User talk:Baby Dove

I really try to avoid adding my interpretations or someone else's to Gurdjieff's articles. Since In Beelzebub's Tales Gurdjieff wrote that humans have three brains, that's how I put it.

It's too long and complicated to add the hydrogen numbers and the many center theories so I simply never do it. (Besides this would be only useful for more serious Gurdjieff's students - who I assume wouldn't come to wikipedia for this kind of info, but would rather read books). I try to make these articles understandable to those who never heard of Gurdjieff's teachings.

PS In the future leave the question on the other users page, as it was lucky that I saw your question. Aeuio 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where you are getting at. I do intend to keep the page strictly according to Gurdjieff (this is also according to the "Fourth Way" - since Gurdjieff introduced the Fourth Way himself). What other people interpreted/published regarding the Fourth Way teaching can't be inserted into the article claiming that that was exactly what Gurdjieff taught/meant. This info can added to the "person who wrote it"'s file. This goes for the many schools calling themselves Fourth Way. An example of this would be that Fellowship of Friends school's article which you edit(ed) or any other Fourth Way school. On the FOF page you can write all of their Fourth Way interpretations/teachings/methods, but you can't add those methods to the Fourth Way article unless they were part of Gurdjieff's original teachings.

And this is very necessary because as Gurdjieff said it himself: Once the teacher dies, the followers of the teaching split themselves into different groups and sects, each introducing into the teaching their own doctrines, and the teaching is inevitably destroyed. Aeuio 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FoF page

Hi Baby Dove, do you think you can tell me how to research the Library of Congress catalog? I have been trying to find the references of the FoF page for an hour without success and I am getting frustrated. Thanks! Mario Fantoni 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got the info. Mario Fantoni 00:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "burton claims that fof..." and it doesn't say that "fof is..." so its not advertising but rather self image. Aeuio 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hello Baby Dove, It's nice to make your acquaintance, after sharing editing responsibilities with you. Quite an impressive background...and your present is more impressive.--Moon Rising 15:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

I moved the following from the fof talk page as that section is long enough already:

For your question - simply because it's not a notable thing to mention when someone has a personal website. By these stupid standards we should go to every page and write "this guy has a website where he mentions his books - and he is offering to sell them!!! - so he's an advertiser" - or why don't we say "The fof, promotes their school on their website - they do have info on how to join"...Of course now somehow the situation is different because its not to your liking. And please spare me the conversation as I am aware of how you "interpret things". Both the promotion and the qualifications are mentioned so this is done. Aeuio 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Peace dove.svg.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Peace dove.svg.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject tags

Just so you are aware, WikiProject tags should only be placed on the article talk page, not the main article. Cheers! Vassyana 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I can remove it, then. Regards, Baby Dove 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I already removed the tag. :) It's not really a problem because it's easily fixed. I just wanted to make sure you understood why I removed the template. Be well!!

Welcome back! and there's a new draft page.

Hope you were doing something fun in your absence, anyway, glad you're back! There is a new draft we're working on, so don't edit the FOF article. The draft is [[1]]. Vassyana created it to give us an example of how a neutral article would be written. He started with the intro and go through the Many I's. There were some edits to those sections (mostly changed by Wine and then by me). There were more substantial edits in sections that Vassyana did not edit. Take a look and let us know what you think. --Moon Rising 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOF The principle of payment

Hi Baby Dove, I would like to understand the idea of "unsourced information" related with the information that I provide. I'm a member of the FOF and I've worked in the payment for few years. I specify that the sum that I inserted was just a standard sum. What is needed to make the information a "sourced information"? Do I have to post the list of the payments. In realtion to this how the other informations of the article are sourced informations? Do you have any document about the story of the FOF?

Please let me know which are the principles of inserting informations, my aim is just to provide accurate informations to who is interested in the FOF. thank you. O12

William P. Patterson

A tag has been placed on William P. Patterson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 01:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOF Draft Page

Dear Baby Dove, please remember to make your edits on the draft page. Thanks, --Moon Rising 02:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New mediation of FOF article

Hi there BD - you haven't been around much lately, but I thought you might like to know that Vassyana's help has been requested and he's asking for a summary of what's going on - why the page block and what we want from the article. Thought you might want to contribute. Would like to see you more active on the page, if life's commitments allow you the time, and you're still interested. Cheers!--Moon Rising 06:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

65.98.192.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Love-in-ark". The reason given for Love-in-ark's block is: "Three-revert rule violation".

Blocking administrator: Pax:Vobiscum (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Love-in-ark. — Yamla 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOCK to understand why I have blocked you indefinitely. --Yamla 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share a T1 connection with about 70 people; I do not know which of them is Love-in-ark. In the building I work some people belong to the Fellowship of Friends. I have been editing for about 8 months now, with no vandalic behavior, and I am close to 1,000 edits, I guess. Please, let me know how to get unblocked. Thank you, Baby Dove 23:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're being fully honest. The IP range in question is owned directly by the Fellowship of Friends. That's a bit more than working in a building where "some people" belong to the group. Could you please clarify and explain more honestly? Vassyana 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vassyana,

Excuse me! The FOF rents some spaces to people who owns different business. It also owns a T1 connection which is included in the rent. Thus, what I said is right. I also use to edit from my own dial-up at home. Hope it is enough for you. Baby Dove 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are unblocked, as you are not a sock of L-i-a. Pardon any offense, but you have to accept how it appears. It's quite different to say you work in a building with some members than to say you work in a building owned by the org. It is not a subtle distinction. Please be more cautious with your words in the future. Also, be fully aware that this lack of clarity and forthrightness may limit your edits under WP:COI, but that would have to be determined by outside sysops and the community, should the issue arise. Vassyana 04:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor of the Fellowship of Friends page and my company rents an office at a building leased by the Fellowship of Friends. Because Baby Dove works in the same building that I do, last Thursday an administrator blocked the IP block of the whole building and more than 70 people now can't edit any Wikipedia page. The reason that was used for blocking IP range is COI. Why is it that a person editing Wikipedia using a certain connection is a case of COI but the same person using another connection is not? The blocking of Baby Dove for being a sock puppet was wrong (this has been corrected) and the IP range blocking was wrong too (this has not been corrected). Mfantoni 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page for more information. Please note that WP:COI applies regardless of where a person edits from. There's a substantial problem with COI edits to Fellowship of Friends. --Yamla 17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user page

Baby Dove vandalism

Baby Dove - In keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, this is a warning to you that I'll report you for vandalism if you continue to revert reasonable edits for no good reason.Wantthetruth? 18:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Wantthetruth? 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, THIS is vandalism. Baby Dove 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Please refrain from all further direct editing of Fellowship of Friends, as per WP:COI, etc. etc. You are free to suggest changes on the article's talk page but it is inappropriate for you to continue editing the article directly. --Yamla 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, I have never said that I was a member of the Fellowship of Friends, can you, please, let me know why this personal message to me? Thank you. Baby Dove 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know you are editing from the headquarters of the FoF. WP:COI applies to you. --Yamla 16:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is impossible! Besides, the headquarters were blocked! This is a phantom conversation between two people who know nothing of each other, and one of them I guess is abusing of the power he or she has. The article was reaching a point where it finally was more balanced (as of today in the early morning) and nowb the only thing you can do with it is to use it just for clicking in the church's web site to read nothing negative about it. Isn't it curious? Baby Dove 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]