Talk:Kripalu Center/Archive 2

Reworked the wells bit (also POV and COI yet again)

The text as written was slanted and contained unpublished synthesis: it was simply misleading. I am sure the wording can still be improved.- Sinneed 20:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor restored content from an earlier version, including inline links, removing sourcing, removing a direct quote from the source and stating that the content was too complex as I had made it. Perhaps so. I have simplified it, and included the actual words from the report, again, as the content added/restored by the other editor is not supported by the source. As to complexity... our readers are smart, we need to give them the information, not decide for them.- Sinneed 08:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another editor again made several changes. Some still seem to be slanted. Proposed what I think is more neutral wording, added the title of the document, added a named ref to existing document.- Sinneed 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed ridiculous overflagging. If the section is that dubious, we can simply remove it.- Sinneed 01:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, another editor is changing 2007 (the newest date we have in wp:RS) to 2003, for the bit about owning and operating its own water supply. Since 2003 is accurate, just out of date, I defer to the editor's apparently strongly held position.- Sinneed 03:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing, strange, POV-push. Added wp:SYNTH flag. The sources do not say what the editor claims. At this point, continuing to work on the article is unduly difficult. I will probably just maintain the flags for a time.- Sinneed 05:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaced slanted summaries with quotes, perhaps we can work from there... they are too long, but the 2 editors appear to read the quotes' meanings very differently. Added a what? flag for the "among other things". I will also add the quote=param so that if the quotes are removed from the body, we can still have them in the reference. Please wp:vandalism a good read. Even if an editor disagrees with my take on what the quotes mean, they belong on the reference.- Sinneed 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is an excellent example of why I argue that the wp:COI and wp:POV flags belong. It is almost impossible to make even simple changes to the article without triggering abuse and destructive edits to the article (see redacted oddness in the article here).- Sinneed 22:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the article has been vandalized. "MassDEP entered into an Amendment to a Consent Order with the Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health in Stockbridge providing for an extension of the deadline to comply. The amendment establishes a new date (August 1, 2009) for the removal of Well #1 from service due to construction within its Zone I." was cut to "MassDEP entered into an Amendment to a Consent Order with the Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health in Stockbridge providing for an extension of the deadline to comply." This masked the fact that the entire problem with the wells was due to construction, and makes it appear the wells were unsafe, rather than the facts as presented: that they were at risk of potentially being unsafe. I have again restored the quote.

In addition, wp:POV edits have been restored, and there has been no discussion. The article continues to be systematically damaged. - Sinneed 17:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Very much more wp:POVish wp:SYNTH has been added, along with more inline external links and broken formatting, hammering away at the water supply.- Sinneed 07:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Staff cuts and pay, bonuses - And COI/NPOV topic 1 zillion

Reworked this to hew more closely to the source.- Sinneed 22:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So is the article okay by you now?

You haven't really explained your tags in light of various discussion.

Since you've made no very radical changes, perhaps you still feel it's unfair??

Also, point out in passing (again), that three out of the four recent editors object to these tags.

How might they be reasonably removed, while satisfying the outlier editor?

This could be likened to the unfortuante Senate filibuster rule.

No such rule exists in Wikipedia that I'm aware of, but you seem so very insistent...

The article was product of previous consensus from earlier editors....... Calamitybrook (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored post for format only, standard indent, sig with content.

"So is the article okay by you now?" - No, the article remains oddly slanted. It is poorly sourced, citing obscure factoids buried in huge documents. I will continue to work on it as time allows for this very low importance article.

"The article was product of previous consensus from earlier editors" - A review of the many comments by a number of editors, here, at wp:COIN, and on your talk page, appears to casts doubt on that statement. - Sinneed 23:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Article is "poorly sourced?"

In part your addition of fact tags has resulted in sourcing such that muliple clauses within many sentences get sources.

This game could continue for some time yet.

But the existing sources are quite varied and numerous; especially considering simple nature of topic.

There simply aren't at this point, many more meaningful sources to add.

Have you some particular or personal basis for statement that article is "poorly sourced?"

Can you comment at all?? - Calamitybrook (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored again... format only.

Again, nothing needing a response here. You need not understand my words: please feel free to assume that any that make no sense to you are of no consequence to you. I'll work through the misused sources as I have time and interest.

Any concerns you would like to share about the content, other than that you do not wp:LIKE the 2 article flags?- Sinneed 02:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me.......but WHAT exactly ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

Refractory: Cool word means, I gather..... "resisting authority??"

Strunk & White does frown on such words.

Authority on Wikipedia is based soley on sourcing.

Provide some sourcing or sources, and IMPROVE the article, rather than taking endless personalized potshots PLEASE...

What sources have you, or can you provide, to improve the list of 30-odd sources that you claim are inadequate??

You've provided nothing on these lines.

I PROMISE that if you add reliable sources, I wouldn't dream of removing them or quibbling.

Might I AGAIN ask simple question: WHAT WOULD SATISFY your notions such that you personally would agree to remove tag regarding my alleged conflict of interst. What information do you have that justifies this tag?? Is it merely your private intuition?

Is this question unworthy of response because it's "REFRACTORY??" Resisting authority? Yours perhaps? Based on the sources you've provided?

And which would those be?

Please fix the article as you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored to standard, added signature. I expect that, over time, I will continue to remove the slanting and misconstruction from the article. - Sinneed 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:consensus

Some editors appear to be obsessed with maintaining tags at the beginning of this article due to the shock/horror that someone with a point of view may have edited it. I believe, and request others chime in, it is time to remove them.MarturetCR (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

wp:wikistalking would be a good read. What is your argument that the tags should be removed?- Sinneed 13:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please make that now, four out of the five current editors that question the tags.

How often might one request a simple account from tagging editor, or his/her thinking?

But these requests are quite futile.

No response is ever offered: Instead of direct answers, one is provided with nearly infinite links to Wikipedia essays, and frequently, what Wikipedia insiders apparently sometimes call Peacock Words, that very few would understand, such as "Refractory."

These tags are apparently because of something interesting that is deep in the troubled head of a single editor.

Nobody can get to this place.

Informational requests that could result in sympathetic understanding (and even helpful suggestions) are invariably dismissed as a challenge to this person's "authority," the nature of which is unclear.

It's a peculiar, circular kind of problem. Much like a private and personal neurosis, in itself, it offers no solution. - Calamitybrook (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As always, I have refactored the above to standard, put signature with the content.

The only thing here that I can see that needs a response is: The explanation of my thinking, and that of other editors can be found on this talk page in some of the many many sections you have created, on your talk page, on the wp:COIN archives, linked above, and in the edit summaries of edits you have removed. You might consider wp:dispute resolution or wp:RfC to gather support for your position. However, your abusive behaviour is not likely to draw much in the way of help: see again, guidance on your talk page, this talk page, wp:COIN, wp:WQA. Please follow it.- Sinneed 02:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Specialized views & terminology

Sinneed's views are simply beyond the understanding of non-philosophers. But Wittgenstein probably finally nailed this philosophy thing. Pity about this...refractoring...a term that seems to most generally concern astronomy. Cool that Sinneed can use it according to its other definition (s), whatever they might be. My compliments!! Any time he'd like to discuss his views, or problems, on this talk page, my hourly sessions are available. I can probably be helpful.... Calamitybrook (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored to standard. - Sinneed 06:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Refractor; noun, verb

An online search of definitions clearly suggests, according to various authoritative sources (too numerous for convenient citations), that this word (and variations) is/are most authoritatively and correctly used in reference to optical instruments and astronomy.

Honestly, the mere rabble at this point, simply cannot know what to make of all this refraction and refractoring, other than to assume it's all to the good....

Its endless use in current discussion is closing in closely, on absolute gibberish.

Speaking apparent gibberish is, however, rarely, a sign of unrecognized genius.

Resorting to obscure language is to be frowned upon, due to its many negative consequences that I shall here refrain from listing.

Yet such usage is characteristic of profound philosophers, that they may invent new language, or emphasize obscure meanings of existing words, in order to make their profound and largely unrecognized viewpoints clear to followers. Often it may take some decades for their world view to be understood by even a small audience of specialists....

I'm in favor of these linguistic peculiarities......Refraction.......That's probably really old hat........

Yet still, the dozens of references to many Wikipedia essays above (below?) are profoundly unilluminating with regard to the apparently unanswerable-- and deeply complex-- questions at hand.

These essays are unlikely to create a new ontologic world view. I struggle with various masters as it is.

Also unacceptable substitute for astrophysics, philosophy --- or even a shred of simple meaning.

So what's the story?

Unsolvable mysteries.......conundrums....the trivial refracted into the profound.......Omniscience of Hubble.......So fortunate that such far-sighted & unique editing perspective........ (contradicting the mere rabble) is available to readers, for the endless complexities and subtlties of our key and profound Kripalu article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

mysteries.......conundrums....the trivial refracted into the profound.......Omniscience of Hubble.......

I wish to create a Wikipedia article about Sinneed, due to his uniquely useful outlook.

Can somebody suggest sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 February 2010

Sinneed continues to NOT consult sources provided and merely insists on his unsourced point of view.....dunno how to characterize this approach to editing.........but he is thus enabled, in his own mind.... to insist on maintaining inaccurate information and information skewed to his point of view.

My intuition suggests he has a conflict of interest.

He should explain his COI.......... or otherwise refrain from editing.....

If nothing else, a deep personal investment in his own inexplicable POV is much in conflict with a balanced and accurate article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page

Tags usually say "See talk page for details. How come there are no details?? Can we see some refraction here please? - Calamitybrook (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interested editors will join the discussion of section, above, about the well section. However, most editors will be able to see the problems with the section right away.- Sinneed 06:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Oops. Also, refactored that to standard format only. - Sinneed 06:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Relevant contents of three DEP documents on single relevant topic are reported separately, concisely, explicitly, and objectively.

Several editors excluding myself have actively defended the material from removal by those who want exclusively Happy Talk. A number of others have accepted it more passively as well-sourced and relevant.

None have raised synthesis, an issue which may be regarded as peculiarly applied and inexplicable in this instance. Calamitybrook (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored for readability. Talk:Kripalu Center#Reworked the wells bit (also POV and COI yet again) is above.

Searches are not used as sources in WP

http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=kripalu&s.tab=globe&new=n&s.si(simplesearchinput).sortBy=articleprintpublicationdate&s.si(simplesearchinput).offset=10 Boston Globe 12/22/94 is not a source. Possibly some of the articles it finds might be used by an interested editor as sources. - Sinneed 22:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Calamitybrook (talk)

Back to language basics

Let me go back slightly to Sinneed's repeated use of "Refractor."

I dislike and even despise "argument from authority," but cannot help mentioning that I spent 10 years as editor at million-plus circulation publication. I certainly am not/was not especially talented with regard to my former vocation, but have known dozens of elite and top-flight editors who would immediately reject the word, and (like myself) simply not know the meaning intended by Sinneed.

English is a great language. Meaning can be conveyed simply and directly. Sinneed does fail to appreciate this basic and wonderful fact regarding the language.

Now with regard to sourcing:

If an editor is marginally competent and interested in improving this article, they may be capable (or incapable??) of using existing information to provide improved sourcing....

Those not actually interested in improving the article, obviously, would refrain from this..and might limit themselves to complaints....perhaps veering into absurdities if so inclined based on intellectual or emotional infirmaties..........

In any case, those whose skills preclude making improvements would be simply be unable to add constructive sourcing, either based on available information or otherwise.

One can indeed use various more specialized database search engines that are generally available (to anyone who is curious), through membership in good libraries... .... to provide the more specific information requested by the maladroit, irresponsible and/or lazy.......But why????

Also, why has Sinneed sought, several times now...to obliterate the correctly sourced date of 2003 for state DEP report. He prefers to ignore the very clear and plain source provided in favor of a much different and later date.

Like so much of his interest here, there seems no reasonable way to understand his insistence on this point in terms of good faith competent editing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what latest tag is about.

Also, what "key sourcing" did I remove? Please restore them, as they cost me some effort to locate and place in the article.

Am pleased in any case, that 2003 date seems to be holding up for now, after it was changed numerous times inaccurately, by Sinneed, for unexplained reasons.

Perhaps it's therefore unnecessary to point out precisely where in the provided source document, its date can be located by astute readers.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm burying the hatchet

I am guilty of making certain unpleasant comments on this talk page. Will try refraining from this practice here in future. Certainly I ask nothing in return. But some of what I would fervently continue to wish for, include explainations and responsive discussion regarding the four tags from the one tagger. Also, limited or optimally zero references/links to Wikipedia policy essays and previous comments, unless accompanied by detailed and explicit discussion of specific relevance. Perhaps these requests are reasonable. I do consider, however, that my edits to article (rather than to this talk page) continue in general, to be reasoned, rational, relevent, balanced, well-justified and well-sourced. Calamitybrook (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might start by formatting that as you have been asked repeatedly. Then, read the responses already made. Then, understand that your requests are not at all reasonable. Rest assured that they should always reference wikipedia policy, as your arguments should. Further, detailed and explicit discussion of specific relevance will not be forthcoming here, this is about the article, not about you. If you wish to seek guidance on how to use or get along in Wikipedia, I encourage you to read, accept, and follow the guidance provided to you by multiple editors here, on your talk page, at wp:COIN, wp:WQA, and other article talk pages. Then join the discussion, following wp:talk, following standard indention, avoiding personal attacks, and focusing entirely on the article, not the editors.- Sinneed 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can improve the article by formatting, that'd be great! Unfortunate about all those links focused on topics other than this article. It's good stuff though! Calamitybrook (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored to standard. You asked questions, I addressed them. I expect that was the last time I will do so.- Sinneed 20:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Could you work on the formatting?

I found an odd source on NYT site, which I find interesting: [[1]]. Seems like an excellent & objective source.

Also found source which appears to consist merely of an undated table of municipalities & similar in Mass., suggesting that Kripalu purchases its water as of date which is unclear or unprovided. What it means is rather unclear. Even the "source" of the source, isn't immediately clear. Can't immediately relocate this.

Also there is a "Mass Dev" "annual report" for 2006 easy to find, which shows a sizable loan to Kripalu for construction.

However, I've seen sources, possibily including lines in Kripalu form 990, with regard to the bonding.

Haven't as yet relocated this stuff.

I could use help.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Improved Sourcing!!

Responding dutifully to objections that this article is poorly sourced, I just added material regarding water supply sourced to The New York Times, the EPA, and the NYT's own source. This results in an expanded treatment of Kripalu's drinking water. I tried to be as concise as possible.

Public health stuff relevant to this article's topic that is published by EPA and NYT is worthy of inclusion without discussion, I hope and believe.

Perhaps formatting of citations can be improved by those more adroit in these matters?

Added 10 sentences. Perhaps the entire water-supply material could be summarized & slightly cut... Relevant sources should stay, however.

Also, in that neutrality tag says "Please see talk page for discussion," it is inaccurate.

Am interested in seeing such discussion, yet there is none.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The water material now amounts to 11 sentences in total, which seems reasonable for its six current sources. Goal is to be concise and avoid undue weight concerns.

Also the most recent information now leads, providing the more historical stuff as background lower down.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

added seventh source on water supply

Okay.

Will now try to make an even more narrow summary of the other six sources.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Who, What When Where

I've reorganized according to sequence that has well-established precedent.

"Who" is a question of definition and an institution is defined by "History" much more than its immediate present or future.

"What" addresses "Kripalu Yoga."

"When" is recent, as in "Recent operations."

"Where" concerns the facility in Stockbridge. ("Why" is something best left to improved sourcing.)

Seems plausible. I can further elaborate on request.

Would be interested in any reasons, specifically, why an alternate sequence may be preferred.

Also, please suggest any and all Wikipedia essays!

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut COI tag

Tagging editor recently suggests the problem may be "ownership" and perhaps not COI.

Tagging editor believes I am acting in "good faith."

As such, I assure that I have no "conflict of interest."

Given "good faith" assumptions, no reasonable views to contrary are available.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored.- Sinneed 06:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The lastest concern I have is the hammering away at the water supply.- Sinneed 06:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Concerns" continue unclear

Added five reliable and significant sources to water supply topic, for total of seven.

The strong quality of current sources makes it reasonable to briefly and objectively summarize their contents.

Recent editing therefore considerably broadens the water topic, but de-emphasizes content of the three earlier sources with objective of limiting overall water supply topic to a reasonable proportion within larger context of the article while giving available sources due treatment.

To simply call this "hammering" doesn't outline any particular "concern." Perhaps especially not in light of earlier "concerns" about "poor sourcing."

Myriad "concerns" are increasingly unclear and, absent discussion, might seem in part contradictory.

All Wikipedia essays are probably relevant here, as is perhaps the U.S. Constitution etc., and I promise to read all that, thank you.

Lawyers, (wiki or otherwise) however, don't just tell each other to "go read the constitution."

Calamitybrook (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Keep Discussing Recent Concerns

That's what "talk page" is for.

Let's begin with a relatively recent objection about poor sourcing.

Article presently has about 50 sentences and nearly 40 citations relating to highly reputable sources. These include four state and federal agencies, a couple of IRS documents, national, regional and local newspapers...really the gamut of possible sourcing for an article of this sort about a minor but notable topic.

Is sourcing then truly a "concern?"

If a worry, how, specifically then, might this problem be alieviated? Can other editors besides myself help fix?

Are there relevant Wikipedia essays and policies, or other abstract material, that might be linked to this talk page, so that the uninformed may gain basic education and valued further insight into this article's sourcing problems?

Having raised the concern, please engage in ongoing discussion.

Earlier, this article was peer-reviewed and subject to many compromises among multiple editors and substantial resulting changes.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of tags

Among a sole editor's many concerns is his COI tag, based on his perception of the (formerly) included "yoga" names of CEO and president as seen on Kripalu Web site. Tagging editor said that therefore, the alleged COI editor "knew nicknames of staff." Four hundred staff members. One editor agreed strongly with evidence, but his commentary focused on assertions irrelevant to COI & ignored reasoned response. Another editor looked at this, disagreed & removed tag. It's back. Am myself the sole authority on whether I have conflict of interest. I don't! Logically, I could be lying, in which case I lack "good faith." Am, however, honest fellow.

NPOV hasn't been discussed, appart from linking Wikipedia's many excellent and interesting policy essays. An editor disagreed and removed tag. Perhaps two editors, twice (memory fails). It's back. :One plausible measure of neutrality is high-quality sourcing. Article is quite closely sourced to array of government Websites as well as national, regional and local publications -- generally obtained (by me) via google. Reflects wide array of sources with balance and concision, and lacks editorial point of view, I'd say. Further and ongoing discussion regarding contrary views, including careful and specific reasoning, would be useful and welcomed in "resolving disputes." Such discussion would also reflect "good faith" editing. How such disputes can otherwise be resolved is unclear. Calamitybrook (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored again.

Some of these statements remain false-to-fact. COI and NPOV are discussed above, on the edit summaries, at wp:COIN, etc. If editors who edit here were not abused so, they might stay. As it is, they don't, generally.

As to "How such disputes can otherwise be resolved is unclear", perhaps wp:dispute resolution might help. The guidance at wp:WQA, wp:COIN, here, on my talk page, on your talk page, as to how to progress may help as well. Following normal WP posting, not creating a zillion sections, answering specific points specifically, focusing on the content instead of editors, all might help.- Sinneed 17:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

brief confusion regarding trademarking action

Agreed: "R in circle" frowned upon by reputable style manuals (doesn't appear). Trade mark registration is business model information, siginifcant and well sourced. Thus revert. Tags/edit discussion on talk page endlessly encouraged!! Calamitybrook (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored to standard.

Dropped again... see wp:COI, wp:advert, wp:MOS. Edits should improve Wikipedia, not advertise Kripalu.- Sinneed 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Trademarking as significant business action

Perhaps a misunderstanding/lack of insight. Notion here is not to "benefit Kripalu." Nor to kowtow to Kripalu in terms of non-standard editorial styles regarding (TM) or whatever. Not to provide free "advertising." (Is my NPOV violation postive or negative? Please, please explain tag!!!). The information about trademarking offers insight into Kripalu's business model and its strategies and operational mode. It's slightly complex, but trademarks are important--often critical-- to many enterprises. Registration requires some effort and expense. Typically, an investment well worthwhile. Unsusual, perhaps, and therefore all-the-more notable, to trademark a style of Yoga.

I'll be restoring this shortly. Perhaps it requires more discussion/education. Please do read all the linked Wikipedia articles! They can provide relevant insights....Calamitybrook (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored to standard again.

I will remove the trademark information again. See again the guidance from a number of editors here on this talk page, your talk page, wp:COIN, wp:WQA, edit summaries of edits you have removed. Stop now. If there is an article published in a generally wp:reliable source about the trademarking of Hatha Yoga, perhaps it is notable, and what the source says should be included. But there isn't, and it shouldn't. It is wp:advertising. - Sinneed 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article about Kraft Foods listing trademarks relies for sourcing soley on the company rather than third-party evaluations. Kripalu is asserted to be different in this regard. But how and why? Please don't remove well-sourced and relevant information. Also, here is USA Today article about trademarking and Yoga (though not Kripalu per se): [[2]]. Another from Times of India: [[3]] Another from Washington Times [[4]] Significant topic, though no need to cover in Kripalu article beyond noting their trademarking activities (which I see now also includes the term "YogaDance"). Thanks for reading!!! Calamitybrook (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored again. Please stop.

Reviewed the Kraft article, no mention of trademarking. Dropped again. Again, see wp:COI, wp:OWN, wp:advert, much guidance from many editors. Stop now.

Quick review of the articles has no mention of Kripalu.- Sinneed 13:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Added five sources. Number of citations now outnumber sentences. Somewhat rare among Wikipedia articles. Could there be too many sources & citations?? Calamitybrook (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored again. Please stop.

Absolutely there can be, and there were. Dropped the entire advertising bit.- Sinneed 13:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be inappropriate to briefly detail the (financial) relationship of off-site Kripalu "affiliate" yoga instructors with the organization? Structure is based on trademark. Please discuss why you believe this content doesn't conform with cited essays, or is otherwise unsuitable. Asserting relevance of an essay (or a dozen), or offering labels such as "advertising," may suggest a starting point, but nothing more. Confusion (am suspecting) may originate with various copy editing style rules that widely scorn the use of trademark symbols (TM) (R) etc. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored again. Dropped the advert again. The fee structure is trivia, but not worth fighting about.- Sinneed 15:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

These fees after all, represent, obviously, multiple millions of dollars in revenue. Why is brief and well-sourced account of their legal basis and structure, in your view, an "advertisement?" Aren't copyrights and trademarks and patents matters of intellectual property rights rather than advertising? It's what enables, for example, companies to buy and sell brands. But germaness to advertising? How so? Please discuss. Calamitybrook (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored yet again. No. Thank you.- Sinneed 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To expand on that, again, you might consider wp:dispute resolution, perhaps, at this point, an wp:RfC. Just an idea.- Sinneed 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dire confusion reigns unabated.

Unfortunate that direct & simple question cannot be addressed on this talk page and "dispute resolution," rather than even minor engagement on relevant topic, is the suggested alternative.

Disputant could review concept of brand equity. This is an accounting concept enabled by relevant intellectual property law; particularly trademarking.

It relates to net worth and has practical financial consequences, that may relate to borrowing ability, book value of public companies and other significant concepts. Consider also brand management.

Advertising has remote relationship to brand equity, and even more remotely related to concept of trademarking. (Perhaps all business concepts have slight relationship.)

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Refractored

I've also "refractored" my recent comments. However, should point out that I do not know, and have failed, despite reasonable and credible effort to locate the relevant definition of "refactored." So so therefore am merely guessing at what this term may be understood as in this particular context.............. Feeling is that my deleted comments, though entirely civil and reasonable, muddied the primary issue. Which is, despite multiple invitations, a lack of honest discussion on this talk page. Calamitybrook (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored again. wp:talk page guidelines might help. Code refactoring might provide insight.

"despite multiple invitations, a lack of honest discussion on this talk page" - Perhaps, if you study the guidance from many sources here, on your talk page, at wp:WQA, and on wp:COIN you may find the honest discussion you seek.- Sinneed 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I restored the content destroyed by calamitybrook (talk · contribs), but I may have missed some words. - Sinneed 03:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Deficit on Talk Page

This is a comment soley upon recent content of this talk page.

Is it then impossible to hold a straightforward and plainspoken discussion here of the so-called issues "tagged" -- and of the well-sourced and neutral content that a single editor repeatedly seeks to delete?

Credible discussion here hasn't materialized. One encounters rather, quite literally dozens of links, without comment or the provision of any logical basis, to highly generalized Wikipedia essays.

If these many excellent essays actually have relevance to content (?), they can therefore only be inefficiently guessed at by readers. It may be these "connections" are uniquely perceived by a singularly uncommunicative and solitary editor.

i

Endless and mistaken use of computer-programmers' jargon (i.e. "refractored) appears to disregard basic requirements of language; these and other such difficulties are unilluminating at the least, and certainly cannot advance discussion.

Tagging editor's private perceptions, therefore, cannot be learned, nor in any way addressed.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored to standard.

"Is it then impossible to hold a straightforward and plainspoken discussion here" - Perhaps, if you study the guidance from many sources here, on your talk page, at wp:WQA, and on wp:COIN, you may find the honest discussion you seek. (edit to add) - This will prove difficult, partly because you have started new sections so often, and discussion of a single point is scattered over many many sections.- Sinneed 01:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, as you perceive this discussion from many sources as having not "materialized", I again suggest seeking comment from others through wp:conflict resolution, perhaps at this point a wp:RfC.- Sinneed 02:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing my talk-page comments.

Thanks!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I will make no effort to read any further such posts.- Sinneed 17:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored the above after it was moved to a new subsubsection and damaged by Calamitybrook (talk · contribs).- Sinneed 02:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing comments of others on "talk page" is poor practice

To refrain from editing comments of others on a "talk page" is to conform with basic & most minimal standards, which mark a starting point for reasoned editing.

You've done this many times: for example, when you re-arranged multiple and extensive sequences of posts here some time ago -- and then simply declined to comment on this action.

To call this "refractoring" -- a term which here fails to conform with accepted and correct definitions, is a mysterious linguistic error. This is a very fine example of how jargon may go beyond language to become gibberish.

Asking "why" seems at best, to produce more jargon.

Am still much favoring constructive, direct discussion, based on standard English.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 February 2010

Mistakenly thought my comments here were my own.

Must be lack of insight into various Wikipedia essays.

Despite requests, my comments here are repeatedly edited by somebody else.

Thanks anyway.

May I then too have permission to edit the comments of others here as I like?.......

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags may be incorrect

I've simply no conflict of interest and contrary evidence has been flimsy, illogical and disproven. (That note of CEO's "Hindu/guru" name on Web site = "Familiarity with [600+] staff nicknames.")

A third party disagreed with COI tag. Another party agreed, but in statement, pursued unrelated tangent. No dispute of contrary and & obvious evidence.

No statements regarding "point of view" editing "dispute" tag are presented.

At least one third party (separate from COI tag questioner) has disagreed with tag. Article has more than two-dozen varied and highly standard sources. Nearly each sentence is cited according to these neutral sources.

"Clean-up" tag should refer to Wikipedia copy editing style, with which article does appear to conform.

There are no statements to to indicate what supposed stylebook problems may exist.

Oh, is there yet another tag...???. repetitive...seems venue for sniping without discussion.

Note that each of these four tags are placed by single editor and appear lacking in reasoned basis.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes

An editor has inserted what I see as much wp:POV, wp:SYNTH into the article. I have tagged the section for cleanup, and the article is adequately flagged with wp:COI and wp:POV article tags, so I think readers will not be unduly misled. I have mitigated some of the POV and SYNTH... these are simply proposed edits, I am not going to war over them.

I have restored quotes deleted that show the SYNTH and POV. I will restore these quotes immediately if they are deleted again, simply by reverting the edit removing them. I do not plan to revert the simple insertion of more POV/SYNTH/nonsense, only the wp:vandalism of the existing sources. - Sinneed 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags were removed but not addressed. Restored.- Sinneed 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags removed without addressing them again

:wp:vandalism - tags removed again without addressing them. Simple quotes, added to the source (no need to bury the text in more spam, just provide a source). Easily done by an interested editor... if they exist. Which does not seem to be the case.- Sinneed 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see there was some compromise wording offered. Expanded on that.- Sinneed 04:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that one of the errors has been corrected at least partly. The tags have again been removed without addressing them. Removing editor should consider wp:tendentious editing, wp:vandalism, and leave the tags in the article. However, edit warring these tags in seems needless, the section is flagged, the article is flagged... users seem adequately warned that the article is damaged.- Sinneed 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Specific commentary on recent edits

Great to be specific:

Let's start with two recent "original research" tags, which are both misapplied due to an editor's careless reading of provided sources.

One tag questions segment on contents based narrowly on note 27, concerning NYTimes interactive page's definition of "health guidelines."

A subpage, provided within this NYT source, defines its "health guidelines" as those of federal agencies. Perhaps desirable to add this subpage as yet another neutral source. See [[5]]. Am okay with this. One might add, very strictly, that few bits of Times' very large nationwide database were related to State of California health standards, rather than federal. Perhaps excessive caution & info overload for Massachusetts data?

Moving on; the number of EPA violations is separately, also tagged as "original research." This tag concerns note number 26, an EPA source, found here for convienence [[6]]

Perusal confirms nine violations from 1998 to 2001. "Violation identification numbers" however, may suggest that there were merely eight violations, though recorded on nine separate dates. Ambiguity on this point doesn't equal "original research."

Interestingly, regardless, there were according to EPA source, much more clearly, 10 separate "NOV" or "notice of violations," each delivered to Kripalu on separate dates.

Perhaps this "NOV" metric is preferred for clarity?? The number of times an enforcement agency comes to one's door, is arguably, at least as significant as number of alleged violations.

A point for discussion? An editorial judgment. Am neutral.

EPA source, like that of NYTimes, also has related subpages defining its relevant terms; in this case "violation," "NOV" and "violation i.d. number."

I'd find their inclusion excessive and needless -- but it might provide added neutral source, or sources, if desired.

The point here, I'd hope, is adequately demonstrated that the two recent "original research" tags are misapplied, in that they pertain to narrowly and correctly sourced content, regardless of whether relevant and easily accessible source subpages should, or should not be, additionally cited.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Have removed these two tags now. Expect further commentary narrowly focused on content and tags without reference to Wikipedia essays, federal or state statutes or constitutional law.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If an editor seeks to add "an appropriate param, "quote=" and the text in the source" that's fine; although what these comments may mean is impossible to say.

Preferable to discuss view, in plain and standard English, here, on talk page.

The sources are very carefully provided for whatever expansion of water-source material that may be deemed appropriate.

Extended expansion might, however, be giving undue weight to this sub topic.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose to move 2 flags down one para

If there are no objections, I will move {{Synthesis|section|date=February 2010}} {{POV-section|date=February 2010|In one editor's opinion, this is slanted oddly, abusing the sources. Discussion is hidden within the myriad talk page sections.}} down 1 paragragh, as the 1st seems to have stabilized in what I see as a relatively neutral state.- Sinneed 04:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This proposal refers to various hidden text and unspecific previous discussions. It would be more easily and conveniently comprehesibile if more directly related to article as it currently appears on page.

A more specific & separate matter concerns two recent changes.

An editor has changed term "violation" to "failure." The EPA's "Violation ID Numbers" in question are 01V0001 and 99V0001-8, as is clear on source page. A failure to observe law is a violation....perhaps... but this might be "original research."

Have also once again removed the "fact" tag on this for at least a second time. Why might this be necessary?

Also an editor changed "federal standards" to "that organization's standards." The organization, the NYTimes, probably doesn't set or maintain health standards. But no matter. In this case, it applied EPA and USGS health standards, as is well sourced, though apparently ignored.

I've cleaned up these two items.—Preceding unsigned comment added by calamitybrook (talk • contribs)

Tags not addressed?

My above comments are now characterized, in nearly invisibile talk-page edit summary (which added no actual talk page comment) as "not addressing" the tags.

Yet my above comments narrowly & carefully addressed tagged material, showing it to be sound & well-cited according to three available sources.

This "not addressing the tags" comment suggests that responsible tagging can be purely arbitrary whim, independent of rational discussion or perfectly solid sourcing.

It's looking a bit like discussing Obama's birth certificate with elements of the right wing.

The problem may throw light upon all of this solitary editor's many tags. If he were able to summarize a justification for each, or any, article's content might benefit.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tags

Does NPOV tag at top of article apply to entire text? Why is there another NPOV tag following a single subhed?

Does this imply that material following subsequent untagged subheds don't include point of view?

Should there be a separate NPOV tag following each subhed?

What is the "point of view" in question?

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NYTimes Database

Stuff has been introduced as sourced to this database which is wrong.

Either editor isn't reading source correctly, or is using other, unknown & uprovided sources... The one or two sentences on the NYT source, however, should concern only this source. I've corrected this material based on given source. These corrected edits seem to incorporate a "point of view" that distorts, with fairly radical and obvious inaccuracy, the provided source. Perhaps this editor's NPOV tags, et alia., can be further questioned on this basis? Talk-page responses to questions are scarce, going on non-existent.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactored again, though the result is only slightly less unintelligible. (weird formatting restored by Calamitybrook (talk · contribs))

"Stuff has been introduced as sourced to this database which is wrong." - only you have introduced material cited to this source. Please correct it. Ah, I see, when you refused to provide the quote, and removed the tag, I proposed alternative wording. Now I understand.

"I've corrected this material based on given source." - I don't see the corrections.

"These corrected edits seem to incorporate a "point of view" that distorts, with fairly radical and obvious inaccuracy, the provided source." - OK, wp:sofixit. And leave the tags in.- Sinneed 05:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Idly, again: I tagged the questionable bits and suggested that a "quote=" param with the actual text of the article supporting those words would likely address the issue. Instead, the tags were removed. This is a bad idea. I have flagged the section, and the article. I have also suggested that an interested editor might pursue a wp:RfC, to gather input from others. We have drawn editors here to help before, but they have left in frustration, as I have, more than once.- Sinneed 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, please don't edit comments of others on this talk page.

Thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, please make your comments less illegible, and follow standard formatting. Thanks. Placed sig with its content, and indented to standard. No content change, only format (refactored). - Sinneed 17:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Note that my edit summary was in error... I put "no content change" - Sinneed 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask (again): Don't Edit Others' Comments

Definitions of "Format" and "Refractor" are simply different and unrelated in the English language.

Actually "refractor" as used repeatedly above, appears to be an invented definition that incorrectly suggests a nonexistent special editing authority as when used (above) to justify a wholesale reordering of comments on this talk page and numerous other unjustifiable unpleasantries.

Basic principle; easily grasped and respected: Don't alter comments of others on talk page. That certainly includes order in which they appear, & various other editorial matters.

Lacking respect & perhaps even understanding of and for this principle may suggest problematic editing.

Why does one seek so often in vain for a non-evasive summary of the various tagging?

Might one therefore regard the tags as an exotic form of "tendentious editing" (what is the point of view??)-- even vandalism?

Thanks.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs)

Like trying to "nail Jello to a wall?"

Metaphor suggests a non-productive approach to editing.

Why need one ask, so repeatedly (and utterly in vain) for a non-evasive and concise summary of the various tagging?

Article is alternately regarded, by same editor, as "advertising" (i.e. inappropriately positive) and also, too negative.

Same editor insists that I have a conflict of interest, is similarly inexplicable. There was a single rationale offered: that I was "familiar" with staff "nick-names" (Hindu honorific titles probably) used for two top executives prominently & repeatedly on Kripalu's Web site. I removed them, and plainly and completely addressed this and asked to remove COI tag.

Complete silence.

Two additional editors' subsequent efforts to remove this tag were also repulsed.

Editor goes much further, to indulge in a veritable orgy in the tagging of meticulously sourced material:

(I've removed most of these tags)

Institution's well-sourced physical address lacks sourcing and creates objection. Easily & obviously available subpages of New York Times' source are ignored by this editor, and the source is simply doubted, content is changed with inaccuracies introduced.

Well-sourced, federal EPA records are doubted and tagged as lacking a source or unreliable.

The institution's narrowly sourced and simple statements about itself are tagged as lacking sources. Numerous individual sentence clauses are tagged, while meticulously adequate sourcing at the end of various sentences are simply ignored.

Repeated requests to discuss tags are met mostly with multiple, unexplained references to Wikipedia essays, which come off not as literate discussion, but merely as misguided & maladroit condescension.

And these are just a few examples. Most of this content is fixed -- for now.

But given this editor's lack of substantive contributions that might constructively expand this article.... and endless and rather creative tagging, as well as his repeated & sometimes drastic edits of the comments of others on this talk page, why should one not regard these endlessly unexplained and inexplicable tags & etc. as something other than an exotic form of "tendentious editing" -- or even a kind of vandalism?

Thanks.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, see wp:talk page guidelines, the guidance provided on this page and others, including wp:WQA, wp:COIN, User talk:Calamitybrook, my talk page. The above repeatedly-edited, wp:PA-riddled, and quite impenetrable mess has no place in the Wikipedia project.

Beyond that "Most of this content is fixed -- for now." - remains untrue. The article is tagged to caution readers of its problems. Attempts by various edThitors to repair or mitigate the problems have been met with abuse, as above, and reversion. The various problems have been addressed extensively, though the abusive and impenetrable posting style above makes the communication difficult to find.- Sinneed 23:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe, it's okay to extensively re-arrange the sequence of other people's comments on this talk page?

You've ignored this simple question (and many others) repeatedly.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

English instructor

No answer.

Quote: "Sentences in English end in a period, rather than a comma and a period"

Thanks for cleaning up that typo. Does the above quote need a period, too?

Regarding "federal standards," they are cited on the information sub-page supplied by the NYT for its table.

Time for another source? Calamitybrook (talk)

The 'nother source is here [[7]].

There are 'too many citations' in this article. No serious publisher would burden such a brief and simple text in a similar manner (with 40 footnotes),.

Ho-hum and easily located simple sources -- like the Kripalu Web site for example, --simply don't need multiple footnotes. The same can be said for NYTimes water supply information and probably other sources.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed tags

There is no discussion of these tags that is accessible to the typical editor. Earlier "stealth" comments may indeed exist, in edit notes etc. An active "thread" is, however, unavailable to interested editors, who therefore, are excluded from constructive discussion or mere understanding of so-called issues.

Let me suggest, that the sole editor seeking to perpetuate these tags, explain in very plain language, his reasons, prior to once again adding them to the article. Calamitybrook (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed the problematic content I could see right off, as the adding editor removed the tags. wp:SYNTH, wp:ADVERT, wp:TRIVIA, wp:trademark(that was wrong and I am not looking it up again), etc.- Sinneed 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite simple request here, there is no plain language" provided to current talk page readers regarding proposed tags.

Lacking such discussion, recent editors are thus precluded from participation on this talk page.

Elucidation of the tagging editor's thinking in this regard, is not tied to the extremely well-sourced article at hand.

Rather, one is asked to look at generalized (and apparently endless) Wikipedia essays, and in some cases, generalized Wikipedia policies, that may be broadly of some interest, but whose relevance aren't/isn't specified.

This is NOT a presentation of any discussion, nor an arguement -- and is simply inappropriate for any "talk page."

The essential process of Wikipedia editing is thus subverted in a mindless manner.

Until 'some of the very minimal "talk-page" standards are met here, the tags should remain absent from this article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagged content - tags removed - content cut.

Trademark

" As of 2010, Kripalu had also registered trademark rights on the terms Kripalu "YogaDance" and Kripalu "DansKinetics," although payment structures for use of these terms by affiliates hadn't been outlined on the Kripalu Web site."

wp:ADVERT,wp:trivia - cut- Sinneed 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Kripalu claimed intellectual property rights on its form of yoga in 1979 via a registered trademark, and based on this as of 2010,... paid a one-time fee of $500, plus an annual fee of $150. These... In exchange for these fees and requirements, affiliates obtained use of the Kripalu trademark as well as"

wp:ADVERT,wp:trivia - cut- Sinneed 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Trademarking is typically part of a business model. No arguements are presented as to how or why this could be a matter of advertising, or trivia. Calamitybrook (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of this was added in a miss-named section. This is advertising of their fees and instructor program, as I see it. Perhaps an RfC? If restored I don't expect to remove it, simply place an appropriate tag on the section, so that readers and potential interested editors will be aware of the concern.- Sinneed 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Water supply

Cut the "federal guidelines" - left in the facts- Sinneed 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The facts are, that certain contaminants exceeded federal guidelines, according to the New York Times. Calamitybrook (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Added wp:UNDUE detail to correct the problems with the misleading "federal guidelines" statement, as a compromise. It would be better to leave in the facts, rather than the NYT interpretation of various documents. The repeated restoration of this when it has been removed and tagged strains wp:AGF and appears to be wp:POINT editing.- Sinneed 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Lacking omniscience, and relying purely on reliable sources, the "facts" are merely that the NYT published a table with various columns concerning Kripalu's water supply and its various contaminants. The fact of this publication, I'd submit, meets the threshold of notability.

Wikipedia editors can select the column noting measured contaminants that are "within legal limits," or the column noting measured contaminants exceeding health guidelines. The NYT adequately defines these terms on a subpage.

I'd opt for avoiding editorial judgment and including information from both columns.

If there is argument for making a judgment (interpretation) as to why one column is more worthy of inclusion than another, it has certainly not been presented. User:Calamitybrook|Calamitybrook]] (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Facility

Reworked. Broke into the history of the site and Kripalu taking over. Copied 1957 bit from the lead, taking it on faith. Just ideas.- Sinneed 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Revenue 2008

wp:LEAD - no reason for this in the lead. It is massively over-covered in the body. Copied source into the body.- Sinneed 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Revenue is how the size of a business is typically measured. Calamitybrook (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tanglewood Music Center

" near Tanglewood Music Center"

I have no idea if Tanglewood would like to be associated with Kripalu or not, but WP is not the yellow pages, we don't need to tell folk how to find the place, and for sure not in the wp:LEAD.- Sinneed 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Architecture in the lead

"in a spare architectural style in a rural area of the Berkshires" - dropped - wp:LEAD, wp:ADVERT - people can look at the picture, read the sources, they don't need us to tell them in the lead what the building looks like. Maybe in the body. In fact, I think I will add that to the site section now. Done.- Sinneed 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Financing

"Construction was to be financed with proceeds of a $20 million tax-exempt bond issue through Mass Development, a quasi-governmental economic development agency, with Berkshire Bank as lead lender." - long tagged, no improvement. No idea if these folks want to be associated with Kripalu or not. wp:V fails. Dropped.- Sinneed 04:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether "These folks want to be associated" with Kripalu? Why is the question relevant? Calamitybrook (talk)

COI, POV tags

One might well interpret some of the nastiness on this talk page (much has been changed repeatedly, interested editors may wish to view history) to indicate that an editor believes I have a conflict of interest. In any event, I have restored the tag, as content I see as problematic has been restored.

I note that another editor has objected that important but embarrassing content has been removed without reason. My PoV objections are noted repeatedly, though often hidden in an avalanche of to-me-incomprehensible text.- Sinneed 21:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But if bare facts of the EPA violations, "important" or otherwise, were included in order to represent a point of view, one reasonably assumes it would be negative point of view.

Yet if other material were included as mere "advertising," that suggests, presumably, a effort to slant the article with an overly positive "point of view."

Repeated EPA violations over an extended period by a public water supply operator are self-evidently legitimate material, while including a brief and neutral segment on how Kripalu manages its intellectual property rights is entirely reasonable as outlined above.

Assertions and tags suggesting that this material transgresses various guidelines are unfortunately not similarly backed up with proposed reasons why or how this might be so.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Indented to standard, signature with content.

Points already addressed repeatedly. Since my responses seem unhelpful, perhaps an wp:RfC might invite comment more understandable.- Sinneed 23:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But can you contribute in a useful manner? Your responses are limited to dozens of citations of myriad, generalized Wikipedia essays and policies, while "spraying" the article with numerous tags, which you decline to substantively and specifically justify.

If you think of self as responsible editor, you simply must add, on talk page, the how and why of your many numerous deletions and tags. Your various links may be relevant, or not.

"See the constitution, stupid!" is just not an admirable or understandable arguement, even, or perhaps even especially, for a (Wiki) lawyer.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Above was edited substantially by Calamitybrook on 13 May 2010.

Indented to standard, removed wp:POINT indentation of my posts.- Sinneed 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Since my responses seem unhelpful, perhaps an wp:RfC might invite comment more understandable. Sinneed 02:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think an RfC would be a good idea, if only to help establish to some parties what editors who have no direct interest in the subject which might affect their judgement think of the issue. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent - and non-standard indentation) - Sinneed 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

By "direct interest" do you mean "conflict of interest?"

Can somebody explain of what my conflict of interest supposedly consists?

"Knows staff nicknames?" That canard was easily disposed of a long time ago.

Also, NYT explains that for its entire project which was vastly wider than Kripalu, it applied, variously, USGS EPA and/or California standards. Based on the sources, it's impossible to say in the case of the NYT table on Kripalu whether one, two or all three of the three agencies "health guidelines" applied to Kripalu.

Quoting the USGS "guideline" as presented by NYT, isn't supported by the source, and therefore doesn't stand scruitiny.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• The only content-related bit I see there (in the Calamitybrook post above) seems to confirm that the concern is that we don't know which of the sources the NYT used. This seems to be very clear in the text as it appears now.- Sinneed 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I must correct myself on the sourcing question. I'd read it too hastily.

Note also that by clicking on phrase "contaminants measured by this classification" on NYT page "About contaminant Data" one obtains more precise information about which contaminants appear on which agencies' guidelines, and what those guidelines consist of.

It appears that radon was included in the EPA's "one in ten thousand" cancer list, while something called "combined uranium" appears on both the USGS and the California lists. Perhaps one could list all of this information in the article.

I'd suggest, however, that the hedder on NYT Kripalu page "3 contaminants found below legal limits but above health guidelines" provides a sufficient and appropriate level of detail.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• (starring to indicate this is a response to the 19:11 Calamitybrook post) - This section is about the POV and COI tags, the discussion of the contaminants is above.- Sinneed 19:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made yet another error!

Okay, I think this is accurate: Health guidelines for the two forms of radium (not radon) were from the EPA's "Maximum Contaminant Level Goal" list. The EPA partly describes how it sets this goal here [[8]]. The MCLG list is separate from EPA's "one in ten thousand cancer risk" list....

Uranium health guideline appears to be from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, rather than USGS's slightly more permissive guideline.

However, as this article isn't about how public health standards are set, it's again suggested that "below legal limits, but above health guidelines established by federal and state regulators" is a sufficient level of detail.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• (starring to indicate this is a response to the 22:11 Calamitybrook post) - This section is about the POV and COI tags, the discussion of the contaminants is above.- Sinneed 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoring info on EPA violations & health guidelines

Why was this stuff removed? While it may reflect poorly on Kripalu, it's relevant and presented in a neutral manner & well sourced (no pun intended).

Also, how is information about trademarking a form of "advertising?"

It is an intellectual property mechanism by which among other things, franchising is enabled & in fact, has little or nothing to do with advertising.

When one encounters a "Kripalu yoga instructor" in California, for example, it might be interesting to know the nature of Kripalu's relationship to that individual. Insight here is available only by understanding :Kripalu's use of trademarking.

The ultimate value of any particular bit of information is often unpredictable and unknowable & one ought not pretend otherwise.

To merely assert without reason that trademarking is "advertising" is at best, incomprehensible. Calamitybrook (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Indented the above to standard, placed sig with content.

Included wp:UNDUE content as an attempt at compromise.

Restored the tags. Fixed some of the errors.- Sinneed 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This was stealthily reverted today to the wp:POV wp:SYNTH content previous. I have restored the npov version... the neutral version is indeed too long, and we can leave it out. But putting in 1 editor's bizarre POV is not a solution. In fact, as a compromise, I will simply remove the bit about the guidelines entirely.- Sinneed 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading content (that isn't what the source says, quotes provided) restored without discussion. Restored the long-winded-but-sourced information again. No idea what, if any, sourced content will be acceptable to the removing editor. Anyone have any ideas?- Sinneed 15:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Besides "It's too long", is there any objection to:

A 2008 independent report said Kripalu's private water-supply system contained one form of uranium and two forms of radon, in amounts below legal limits, but at "concentrations at which scientific research indicates humans are exposed to a risk of cancer or other diseases, and typically assume lifetime ingestion of about half a gallon of water per day by an adult of about 150 pounds" based on interpretations by The New York Times of information provided "...by the E.P.A., the United States Geological Survey and in a small number of instances the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment."

I agree it is too long, but shorter versions that are neutral have not stayed in the article. Ideas? Anyone?- Sinneed 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A specific wp:POV has been reintroduced yet again. I have restored the quotes... let's let the readers make their own interpretations.- Sinneed 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from the source were removed, and replaced by personal POV. Dropped the content.- Sinneed 03:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

POV version restored. Added back the full, quote-based, sourced version, with more proposed changes. With no editor feedback, it is difficult to wp:AGF and *very* difficult to understand what, other than the editor's personal view, might be acceptable.- Sinneed 15:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit summaries... it appears an editor is concerned that it is not adequately clear that we don't know which agency's (or agencies') data is being used. That is certainly in the source (the uncertainty), so I have made it clear with the text "one or more of" and the list of the three agencies. Thoughts?- Sinneed 15:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I used to work with a state governmental agency dealing with environmental quality, and it was fairly often the case that one governmental entity would use the data of another just to avoid having to go through the effort and expense of gathering duplicated information. These agencies often share their information on that basis. Saying "one or more of" the government agencies involved gathered the data does seem to be a reasonable resolution. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The content at this moment is:

A 2008 report said Kripalu's well-based water-supply system contained one form of uranium and two forms of radon, in amounts below legal limits, but at "concentrations at which scientific research indicates humans are exposed to a risk of cancer or other diseases, and typically assume lifetime ingestion of about half a gallon of water per day by an adult of about 150 pounds" based on interpretations by The New York Times of information provided by one or more of the United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), the United States Geological Survey, or the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

This seems to adequately explain that we don't have a source for the data the NYT applied to Kripalu, and that the NYT took responsibility for it. Other than "It's too long." (wp:UNDUE) I don't have any concerns about this bit of content. Does it need to stay inside the section flag(s)?- Sinneed 18:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

3PO

Since it appears the other editor is now so frustrated that he/she will simply no longer respond, I am opening a 3PO item. The issue as I see it is that an editor is putting the editor's personal opinion about the NYT opinion about a compendium of research data published in uncited ways by 1 or more agencies. I have tried various compromises including: large quoting, simple statement of the chemicals that were above the NYT thresholds, leaving the content out.- Sinneed 04:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My ability to wp:AGF fails me, but it appears that there is an acceptable version in the article now.- Sinneed 04:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

EPA again

"The federal Environmental Protection Agency lists nine reporting and monitoring violations by the Kripalu water system between 1998 and 2001" Certainly this might be interesting, though I don't see how the information itself reflects badly on anyone. The naked statement provides too little information, and a wp:NPOV presentation will be challenging. I can't imagine how it can be done and will surely be longer than the rest of the article. In any event, it is adequately tagged to warn readers that the statement may be misleading to them.- Sinneed 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is merely factual information presented without editorial interpretation.

Some may say that repeated violations over an extended period of EPA rules on water quality monitoring and reporting are meaningless. Some may say otherwise.

""Some editors may prefer to interpret this information according to unstated criteria, others not.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Since my responses seem unhelpful, perhaps an wp:RfC might invite comment more understandable. - Sinneed 04:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this is back in the article again, I have cleaned it up a bit.- Sinneed 18:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect to add a POV-statement reduce this to a source, again, as it simply doesn't say anything... we don't know if they tested at 9AM instead of 8AM, we don't know if they reported on Monday instead of the previous Friday... we don't know if they used "cool beans" (made-up) brand tester instead of the NYState-standard "warm beans" (made-up) tester. There simply isn't any information there. This does not belong in an encyclopedia article. It is profoundly misleading.- Sinneed 18:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the EPA disclaims the data... there may have been very very serious problems, or there may have been many more trivial problems... there simply is no useful data there that I can see.- Sinneed 18:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This insistence on including this sort of meaningless nonsense in the article speaks to wp:TE, wp:COI. My ability to wp:AGF is overwhelmed by what I see as a clear, prolonged assault on the project.- Sinneed 18:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ask for brief on Tags

A sentence on each tag would do. Why are they there?

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why the need in this article, for background on the term "federal and state health guidelines" for radium and uranium in drinking water??

As if one required definitional background, with sourcing, for the term IRS, or "parking ticket."

Is very obvious and correct term. To invite some dim contemplation of statistical and other analytical methods from realm of public health policy isn't really practical or relevant & actually, is separate topic.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• "A sentence on each tag would do. Why are they there?" - A review of the many many many sentences here, on your talk page, on the wp:COIN page, the wp:WQA page, this talk page, may provide insight. Or not.- Sinneed 02:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC) expanded - Sinneed 02:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Why the need in this article, for background on the term "federal and state health guidelines" for radium and uranium in drinking water?" - Your question contains statements that are false-to-fact, and thus the question has no answer.- Sinneed 02:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Is very obvious and correct term." - No. It is not. These are, as is in the document now, NYT interpretations of various uncited pieces of information from various agencies. This does *not* make them "federal and state health guidelines". If we could cite a federal or state guideline, *then* there would be federal or state guidelines.- Sinneed 02:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"The mayor received a traffic ticket." --NYT. The newspaper probably wouldn't cite the statute under which the ticket was issued, nor offer dissertation on constitional basis for police authority. A Wikipedia writer could properly say, however, "Mayor So&So was given a traffic ticket," citing the NYT.

Perhaps there was no ticket.

In case of Kripalu, relevant contaminants appear only in the EPA "goals" quantitative guideline and the California quantitative guideline (or whatever; plz see source), as published by NYT.

Also, brief summary here of current thinking on tags (& specific relation to this article) would be useful.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since my responses seem unhelpful, perhaps an wp:RfC might invite comment more understandable. - Sinneed 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A sentence on each tag, relating directly to Kripalu content, might be adequate and useful to editors.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• "A sentence on each tag would do. Why are they there?" - A review of the many many many sentences here, on your talk page, on the wp:COIN page, the wp:WQA page, this talk page, may provide insight. Or not.- Sinneed 16:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Since my responses seem unhelpful, perhaps an wp:RfC might invite comment more understandable.- Sinneed 16:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Article tags as of June 8, 2010

The sections:

• Talk:Kripalu Center#EPA again
• Talk:Kripalu Center#COI, POV tags

seem to contain the most recent relevant bits about the tags as of June 8, 2010.- Sinneed 16:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Brief summary of how varied tags are seen to specifically apply could be useful here.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• "A sentence on each tag would do. Why are they there?" - A review of the many many many sentences here, on your talk page, on the wp:COIN page, the wp:WQA page, may provide insight. Or not.- Sinneed 17:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Since my responses seem unhelpful, perhaps an wp:RfC might invite comment more understandable.- Sinneed 17:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As a suggestion, if you think this might help, consider going to the appropriate section, and give your reason for applying the section tags. I confess I am curious why you added the tags. If there is no need for them, I will remove the content to which they don't apply from the tagged area, again.- Sinneed 17:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Brief summary here might be appreciated.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'll look forward to your summary. Or I will drop the tags from the content to which you attached them, say... tomorrow.- Sinneed 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• As a gesture, repeating the often-repeated for one more repeat: wp:COI: This seems adequately covered in the various sections. "One might well interpret some of the nastiness on this talk page (much has been changed repeatedly, interested editors may wish to view history) to indicate that an editor believes I have a conflict of interest." In addition, another editor shows a long term pattern of abuse of editing, thoroughly noted in various forums, including this page, edit summaries on the article page, the editor's talk page, wp:WQA, wp:COIN, etc. Generally, chopping the discussion up repeatedly as calamitybrook (talk · contribs) requires, is wp:disruptive editing. However, since this editor insists, I have yielded, as a courtesy.- Sinneed 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• As a gesture, repeating the often-repeated for one more repeat: wp:POV: This seems adequately covered in the various sections. "I have restored the tag, as content I see as problematic has been restored." - we have managed to get rid of the tag more than once... but non-neutral or non-source-supported content is placed. "I note that another editor has objected that important but embarrassing content has been removed without reason." In addition: "My PoV objections are noted repeatedly, though often hidden in an avalanche of to-me-incomprehensible text." Generally, chopping the discussion up repeatedly as calamitybrook (talk · contribs) requires, is wp:disruptive editing. However, since this editor insists, I have yielded, as a courtesy.- Sinneed 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• As a gesture, repeating the often-repeated for one more repeat: wp:UNDUE: This seems adequately covered in the various sections. This is over-coverage of a retired system of wells on the property. Generally, chopping the discussion up repeatedly as calamitybrook (talk · contribs) requires, is wp:disruptive editing. However, since this editor insists, I have yielded, as a courtesy.- Sinneed 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for concise summary of tags.

Sinneed has no known conflict of interest, so tag can be removed?

Editor hasn't recently objected to and removed embarrassing or "problematic" content. POV tag can go.

Article currently is well-balanced with numerous and quite varied high-quality sourcing.

Verbiage on wells: Cutting digression into generalized science of health standards can ameliorate "Undue" concern and sharpen article's focus.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Article tags as of June 8, 2010 - redux

• I am happy that you are happy with the article. Does this mean you have no objections to the current content? Do you plan to explain your reason for tagging for neutrality:

Kripalu's water supply as of 2009 consisted of purchased surface water, which at the time represented a recent change from its previous reliance on sub-surface wells.^[7]

The state reported in 2003 that Kripalu's now-retired wells were subject to a "high threat" of contamination from possible pesticide overuse or potential fuel spills.^[8] In 2007, the state set an August 2009 deadline for retirement of one of Kripalu's wells, due to construction in the area of the well.

- Sinneed 02:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• The COI article tag is explained adequately. If after a few weeks there are no more egregious edits I will again be willing to support removal, but my wp:AGF is strained by this latest bit.- Sinneed 02:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Editor hasn't recently objected to and removed embarrassing or "problematic" content." - what? I have. The wp:UNDUE emphasis on the most bizarre and minor items seems to justify the wp:POV tag. The current content on the wells is a combination of bits you have edit warred into the article, and compromise wording arrived at with great pain because you simply cannot or will not explain what your objections are.- Sinneed 02:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are you withdrawing your insistence on the bit about the EPA reporting violations? It is presently edit warred into the article, I'll be happy to drop it if so.- Sinneed 02:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• The tag for this was dropped, so I dropped the content.- Sinneed 04:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are you withdrawing your insistence on the revenue belonging in the lead?- Sinneed 02:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are you withdrawing your insistence on the fees and trademarks in the training section?- Sinneed 02:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, that was *NOT* a summary. It was a couple of sentences on each tag. The incredible mess cannot be summarized briefly. Much of the bits by calamitybrook (talk · contribs) have been edited so substantially by that editor that they bear strikingly small resemblance to the posts as they have appeared at different times. So no, that was not a summary.- Sinneed 02:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• " Cutting digression into generalized science of health standards can ameliorate "Undue" concern and sharpen article's focus" - OK. So shall I cut it down to the text I have offered before, to the effect that the chemicals were within legal limits?- Sinneed 03:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Brief summary of tags?

Not all disagreements are necessarily related to the narrow categories of "conflict of interest," NPOV and Undue.

A concise, focused summary of thinking on article's tags... ...might be useful here.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• (a reply to Calamitybrook's 04:09 post)wp:Tendentious editing seems to apply here.- Sinneed 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize the neutrality flags were mine.

Thanks for pointing this out.

As I can't explain them, they're now gone.

I'm sorry that you are unable to briefly summarize your views on your tags.

I will try and refrain from repeating the request.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• (a reply to Calamitybrook's 04:23 post) - wp:POV tag for article restored, as it was removed without wp:consensus. Again. wp:tendentious editing seems to apply here.- Sinneed 04:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

By-and-large, the essay on tendentious editing seems to apply to articles rather than discussion.

Regardless, a repeated argument is not made here, but merely a repeated request for information.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• (reply to Calamitybrook post of 4:40) - An example: "You do not thread your posts on talk pages. Seemingly an unrelated style issue, tendentious editors often do not indent their talk page comments. While threading discussions (by indenting your replies to others' posts) is not strictly required, it is standard practice and highly recommended since it makes discussions easier to follow. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Wikipedia conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst." - refusal to indent to standard, refusal to stick to thread subjects, refusal to thread posts. Etc. wp:TE seems to apply. If you would like to discuss this further, my next reply will be on your talk page, Calamitybrook.- Sinneed 04:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Let's focus narrowly here on the article's talk page thread.

Sorry I became distracted.

To briefly summarize tags is perhaps impossible for you, or somehow, an unreasonable request on my part?

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• (reply to Calamitybrook of 5:19) - unreasonable request. The discussion is available for you to read, if you are interested. Reasonable efforts to communicate with you are met with abuse.- Sinneed 12:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Further, if you had not made the talk page almost impossible to read, and with so many redundant threads you start and will not contribute to (see subsection above to which you will not reply, obfuscation in your replies throughout the article, warnings on your talk page, here, wp:WQA, etc., you might not be so confused.) You might consider changing your approach, as has been suggested by multiple editors in multiple venues.- Sinneed 13:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for apparently hurt feelings.

Let's focus on thread.

Okay, "unreasonable" to seek specifics on your edits. How then, do you constructively participate?

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• (response to Calamitybrook of 19:15)"Okay, "unreasonable" to seek specifics on your edits." - Not atall. Please read the specifics, on the talk page above, on the edit summaries, on your talk page, at wp:WQA, etc. Also, please stop your wp:TE, follow wp:talk page guidelines.- Sinneed 19:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Let's focus on thread." - Threads, actually. You keep abandoning them. They are above. Join in, if you are interested.- Sinneed 19:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is, by definition, on-going, rather than static. Article has changed substantially since you placed tags; discussion can continue.

To a significant extent previously, you've sought to explain edits soley with references to "authority" of various Wikipedia essays. You deem their specific relevance too obvious for comment.

We fully understand that there are many Wkipedia essays of potential interest.

But it would be useful to summarize, with reference to article's content (rather than to essays, perceived past slights, etc.), why you find the various tags appropriate.

Failing that, might I pose a series of focused questions on the subject, in the expectation of equally focused answers?

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• (response to Calamitybrook of 20:41)One last caution: stop talking about me, and focus on the content. The very next post you make in reference to me or my behaviour rather than the content of the article, I will respond to on your talk page. You are behaving *very rudely* by focusing on me, after making it clear you did not want to talk to me. Stop Now.- Sinneed 21:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)