`  == ``disrubtive edits and Abuse, On the Tm page by the 7th and LB ==  A selection of my so called disruptive behavior and abuse:                      Evening/morning/afternoon. i am sure you have read and discovered - unlike some here - that I am the 7thdrI . My personal views can be found on that talk page. I see you are new to the mediation process; you have my sympathies getting this one ) Namaste Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk)                   Edit, you may find the manner in which I address many of the other editors on the page ``strange``. The reason is they have stopped talking to me except in the third person. A curious development, but I thought if I returned the favor they might - as they say ``in this neck of the woods`` - ``get the hint`` -) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk)                  thanks gentlemen.Kbob (talk)                   Who on earth said I was a man? The7thdr (talk)                       Who in heaven said you were a woman? Kbob (talk)                       Patriarchal assumptions and language is something that I encounter everyday in my profession Kbob - it would be nothing new here -). Your assumption,seeming without question, that I was male might be one to ``mediate on`` -) Please see Gender neutrality in English But you are forgiven, you are after all less the result of your genitalia then you are a dominate form of socialization. Anyway, let us stop lest you lead me down to a discussion of assumptions, language, professions and gender roles -). Perhaps I shall change by avatars name here just for you -) The7thdr (talk)                               Hows that? Better? -) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk)                               So I guess you are telling me that you are a woman and resent being called a gentlemen. OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. -)Kbob (talk) (UTC    ________________________________________________________________________        I suggest that this article would be best focused on the meditation technique, and organizational aspects should be moved to another article.   Will Beback  talk    I agree.Uncreated (talk)           I agree; although if it is to be included here I think in the Relgion section - as it does seem to support the idea that TM is a religion The7thdr (talk)     -               We may not like it, but this is a celebrity-focused world. The involvement of celebrities in TM probably did more to promote it adoption than all of the scientific studies combined. Both deserve space in the article.   Will Beback  talk                This what i said before the ``popularity section was added - but it was ignored. Now it is in place I think it makes interesting reading. Like it or I do have to sadly agree with WILL. Whether, ``we`` like it or not, celebrity is important. Indeed, it was the TM authors of this piece that argued this section be added. It is now a little late to complain about something which TM argued to include, when it appears that many of the celebrities (especially the dead ones) its website and promotional material is so keen to suggest endorsed the technique may have actually had a very different view              keithbob: it is a ``personal website`` from an expert in his field - just as OJ is. (Actually, it's an authors page a much different thing but hey, I'll play along if you want). It was included, so the reader could actually read the full interview. However, if you wish to cite a published source for the same interview - you are obviously unaware of the author - you could cite the following just as easily: Conversations with Kurt Vonnegut: By Kurt Vonnegut, William Rodney Allen. Where the full text is also included. Alas, not all of it is available to GoogleBooks preview. The7thdr (talk)   I agree with Will and we should remove the recent additions where people are quoted with negative remarks. It just makes the whole popularity section unbalanced.Uncreated (talk)           Not sure what part of WILLs statements you are agreeing to uncreated. Until a balance is archived where it does seem that the people cited are endorsing the produced I do not see how you can remove the recent edits. KV was especially negative; the same as the Beatles - minus one member - about TM. Include all the ``good`` stuff in poularity must be balanced by what you might consider the ``negative`` stuff.Plus I like the Ozzy quote ) The7thdr (talk)    -    Sounds like a plan. Are you willing to lead this, Will? BwB (talk)        No, I haven't done any research on TM and have too many other WP matters pending.   Will Beback  talk                I think I can come up with a little something - in time ) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk)   ___________________________________________________________________________          I can get a connection every now and then 7th ... its just spotty...This is a contentious article, and you're making a very large addition. Not only was there no agreement for the studies, there was no agreement for a new section. Since you've stated that you've looked at the archives you'll know there are concerns with some of these studies like the Otis study. Are you playing fair, 7th.;o)(olive (talk) )              I always play fair Olive. As to ``issues`` with the studies, as you are aware there are ``issues`` and criticisms with every TM study in this article - all recorded in the academic literature. If we were to exclude every study on that basis your research section would be none existent. It is not up to WIKI contributors to decide whether reliable resourced - and relevant - research should be included or not. If it exists it exists - whether the TM movement likes that or not. The criticisms of TM can be found amongst all meditative practices - this is one of the possible consequences of meditation. The only reason that you - as a representative of MUM and the TM ``movement`` and your organization are so upset by this is that you both deny that such adverse affects exist and that - it might be argued - TM is so poor at addressing them in meditors (but this would be expected if your movement claim they do not exist).              Just because TM (Inc) dislikes the idea does not mean that WIKI readers should not be made aware of the issues. This is an encyclopedic entry after all and not a TM promotional brochure.. Now, you must excuse me but I seem to have a dose of flu. I hope a bunch of TMers are not doing what what you did to Tony Blair and bouncing bad thoughts at me with you super dupa bouncing occult powers -) The7thdr (talk)   -                      No, Olive, I'm not wrong. You completely misinterpret WP:RS and WP:NOR. And, threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue - yet again - doesn't make your argument any more convincing. Fladrif (talk)                           Ahhhh... Fladrif. I believe 7th was holding his breath.(olive (talk) )                                  ``His``Italic text breath? It is rampant I see amongst you TM meditators -) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk)                       I don't see how an article on meditation qualifies as a 'medical article' and so using this Wiki guideline is quite out of context in my opinion.Kbob (talk)                           I assume then Kbob we shall be removing an reference to TM research in the article which suggests it might have medical applications? I can assure you that would be happy to remove all of the below immediately:                              I think it would be safe to assume since that is what Kbob said that he offered an opinion, and neither he nor anyone else has agreement to move large sections of this article. Anyone who does without consensus can expect neutral admin intervention.(olive (talk) )                                  Threats are the last actions of a desperate argument OLIVE - and also do not become you -) The7thdr (talk)   ________________________________________________________________________________  I think we agree it needs to be included and nodoubt along with other arguments about a TM research. Can anyone think of any sensible objections why not? Please, try and use WIKI policies and guidelines sensibly -) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs)       Edit: Will, or anyone with the know-how - I seem to have moved the references up a line again. Could someone please rectify? And if you could point to instructions on how to stop this hap