U21980

Hi boss

I noticed that of your last 500 edits all but twenty were NXIVM related are you a coach or just full time staff Keyser Sözetigho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyser Sözetigho (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I suppose that would be due to the fact that I built those pages from the ground up in order to make a contribution to Wikipedia. I am in no way affiliated with the organization or their members. I suppose if the Catholic church's page did not have so many contributers, you would find me making more edits on that page (or The Cure, U2, DM, etc...). EVERY single edit you have posted so far has been on the pages NXIVM, Raniere, and Bronfman pages, so it seems that you are the one with the agenda here. I am trying to maintain the page at the highest quality as possible without violating Wikipedia rules, which is not an easy task considering that most of your edits (especially your initial ones) were in clear violation of NPOV, with the twelve "rules" being a clear example of edits that would not be permitted through the verifiability rules of Wikipedia or the "No Original Research" rules. U21980 (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

hello

So Itake it you are a member of this organization? Chrisrus (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because I edit a Wikipedia page does not make me a member of any organization.

The articles Keith Raniere and NXIVM

With that said, how can we work together to resolve the neutrality dispute? I feel that resolving these type of disputes is important for any Wikipedia page.U21980 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all I should say that we both should look at WP:CONFLICT and discuss it. You are openly a fan of NXIVM, and I am openly, to put it mildly, not. Therefore, if we follow the WP:CONFLICT guideline (not a rule), neither of us should have anything to do with those articles. It might be best if we found a third, mutually agreed upon author, someone with no dog in this fight nor ax to grind and whose work on Wikipedia we can both respect, of whom we both can WP:assume good faith whom we can both trust to write them for us. Then you can object when you think he goes too far in one direction and I the other. You would probably win fairly often as the WP:Biography of Living Persons edicts direct us to err on the side of caution whenever saying anything negative about anyone as anything remotely slanderous could threaten the entire project and we both know how Keith reacts when he's attacked: with lawyers. I'd have to really put him on trial to get anything past the goalie and you'd just have to sit back and say "unproven" because the onus would be on me to establish it as not only fact, not only a notable fact, but also a notable, knowable fact that is ethical to include. So you might like to bone up on the WP:BLP article to cite your objections.

Having said that, however, I should note that this is might be easier said than done. Many outsiders may not be interested enough in him and it to have the proper motivation to do it. We may therefore have trouble getting someone to write it for us. But we should probably try first and then if our good faith effort to find a mutually agreed upon neutral author should fail we may just have to do it ourselves and try to write a WP:Neutral Point of View articles between us despite our conflicts of interest. Chrisrus (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think, does that sound like a good idea? Chrisrus (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have it wrong, my friend. I am not a fan of NXIVM. In fact, I have never taken a NXIVM course. I have never read a book by Keith Raniere. I do not know anyone who has read, studied, or done anything with NXIVM, and I am only judging NXIVM on the basis of the exhaustive research I have done. I have a specific and open interest in all courses, seminars, conferences, retreats, and other such gatherings where human beings take responsibility for their lives and choice and spend some time learning about how to improve themselves and the world around them.. I am not saying that some of these courses are better than others or that they all put forward a universal effective philosophy. Everyone will find what works for them. I approach Raniere and his businesses and his self-improvement business with a scholarly interest and one that seeks with the most scrupulous neutrality to judge the information on the terms that it is offered. Go through Wikipedia and click on the Catholic church or the Buddhist philosophy and you will not find atheistic arguments about the non-existence of God. You will, however, find discriminations of Catholic theology, what it means, how it works, and so on. My view is that if it works for someone great, if not, they can move on to the next things. If you have criticism of Raniere that does not engage in NPOV, libel or non-renewable sources, then by all means add it. But let's make this clear. Let's continue to contribute to Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for the reading public. Thanks so much for your patience and understanding, and I hope that you can put aside your admittedly partial view. As for having more editors come in, I'm all for it. The more, the merrier.U21980 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, my belief about you will nevertheless continue to be that you are, in fact, a fan. This is because of things that you have written are read by me to have been clearly written by a fan. And that's fine, you think very highly of the him and it. You have positive thoughts about him and it. So whatever about that, you're not going to change my mind because I have seen certain things you have written and have decided based on that data that you are clearly a fan, so whatever about that, I don't see the point in discussing it further as it is off-topic and dull to me, so I'll add another section break if you want to discuss that further we can do it there but I want to get back to the discussion of how to procede. Chrisrus (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Further Discussion of Whether USER:Uzipcode is a fan

Discuss away! Chrisrus (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is necessary given my response to this type of allegation previouslyU21980 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How to improve the articles in question without further discussion of whether or not Uzipcode is a fan

What is interesting to you and me both me is improving the articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere. In this context, let "improve" mean in the opinion of the abstract "reader" of whom we must always assume complete ignorance of the referents of articles therefore with no preformed opinion one way or the other. We assume he or she wants just cold facts with no bias one way or the other. Chrisrus (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

this is correct, improving the articles should be the primary objective of contributing to Wikipedia, so of course I would welcome any contributions to the page that will meet that goal.U21980 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How/whether to negotiate an objective author

You seem to have semi-agreed to my proposal that we good faith try to find someone else to write the articles instead of us. If that doesn't work out after a good faith effort we can talk about editing it ourselves, I proposed. I have begun looking into the recommended procedures, and I have some authors in mind that I could suggest and was looking forward to finding out who you were going to suggest, but I was hoping for a stronger commitment from you that you will help me try to find someone else to do the actual writing other than you or me and not to write it per se ourselves but instead agree to work with me to see to it that it gets written. We would be sort of co-producers of the article but not authors, we would oversee, only, and contribute mostly to the article's discussion pages sure, but not write the articles. Chrisrus (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Before I respond to this post, I have went through the page and have noticed some of the edits that you have contributed to the page has made the page cleaner and a bit easier to read. So I would like to start off by thanking you for that (sometimes I can be verbose when it comes to these things). With that said, I don't know why you or I cannot contribute to Raniere's page in good faith. I once again invite to add any information to the page that does not engage in NPOV, libel or non-renewable sources. Anyone should be able to contribute to this page, as more involvement by other editors is what Wikipedia ultimately is about. Thank you for your contributions and understanding!U21980 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Chrisrus (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I don't know what you meant by "non-renewable" sources in your last post because I've heard that word used differently, in wholly different contexts. I have heard it used to refer to energy sources such as oil or coal or some such that once are used cannot be replenished into the earth in any kind of practical time frame, as opposed to solar and wind and such that will never run out. That doesn't seem to be what you meant, I think you mean "reliable", as described in WP:RS. The best source of information, it says, would be some kind of peer-reviewed journal or some such, written by someone from a major university, such as we could imagine a paper from the Respected Psychological Association's publication Journal of Carefully Checked Studies of Things Like NXIUM that would have done a careful study of him and it and written up their findings. We should search under "Google Scholor" or some such for that, but I think we will find that nothing like that exists because Keith NXIUM is so secretive and wouldn't allow the Dean of the School of Psychology of Harvard University or any such to observe describe his methods. So we'd have to go with the second tier RSes such as major journalistic organizations with a reputation for good straight news such as the BBC or the NYT and so on. Of these we have a few, such as the Forbes article. We should collect links to every such RS post them to the talk pages of the articles and discuss which of them which of us find what parts permissable and then transfer the facts to the article after it has been agreed. It's time to move this to the talk pages of the articles anyway, although I am not sure which one we should use as a sort of home base because most of the sources apply to both articles. If we keep planning from here it'll be like a cabal of you and I instead of getting wider involvement. I only chose this page because my purpose was to discuss both articles you and I needed to talk about, but it's time to take it back, let's agree flip a coin why not the talk page for him as opposed to it as few sources are about it and not him. I'll start a new section and we can post list the sources and then discuss them there. Chrisrus (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture

In the spirit of contribution, I was actually wondering if you could assist me in resolving a minor issue on the Raniere page. In an attempt to improve the page overall, I added in a picture of Raniere that I found online but I can't find any existing copyright information for any picture I find of Raniere (even after searching for quite some time online). Have you had to deal with this kind of issue before? Thanks in advance!U21980 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm not really the one to ask because I have tried and failed multiple times to add pictures to Wikipedia. The onus seems to be on the contributer to prove we have the right to use the work. If you go up to the first section on this page where they give you the bad news about your picture contribution there will be some link there to explain how to do it successfully, but then again that really won't help you until you find out who owns the picture. We can't ask for the right to use the picture until we can find out who owns it. Where did you find it? Chrisrus (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clare Bronfman

Hi U21980, Thanks for the comments on the Clare Bronfman page. There are still some points there that seem unsubstantiated to me, and not written in a neutral tone, like:

Edgar Bronfman, Sr. met Rita Webb in Marbella, Spain, and like a lot of men, he fell hard for her fair-haired beauty and disarming guilelessness.

I have changed the POV tag to a POV-Check tag to get another view. Hope that helps. Mr Sheep Measham (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the input about the page, I went ahead and edited that particular statement. I had gotten that off a news story, but I see your point, about how it sounds. Thanks again for your help!U21980 (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Can you please provide a wikilink to the sockpuppet case you spoke about and copied onto the page regarding Link? I don't see a block on that user, nor the SP case? Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the best at providing wikilinks, so lets see how it goes: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keyser SözetighoU21980 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

KR Patents

Thank you for your interest in the matter of patents held by KR. Like many obsessive Wikipedians I am a curious person who wants to know things and is disappointed when some rule keeps information I'm interested in from being included, so I hope we can find a way to include it.

One thing I'm curious about is KR and NXM, mostly because I live in the area and like a lot of people get the paper and read it. With that background it's not surprising that I think he's a villain and want to check up on him using things like Google, Wikipedia, and so on.

Anyway, I wanted to know about his patents because he claims to hold patents and I was skeptical and wanted to check on whether that was true or not and what they were. I did this some time ago and wrote a brief report about it on the discussion page of KR's article. I used Google Scholar, which has a patent exclusion on/off choice. When I turned the patents off, I got basically nothing, just legal papers and whatever else I wrote there.

Google Scholar Patent Search

But when I put the patents back in, I got many more hits. Most of those hits, however, appeared to me to be the same "intelligent switching" thing over and over and over. I don't know what that means or the difference between them all, nor could I tell if they were patents for real or just patents he'd applied for, or if there was no difference between them all, maybe he was just re-patenting the same thing over and over and over for some strange reason, or what the heck was up with that.

Intelligent Switching

About the inelligent switching thing, I'd like to know if it is used by anyone. If no one uses it, wouldn't that be a failed invention? I mean, it's all well and good to patent something, but Edison isn't famous for his patents so much as the importance of his inventions. The phone changed the world, but if someone has fifty-somesuch patents for an internet switching system he's an inventor of no significance if it never gets used.

Atheletic track roof

There was also a sort of extendable roof thing for atheletic tracks; I thought that was wierd. It soundeed cool, but again, has anyone ever used it? I get this picture in my mind of KR running track and getting the sun in his eye or somesuch and dashing off some fantasy of a thing to the patent office, filling out the forms and and payig his fees or whatever it is that you have to do to get a patent on a thing, which I imagine just has to be clearly novel, not necessarily economically viable, feasable, work properly, work at all, or otherwise be a good invention. Like I could go jogging and imagine a diamond running surface, but if it's a terrible idea am I an inventor of any importance? I'd like to see a picture, too, because that really would help a person understand what it even is.

Game

Speaking of not even knowing what the heck somehting even is, what about that casino thing with the house and the players doing some kind of a game, what is that? A new form of gambling? Have you seen the picture of him reading "How to Win at Gambling"? Just Google Images his name and fish around a bit. Man, did that image leap to mind when I saw that patent. Weird. Oh, and have you heard about the superior daytrading system that lost, how much money? Do you think he might have a gambling problem?

Please feel free to give me your thoughts on what that patent is. It may be a new category of thing that Wikipedia should have an article about. There should be no notable referent which doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. "Entrance-exchange structure"? Is that even an English term? C'mon, feel free to speculate, what do you think it is?

Sashes

And finally, I found that he had patents on each of the NXIVM sashes. Makes sense that the business should copyright on those, but it's hardly proof of his claim to be an inventor. Why did it show up in the google scholar patent search, you can patent a sash? I'd've thought that a sash would be the kind of thing one would copyright, not patent. But then again, I've never seen a sash quite like those.

Rational Inquiry

I didn't find the patent for Rational Inquiry but I'd like to.

So anyway, I'm dying to hear whatever you have to say about the topic of his patents. Chrisrus (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chrisrus, thanks for the post! I haven't had much time to go through some of the results that have popped up during my search on it, but I am going to make some time within the coming days to go through what I was able to bookmark to review. I'll let you know what comes up. U21980 (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You are a stooge of the Keith Raniere cult.

I am reporting you and I hope you get your posting privileges revoked. This encyclopedia does not need to be infected with the propaganda of creepy cult members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)