User talk:Herbanreleaf

Your edit to The Secret (film)

Your right and I would like to apoligize. I was wrong. Just make sure to sign your messages on talk pages in the future. Actually you haven't been welcomed have you?--St.daniel 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Herbanreleaf: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!--St.daniel 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again for the warning.

Hey listen while your edit was not vandalism it was still a contrevioursal edit and should have been mentioned on he talk page before addition. Alsoyou don't need to sign your edits that are not on talk pages. It will usally get your edit undone. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any other questions.--St.daniel 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial coverage at The Secret

See Talk:Editorial coverage for my comments on your latest edit. —WikiLen 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility concerns and related stuff at The Secret

I find your comments, "can't concede when you're wrong" and "there you go again" to be offensive, whether or not they are true.

For your reference, note "I accept Vassyana opinion" in this discussion with User Talk:Watchrapid. At issue was an External Link to a local TV news station — this link: 'The Secret' is out" — Courier Post serving South Jersey (New Jersey).

Saying "there you go again" is just insulting — nothing more to say.

Perhaps you are unaware that incivility has been found to be detrimental for Wikipedia. There are many official policies addressing this. The short version from Wikipedia's Five pillars policy:

Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations.

Setting aside these issues, I thank you for identifying "greed" and "blame-the-victim" as themes to bring into the article. They are both obvious and important points to be made. As a side note, this article from Reason Magazine is brilliant — my favorite article so far. The line,

think really, really hard, say, about vigorously cavorting with Salma Hayek on a soft, fluffy bed of Google Series A preferred stock, you will emit a magnetic signal to the universe that will make your vision a reality.

is such fun every time. And take a look at Beato's last lines,

If there's anything our current bleak era needs, it's a little irrational exuberance. Perhaps The Secret is the Grand Genie of the Universe's answer to our prayers.

True, sick and sad at the same time — probably belongs in the Other remarks sub-section with the other closing remarks. The article that most speaks to my point of view, Secret history of 'The Secret', was published in USA Today—not as brilliant as the Reason article. The position the Unity Church takes, as represented in the USA Today article, looks to be closest to mine. My spiritual/religious training best falls into the category of New Thought, although none of my teachers used that term. I did not fully agree with the teachings but have been heavily influenced by them. This guerilla edit of mine, on Divine responsibility, best represents my thinking. Original stuff I am afraid.You will probably hate it but at least you will be hating my real stuff instead of some stereotype I am not. You could do me a favor and move it to the talk page—or anyone else reading this. I really like what I wrote and just don't have the heart to move it from the article. It does need to live at the talk page to be there should good sources ever be found to support it. I could find none. —WikiLen 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compliment at my talk page. Your comment at the talk page, "their statements [are being] taken out of their sarcastic contexts" is very useful and I grateful for it. It made me able to say "hard hitting satirical comments about society's relationship to the film" without the beast deleting it for being "original research". Technically, it is original research—a synthesis of what critics are saying—but by Wikipedia standards it does not need to be deleted if it seems so obvious or OK to say (no challenges so far). The struggle you and I and others had over this material has made it clear that for some quotes it is necessary for the editors to explicitly establish the context. —WikiLen 12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning next to add a Trivia section. I am also looking for a way to get in some of the other stuff that used to be in "Other Remarks". I think it is noteworthy that some critics seem to think the movie is not all that bad of a thing, despite their negative opinions about the contents of the film. (I will have to carefully avoid using sarcastic quotes.) —WikiLen 12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]