User talk:BF/recent past
New Age
[edit]Hi, no problem with the New Age stuff. Glad I could help. I have been to Somerset, but only as a child and I can't honestly remember it now. I've been the Glastonbury festival a couple of times, but never really saw much of Glastonbury itself. A rewrite of Avalon would be great. It could do with being split up into a proper disambiguation page really rather than having every Avalon being described on that one page. Angela. 18:24, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, I pray someone doesn't do a bot search on avalon. Next we'll see speakers, software and everything else that original magical name is associated with.. I'm holding off because only doing a "storyteller" tale of the ancient Briton, Celt, Roman and Welsh legends seems to not do justice to the mysterious land of the Lady of the Lake. BF 03:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
New Age music / Dance / Trance
[edit]Hmmm.. think you could separate New Age music from New Age? It is kinda irrelevant to read the history of New Age when you are looking for information about the music, not the movement.
On a related note, I haven't been able to find any page that describes in detail the differences between all the types of electronic music. It would be great if someone could point out the differences between trance, techno, house, etc etc. *wink* -_-
Thanks for your work on Delerium and New Age! Do you think it would be possible to mention something on the Sarah McLachlan biography about Silence being considered an anthem? Kind of a shame to see her credited about Angel & I Will Remember You but not about Silence. :(
Peace out,
--Maio 03:34, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the message and good job on the article. I am always glad to see a Wikipedia article being used as a source. By the way, the blue font here is really hurting my eyes :) Dori | Talk 03:56, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
New Age category
[edit]BF, can you help to make a category for new age and add it to all its articles? See Proposal for New Age category by GaryD Andries 17:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Hey BF, pleased to meet you, what do you think of Andries' latest proposal, to make a master "New Religious Movements" category, of which "New Age" would be a subcategory? I like this a lot; I think it would, for example, make a place to put the New Thought Movement without including it in New Age, which inclusion would probably have ticked off the New Thought people no end. There's a lot of stuff since, say, 1850 that should be rounded up but that can't really be called "New Age." What do you think? --Gary D 19:01, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Hey again, BF, replied to you on my talk page. --Gary D 03:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
BF, I have created Category:New religious movements. I know "New Age" is your preferred title, but I was thinking of a second, separate category with that name. Please note that a lot of what I want to collect in this first category goes back as far as the mid-nineteenth century, and so predates what most people think of as New Age. Also, for this category, as opposed to a separate New Age category, just about all I collected had only to do with religion; I thought of New Age as a broader social phenomenon. Could you go to this category's talk page and dialogue with Sam Spade, who is leaning toward "New Age" for this category? Thanks. --Gary D 01:14, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Confession of a New Age writer [1], [2]. I found this fascinating and I thought you may be interestedd.
BF wrote "That edit you made on Edgar Cayce linking a short stubby article Incarnations of Jesus Christ. 8 names in the list. Could you have perhaps just added those names to the Cayce article, or you trying to add to the # of articles shown on the main page? BF 00:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)"
- Neither. I found two related artciles which were un linked, so I linked them. I had/have no desire to materially edit two articles into one and get involved in contention about it. -- SGBailey 07:48, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
New Age Vandalism
[edit]Thanks for your supportive comment. I do keep a watch on New Age . The vandal was not a mindless one but someone who wanted to put their own POV on to the article and was clearly ignorant of WikiP etiquette. Reading their lengthy work there are a few points which might usefully be added to the article in the future. eg Pioneering antecedents of the New Age I'd only faintly heard of such as or Nicholas Roerich and Helena Roerich and Allen Kardec . Lumos3 10:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the Vandals were followed by the Huns. BF 17:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Stunned
[edit]Dear BF Sorry to see how shocked you are by recent changes to New Age.
A summary of what’s been going on is
- User 218.168.238.53 did the major rewrite which I reverted out and you stored in the alternate article.
I began incorporating what I considered to be valuable bits from this into the main article
- User 210.60.55.8 then also did a rewrite that pushed the article towards saying the New Age was a media driven event which started in the 1980s , which I know not to be true from my own involvement in it.
Rather than revert this I decided that as its was less extensive than 218 I’d try to remove the factual errors.
- This has led me to see that there was a lot wrong in many sections of the article. I’ve tried to correct these by some copy editing.
- The new intro. is mostly mine. I was embarrassed by the one quoted in the newspaper as it seemed to give the reader little idea of what the new age was about apart from saying it was alternative.
I would welcome your help in improving the article if you disagree with anything I’ve done.
A wikipedia article is not an entry in stone , rather it’s a standing wave in a river. There’s a continuous flow of change through it. Some good some bad . It needs guardian angels to help it keep its form and grow to be better. Lumos3 23:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You said
- But guardian angels need some time off too! The article looks fine, now. The recent picayune "enhancements" are more of the same— editor's personal taste, preferences, choice of style— rather than adding new information and new ideas. This recycled past to do with the article makes one wonder about in-house fighting, edit wars, and inappropriate behavior by random forces who need to retain those who blindly live in "The Matrix". The Diane Brandon Metaphysical Gnostic quote was white-outed; she personally gave permission to use her website, and now it's just a link-to. Would you request the article be locked down for several weeks, until the dust settles? I know doing this might imprison the text. However if someone really wanted to edit during that time they could ask for the 'keys' BF 16:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I dont know of any process in wikipedia that allows for a lock down except during an edit war or cases of extreme vandalism. Neither is the case with the New Age article. I would not support such a move . I believe the best stability is in the vigilance of of the article's "Guardian Angels" . Lumos3 16:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear BF
Please don't withdraw your energy from the New age article. If there are things missing from recent changes to the article that you think should be in there then reinsert them to the current version. Articles on Wikipedia do not belong to anyone , they are Wikipedia's alone. We need to get to a New Age article that reflects all views and not those of one person or group. The citation problem is one that affects every Wikipedia article, all articles are continuously on the move and we must ensure the latest version has all the golden bits from all past versions still in it. Lumos3 23:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)