Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Good work on the palaeos-stuff :). The whole area needs a lot of work, so well-referenced additions are wonderful. 68.81.231.127 19:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!  :-)

Yeah I'm getting the hang of it! After signing my name the first time manually i figured out the four tilde thing. I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, hope to do lots more stuff. Will probably do a whole lot of short to medium length essays (and correcting some current entries) and yes will try to include a good list of references with each entry

M Alan Kazlev 00:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The classification is sometimes very creative, isn't it? :) If you're interested in slightly-more-obscure resources and examples, I've found the scientific object / concept model useful for laying out articles, even though it's not a perfect fit; taxobox usage is the standard reference for adding the sometimes-cryptic templates to articles; and Aranea's work on mammal classification is the best example I've seen of a well-sourced article on taxonomy that's still accessible to a general reader. 68.81.231.127 09:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hi!

To reply;

- scientific object / concept - looks good. Although I'm not really a systematic writer of that sort; I leave that to others  :-)

- taxobox usage - I'm still against trying to combine the Linnaean and Cladistic systems, they are just completely different approaches, and I'd rather retain the simple Linnaean hierarchy to avoid over-complexity. But apart from that, sure, that's a useful template; I'll use it from now on

- mammal classification - very nice! I should do something like this (although maybe it won't be as good, but at least it will be a start) for Reptiles (non Avian Sauropsids and non-mammalian Synapsids and Amphibians

M Alan Kazlev 23:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Kazlev. I was wondering if you would like to participate in the discussion at Talk:Human. There are some editors who are trying to exclude spiritual perspectives from the definition of human, and I think that we coud benefit from your expertise. --Goethean 16:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I went over there and posted my own take on this (for what it's worth  :-) M Alan Kazlev 00:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Kazlev,

I just created a template that can be used to classify New Age article stubs. You can see it at the bottom of this page: A._H._Almaas.

Many stub templates have logos (see, for example, the bottom of Cosmos.) You have lots of icons on your website. Perhaps you would like to select a icon that could be used for the New Age stub template. I think that you also need to release the copyright of the graphic.

Hi Goethean (you didn't sign the above by I assume from the "hi again" it's you). I don't have any original images - the one on my site was taken from another website and shrunk fdown to icon size (i was looking something suitably "new agey"). Several options: you could ask an artist or graphic designer who is sympathetic to these concernes and ask him/her to create an icon. Alternmatively find a public domain image (or take a photo oneself), say of a rainbow or a quartz crystals, and use that. M Alan Kazlev 03:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification at the Orthoceras, Orthoceratidae, and other related articles. I have done a lot of research, but didn't find a lot of info on them. Your additions clarify a lot and are greatly appreciated. --DanielCD 23:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of help  :-) Yeah re Orthoceras I mainly used the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, that's the only refernce work with enough in depth info. You should find it in most good university libraries.

Ideally I'd like to go through and do a comprehensive review of all the nautiloid orders (and a few selected common genera), along these lines. Just depends on time etc and what grabs my attention (so many projects to do). I still havent finished reviewing Triassic archosaurian reptiles! Hmm, glancing at your bio I see we have a somewhat similar range of interests, embracing the palaeo and biological and the philosophical and spiritual :-) M Alan Kazlev 01:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Usually we would get an "edit conflict" page that would come up if we were making a simultaneous edit. I double checked the edit history of The Mother several times in the course of my changes and the last I'd checked there was no one else editing. Cheers, Fire Star 03:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I was working on it for hours without saving. Then I tried to save and got one of those edit conflict screens. So I had to go back - get my original, and go through it again paragraph by paragraph making sure I didnt overwrite any changes you made. Fortunately most of my edits were pretty big revisions of whole paragraphs in the first section (and adding a second section), but even then I tried to check to make sure. In future I'll do smaller saves. M Alan Kazlev 03:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've had that happen to me before, too. I'll usually edit section by section to avoid too much backtracking on a big article. There was nothing too disturbed in what I'd put in by what you did, not to worry. BTW, I looked at the Satprem article, and it is perfectly encyclopaedic. If you are changing this one to be more like that one, we are in good shape. Cheers! Fire Star 03:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi FireStar. Thanks for the feedback re the Satprem piece  :-) The problem with The Mother is that the original was written by someone else and I'd have to rewrite a large amount of it, which I agree should be done, just a matter of finding the time. So if you think there is anything that seems like non-npov just change the wording accordingly. It's like writing on Padmasambhava or Aleister Crowley, or for that matter Jesus or Siddhata; the experiences or claims of experiences (depending on one's pov  :-)) are part of the teaching and personality of that individual. But I'm dedicated to the npov, it's just the problem of how to explain it in a npov. A lot of one large section is based on what's in Mother's Agenda of which I've only as yet read a little bit (i need to add a few more paragraphs to that entry as well) so I'd have to go through and find page references etc. But sure I agree some of it should be deleted (as non-encyclopadic) and more ordinary biographical details added, and as you suggested try to make it more in the style of the Satprem entry, that's probably the way to go.

...sounds like a good way to locate esotericist wikipedians. I wonder if esotericism is the best title for it. I am not really an 'esotericist', my related interests being mostly limited to Hindu gurus. But I am certainly willing to help where I can. --goethean ॐ

well I'm easy regarding the term. But it has to be a good word that is all-embracing and doesnt have exoteric religious conotations. Any suggestions? M Alan Kazlev 15:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you may be planning an esoteric/mystical wikipedian team, sounds like a great idea, I for one would be interested. I'm presently trying to add pictures to many esoteric, occult and spiritually related areas on wikipedia as well as expand on the many stub articles. --Solar 12:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solar. Sounds good! As yet there's been no further developments on the wikiproject front. Pictures sound good - they always brighten up a page! M Alan Kazlev 04:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out --goethean ॐ

Cool! I added some comments under the talk section.

Are you aware of this article: Integral_yoga?

I'd like to move your article (Integral Yoga) to Integral yoga (that's the correct wikipedia naming convention). ok? --goethean ॐ 16:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no definitely not - they are two completely different systems! If you want you can put brackets after one of them - e.g. Integral yoga (Sivananda) or Integral yoga (Satchidananda)

I don't want brackets after Sri Aurobindo's version because

• Sri Aurobindo came up with the termn first, so his system should just be called Integral Yoga, and the other ones renamed.
• it is painstaking to type the links that way. And since I'll be adding lots of Aurobindonian entries, there'll be lots more links to Aurobindo's Integral Yoga than to the other ones

Although this can be avoided by keeping Aurobindonian "Integral Yoga" in caps, and Satchidanandan etc Integral yoga with a small "y"

Thanks for the integral wiki link.

My impression of how to do Causal and Ultimate would be to have an entry on Causal realm, and, in that article, to have different sections on how Aurobindo conceives of it, how Wilber conceives of it, and how other spiritual traditions conceive of it. If we reach the 32k limit, I would at that point be inclined to break them out into seperate articles. How does that sound? --goethean ॐ 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well there is no equivalence. KW's Causal (based on Vedantic, Buddhist, and Daist concepts) corresponds to SA's Spiritualisation. SA never used the term "causal realm", although in The Synthesis of Yoga (and i think in one or two of his letters he identifies the Vedantic Causal (as defined in the Mandukya Upanishad) with the Supermind.

You could use the term Causal Realm and just give it a Wilberian slant; I think all the KW levels etc should have their own entry (I noticed a while back there's a redirect from Sensorimotor, but that really should have its own entry, maybe giving a Wilberian rather than a Piagetian slant)

There's also a Causal Plane, that's Theosophy and has nothing to do with what KW is writing about. I'll eventually get around to adding these various theosophical, aurobindonian entries etc. But yeah, come along to Integral Wiki  :-) I'm going to copy over some stuff from wikipedia and wikinfo, it's all the same open source license anyway

M Alan Kazlev 04:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, why not have, in the "Causal" article, sections on Vedenta, Theosophical, and Wilber, and maybe a note about Aurobindo's usage with a link to Supermind? --goethean ॐ 14:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hmm, it is just that there is not much common ground. But sure, i guess you can include Vedanta, Wilber & Aurobindo on the same page, because both the latter were influenced by Vedanta. Theosophy gives a completely unrelated definition, I guess as a sort of footnote, unless it becomes a separate page in itself. M Alan Kazlev 02:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that I should be contributing to the Integral Wiki, but I guess I'm leery of investing time where I'm not sure if anyone will read my stuff. Whereas I'm pretty sure that someone will read it here at wikipedia. But writing an article on "Human" does sound like fun! --goethean ॐ 15:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yes its the old story of the inverse relation between freedom of expression and size of organization! Wikipedia is very big and very widely read (and like you that's why i like contributing here!) but we are limited by a physicalist so-called neutral (but not really) POV. IntegralWiki is small and only read by a few (so far!) but we have full creative expression there. Of course as Integral Wiki grows and becomes more well known, it will be read by more people. I see it as being a very seminal project, because the Integarl Movement has the potential to really advance the consensus paradigm towards the spiritual. And there is no reason why you can't contribute to both! I'm going to be submitting pages to both forums; i guess slightly versions, the wikipedia ones for the non-esoterically minded, the integral wiki ones for the more esoterically and spiritually minded M Alan Kazlev 02:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Spiral_dynamics --goethean ॐ 20:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit problem happened when I was stripping quotation marks. Now listed on "requested moves". Sincere apologies. Jkelly 04:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed now. Jkelly 17:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks  :-) M Alan Kazlev 02:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alan, under what name was Harvat's physics thesis written? — goethean ॐ 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goethean. I'm not sure, I could probably find out, but I don't think there is anything notable about the thesis.

I checked the nomination for deletion page and there are 4 delete votes so far - (3 for speedy), so i guess the article will be deleted. I'll copy the latest version to the Integralwiki project so it won't be lost. M Alan Kazlev 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the thesis was published, that could be a reason to keep the article. Dead tree-published authors are usually considered inherently notable. Web-published authors, not so. Also, the article-for-deletion doesn't work on a majoritarian basis; there must be consensus in order to delete. — goethean ॐ 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least a couple of biographical entries you have recently written (Kristina Curry Rogers, Jeffrey A. Wilson) have been marked for a discussion of whether they should be deleted.

Forgive me for offering you unsolicited advice, but you might be able to avoid this trouble with your future biographical entries if you take care to explain and document the significance of the people you are profiling. I'm sure Ms. Rogers and Mr. Wilson are doing valuable work, but after reading the entries you have written, I do not know what they are doing that would make them appropriate candidates for a Wikipedia entry, and it appears that others have the same question.

Hope that helps! Steve Casburn 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Steve! Well I'll include some references to their published work then, that will show that they are notable. Both Drs Curry Rogers and Wilson are important workers in the field of Sauropod evolution, I am amazed that no sooner have I posted these entries then someone wants to delete them!!!! M Alan Kazlev 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote here. — goethean ॐ 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the category that I think you made- Category:Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet has been marked for CfD. JoshuaZ 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's ok - i don't care if its deleted M Alan Kazlev 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. May I use the information from http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Lophotrochozoa/Brachiopoda/Rhynchonellida.htm as the basis for an article about Rhynchonellida? The page in marked as free to use for non-commercial purposes which is unfortunately not comaptiable with GFDL. Therefore I ask for your permission. Lejean2000 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure - feel free to use it! M Alan Kazlev 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan! Please vote on renaming Integral theory. — goethean ॐ 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having pointed out, through your editions, the difference of conceptions and terminology: my previous editions have been corrected and some clarifying data available has been added to the related articles. Best regards.

Glad to have been of help! :-) M Alan Kazlev 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To M Alan Kazlev I am wondering with your exstensive knoledge of fossil reptiles, whether you would be interested in starting the Project abouve with me? Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 06:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure - that'll be good! M Alan Kazlev 23:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Alan Kazlev: You have a good point, so I propose it be on Amphibians ans reptiles, both fossil and living species except Dinosaurs as there is already a wikiproject on that subject. Also do you have anyone else who might be interested? Please invite them. Enlil Ninlil 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I see that you took care of the categories...thanks. Your idea will have the added benefit of making the templates smaller and less obtrusive. — goethean ॐ 18:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M Alan, Any interest in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs? You've got some good edits under your belt, and would be a boon for our project. Hope you'll consider it. :) --Firsfron 17:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the invite Firsfron, but unfortunately I'm overstretched as it is, and so would rather concentrate on less well known groups (currently, I'm just doing mainly Permian tetrapods). M Alan Kazlev 22:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, and the swift response, M Alan. I know what you mean about being overstretched; we're just now completing the stub project for WP:Dinosaurs, and there's sooo much left to be done yet. I was hoping to get to more obscure reptiles and amphibians, but it seems like that won't happen for quite some time. Good luck with the tetrapods! :) --Firsfron 04:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Alan,

Would appreciate your input on the comments and changes Scribe5 has made to that article. I think the wording can be improved and references can be sourced, he wants to delete all of what he considers "ridiculous" and "silly". Thanks.

Dseer 19:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Dseer[reply]

Hey Alan,

Have you heard of this. — goethean ॐ 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, regarding your request where Priddy has defamed me, thanks for asking: Look for yourself. You want the actual page from Priddy's site? Here it is. Notice that Priddy does not have the integrity to sign his name to this article. It is anonymous and I have tracked it through 3 sites (2 sites deleted for its defamatory content against me). Click Here to see the new paragraph that Priddy is listing on many of his pages against me. Once again I have to do the research for you because you cannot do it yourself. You want the list of Priddy's other Anti-Sai Sites? Look it up yourself on my site. It's all there. After all, the link is there for you to check. Click on it instead of making blind assumptions without reading it first. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be interesting to get Robert's take on this.

"Of course, I have never lied on the internet, and Moreno cannot prove that I have. A lie is a conscious untruth, so Joe must prove that I have admitted to have a conscious intention to tell an untruth. I have not slandered Moreno, but he has slandered me constantly and has gone to great lengths to associate my name with other persons' postings and anonymous e-mails with which I have had nothing to do in any way, including one which contains a very coarse death threat. I attach an overview of Moreno's use of images in close connection with such materials so as to get Google placements linked to my name in a disparaging or defamatory way. (See the screen capture I sent you - Joe's use of pics...)

Moreno has never proved that I have posted a single untruth - and I would then have removed anything I found proved to be so by reasonable means like documentation. Quite apart from the massive slander of me, he has posted untruths (not least about me) and has refused to remove them. One example, his claim that I had blocked links to my websites, which I have NEVER done (which he claims doubtless because he does not want to link to my pages so people can see what I have written in the proper context and see how he has been tendentiously selective of my text)."

M Alan Kazlev 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here is my take: Blatant Untruths Told On Wikipedia By ProEdits, aka Robert Priddy. And these blatant untruths are just on Wikipedia alone. As for Priddy's other untruths, those are documented on my site and are not relevant to Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Theory of everything (philosophy) was tagged for speedy deletion on May 23, 2006, rescued, then retagged for uncontested deletion on July 28. I removed the tag, but it may now be nominated for AfD. References to the use of the term TOE in philosophy are being demanded. --Blainster 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of the suff on the integral yoga page (about the various faculties of the being) shouldn't go on a new page called Integral psychology (Sri Aurobindo).

I think you meant "should go". — goethean ॐ 14:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep, sorry! Yep they should go on that page! M Alan Kazlev 02:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right. We may have to work with an administrator to delete the integral theory category. — goethean ॐ 15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the picture of symbols of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother to the template. Since all depictions of the symbols put The Mother 's symbol on the left and Sri Aurobindo's symbol on the right, there is an anomaly in the template, as the mother's name in the template appears on the right while her symbol appears on the left. So to fix this i have swapped the names of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. Wanted to consult you as the creator of the template. Varun 11:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's excellent! M Alan Kazlev 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now i am armed with the ashram permission to use the image on wikipedia! will change its status soon. and reload it.Varun 11:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! M Alan Kazlev 22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, Nice work with the Auroville Charter in the AV article. Earlgray 00:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Earl Gray, but I can't take the credit for authorship. Someone else wrote it, but I just copied it over to the appropriate page. M Alan Kazlev 22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries 21:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy Andries 22:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Tony Sidaway's comment, I am not agreeing to the mediation request. This issue has already been resolved by ArbCom. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request for clarification Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Geoffrey D. Falk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Missvain 17:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many excellent contributions to esoteric and spiritual articles. - Solar 12:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have apparently once created the article on Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, which as you know was deleted on I think flimsy grounds. Thinking that she is a notable person, I have created a new article on her, which was marked for speedy deletion by another user. I thought maybe you would be interested to say something about her notability. Regards, --Mallarme 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your comments on the issue. I know very little about PNB, but still thought that she meets Wikipedias Notability standards. By the way, the article Theory of everything (philosophy) has not been deleted. Regards, --Mallarme 18:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that page was deleted but looks like it's been restored now! Thanks for pointing it out! Apparently Wikipedia Notability criteria seems to be a lot stricter now, in the old days all you had to have done was published a book M Alan Kazlev 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan,

Editor Backface seems to be systematically eliminating references to your material and excellent site in various, with statements like "removed vanity link to non-notable blog". See: [[1]].

It could be his personal views on the value of Ken Wiber's integral theories which critics do not share have a lot to do with this removal and the idea your blog is non-notable, and there is no evidence he is particularly qualified to make such judgements in the articles. On the contrary, your site (and integrity) is well respected by those who share your interests and specialized knowledge in esoteric topics. And, it is others who reference your site where it adds significant value to the article.

--Dseer 09:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dseer

What you say about Blackface is 100% correct. I've pretty much lost interest in Wikipedia. This is the reason why. Unless the current policy of pandering to physicalist-materialist geek interests can be reversed, then I'll leave them to their own devices. A Geek Encyclopaedia (such as Wikipedia seems to be becoming) is still something very cool, but it's not something I would give priority to contributing too. You are of course free to revert Blackface's edits.

Currently I'm more interested in working in bringing about change and transformation within the Integral Movement, encouraging and them to evolve beyond the current "Integral=Wilberian" limitations. Also with my current research on abusive gurus, and other projects, such as Palaeos org wiki.

Thanks for your concern and comments and support! M Alan Kazlev 10:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The assertion made is that: "Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; and our operating principle is that through the combined efforts of many editors, the truth will out. Allowing the proliferation of pages that attract the interest of too few editors stunts this process and leads to poorly-written articles with dubious assertions. This poses a special danger when dealing with biographies and the concomitant worry about legal liability; thus stricter notability requirements for biographies are not ill-advised. But even more importantly, and with more relevance to the notability standard itself, each bad article hurts the wikipedia as a whole and taints even our best articles, at least in the minds of our critics."

Even if one adopted the stated reasoning that restrictive biographical notability guidelines are necessary to avoid any lawsuits, the assault on the ability to even reference their blogs and online publications in other topics where they are relevant because they are not "notable" under some inflexible definition is unfortunate. The implication is that there will be further efforts to delete articles that do not attract many editors, resulting in another kind of bias and exclusion--Dseer 12:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dseer has not had the courtesy to raise these concerns with me directly, but I want to explain why I am deleting these links. The links I have removed and the ones that you are putting back do not meet * Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have provided an extended quote below to demonstrate the point.

• Self-published sources

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

• When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.#

• Self-published sources as secondary sources

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

• Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly

Links to your Kheper website, Dallman's webmag and Falk's online book all fail this policy not because they are uninformative, incorrect or the like but because they are self-published and unverifiable. This is why I am removing them. If people point to unverifiable sources that I happen to agree with, I would also remove them.

dseer suggests that I am biased towards Wilber, but this is not the case. It is these policies that maintain wikipedia as an reliable encyclopaedia of knowledge for its readers rather than an opportunity for everybody to have their say on any subject they choose. There is no persecution of those opposed to Wilber or anyone else.

You can write whatever you like on your web site. Who ensures it is true? I do not doubt your integrity and trust you to make every effort to keep your website accurate but wikipedia policy treats you like everybody else. Get something published, then it can be linked.

This is nothing to do with the number of editors a page has. The afd process is not a vote, it aims to create consensus regarding a page's adherence to policy.

Please do not put these links back, before they meet these policies.

By the way, I apologise for using the word blog to describe your web site which clearly is a site containing static information. --Backface 11:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backface pov

So no links to external websites are allowed at all??? I am not saying that these links should be under references, but they can be included under "External Links". I did however notice the sentence and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial Which indicates that they can be used a primary reference, but only very carefully.

I find it curious accessing your user contributions page Blackface. You seem to have an agenda, perhaps based on my criticism of your guru Wilber. Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Da&diff=prev&oldid=95083644 You deleted my page and Falk's, yet left Andrew Smith's despite the fact that Andy is also writing a personal opinion. Ok, one could say that Andy's essay is published on Integral World, and not on his personal website, and therefore is worthy of inclusion. But in that case how do you explain this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Cohen_%28spiritual_teacher%29&diff=prev&oldid=95110207

btw Stuart Davis is also self-published, what does he have that Dallman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral_art&diff=prev&oldid=95074295 and Falk don't. Why not nominate his page for deletion?

Here is an example of your lack of research: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral_thought&diff=prev&oldid=92442263 This is not self-promotion because Dallman didn't add i, I did, just as I wrote teh page, because I consider him notable. But I'm not Dallman's agent or puiblicist, and I challenge you to find a shred of evidence that says I am.

Interesting to see how you zero in on biographies I've written. Why not bios others have written too? Surely I'm not the only person on all of wikipedia writing bios about non-notable people!

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Zimmerman&diff=prev&oldid=93570248
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Wilken&diff=prev&oldid=93569711
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peer-to-peer_%28meme%29&diff=prev&oldid=93569278 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michel_Bauwens&oldid=90661021

Your Wilberian sympathies are showing Backface

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral_art&diff=prev&oldid=95074445
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Wilber&diff=prev&oldid=92438457
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral_University&diff=prev&oldid=92762291 btw, why wasn't this nomintaed for deletion - Integral University is hardly notable? Have you read Steve Frazee's report?

Extraordinarily, you're even harrassing Goethean! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Goethean/M._Alan_Kazlev&diff=prev&oldid=92023276 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Goethean/Matthew_Dallman&diff=prev&oldid=92096482 If you're only concerned about removing material you consider non-notable, what does it matter what someone puts on their user page?

By the way the links to my website e.g.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Da&diff=prev&oldid=92183842
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral_theory&diff=prev&oldid=95084372
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral_theory&diff=prev&oldid=92183096

and to my essays on Integral World were and are not "vanity" or "self-serving"; I didn't add those links and until now I had no idea they were up, until you deleted them and, notified by Dseer, I started checking the edits on your user contributions page. This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral_thought&diff=prev&oldid=92182894 also was not "self-serving vanity" because, again, I didn't write it.

However, since you seem to have an agenda which involves deleting only material by myself, Falk, Dallman, Goethean, and any other critics of Wilber (this, your very first edit, seems to be the only exception), and since you have not even contributed or added one constructive material to WP, the logical conclusion is that you are vandal, probably an irritated follower of Ken, who is seeking to impose his opinionated pov. Therefore, as wikipedian, I reserve the right to revert and reverse any and all of your deletions, whenever and whereever I see fit. You of course have the equal right to re-revert mind. We can go on forever, as long as it doesn't conflict with the three-revert rule. M Alan Kazlev 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your unfortunate assessment of Backface, same conclusion I came to after thorough review, which is why I notified you of the vandalism. Backface claims "dseer suggests that I am biased towards Wilber, but this is not the case", yet a simple reading of the totality of edits made on articles related to Wilber and comments made, including his stated purpose here being motivated by interest in the "Integral Community" indicates otherwise, and collectively override an assumption of good faith.

Backface even indirectly discloses his pro-Wilberian agenda relative to critics of the transmission guru Wilber and the NRM (using a PC term) around him, when he says: "Hello. I am interested in the Integral Community and the quality of the references here related to it. There is a vast amount of important information on this subject which can be addresed by Wikipedia, but first some of the dross needs to be tidied up. Perhaps other interests will develop too. Who knows?"

Backface even says: "The problem here is that Wilber has been largely ignored by the academic community rather than criticised and therefore embraced by it. This is his own fault largely. However, the page can just note this rather than replace the missing cogent criticism with self-published drivel from self-declared esotericists." In other words, he not only acknowledges that the academic community does not embrace the inflated opinion that Wilber and the NRMs that has risen up around him have of him as an Einstein like figure, but then attempts attempts to rationalize why academics as whole don't even bother to embrace and publish criticisms of his teaching, as if Wilber was some jewel overlooked by scholars in the dung. And, when real and peer recognized esotericists like yourself dare talk about Wilber's pretentious claims on esoteric subjects where he is merely speculating and is often obviously derivative to real esotericists, Backface, as ignorant as his apparent guru is on that subject, calls that "drivel". Hardly an invitation to dialogue.

Backface rationalizes his aggressive vandalism against critics of Wilber by saying that Wikipedia must be absolutely reliable, but not by applying the same standard to Wilber and Wilberians, of course. Backface fails to acknowledge that it is clearly impossible for Wikepdia to be absolutely reliable or definitive, as long as there is a reasonable diversion of opinion on a subject. The obvious resolution in such cases is for Wikipedia to mention different POVs, not simply a single POV on a controversial and partisan issue, with appropriate weight, and with appropriate external links. As for only referencing published works here, what kind of market is there for that on obscure topics like Ken Wilber? Even Wilber's first book was turned down by every publisher except finally an obscure Theosophical publishing house. Wilber simply isn't noteworthy enough to economically or academically justify significant, independent published criticism in book form. But since critics and proponents who do self publish and allow comment, such as the kheper site, are subject to review and comment on various sites devoted to Wilber, and when peer recognized, such as yours, they are not simply vanity sites, they enhance scholarship and reliablity in such cases. I will support your position. --Dseer 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As proof of Backface's deceptiveness above regarding his true position on Wilber even though it is obvious from his serial deletions, Backface states in the Ken Wilber discussion/mediation that "I have written elsewhere positively on integral theory and I am a keen integralist. I have other credentials in this area which I decline to state in order to protect my privacy. As I have stated before, my sole aim here is to improve the quality of the coverage of integral topics in Wikipedia." And he also states: "Trust me; I do know what I am talking about. There is an awful lot of self-publicity in this arena and a small amount of tremendously valuable work such as Wilber's. Wikipedia's policy, if followed closesly, will ensure that coverage emphasises the good and minimises the dross. I do not see this as 'rampant deletionism' but as a correction of a tendency of the integral community to spread its internal debates outward." Your material is what he means as an example of the "dross". Even so, the "mediator" says: "Backface, I liked most of what you said in 'View from the Backface'. I would happily turn this whole mediation job over to you, if only you could moderate your language and swallow your pride a bit." Some mediator! --Dseer 06:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insightful comments and support, Dseer!

The intriguing thing about Wilber is that he started out as a rebel, critic of guru abuse, and innovator too, but has since become, among elements his own small community, an infallible and cultic source. He has in fact become the very thing that he so perceptively warned others about in his younger days. And our friend Backface represents proof that at least certain elements (not everyone!) in the integral movement have finally made the transition to full-blown irrational fundamentalists, who can no more brook alternative points of views then the most bigoted mainstream fundamentalist.

The irony of it, as you also point out, is that mainstream academics the world over consider Wilber a non-entity. It seems (although perhaps I'm wrong!) that Wilber is only published by Shambhalla because he has friends there. But I was actually genuinely surprised (and not a little disappointed) to discover that his integral university is nothing but "vapourware".

Backface is unlikely to understand that I'm one of the few people who respect Wilber enough to critique him as an equal, rather than simply dismiss him as academia does, or, even worse, worship him in awe as some sort of bodhisattva like many of his followers seem to do (see sect. 2-x). His narrow brand of Wilberanity (as evident in his activities on Wikipedia) does not seem to allow for that sort of openness or debate. Of course he could surprise us all by actually turning out to be a really lovely guy! All I know of him are his highly selective edits and comments. So I hope I'm not judging him unfairly by his public vandalism!

I will say in favour of Wilberians, that prior to this unpleasant Backface incident I have always found those Wilberians I have corresponded with to be very decent people. Sure they may be opinionated, but no more than I am. They have their views, I have mine, I respect them, and I think they respect me. So I certainly don't see Backface as representative of the movement, and I am sure that many decent Wilberians would be appalled by his behavior. However, much as it saddens me to admit it, there does seem to be a "bully boy" element among Wilber loyalists, as indicated by some very antagonistic and dismissive comments made on Frank Visser's Wilber Watch blog.

That mediator's comment that you quoted only shows how easily well-meaning Wikipedians - and hence Wikipedia as a whole - can be manipulated by malcontents with vested interests. Perhaps you can direct him to this discussion so he can see the other side of the story for himself. M Alan Kazlev 07:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, This is your talk page. Everybody is entitled to a rant now and again. You are no doubt sore about losing some of the pages you like to deletion under the processes and policies of WP and so I can pretty much forgive you for the personal attacks here. I am not going to reply in kind - it does not take the debate forward and only reflects badly on the attacker.

I am not a vandal. Please refer to the definition of that term here and this essay. I am going to state only the outline facts in defence here without going blow-by-blow to several rounds, while holding that we have to agree to disagree and then hopefully that will put an end to the ad-hominen and we can get on with the work which can obviously include as many non-ad-hominem battles as it needs to.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Wilber has been largely ignored by academia and this is problematic when finding good countering viewpoints. Alan, you are to some extent in the same boat, so your choice to address Wilber as an equal is generous and wise.

My "agenda" is to apply the principles of WP to this area. There are Wilber critics with RS and proper verfiability, some of whom have made criticisms which are far more theoretically devastating to Wilber than those who have not had work published such as Grof, Washburn etc. I would like to see these emphasised and the work of those that only produce web-available non-reviewed work de-emphasised. I am in no way trying to stiffle Wikipedia's coverage of criticism of Wilber or anyone else so long as these criticisms have proper RS. This is pro-Wikipedia policy not a pro-Wilber approach. None of it is vandalism, even if we disagree. I have read Wilber and I am not by any means a follower nor do I see his work in a narrow band. In fact, as far as I can tell, I have less strong attachment to a positive or negative view of Wilber than you have.

So let's get the meat of my response over with. I never suggested that you a "publicist" for anyone. I have not "harrassed" anyone. If you think that other links or articles are against policy, I suggest that you delete them. I am inclined to agree with you on that assesment on some of the things you mention above such as Andrews, Davis, IU etc. Go for it. I have made some changes which as you point out are in line with WP policy. The deletion that I raised was handled entirely correctly by the process and policies relating to it. I have no objections to decisions that have gone against me.

Clearly, Kazlev, you can revert whatever you want, but, whatever our differences, reverts do not need to call me a "pov vandal" in the edit summary. This is simply a personal attack and does not appear to be revertable by mere editors, so I have asked the administrators to remove it and, if you can look at it with a cooler head, I would ask you to also suggest to them that they do this.

I trust that we can move forward without any further attacks on the person which ultimately make the attacker look a little silly and over-excited. I apologise if I have offended you in any way. I am very happy to debate the content, approach, policy, process or anything else with you but it will have to be done without the abuse. Life is too short for this kind of thing.

--Backface 14:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suppression of criticism of Wilber is a well-worn tactic and what we are seeing here is another example of that. User:Backface is systematically removing links that criticize Wilber. He has nominated for deletion articles on three critics of Wilber. He cites WP:V in edit summaries, although WP:V is of course irrelevant to external links. He has to date contributed little to no new content to Wikipedia. In this context, User:Backface might be more forgiving of people who describe his editing patterns as "vandalism". — goethean ॐ 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to forgiveness, please see the start of my entry above. The repeated accusation of attempted suppression of Wilber's critics has been answered above and elsewhere. Goethean, the term vandal is reserved for those intending to do damage to Wikipedia. All the changes I have made are motivated by a desire to improve the coverage and are designed accordingly, whether through deletion or otherwise. The term vandal is therefore incorrect. We disagree. That makes none of us vandals or anything else other than editors who disagree. It is time now to calm down the personal aspects of discussion. Once again, I have not responded in kind to any of the attacks, and I fail to see how they move the discussion forward. Please, the debate concerning what constitutes improvement of the integral coverage in wikipedia should be continued by discussing the content rather than any more accusations of editors being this or that... --Backface 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backface said: "I agree with a lot of what you say. Wilber has been largely ignored by academia and this is problematic when finding good countering viewpoints. Alan, you are to some extent in the same boat, so your choice to address Wilber as an equal is generous and wise"

I thank you for your kind words. This seems to at least to mark a step up from "self-published drivel from self-declared esotericists".

"I have read Wilber and I am not by any means a follower nor do I see his work in a narrow band. In fact, as far as I can tell, I have less strong attachment to a positive or negative view of Wilber than you have."

Actually I don't have a strong positive or negative attachment to Wilber. I see him as an important figure in the Integral movement, but beyond his historical role I do not have much interest in his teachings. My position was and still is that the current mainstream and mostly still American movement needs to grow beyond its fixation on Wilber to include others like Sri Aurobindo, Edward Haskell, Teilhard de Chardin, William Irwin Thompson, etc

"I am inclined to agree with you on that assesment on some of the things you mention above such as Andrews, Davis, IU etc. Go for it. "

Why don't you go for it? This way you can show that your deletionist activities are at least non-partisan.

Up until now you have been consistently violating NPOV policy by deleting or attempting to delete only non-Wilberian points of view regarding Integral thought (with especial reference to Michel Bauwens, Matthew Dallman, and myself), but not touching anything pertaining to the strict Wilberian faction (this despite your own claim to be "not by any means a follower"). Why don't you then show equal enthusiasm in deleting an equal number of pro-Wilber links and nominating, where you feel appropriate, pro-Wilber pages for deletion. As you know I do not agree with Wikipedia's current deletionist policies, but if you are going to be a deletionist, at least you can be even-handed about it and delete from both sides. If you are offended by the descriptor "pov vandal", you have to show that your contributions are actually enhancing Wikipedia, rather than simply aimed at presenting Wilber (who you say you don't follow) in the most uncritical light, and as the only advocate of Integral movement. If you can do that, and act as a responsible and unbiased wikipedian, rather than a Wilberian publicist with a personal agenda to push (and all your fine words on my talk page here have done nothing to change my opinion regarding your actions), no-one will be more relieved than I M Alan Kazlev 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for beginning to moderate your tone and for removing the personal attacks with which you intervened on the personal attack intervention page. It is not up to me to prove anything before I can expect that you cease using the term "vandal" (seriously - read the page) and the like and I trust that is the last time we will see you do so. You are obviously perfectly entitled to your opinion of me and anyone else so long as you do not express it as an attack. All I can do is continue to state that I am not a "Wilberian publicist with a personal agenda to push" and that I am attempting to be a "responsible and unbiased wikipedian" as is everyone else. I merely happen to disagree with you as to what is best for presenting this material in an unbiased manner in Wikipedia. "Responsible" Wikipedians find consensus through dialogue rather than playing "yah boo sucks" which I for one am finding increasingly boring. I suggest that beginning to assume good faith even in those "deletionists" with whom you disagree is your route to relief, my friend.

So let us address the material. At no point have I suggested that Wilber is the only "advocate" of the "movement", and I have mentioned several times even on this page that there are important critics who are not currently being reported such as Grof and Washburn. I absolutely agree with you that properly sourced, published figures such as those you mention and others need proper coverage.

As for Davis, pop music is not something I know enough about to determine notability. Perhaps you do, but I will stick to theory. IU and Andrews though, and plenty of others, do need some work. So are you going to agree that if all these are treated in the same way that you will agree to not selectively revert the items that you like? If so we can begin to have a conversation about what items need to be more properly referenced, what deleted, what added and what left alone. Hopefully, then we can begin to find some consensus around the material. --Backface 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What tone would a reasonable person think you set when you wrote "self-published drivel from self-declared esotericists" without any dialogue with the Wikipedian you referred to? A favorable start, but you have not even acknowledged your obvious role in setting the tone in such comments. And the history of your contributions is not resonant, yet, with your recent comments. WP:FAITH specifically does not require that good faith be assumed when there is evidence to the contrary. Obviously, some will be looking for future actions consonant with your words. While it hasn't yet been asserted that that is the case here, WP:WL cautions against "Hiding behind misinterpretations or technicalities of policy to justify inappropriate actions." I truly hope that future actions match your words. --Dseer 19:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the policy page on Vandal and you are right Backface it doesn't apply to NPOV violations. You have my apology. I won't use that term on Wikipedia to refer to you again. However, your actions could certainly be described as Censorship (of non-Wilberian material), Pettyfogging (thanks for the link Dseer!  :-) and POV bias. I notice however that you did merge IU with I-I, that's good. Anyway I'll be watching you. M Alan Kazlev 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the retraction of your personal attacks, Alan. I have no desire to threaten the NPOV of this material. My hope is that we can put all this nonsense behind us and work together on improving the coverage through consensus. I would strongly encourage you to engage with me in this activity rather than merely 'watching'. Anyway, enough of this! --Backface 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you noticed, Backface deleted reference to your site in the Andrew Cohen article, which you properly restored. This motivated me to address the issue of how the rules of Wikipedia are being interpreted in a way that undermines NPOV unnecessarily in that article, but the applicability is greater than that one article, as a number of deletionists target critics over advocates. Let me point out that both Cohen and Wilber are essentially both authors and religious leaders with groups of followers and mutually endorse each other. The linking of Cohen's blog responding to his critics while suppressing a blog by highly placed former members is being justified by some under Wikipedia policies, and this same logic is being applied to similar articles on religious groups. I am copying my response to this logic here. When it comes to effectively self published material and in particular when it is done pro or con a religious group, there are cautionary caveats that apply to both sides, and caveats when the material is contentious, arguably self-serving and makes claims about third parties. I hope you find this line of reasoning which follows interesting and applicable:

The criticism section itself is defective, and that needs attention. Criticism should be criticism and not end with an apologetic response from Andrew Cohen trying to rebut critics that is fully linked when those critics have responded but that fact is ignored. The contention is made that because Andrew Cohen's self published response on a blog to his critics is made by the subject of the article, it is allowable in this section but referencing the response is not.

However, WP:V#Self states that: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as it is: relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." But, Cohen's response is contentious, arguably self-serving his guru role, and makes unverified claims about third parties (ex-followers and critics). Additionally, WP:RS states: "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." Therefore, both the advocacy and critical publications and websites related to Cohen must be treated with appropriate caution, with a NPOV result in mind. Research has not yet demonstrated that the claims of ex-followers are necessarily less credible than those of followers of religious organizations, particularly NRMs, so a priori assessments of relative reliability are not NPOV. Additionally, because WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR complement each other, "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another".

The article as it stands does not reflect the above, and just because Cohen is the subject of the article does not justify jettisoning NPOV.

Therefore, in an attempt to establish a more NPOV here, I propose something like this for the Criticism Section:

Criticism

Some ex-members, including his mother, view Cohen as a charismatic and manipulative cult leader.

Dr. André van der Braak's Enlightenment Blues: My Years with an American Guru alleges that Cohen demanded large cash sums and extreme, unquestioning devotion from his students.[6]

His mother, Luna Tarlo, wrote a book called Mother of God about her experience as one of his disciples. Tarlo argues that Cohen engaged in cruelty, self-aggrandizement and abuse of her and other disciples, and describes what she maintains was her struggle to free herself from his control.[7]

American journalist John Horgan questions "the myth of the totally enlightened guru," specifically in reference to Cohen and others.[8]

Some ex-members, including a former editor of Cohen's magazine, "What is Enlightenment?", have established an active "whatenlightenment" blog highly critical of Cohen, including a response to Cohen's "A Declaration of Integrity: An Open Letter from Andrew Cohen to His Friends and Foes," a lengthy response to his critics released in October 2006.

Like you among many others, I believe that to the extent deletionists do not apply WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR to complement each other rather than in isolation, editors should address it forcefully, even if it takes mutual vigilance. Thoughts? --Dseer 05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dseer, I made a comment/suggestion on the Andrew Cohen talk page M Alan Kazlev 06:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request here to reopen the previous arbitration case regarding Sathya Sai Baba and related articles, as I believe there are serious ongoing problems with disruptive editing and personal attacks which were not addressed in the previous case. You may wish to add a comment of your own. Thatcher131 15:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]