User talk:Theobald Tiger

Explanation

Hi Theobald, would you mind letting me know whether my explanations at talk:Landmark Worldwide satisfy you? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DaveApter, I have just finished my reply. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

HPM

Please stop edit warring over my addition to the Human Potential Movement article and discuss it on the talk page. What do you mean by "the quote is totally corrupt"? DaveApter (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you partly (the copyvio-part) understood what the problem was: you basically restored your previous edit, this time with quotation marks added. Nevertheless, I have reverted your restored edit again. This 'quotation' is corrupt: it is nowhere to be found in the source ([1], p.286-288). The misrepresentation is now attributed to Puttick, what makes it an instance of source manipulation. I would humbly recommend to you to study the relevant rules and guidelines. Think twice before you reply you have done so: obviously you violated the relevant rules. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

See also here. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

TT, you might want to ask HJMitchell or one of the other active WP:AE admins whether they believe these edits might qualify under the existing discretionary sanctions on Landmark, broadly construed. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello John, I will think about it. Nailing unto the cross is not my favorite pursuit, irrespective of what others have done to me. My attitude might, perhaps, be called christian in spirit, but it is most certainly not goodness or saintliness I am after - either the coward in me is too strong, or my profound dislike of calling the police surpasses my mild adherence to law and order. I was born in 1964, but I have yet to meet the first officialdom that comes anywhere close to what it has dearly promised to us on glossy paper. A stoic attitude is something I have so far not achieved, not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, but, I think, it is still an enviable objective. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

PS A Chinese proverb, quoted by Joseph Brodsky, comes to mind: "If you sit long on the bank of the river, you may see the body of your enemy floating by." Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page List of new religious movements has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. Please do not characterise edits as vandalism unless they are. Your edit did not address the page editnotice, and it removed the additional sourcing added to the lede. Tgeairn (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is of course a question as to whether someone who might be incompetent or dubiously competent to judge policies and guidelines should be seen and/or described as acting in good faith or not. And I acknowledge that such has been a question raised several times in the past. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

See the talk page of the List - your edits are clearly considered undesirable by other editors. I have nothing to add to what they told you. Claiming the moral high ground, is apparently your greatest pleasure. Since you are irritated that Landmark is called a NRM, you try to discredit NRM scientists and NRM classifications at large. Your means are hairsplitting, nitpicking, edit warring and wikilawyering. You are already busy with the preparations to nail me unto the cross for the third time. Enjoy it, for truth is nothing - what you feel, what you experience is what counts. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)