User talk:WoodenBuddha

Random humorous harassment.

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page nor replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.

--Avillia 20:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say "I told you so," but thanks to your commercial spamming and adcruft writing, the Seduction Community pages are being threatened with RfD again. Sigh. DutchSeduction 12:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Where? WoodenBuddha 12:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

>>Surprised you didn't know about the censoring going on at RAPG. Nightlife & Shark have been flaming and publicly revealing people's names on various Internet sites. DutchSeduction 09:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC) + Let me know if you have any questions about the community - I'm happy to provide a non-biased opinion on many of the things we talk about :-)

- While I'm quite aware of Nightlife and Shark's tactics, as I run a fairly large American lair, I'm also a member of RAPG, and haven't seen any examples of censorship. I have a near perfect archive of the list myself in my mail client - perhaps you could provide some URLs that relate to the censorship that I can look at (without signing up for any of your message boards)? + WoodenBuddha 12:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC) - - WoodenBuddha 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Which lair do you run? Censorship means that posts have been blocked from being posted on their site. Therefore it isn't possible to refer you to anything on their list. They have blocked and banned certain people and discussions so that only one (very negative) side was presented. If you really want to know more, take the one or two minutes needed to see what the other side says on their board. You might be surprised. DutchSeduction 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to RSD page

To DutchSeduction and WoodenBuddha (I'm leaving this comment on both your talk pages): I want to alert you guys to vandalism of the RSD page. See Talk:Real Social Dynamics. Someone went around and added RSD links to all the community-related pages, which I reverted. The same person blanked out almost all of the RSD page (including the criticms section) and replaced it with information directly pasted from RSD's website! Check out the page history to see how disgustingly blatant this was. I reverted him and left comments on the talk page, but then someone with a very similar IP address did the same thing again, which I just reverted. I am beginning to suspect that it is someone affiliated with RSD. If that person continues their behavior, I think we should report them to an admin and try to block them, and if that doesn't work, consider getting the RSD page protected or even deleted. Despite any disagreements we might have with each other, I think we can all agree that abuse like this needs to be stopped, and I propose that we cooperate to crack down on editing like this. I am getting close to midterms so I can't be on wikipedia all the time, so hopefully you guys can continue to keep an eye on these pages. --SecondSight 22:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reinstatement of RSD Criticism

WoodenBuddha, I posted the following to the RSD talk pages but would appreciate your feedback since any alteration to the RSD page results in instant edit wars these days.

Per Wikipedia's guidelines:

'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.'

There will be a reinstatement of the Criticism that was removed yesterday. Whether in whole, part, or slightly modified. I am opening up a discussion prior to making any changes to minimize possible edit wars (which is what some of you actually seem to want). Wikipedia's spirit of inclusion would be violated if facts which are available from published sources are prevented from finding their way into an article. Just because they do not present facets of an article in a good light is NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to exclude them. The issue is relevance and verifiability.

Some of you found the following too disparaging to RSD, while others favored its inclusion:

Criticism

---

RSD is criticized in Neil Strauss's book 'The Game'. Strauss, who goes under the pseudonym 'Style', lived among pickup artists in his two-year odyssey to document the inner workings of the seduction community. Together with Erik von Markovik (Mystery), Stephen Nash (PlayboyLA), Herbal T, and Papa, they founded the Project Hollywood mansion where key seduction concepts were field-tested and disseminated. Strauss writes of the founding members of RSD, Tyler and Papa:

"There was a lesson here, perhaps the last one this community would teach me. And that was always to follow my instincts and first impressions. I hadn't trusted either Papa or Tyler Durden when I'd first met them. I found Papa spoiled and robotic, and Tyler Durden soulless and manipulative. And though they'd made great leaps forward when it came to fashion and game... The scorpion can't deny its nature." [1]

---

What, if any, changes to the above would you like to see? More importantly, how should criticism be presented? In researching the RSD article, I found quite a bit of criticism directed at the company from weblogs, forums, and various online sites. Of course, these do not conform to Wikipedia's best practices policy and will not be used. Whether the controversy is fair or not, they exist. And the prevailing company ethos from these unofficial sources does seem to be echoed in Strauss' statement. Again, should a critique of the company even have a place here? And if so, how should it be presented? Wikifly 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Ross Jeffries, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Mediation request

Some time ago, you and a few other users placed a mediation request for Talk:Ross Jeffries. Some time ago, I offered to mediate in the case. Anyways, I wasn't sure if you hadn't noticed my offer, or if you were still deciding whether to accept or reject me. In any case, watchlisting the page might help expedite matters. Please don't feel rushed to make a decision. Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been awhile, and you still appear to be on wikibreak. Anyways, at least one of the other parties is eager to begin the mediation. Therefore, after consulting with another mediator, I have decided to proceed anyways. If you feel cut out of the loop, please accept my apologies. I'll suggest starting with issues you don't seem to have been involved in, in the hopes that you will be able to join us before we finish. If you do not come back by then, and you are displeased with the result of the mediation, you could of course place a new mediation request. Again, I'm sorry if you are upset by this in any way. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When is your funeral?

Are you dead? oi, come back! Mathmo ^Talk 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

New seduction community template

In light of the recent nomination of Template:Notable Members of The Seduction Community, I've began work on a new, broader template in my namespace (here). The intention is that it is placed at the bottom of the page. — Sasuke Sarutobi 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Done

oops, was authenticated but not enabled.... Mathmo ^Talk 08:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Contact

Hi WoodenBuddha, you can reach me at rykrykryk att comcast dott net. --SecondSight 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to have you back on Wikipedia. — Sasuke Sarutobi 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey there. I'm PolskanPUA, and I'm a little new here on Wikipedia.

I appreciate your work expanding and reforming articles on Seduction here on Wikipedia, and I'd like to contribute, too. Please tell me, how did you get the sources for the page on the seduction community? Is there a way to search through the archive of the alt.seduction.fast website for old articles written during the 2004-5?

--PolskanPUA (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not WoodenBuddha but I don't know how often he log in to check messages here... so I'll reply (and feel free to get in touch with me whenever about the seduction community as I like to help out here on wikipedia). Because of the time period you are a referring to I would guess you don't want ASF but actually mASF? Checkout fastseduction.com for the archives of that Mathmo ^Talk 10:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Sorry, that all went wrong. Hope I've fixed it now. Verbal chat 12:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you should probably be aware of special measures on homeopathy pages, see the warning at the top of the talk page. I've probably just broken some of them by messing up your edits, so sorry about that :s Verbal chat 12:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

Hi WoodenBudda,

I saw you previously supported the WP page of "Nick Savoy" and I was wondering if you could support the page again. An administrator deleted the page for personal reasons and now it's up for deletion. Could you show some support at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Savoy,_Nick ?

Your input is much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Camera123456 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Soul

Hey WoodenBudda,

I saw you took off the tag on the Jeremy Soul page. Could you explain why he is clearly notable please? My thoughts are that the sources aren't reliable enough and I think it is suspicious that a recently blocked account created it with such depth, and also that some of the references do not mention him. Maybe an AfD would have been wise but I considered in the circumstances that it would be an uncontroversial deletion. Thanks! DRosin (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Danny; the sources that don't mention him are specific citations that back up facts - the second source, for example, backs up the assertion it follows - this is how the citation/source system on Wikipedia works. For this reason, I consider it unimportant who created the page - it's a page that cites its source of a guy with an apparent heavy media presence. Trying to slip around an AfD is a specific violation of Wikipedia policy. WoodenBuddha (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Hey WoodenBuddha,

The sources don't back up the facts that they reference. Reference 2 bares no relation to the article. It is an article about Neil Strauss and Mystery promoting Neil Strauss' book signing. It does not mention Jeremy Soul or his work with Love Systems. I don't agree with you that he has a heavy media presence. I could find very little on Google, and the references used in this article are either non-notable tabloids, a podcast or don't mention him at all. I don't think I violated Wikipedia policy either, though let me know if I did, I am still learning about the different modes of deletion on here. I put a proposed deletion on the page because the page was created by a recently blocked sockpuppet account, and the notability was totally lacking so I thought it would be uncontroversial. I will not put up an AfD for now, but it will be interesting to see if anyone else raises these issues. DRosin (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

As it is, your edits to his page were very out of place, and possibly blockworthy, as attempted outing. I would suggest you desist from trying to publicly identify people. Further violations may result in measures taken to protect the project. -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied

I replied to your note on my talk page about deleting articles about people. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Magic Bullets

Hello WoodenBuddha,

you seem interested in AfDs related to Love Systems so I thought I would let you know that there is an AfD going on for Magic Bullets right now here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magic_Bullets_(book)

The Jeremy Soul AfD is a bit disappointing right now as there are a lot of single-use accounts popping up that don't seem to know about notability or have read the article at all! DRosin (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• • MB seems none-notable - I've never seen it in any mainstream media. WoodenBuddha (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Juggler (pick-up artist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Juggler (pick-up artist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juggler (pick-up artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

PUApedia.com

PUApedia, a whole wiki dedicated to the seduction community. Bring your editing skills and knowledge and come help us expand and grow. puapedia.com Puapedia (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)