Contents

User talk:B9 hummingbird hovering: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:33, 4 June 2010

Well you would be the first in this matter that has even looked beneath the surface. All the others have ticked the box without even doing any independent research. Helping out editing mates. That is a partisan cohort. I name them malign because they are misrepresenting me. I don't wish to defend myself. I would like independent impartial investigation into my entire editing history. I would also like to know some system of redress for such consensus-bullying styled as mentoring. This ANI and RFC is all far too bureaucratic for my liking and the whole way of it smacks of disempowerment and scapegoating. I have to talk simple like. There is nothing wrong with my standard of communication. I am open to analysis and criticism but that is not what is going on here. This is bullying and a witch-hunt and if this is what consensus is and if this is what Wikipedia is becoming: giving the demon a name I call it A Haven For Power-Hungry Separatist "you must conform and be like me and how we want you to be or else die" (your editing privileges will be now be terminated) that I will not ratify and yes that is an extended personification even though uncapitalized. That is what that ANI and RFC on the face of it mean to me. They are just forms, filling out forms. If I have to fill out forms all the time there is something wrong and it isn't me. I am happy to enter into dialogue but I will not fill out forms. I do not agree to many of their proposals. I tender that they will be found to be amplification and misdirection on examination. With many of the matters in hand taken out of context. The way I am being handled is badly and then they wonder why I am brissly when it is a conditioned response. I am going to have minimal involvement on Wikipedia as a result anyway. I actually find other projects more interesting at the moment. But I often add linkages to primary resources on Wikipedia and disenabling my editing account as such would not be in keeping with the Swalian 'grand charter' which is swell: which is informing people. This I exactly what I have been doing: qualitative informing. Moreover, if this draconian heavy-handed bullying is what this community is condoning and hence becoming, *ICKYUCKYUCK*, I lovingly cleanse my hands of it anyway. The tides will change and so will this exclusivity and such misuse of administrative privileges and misplaced authority. There is no inclusionism and purity and there is no honesty in this system if I am banned. I am repeatedly being threatened with it being a forgone conclusion that I am going to be silenced. I have even been instructed against approaching independent people. But I will not be bullied and threatened which is what is happening. This is wrong. As a final word: what is the stuff of a Wikidragon? The ability to stand in solitude and in strength when the whole village says you're the cause of destruction when you are doing otherwise and which is transformation, transmutation. The Wikiotter in me has more fun things to do than tarry with you and your formulaic farce.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Those who come not bearing forms and frowns are welcomed and refreshed and delighted in good measure.

I don't curry any of your favour because none of you who have signed your name on this page have exhibited qualities that I admire and value. That appears to be mutual.

Wikipedia is a work of love, not just for the subject, but for everyone who writes and reads it. It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing. Don't hate yourself so much. Try to see the beauty in a vandal, or a typo, and the person behind the screen. Do you see their face? It's your own. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a complex adaptive evolving system is a study in Iteration theory. Yet another absente article. I neither hate myself nor any other and neither bear malice nor ill will.B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not the least bit curious, that someone who claims to understand nonduality as an expert, has never edited the article on the Vimalakirti Sutra, even though it has been on Wikipedia since 2003? Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, there are many nondual texts. As I am currently blocked editing I would appreciate it if you would iterate the article with a primary resource as my gift. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the correct reference?

ACIP Catalog Number: KL0176

Title Tibetan: 'PHAGS PA DRI MA MED PAR GRAGS PAS BSTAN PA ZHES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO

Title English: An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled "The Sutra of Vimalakirti"

Author Tibetan: SH'AKYA THUB PA

Author English: n/a

Volume: MDO MANG, Vol PHA

Dates: 500 BC

Description: Mahayana Buddhist Sutra

Subject-1: Kangyur/ShakyamuniBuddha_Exalted_Sutra_of_the_Greater_Way_entitled_The_Sutra_of_Vimalakirti

You could easily be unblocked if you so choose. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per ? Yes. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for the way you have been treated. Many other Wikipedia users have had trouble working with experts and experienced scholars. There is a tendency here to "kill the Golden goose" because that "nest-of-straw thing" is irksome to them. People can decide to dislike someone for no reason. Perhaps some young readers dislike experts who remind them of teenage resentment, toward their parents or teachers. As I see it, you have taken some formerly hollow, juvenile articles and expanded them into broader, scholarly coverage of the topics. I, personally, was impressed by your work in article "Nondualism" while the earlier versions did not cover the scope you added later. Meanwhile, some people think the intro of an article should be readable to a 12-year-old, and perhaps they have a point, somewhat. However, not every article is likely to be viewed by 12-year-old readers, so I'm not sure it is even worth the trouble to remove college-level words from every intro section. Regardless, it is just terrible that people were not more friendly in working with you. Perhaps they should have a sign:

<<< SCHOLARS not welcomed HERE >>>

If we knew what the other users feared about experts and scholars, it might be easier to talk with them. I have been advised to try Scholarpedia, and I understand you have also found several other websites which better fit your interests. Again, I am sorry the recent events with Wikipedia have been so unpleasant. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for drawing my attention to Scholarpedia. I will look out for it in due course. I appreciate that our articles need to be intelligible and accessible. That is an imperative. That said, the English language is rich for a reason. There are no true synonyms in English as in every natural language. There is no reason why an Encyclopedia cannot be canonized as literature. Wikid77, I am at present going to continue writing on nonduality cross-culturally in a different forum. Systems Theology has captured my interest. I wish you the best in your endeavours. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entitled to edit at Scholarpedia as you have to be nominated by the Community or bear an affiliation and I have neither. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch

The particular style of block is just perfect and I will not require it to be removed in the near future and will leave its endurance to the discretion of my peers.
Thanking you in anticipation
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither will nor desire to convince an Administrator to remove my ban as to be fair and reasonable it should never have been placed in the first place. It is fun that it has, it just moves me on elsewhere. I don't mind that it has in truth. I am equal to whatever my life may yield. Love equals. I just want to help. So many people never have the opportunity to make informed decisions which is an origin of exploitation. Even exploiters are constructed and made. I pray and act for cessation to the lineages of violence that travel through our communities like lies. I have no other interest but to provide open discourse that is reputable and accessible to all people. That is my principal interest. I have had others but that is the only one that remains and has endured. As a writer or communicator in general I never seek to persuade, only to provide information to others so they may thereby inform themselves and opine as they deem appropriate. If my 'peers' have resolved that my edits are not contributing to the general state of misinformation and inequity in qualitative and quantitative information available to non-specialists then so be it. They are as wrong as calling night day. They are entitled to their opinion albeit ill-informed. Many valuable contributions to Humanity are never acknowledged during a contributor's life. In truth, the majority of valuable contributions are never acknowledged. Most people are ill-infomed and that is not their fault, Humanity has for the most part been structured that way. It is dishonourable to make assertions as to my alleged knowledge or otherwise without substantiation. Accolade does not betray merit necessarily.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"'Open Discourse' is a technical term employed in discourse analysis and Sociolinguistics which is contrasted with 'Closed Discourse'. The concept of open and closed discourse is associated with the overlay of open and closed discourse communities and open and closed communication events. Key to open and closed discourse is access to information, equity of access, open access, quality of discourse and mechanisms and modalities of discourse control: overt, covert, implicit and incidental. As a conceptual filter and cultural construct, ideology is a function and mechanism of discourse control. Channel and signal of communication event and register of communication control discourse and therefore, determine degree of social inclusion and social exclusion and therefore, efficiency of communication event. Open and closed discourse operate on a continuum where absolute closure and complete openness are theoretically untenable due to noise in the channel. Nature of channel, signal, code, replicability, recording, transmissibility, cataloguing, recall or other variable of a communication event and its information control and context of transmission-as-event, impacts on its entrance into open discourse; where open discourse is sustained discourse." Beauford Anton Stenberg from the Wikipedia article "Open discourse". Bless B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I respectfully request that we please stop baiting/taunting/interacting with B9 on their talk page? They were duly banned and blocked, B9 has made it abundantly clear that he's not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, let's just leave it at that don't give the situation (or him) any more oxygen. PlainJain (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not taunting me. I find you all curious to be true and rather simple. I enjoy the banter even if it is rather banal. Hopefully, in a few more generations there will be more people with enough knowledges to converse like I do. Wikipedia will work towards repairing that. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC) B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]