User talk:Metta Bubble

Greetings!
My name is Ryan, and it's my pleasure to welcome you, Metta Bubble, to Wikipedia! First of all, I'd like to thank you for joining the project, and contributing to articles and discussion. I hope you can continue to take part in Wikipedia, because we need more valuable editors like yourself.

If you are new and need some assistance, here are some great links to check out:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia are the primary goals and most important rules that we follow.
• These help pages are important if you'd like to learn more about specific processes.
• The tutorial is a hands-on approach to learning all about editing.
  • For a "crash course" in editing, head on over to Redwolf24's Bootcamp!
• Writing a great article is a noble accomplishment. An article you start might end up on the Main Page!
• The Manual of style is an in-depth group of pages that will teach you how to make articles look their very best.

I hope you enjoy editing here, and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, find out where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Before I go, here's one more tip. When you post on talk pages, be sure to sign your name and the date by typing four tildes: ~~~~. That automatically generates your username and the date. Again, welcome, and happy editing!  --Merovingian 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Sure thing. Happy editing! --Merovingian 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

discussion about NLP

[...] snip.

Welcome Comaze. I've seen. Thanks for your contributions to the NLP article and for starting the project. Everythings moving along as best it can at the moment so I'm none too concerned. Peace. Metta Bubble 23:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder, be careful not to exceed 3RR. It seems that many of the editors are stressed out at the moment over the arbcom workshop explaining the irate talk page.. --Comaze 08:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I'll contribute more after the stakeout finishes. Hope to see you in some other articles. Peace. Metta Bubble 11:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"User freespeech" template

Helloo.. Saw your free speech thing and thought you might be interested in this template (which is also linked from the WikiProject talk page: {{User freespeech}}

A link so you can preview it: {{User freespeech}}

Hope you like, it's pretty much the same but will also automatically add you to the Wikipedians against censorship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hellooo back... Thanks for the tip. I'm in. Peace. Metta Bubble 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspected meatpuppets of Akulkis

Hiya Bookmain. I moved our conversation over to your talk page. Peace. Metta Bubble 04:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Kindness Campaign

Peace, friend. I've just joined the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, and as my first official act of kindness, I moved your entry in the guest book to its rightful place amongst the Ms. It's ordered alphabetically, not chronologically. Merry Xmas, if that's your thing, from another Aussie. JackofOz 22:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi JackofOz. It's an honour to be your first official acts of kindness. I'll have to send you a flower. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Metta Bubble,

Thanks for your civil and constructive comments, both on Talk:Doggy style and Talk:List of sex positions. It's always good to find an editor who will talk candidly and assume good faith. In addition, thanks for pointing me to working standard for the encyclopedic merit of images. I think you should definately put forth your six bullet points from our discussion at Talk:List of sex positions, as well as any other ideas you have. I look forward to working and debating on this project with you! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

FWBO

Hi. FWBOarticle here. As you requested, I edited the criticism section of the article about FWBO. My first edit in wikipedia was that article, hence my username. The original edit two years ago caused immediate delete war which was fun. Hope you like my edit. See ya. FWBOarticle

That's quick work. Well done. The content seems better now. The quotes are really good, but they could stand out a bit better. Could you also put inline references (Harvard style perhaps)? So people can be assured the information is legit, and they can then focus on expressing it in the most NPOV way rather than deleting it. I will support information that is cited properly. Peace. Metta Bubble 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

1967 in radio

Hi - wondered if you might like to see how this article looks now and possibly consider changing your afd vote...? Grutness...wha? 09:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the heas up Grut. I did. I'm still a little ambivalent. Peace. Metta Bubble 09:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Peace

We need to resolve some issue to restore peace on the NLP talk page. I think I might lay low for a few days. peace to you too --Comaze 12:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I appreciate your resilience under fire. Whether you participate in a discussion or not, you're still entitled to make all edits you believe in good faith work towards consensus. No one will disrespect you for ignoring uncivil discussion pages. Take a cool dip. You deserve it. Peace. Metta Bubble 13:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On a side note -- I'm quite shocked I saw a mediator encouraging you to tolerate ongoing personal insults and keep the discussion open. I don't concur with that advice. There's no reason to continue a dialogue with those who make no apologies for their attacks. They should be blocked for this behaviour. Peace again. Metta Bubble 13:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

An exercise in good state control :) The problem was that an editor (pro/con) would discuss a change; the flood of replies, some useful, others off-topic were mixed with personal comments making it very difficult for, especially part-time, editors to contribute - most editors just moved on. The mentors are slowing things right down, to give people time to consider edits and replies; it is looking very promising. -- .c o m a Z e ! 12:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey Metta Bubble, thanks for the note on my user page. I hope you don't mind, I made a tiny change to the text of the Barnstar after viewing a bunch on other pages. I've never awarded one before, so I wasn't completely certain how to do it right. Thanks for all your hard work and for your replies to my queries on talk pages.--Anchoress 20:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

All good. Thanks again. Metta Bubble 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Science

Here is a good one from the science article: "Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it." I like this because when I use the word science to describe some controversial thing, I can tell the other users that I mean "Science" as in the second definition on the Wiki page. jVirus 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I checked it out. A worthy distinction. I'm not around much this week, but I've really enjoyed your contributions to the NLP talk page. Thank you. Peace. Metta Bubble 11:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring

Hi. I don't disagree with the changes you made, but next time ask one of us to do it. We don't need to head down the road of folks editing each others' comments. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Metta Bubble 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choa Kok Sui

Oh, my apologies for missing out in error. All done now. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you. Metta Bubble 05:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

NLP - your comment

GregA and I have trying to come up with an easy to understand description of the swish, your comment would be greatly appreciated... Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshop#Proposed_change_to_.27swish.27_description.2C_by_GregA --'c' 04:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Metta Bubble 07:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Just to let you know Katefan has asked whether calling swish a "method" is acceptable. I've said yes, and also put forward "technique". I see nothing wrong with "process" in the slightest, I'm not sure where this is going. I've also said I don't want an example but if Katefan wants one I've modified Headley's example.

Is this the right place to let you know when a 'vote' or request has been made by a mentor? Happy to do whatever is most convenient for you. :) Greg 09:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

== Afd ==

Hello. Could you please comment on the proposal at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/M.O.V.E.R? I you have time. Metta Bubble 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we can't verify M.O.V.E.R. We have no evidence that it even existed let alone if it was notable. Monkeyman^(talk) 01:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Google wouldn't be the appropriate avenue to verify this. Shame really, it's interesting content (if true). ॐ Metta Bubble^talk 02:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC and Map-territory relation

Image:MagrittePipe.jpg is marked with {{art}}, which says:

This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or the heirs thereof. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art

• for critical commentary on the work in question,
• the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
• the school to which the artist belongs

--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it's a borderline case, so it's probably best to just keep it as a link.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your new sig.

Your new sig looks great! :) I might have to develop one that matches your style --'c' 05:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks! You're welcome to. I'd rather they don't match colors though. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I liked the japanese char -- I'll do in a similar style, but totally unique ;) --'c' 05:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

All good. I look forward to seeing. :) ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Biceps or bicep?

I agree that 'biceps' is the correct spelling, but in weight training and martial arts it is often referred to as 'a bicep'. 'Bicep' even scores 1.8 million hits on google with 2.8 for 'biceps', so it's a very common spelling. In the case of bicep(s) slicer, 'bicep slicer' scores 270 hits, while 'biceps slicer' only scores 21. Hmm, I don't really know what should be done in this case; go with the flow or try to teach them better? :) ---Marcus- 08:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your call. I was just on a spelling binge. Biceps slicer is used more formally as far as I can tell, while bicep slicer is what is appearing in most forums and user postings. I think it's just one of those cases where the minority are actually the ones who know. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree! Let's teach them better ;) ---Marcus- 08:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[sic]

Please do not correct spelling errors in quoted material when the spelling errors are marked with "[sic]", as you did recently on the Dwight York page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorlock (talk • contribs)

I apologise for the inconvenience. Welcome to wikipedia. May I suggest you put the quotes around the quoted passages (using two apostrophes '' at either end) so that it comes out in italics as quoted text. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style:

Quotations

There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.). Indicate whether using the italics in the original text or whether they were added later.

-Moorlock 22:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, why have you linked the sic? It's not relevant to the content of the article. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I link it because some folks don't know what it means. It's just obscure enough that a clarifying link might be helpful. Judgement call. A good argument could be made against linking it. -Moorlock 06:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could phrase an introduction to the quotation text so that it isn't confusing? We shouldn't be linking editorial comments. My mistake was more because I was doing 100 edits in a 5 minute, than because I don't know the meaning of sic. Also, if you're having this problem regularly with people editing something that needs to stay (which it seems you are), you can put an html comment into the text so that a message shows up when someone goes to correct the edit. Something along the lines of <!-- MISSPELLING INTENDEED, PLEASE LEAVE -->. Is that helpful? Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I am trying to make some improvements in the project Censorship. I thought you might want to know about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm glad you told me. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wellcome. I am trying to write a new policy Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I am very busy but believe strongly on having some standards in Wiki. I would appreciate if you can review it and incoorporate new ideas you might want to add. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I cannot finish it without help. Best. Resid Gulerdem 00:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

The problem is that I am not a native speaker. And sometimes I write something which implies slightly different than I meant. In that sense your help is very valuable. If you think that there should be some editorial standards clearly explained in Wiki, you can contribute to the project. Please do not hesitate to change the text if you think there is a better way to say something in the article. Thanks for correcting typos too. Resid Gulerdem 03:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I'll do what I can. I'm with you in spirit. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. I already feel stronger. Resid Gulerdem 03:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki philosophy in the first paragraph may not be necessary. I took it from the text. Does it sound any better? Resid Gulerdem 04:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If members of Wikipedians Against Censorship would like to hold discussions offsite or the project is deleted, I'd be interested in hosting a discussion board on my forum at www.habit.r8.org. WAC could have its own subforum, moderated by a current project member. Catherine N.X. - catherinenx@yahoo.com

Wikiethics

Hi MB, Does this current organization of the policy look to be nice? Resid Gulerdem 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi MB, please read the policy again and decide yourself. Where is the pro-censorship? They want to state poicies in a way that there is no room for editorial judgement. I am not favoring censorship at all. I dislike it as much as you do... But 'no censorship' is different from 'no standards'. Resid Gulerdem 03:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As per my discussion on that page, I believe as soon as you promote one set of loaded terms (pornography, morality) you invite a second set of loaded terms (censorship, whitewashing). Historically in discussions on wikipedia there is no way to avoid this. I warned you that you were inviting trouble by including the references to pornography.

Some people believe the highest form of moral fibre is to not cast judgement on others. I believe the wording of the ethics policy currently creates a framework whereby people can cast judgement and get support from a policy document. This is also the overwhelming majority view in the discussion.

My suggestion for you is to pull back a little and try to get consensus on what is currently the ethical background of existing policies. It would be a much simpler issue and less divisive.

Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say that I value your contributions and your comments. I believe with your contributions the policy will be much better and closer to get approval with concensus. Resid Gulerdem 09:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

my vote

I realized after the way my request was responded to, particularly by User:Kaldari, that Nicholas was correct in his assessment of the group. Regards, Corax 03:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Upper Canada College

Hi, can you please help. One of your Admin, Ground Zero, has outright said that he will refuse to enforce Wiki Verifiability rules on Gbambino. I have proven in the discussion page that Gbambino has made at least 96 statements without any verifiability and Ground Zero refuses to allow anyone to delete these unverified statements. I thought Wiki:Verifiability was one of the 3 cardinal rules around here. Why is this Admin refusing to enforce the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.242.120 (talk • contribs)

Sure. I'll say something. I'm sorry you've had such a hard time. Welcome to wikipedia. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your noble and valiant efforts, Metta. I have a lot of respect for the amount of time you have spent on an article that undoubtedly is of no interest to you, and how much time you have spent trying to bring this user around. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your contribution to resolving this dispute. With all possible fingers crossed, I have lifted semi-protection. Reagrds, Ground Zero | t 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

First, I do not consider myself a member and have removed the userbox from my personal page. Second, my Wikipedia "reputation" is of little importance next to the factual accuracy of the content I provide. In other words, I am not out to win a popularity contest or win an election here. Third, I have made no false indictment of Jimbo. I correctly noted that he wiped the article in question at the request of the article's subject, then he encouraged others to rewrite the article without so much as stating what was wrong the previous one. This is not false. Neither is this necessarily an "indictment," since such a word supposes a negative view on the situation (many people love censorship, as you may be aware). I removed the strikethrough you placed on another user's comments because it's highly inadvisable to edit other editors' personal contributions unless those contributions are on your own user or discussion page. That you fail to comprehend any of these points illustrates perfectly why the WAC project has done virtually nothing that I consider important. Regards, Corax 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your sincerity and I'm glad you consider WAC a group you can safely ignore as unimportant. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Dallas Page Schloß Artstetten The Cup Chitra indica Tendai Broadcast designer Kristal Marshall Ken Doane Spirit Squad A Hard Road Whitewater Valley Railroad Impermanence Geluk Buddhist meditation Kevin Greene Midway Airport (British Columbia) Big John Studd Asceticism Skirgaila

Cleanup Order of Aviz Self-regulation theory Buddhism in Slovakia Merge Buddhist philosophy Buddhist religious philosophy Yoga (alternative medicine) Add Sources Doink the Clown Port-a-john tipping Mohammad bin Sulayem Wikify El Hijo del Santo Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office George Gray (wrestler) Expand Myth of Er Boiled wool Charity

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Porn Section

• First of all I asked about your suggestion. And added the restrictions like 'primarily' and 'consensus'. We do not need to agree on it. You should wait for vote. You can choose your option then. This is the section I am writing, you are invited for contribution, not for the changing the course of discussion with your POV. Aren't you misusing my trust towards you... Thanks for understanding... Resid Gulerdem 20:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was equivalent to changing text that reads:

• "John is faithful to his wife." to
• "John is primarily faithful to his wife"

These restrictions completely void the statement. That's exactly what you did when you twisted my words. The article isn't yours to give to me, so you have not placed any secret trust in me. In fact, no one editor owns any of the articles on wikipedia. I'm am merely one of numerous editors that have said you are behaving obsessively and possessively on the article. Why don't you take a step back and take a long look at yourself. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Have you posted this poll at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? Also, one week seems a bit thight, I'd suggest you increase the duration to at least two weeks. —Ruud 13:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let it be

Take a step away from the Wikiethics page. Resid will continue to push his iwn version, he equates his POV with consensus. The page as it stands now has IMHO no change in even getting a substantial minority of votes. Spend your time on better things. KimvdLinde 13:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I reported it at the incidents page. KimvdLinde 04:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Pivotal Corporation

Thank you for the support on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pivotal_Corporation. I'm not terribly attached to the page but I am concerned that a lot of people voting in these issues just do a quick Google search or decide that if they haven't heard of it then it's not notable. It is a big company, one of the largest CRM ones, and is very notable but isn't known outside of the organisations that really use it, it is not something end users are aware of. Thanks again though. Ben W Bell 10:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Most welcome. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Remain Civil

Greetings, sorry to have to do this but I must caution you to remian civil in editing on WikiPedia. Editiorial comments like, " don't have for reverts you fool.." diff aren't acceptable. Netscott