editors were treated as one, and that needs to be addressed. However, since editors edit independently and the restrictions were based on different and individual, alleged concerns, even though the restriction was on three editors, the appeal must be made by each independently.(olive (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In case this is useful to you.

• "Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators may not reverse discretionary sanctions without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so." --From the TM ArbCom Decision. [6]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edith... If you haven't been involved in a RfA in the past you may not be aware that content issues are not really part of discussion on the process for discussing a request for adminship., There is rampant misinformation being lobbed every which way in this RfA, but discussion of content will not remedy that, probably nothing will, and in truth is probably unfair to the editor applying for adminship. I have no right to comment here, but thought to anyway for what its worth.(olive (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

How do you want to present evidence of NPOV violation without referring to content? If it was not for his misinterpretation or misuse of policy, I would have nothing against in nomination. He is relatively smooth, etc. If he was right that the Intro was perfectly balanced, etc. his actions would be reasonable. His viewpoint that we are SPAs that try to push a POV and must be restrained would not be that bad, but of course he is wrong. So, the central issue is NPOV violation and we must provide evidence because if we ignore it, we have nothing. Perhaps others will see it in the same way as you, but it is in contradiction with the natural expectation that evidence is presented. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edith. Its the way the RfC is run. One simply states the position with a diff or two if needed then lets whatever is going to happen, happen. Its then up to the bureaucrats to make the final decision. Content disputes are not really what stands in the way of someone becoming an admin., and content disputes happen all the time.The standard on a RfA is say how you feel in as few words as possible. I'm not particularly good at that myself, but its something I'm working on. At any rate I'm not here trying to tell you what to do ... just a thought and really none of my business. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's ok. It may be the way it is. I appreciate that you share your experience. Yet, I maintain my point. If we cannot provide evidence for NPOV violation, then we have no argument. People will assume that he does not violate NPOV and his position will look respectable and we will look as the bad guys. If your right, my conclusion is that we should focus on content where we can, not on the RFA because, without evidence of NPOV violation, our contributions there can be turned against us. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edith... I prefer not to make any comments about what RexxS may have meant. His quote though, comes from the TM ArbCom decision.[7]

Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Transcendental meditation; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

His comment and quote leaves out that an admin may only apply a sanction with out warning if the named party engages in gross misconduct otherwise a warning is necessary. (olive (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That is not something that one would leave out. He must misunderstand. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expect that you would disagree with the hidding, but I respect you a lot and do not want to oppose you in any way. Yet, I read this conversation several times, and I still feel, in the same way as Atama I guess, that there were words that express opposition in this conversation such "It's innacurate" or "No,.." that were not warranted. There was not that much opposition in the actual content (except if we read behind the words). It was very confusing to me.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your confidence, but please always oppose me if you disagree. I, like everyone else, have opinions and am also in a perpetual state of learning on Wikipedia. The conversation is on going and probably should be kept open for that reason. Disagreement and clarification can be talked about and worked out hopefully to alleviate confusion.(olive (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I guess the "in any way" in "oppose you in any way" was too strong. I had in mind "oppose" as in "Do not oppose because in opposing the tenderness of the feeling level is crushed." Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Edith, but no worries. I've said all I have to say on this RfA. Much too nasty to waste any more time on. I do watch RfAs and have never seen one quite like this. One wonders why attacks are being carried out for a candidate who first, is in fairly secure position, and second according to supporters is blameless. Odd. At any rate I won't be commenting again, but don't take it personally.(olive (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A request for clarification [8] has been filed per [9] Although it may not affect you directly, your name has been mentioned or referenced.(olive (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Edith. Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement are generally structured very differently from other pages on the encyclopedia. While it may be common to partake in threaded discussion at these pages, such a thing is generally frowned upon on pages like WP:AE or WP:A/R/A. Could I ask that you please refrain from doing so in the future? Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There maybe such a rule, I don't know and I will check. What is obvious though is that there are double standard here because when the sanction was enforced, this rule, if there is effectively such a rule, was not respected by Doc James and others that supported the sanction. For example see [10] and [11]. How do you expect such a rule to be respected, if even more experienced editors, which are now administrators, do not respect it?

I will alert James too of this rule. Thank you for pointing those diffs out to me. NW (Talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I find strange is that Cirt, who applied this "rule" in my appeal despite the fact that the answer to his question was that my threaded comment was appropriate [12] and also supported the sanction in the AE [13], did not alert James of this rule at the time. This is what I call a double standard. Cirt's edit has completely removed a useful clarification on Doc James statement and a procedural comment by an external editor. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edith Sirius Lee. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Proposal. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. diff link. Comment on article talk page directed against a single user, admin Jmh649, instead of focusing on comments addressing content. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this was a personal attack. I did not say anything against Doc James beside commenting on his edits. His edits actually destroyed years of work that were necessary to determine the structure of the main article for "Transcendental Meditation". The policy is clear on the fact that as long as you refer to the actual edits, there is no personal attacks, even if you mention who did these edits. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edith Sirius Lee → User:Edith Sirius Lee 2 — Lost my password, no email. Edith Sirius Lee 2 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User pages cannot be moved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Edith Sirius Lee. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]