User talk:Metta Bubble

NLP

Hey Metta Bubble, It would be great to get your input in the NLP article again. There are a number of editors who are helping make some progress over there. I'm on holidays at the moment, but will be returning soon. Hope all is well. --Comaze 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Comaze. I'm taking an inclusionist approach to Wikipedia this time round so I'll be pretty hard to pin down in hot spots, as I'd rather be creating new articles than fighting fires. I honestly feel assured that you're still working on it and I'll probably end up linking some articles I write into it. Please keep up the good work. All is well. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear that all is well. I'm sure you're having a much more pleasant experience editing wikipedia more generally. I will branch out to take a more inclusionist approach to editing. Who knows, our paths may cross again. Keep up the good work. It is good to see you back. --Comaze 10:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

You probably don't remember me, we didn't interact that much before you left, but I am very glad to see you back and look forward to encountering your sensible and goodhearted approach around WP. Anchoress 02:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anchoress. Yes I remember. I've got the barnstar you gave me plastered on my user page. Thanks for that. Look forward to seeing you round. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome

You're quite welcome, and welcome back! I am glad to see that giving you this barnstar has kept a Wikipedian and contributor from leaving us forever. It is thank you notes like yours that make all my efforts worth while. So, in essence, I thank you. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

FANx 4 ur thanx

FANx 4 ur thanx with the Trul Khor article!...blessings...i am a bit dis'd that someone Wikified the article...i had used symbolic superscript (i.e. The Greek Letter Ψ Psi {visually metonymic of the sashumna & energetic tributaries} (& trishul of Shiva) and the † dagger {metonymic of the phurba & athame}). Though I do appreciate uniforms (especially a hot man in them), i do wish the uniform was not numeric nor alphabetic but free-form symbolic. I love an icon! Semiotics and iconography are areas of principal interest. I noted ur interest in NLP. I would appreciate your assistance with NLP areas on Trance if u have time...and any other comments or siddhi you may wish to empower me with! May i have some assistance from you about how to customise my Wiki-signature? I asked a coder, though he helped, his advice was still without my ken. Namaste in agape and walk+ing my talk in beauty. [B9_hummingbird_hovering] 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

All good. Not much time but I'll post some sig help. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have praise for u on ma User Page *blush* *BURST* B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I'll butt out now. I only noticed your comment b/c I was about to post about something else on User:Fire Star's talk page. Not a good excuse, but the only one I have. :-/ A Ramachandran 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All good. I merely didn't want to make too big a deal out of it. It was just a slight attack on me and nothing worth anyone getting their knickers in a knot over. Take care. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, how cool

It's great to see you back! :-) (→Netscott) 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you too. :) ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Metta! – NSLE 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

rfa thanks

Thanks for your comments on my RFA, but for the record, I'm a he, not a she ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP

Hey! Thanks for your thanks! It's nice to be appreciated :) Fainites 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reiki and science

"There is no policy that says we must omit any source that doesn't rigidly adhere to the scientific method." [1] I've not interacted with you before that I recall, so am not sure how to take this. No offense, but do you seriously want to write about the scientific evidence for Reiki by selecting sources that don't adhere? -- Ronz  02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously want to omit research findings from a medical journal based on your personal opinion of the journal? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're not going to answer my question? -- Ronz  03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My answer is, who are we to say the sources don't meet our personal interpretation of scientific standards? Are you here as an expert scientist researching medicine? Or as an anonymous editor of a public space? Writing a wikipedia article has nothing to do with our personal opinions on the quality of research from a notable peer-reviewed medical journal. If the research they have performed is so bad as you say there will be a metastudy in another journal that we can cite from. It's up to other scientists to critique the veracity of their research, not us. My view on this entirely accords with wikipedia policies. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you just appear to be backpeddling from the statement that I want to discuss with you. On the positive side, I think we're reaching some common ground though. I'll just ignore your initial statement. Perhaps it was made in haste. -- Ronz  04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept that you don't follow what I'm saying. I stand by what I said and my clarification of what is required of us also. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I just noticed my new Barnstar. Thanks so much for the love! I just read your home page; it seems that we share many similar interests. I hope to work with you more at Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure. Looking forward to writing with you also. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

white text

Not sure what the problem is but I could not see your text on the Barrat page, i removed the following character; ॐ and that seemed to fix the problem, although i have no idea why it might be a problem. David D. (Talk) 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I note that I can see all your text here. Why in the context of the Barratt page would your text be white? Has anyone else mentioned this problem to you? David D. (Talk) 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No one else has mentioned it. What browser do you use (so I can check myself)? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious. What is that symbol? -- Fyslee/talk 06:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a sanskrit Om. It's meant to connect me with the universe. Seems to be doing a pretty good job attracting conversation here... hahaha! ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I was playing around deleting different regions in the talk page and there was something near the top causing the problem. I just archived that section and your signature is not interfering with the font now. I have no idea what was removed but I'm not going to worry about it unless it happens again. David D. (Talk) 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Good to hear. Thanks. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Metta Bubble. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you have a 3RR block only a month ago, as well as other factors which indicate you may not be able to deal with vandals who confront you effectively.

Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Daniel 07:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. Actually, I was blocked over a year ago. I think you misread the date. The block itself was contested by two other admins at the time as being inappropriate. Nonetheless, I have been involved in some heated discussion at Stephen Barrett recently and am happy to abide by your decision. I would appreciate an indication of precisely how long you think I should wait before reapplying. Thanks. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shit, it was too. Sorry about that. Approval message incoming. Daniel 11:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for that. Glad to be on board. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 12:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Metta Bubble! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 11:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

RfM Stephen Barrett

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/Stephen Barrett, 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. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Metta Bubble, I'd appreciate your response to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Stephen_Barrett#Why to help me decide how I want to be involved in the mediation. Thanks. --Ronz 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've commented. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't mean to pressure you in any way. I was just rather surprised by it and your immediate support. --Ronz 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was rather surprised by my immediate support also. I just thought, oh well, it's the only way forward. I'm a little surprised by your lack of support because you seem willing to keep discussing things. Why not mediation? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Reverting Talk:Stephen Barrett

I think it's far past the time to stop. Perhaps it should be brought up somewhere else? --Ronz 01:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

My posts on Barrett’s talk page were not meant to insult you. I did not know you and feel the questions I asked were proper because I thought you were an editor who came from the many other sites that asked for outside editors to respond to the site. Please except my apologies if I did insult you, I do not like to hurt people or cause problems. If there is anything, either on Ronz's page, my page or the Barrett page that you feel I should strike out or should be refractor (I don't know this, if you want me to refractor let me know if that is just a delete please). Seriously, I try real hard to be neutral and not cause problems which I seem to have escalated the problems on the Barrett site. Please let me know your thoughts on this. You can see from my contribution that I don't do much more the vandalism and spelling. I have a very slow learning curve so I am taking things slowly and do most of my comments on talk pages. I understand you think that my medical problems is not an excuse for things and you are right, other than learning, but I am trying real hard. No one asked me to post what I did and now I am sorry I didn't continue to lurk for a while longer to understand more what is going on. I hope you except my apology and understand where I am coming from. Again, if there is anything I said that is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to tell me and I will remove it. I hope things between us will be better and not as hostile. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, it was my idea to add that Barrett is not board certified. I wanted to put it at the end of the first sentence and have it read like this; Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, he is not board certified. But then more was wanted and thus here we are now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to post this. I don't mean to hurt anyone and I apologise for the terseness of my replies to you. The last thing I want to do is extend conflict with anyone. My interest is in improving the articles. I hadn't noticed it was your idea to add Barret is not certified, so thanks for letting me know. Avb and I were discussing a slightly different issue in that section (the removal of the litigation summaries). Again, thanks for taking the time to discuss this here. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So everything is cool now? I am glad. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything? Hmmm. There's still some pretty petty and vile attacks being made on the talk page by other users so it's a little much to say everything is okay. I can safely say I wish you well and am glad you came here. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind post to my talk page. All I am trying to do is be an editor and learn how to do things here, which is very hard for me. Thanks again! --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)