User talk:Sharnish

Richard Rose

I adapted the following from a letter I wrote recently to another Wikipedian, posting it here to avoid cluttering the referenced page... [1]

The WP page for Richard Rose was recently marked for deletion for lack of notability and promotion. I agree that the promotional references (books) should be removed, however the perception of the notability of the author may change if you consider the following.

Richard Rose was an astute observer of human psychology, human weakness and human potential. His did a tremendous amount of work in examining various "spiritual" cults and movements, and his first book (c. 1971) contained guidelines on how to evaluate them (money aspect, dogmatism, emotional appeals, etc). He wrote critically about trends in psychology, psychiatry, academia, and the legal system when such criticism was not popular, and his insights then have proven largely correct over time.

He spoke during a time that eastern gurus were popular and could have presented himself as one if he wished because of his insight into mysticism - but he never chose that path. He never had a cult following because the method he prescribed - total dedication to a search for truth despite the personal consequences - will probably never inspire such a movement. Also, he never advocated a particular concept-structure or practice upon which such a movement could be based. Rather, he advocated a deep search into the methods and religious styles that were available, always applying what he called the "respectful doubt."

He called his system a "retreat from untruth" - where a person examines everything he believes, discarding what he finds to be false on a case-by-case basis. He combined this skepticism with his absolute belief that truth does exist and can be found for oneself with sufficient application of effort (in contrasts with skepticism for skepticism's sake). I met the man personally and read his books in the early 1970s. Since then I have investigated dozens of spiritual movements and have read hundreds of books on religion and psychology. His work after all these years always settles toward the top, i.e., surviving the test of time in my mind.

Personally speaking, my background is accounting, banking and financial analysis, which I only mention here to help establish my credentials as a professional skeptic.

I can understand the impression of self-promotion after seeing some of the references in Wikipedia, and agree that the material could be cleaned up. If the material appears amateurish, possibly it is, in that his followers are not making a dime on his work to my knowledge. One of the books mentioned (After the Absolute, by D. Gold) is available free on the web. Richard Rose died in July, 2005 after a lengthy illness.

He spoke widely in universities in the 1970s and 1980s and influenced hundreds of serious students and other researchers. However, in his personal life he was extremely parsimonious and was absolutely against commercialism, which he referred to as "eating off the alter." Consequently, he was largely obscure until the not-for-profit capabilities of the internet were discovered by some of the people he influenced.

Yes, I'm a newbie here. Although a frequent reader of Wikipedia I was never compelled to post until I became aware that the material was marked or deletion. Now that I have begun to participate I am becoming aware of the power of this venue. Steve Harnish 20:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie maybe I miss the purpose of Wikipedia. Is this supposed to be a yellow pages for the most popular ideas or a tool where researchers can obtain information on subjects not available in the pop culture (something like an encyclopedia)? Does notable mean common or does it mean distinguished? I see a lot of references here to some very mundane topics. What is notable to one person may be extremely boring and commonplace to another. Steve Harnish 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on notability: The difficulty is that the very topic on which RR worked is "esoteric" which by definition means not integrated into popular culture. RR was never into building an organization and he lived on a shoestring his entire life. He insisted that the groups, of which there were many, were operated in the same manner. The groups (1970s, 1980s) were largely concentrated in universities in the Northeast (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, West Virginia) but there were also active groups in Colorado, California, North Carolina and Florida. After he was hospitalized with Alzheimer's in the mid 1990s, many of the organizations fizzled, but some thrived, notable the Self Knowledge Symposium at universities in North Carolina. RR advocated a very personal approach and his many lectures were widely attended by students as well as adults, many of whom benefited in their personal lives from his influence but couldn't commit to weekly meetings, etc. This may sound like BS but if you've read Gurdjieff, he talks about a conscious circle of humanity, who's influence is not known to the general public, but which filters down through other people in the field of interest. This may be more understandable if you know something about his methods: While he had a side-splitting sense of humor and wit, one of his primary tools was what he called "confrontation" - which he used in an extremely subtle manner. This tended to lay bare all the falsehoods and illusions that human beings typically hide within themselves. This is why he was called a Zen master, even though he was very critical of mainstream Zen, and also why he doesn't fit into any neat category. There was absolutely nothing phony about the man. Consequently, only the most determined individuals would stay with him for long. However, this produced the further result that he attracted some very serious thinkers and researchers. Members of the umbrella organization are spread around the country, where they have their own study groups, which people attend without becoming actual members. The organizations are on an upswing right now as some of the older students finally feel they are ready to teach. A re-write of the article could be an opportunity for the organization to produce a cogent analysis of his philosophy and methods. What comes to mind are the instances of famous artists and musicians (e.g. Van Gogh) who weren't widely known in their lifetime but whose work gradually became recognized, as RR's is starting to be, even attracting some international attention (England, Australia). Steve Harnish 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rose

The following is a response by user "Friday" to my comments on his talk page:

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I don't particularly have a strong opinion on this guy, having never heard of him before. He does sound interesting, though. A discussion of whether his ideas were right or not may well be interesting, but it's not relevant to Wikipedia. We use neutral point of view in our articles here, and verifiability is key. Many wikipedians also feel that a subject should have sufficient importance to warrant an article, although this view is far from universal.

I decided to look on Amazon for this guy, and found him quite easily. So, I changed my "delete" to a comment saying Amazon has a few of his books. He may quite easily be sufficiently notable for an author, although the current article content isn't good. You best bet to keep the article is to work on improving it. It needs to be more encyclopedic in its tone, for one thing. Anyway I hope you stick around and continue to contribute. Also, be sure to sign your messages (in talk pages but not in articles) by putting four ~ characters in a row at the end. Friday (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your change. Thanks for your comments. Sharnish 16:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are most certainly welcome to edit the page while the Afd is going on. This is how many articles get "saved" from deletion- during the course of the Afd the content improves to the point that it gets kept. The deletion template cautions against blanking the article or removing the Afd notice. Looks like the wording on it has changed recently. Friday (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work

I just started reading your rewrite on Richard Rose. After the first paragraph, I'm very impressed. I haven't even finished reading it yet, but the summary is a great overview of what this guy did. And the last sentence really helps with the Afd, in my opinion. "He published a number of books and spoke widely in universities and other venues across the country during the 1970s and 1980s." That sums up why he may be considered significant. I'm going to read more (and hopefully make some edits), but I'm out of time for tonite. Thanks very much for your excellent contributions. Friday (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If I had to nitpick the first paragraph, calling him "an astute observer" isn't really neutral point of view. Minor issue, tho. Friday (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Friday. Goethan helped tremendously. You'd have no objection to the word "astute" if you ever met Rose. I hope that one survives the censors.(joke) The man was a giant. Steve Harnish 23:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Who knows, I may just find and read some of his stuff. In a possibly similiar vein, I've read some Robert Anton Wilson who I find interesting and amusing (and he seems like a smart guy, too). Also I wanted to thank you again, not just for your good editing, but for not getting all bent out of shape at the deletion discussion. Too many new users unfortunately take it very personally when an article they made or have an interest in gets listed for deletion. As you've (I hope!) seen, most Wikipedians are nice folks who are honestly trying to contribute, and I hope you stick around and help us out with other articles, too. Friday (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Friday. No resistance because the original post wasn't mine.(!) The benefit was to me because it forced me to do some serious thinking about the Albigen system for several days, which always helps me focus on what I'm really looking for. I wrote commercial credit analyses for Bank of America for 9 years, and always had a dozen people to please with each report. Here's for a real quick study on Rose, a jpeg file of the mind-dimension diagram Rose called Jacob's Ladder: direct link to jpeg ... main page for downloads I'll check out Wilson when I get some time. Where can I go online to get the value of a 1967 acoustic-elecctric Gibson? Steve Harnish 04:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rose AfD closed

Also, you may be interested to know that the Afd on Rose is now closed, with no consensus. This means the article is kept. Friday (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great news. It absorbed a week of my time but the exercise was well worth the effort. Thanks for your assistance Friday. Steve Harnish 19:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Richard_Rose_1974.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Richard_Rose_1974.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecu (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who disputed the copyright? I have explicit permission from the photographer. By the way, I don't like talking to robots. Steve Harnish (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information posted on the image talk page should be good enough. If you want to do it the "official" way, send the e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. (See WP:COPYREQ) - Thanks, Nv8200p talk 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Vrindaban material on Richard Rose page

Dear Sir, I have just logged in after a few days and read your letter on my talk page and also on the Richard Rose talk page. Many thanks for your thoughts. I do not disagree with you and have posted a reply on the Richard Rose talk page. If I have overstepped protocol, please accept my apologies. Please feel free to edit the text as you see fit, although don't you think at least the first paragraph and a half I added is appropriate and may be included? Sincerely, Henrydoktorski (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra K. Pachauri

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 14:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Richard Rose 1974.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Rose 1974.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly - I have contacted the author/photographer, sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and put a tag on the photo page. Will update you as soon as possible.

Steve Harnish (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra K. Pachauri (2)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — ThePowerofX 19:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri

I noticed that you have a very, very long history of putting off-topic talking points onto the talk page of Rajendra Pachauri's article. Please note that the talk pages are for discussion of article content, and while it is conceivable that some of your material may be appropriate sources for some other article, this particular article is about Pachauri. The talk page isn't a bulletin board for discussing the topic--nor is any WIkipedia talk page. There are plenty of forums for discussion of the topic.

Note also, please, that all articles even loosely related to climate change (which this one is) are subject to sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Please read the appropriate notices linked at the top of the talk page and adjust your behaviour to comply with the expectations of the community and the Committee. --TS 00:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles posted were off-topic. To say that they are "talking points" demonstrates your own bias. The term "climate change" itself is a talking point, because the case they are making is global warming, which term they can't even use anymore with a straight face, so they switched to climate change. Pachauri is a global-warming fraudster, a corrupt politician, the head of a corrupt political organization, and any article which demonstrates the rampant corruption in this "science" (extortion racket) reflects directly on him, who's very existence depends upon the continuation of the scheme. Note also please that the articles are motivated as a response to the climate change Nazis who populate the Pachauri pages, and others, and serve to reinforce the fact, as time progresses, the unstoppable discrediting of their so-called science, despite all the snide and supercilious remarks they have made, as if they could control the opinion of the world by ensuring that only their views are represented on Wikipedia. As usual, you guys use the "rules" when it suits you, for purposes of censorship, in a forum that's supposed to be unbiased, bending them to accommodate yourselves when it comes to your own opinions. Steve Harnish (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, the term "libel" only refers to comments that are untrue. See this little blog post and a multitude like it on the web. http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2010/01/see-rajendra-run.html "cor·rupt/kəˈrəpt/ Adjective, Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain." Drawing a salary for being the head of an agency that is based on false pretenses, designed to extort hundreds of billions of dollars from the American taxpayer, is the very nature of corruption. Steve Harnish (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: van Der Leeuw page assistance offer

Hello. Thank you for offering to help on the J.J. van der Leeuw page. I do not know what I am doing or how to get rid of the warnings on the page. Any advice you can offer would be helpful. This was a translation of the Dutch page (link at very bottom of page). As far as I am aware there is not original research in it. And I do not know how to deal with inline citations. I am not a regular Wikipedia editor, but just wanted to see a page for van der Leeuw because he is such an important author and did not previously have a page.In addition, I am not even sure if I am communicating with you properly! Thank you for any help and/or advice you can provide. Dondeg (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]