Coming to an understanding 

I've done most of the lion's share of edits on this article, but I want to make it clear that my interest is in having a neutral article, and that I'm not trying to push the idea that the Seth Material is true or valid (that's a judgement that the article can't make).  For example, the first use of the word "channeled" had quotes around it.  I was the one who put those quotes in, though someone else removed them.  I inserted the first instance of the word "purportedly" (even though it is on the list of words to avoid) because I felt it was needed, and I have reinstated it when other editors removed it.  Someone named "Itsmejudith" has just changed the word "awareness" to "the idea", and I support that change.  I'm mentioning these small things simply as examples to show people that the neutrality of the article is important to me.  And despite what you may have thought (speaking to Verbal now), when I substituted "Jane Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" for "the Seth personality said", I believed that I was making a change that was a leap forward in neutrality (since Roberts was the one who actually uttered the words).

Verbal, I would like to try to bury the hatchet and work together on this article.  Your interest in the article appears to me to be negative, but I am willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong and to see your point of view.  In order to work together, we'll have to discuss specifics of the article on this page.  We'll need to discuss individual passages as well as the broader issues of the article's size and the proportion of primary to secondary cites.  If we make a concerted effort to work together, I'm sure we can come to an understanding and improve the article.  Are you with me on this?