User talk:Rumiton

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #83

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Rumiton! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Neutral Point of View Attribution Cite your sources Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Im Westen nichts Neues

FYI, we have articles on Im Westen nichts Neues and Hesse's Steppenwolf (novel) that you may be able to contribute to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Jossi. I would like to do a major renovation to the Im Westen nichts Neues page, as the current article is written by and for school kids. The novel deserves better, it is, to me, a work of genius. A bit busy at the moment with Prem Rawat, but as soon as we get that one stable...Rumiton 14:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate

Please mention there whether you agree to participate in formal mediation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate. Andries 01:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How?

How do you think that a concise article on Rawat can be written without omitting or distorting important sources? You wrote

"Just putting in strongly counter-balancing arguments for each point made doesn't do it, the whole thing becomes unreadable."

What is the alternative? I do not see one . Andries 08:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution is some tolerance from everybody and some very wise paraphrasing. We have to get away from saying "Ah, but that isn't EXACTLY what (some scholar thirty-five years ago) said." That has led us nowhere. The representatives of the hundreds of thousands of premies who still love what Prem Rawat teaches, and the however-many-there-are who don't, all have to feel that what is written shows respect for their position. Rumiton 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that Wikipedia has as a policy to respect religions if reputable sources do not respect it. Andries 13:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the Roman Catholic Church article? Almost entirely respectful, and these are the people who brought us the Crusades and the Inquisition, for Goodness Sake, not to mention withholding condoms from Africans with AIDS. I disagree that when looked at carefully and in their entirety, most of the scholars ARE disrespectful, but someone with a highly personal agenda may wish to see them that way. I have just noted my impression of Hummel's writing, and Sacred Journeys is even more approving of premies' choices in the 70s. That is what we all need to look at. The bigger picture. Rumiton 14:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the subject is so sensitive and controversial that contributors demand that reputable sources are not distorted and misrepresented. And as a result, we have seen in the past endless disputes about out-context or selective quoting, misparaphrasing etc. etc. I see no solution in sight. Andries 13:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How's your Dutch Rumiton? I'm trying to get to the bottom of van der Lans claim that rawat was a "charlatan" at Prem Rawat Talk.Momento 12:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See here for Dutch original User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English. Andries 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dutch? I lack nuance, let's say. :-) But I have a Dutch-Australian friend who is ready to go. One problem I have found with quoting anything, but especially translated works, is that you have to read at least the whole article to get the author's true opinion. For example, I have just read Hummel's pages on the Divine Light Mission and Maharaji, and I would describe his attitude towards Prem Rawat and his work as "understanding and tolerant, and occasionally respectful." This does not come across via the few quotes given in the texts, and to be fair to the author and to Prem Rawat, it should. Again, I think good paraphrasing is the answer. Rumiton 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good paraphrasing is extremely difficult and the history of the article Prem Rawat shows that to avoid never-ending conflicts about paraphrasing and summaries, it is easier and better to quote. Andries 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The history of this article shows that quotes lead to counter-quotes and more quotes, and it becomes a terrible article. I agree that paraphrasing is hard, and will require a mutual desire to see the article work for everybody, but if we don't get it we will all grow old here. Rumiton 13:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is now unprotected

Rather than making changes in the bio proposal, I would suggest yo make these changes directly in the article. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks Jossi, and you may be right, but I have done quite a lot of work there and don't want to see it all go down the drain when Andries comes back from his holiday. I would prefer to have a "clean" article to do a comparison with. Rumiton 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat at Universities

Hi, Rumiton. The mentioning of universities elicited a minor conflict on the German WP, too. As you seem to speak German, see user page discussion "pjacobi". (And BTW thanks for your spirited style in commenting on sex in the ashram! I rarely get to laugh doing WP.) Best wishes--Rainer P. 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rainer. I think I'll just give up on it. Don't feel like spending days looking for a "source" for that stuff, not worth it. Sex in the ashram? Sometimes you just have to laugh! Rumiton 13:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg page

Dear Rumiton,

Thanks for your kind offer to help. How do we file complaints regarding vandalism or multiple reversions (where a person doesn't allow another to edit)? Is there any recourse?

I felt compelled to work on this Sahaj Marg page just because the tone is so hostile and yet even when I try to incorporate both my changes with the user Shashwat Pandey's changes, he still reverts back to his original.

Any advice is appreciated!

Renee --Renee 15:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee, I think I should leave the technical advice to the system operators. I recommend Vassyana for this. He has helped a lot in the past, though he must be busy. But I believe I have a grasp now of the ideals and intentions behind Wiki's ways of doing things, and they are pretty good, and getting better. If you like, I would be happy to try to help out there. Rumiton 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rumiton,

Thanks for the words of advice. I notice that Vassyana is the mediator between the Shashwat Pandey user and Sethie. He sent me some information on how to file complaints. And, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the point is to get to something people can live with, though it may not represent our point-of-view (and actually, it probably shouldn't, just the facts ma'am...). Thanks again,

Renee --Renee 10:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton,

Thanks for the input on the Sahaj Marg and SRCM pages. Do you know who archives old discussions? Do we do that or does some administrator? Do you think it'd be a good idea to do it on the pages?

Renee --Renee 14:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Renee, as I understand it, any editor can archive, providing there is a consensus, but confirm this with Jossi or Vassyana. They are both admins. I have seen elsewhere that it can be an effective tool when editors are getting bogged down on a talk page. Rumiton 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rumiton,

Thanks for your words of wisdom regarding this page. I appreciate it as well as the feedback on the stub. I wish to move forward and hope the Wiki processes work.

Renee --Renee 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A little help

If you could offer any suggestions, contributions, references or really any help at all in building up a "guru" section for Eastern religion, and just improving the article overall, it would be sincerely appreciated. I thought you might have the knowledge and interest to help out. Thanks! Vassyana 18:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Vassyana, be happy to try. See you there. Rumiton 01:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell! :P

I'm only recently ex-Normanhurst (2004 graduating class), and I attempted to join the Navy, but was knocked back for medical reasons. If you want to have a look at something, go have a squiz at Attack on Sydney Harbour, which I'm working on driving to Featured Article status over the next few weeks. -- saberwyn 10:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Off I go with bells on! Rumiton 12:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advert

You are so right, Discount_Tire_Company looks to be blatant advertising. Why don't you put it up for WP:AFD? Dreadlocke ☥ 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is clearly not advertising, and you were totally wrong for nominating it for deletion. Just because an article's main topic is about a corporation, doesn't mean it's spam (and believe me, I hate spam on Wikipedia as much as the next guy). But saying this article is spam is just ridiculous. Still, the article does need to be cleaned up, because there's a lot of non-notable cruft that was recently added. But that's not a reason to delete the whole thing. Dr. Cash 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was spam, I said it was advertising. With all due respect, I still think so. What could they have put in to make it more clearly promotional? Rumiton 14:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed SRCM Stub

Dear Rumiton,

We've missed you on the Shri Ram Chandra Page! (surely more exciting than Discount Tire ;-) )

It seems the trend is toward leaving the page separate from Sahaj Marg so I proposed a stub, based on Jossi's recommendation.

Could you please look at it and give your feedback? Is there anything that could be construed as POV?

Thanks, Renee --Renee 14:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rumiton -- thanks for the quick read. It's really nice to get a fresh neutral perspective. Can I impose on you one more time and ask for your feedback on the stub proposed on the talk page? I deleted the word cult and the paragraph you mentioned as being POV is cut too. Thanks, Renee --Renee 15:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate the input. Renee --Renee 16:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Grateful for your input

You are a Ray of Sunshine! You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist, especially when you see that certain someone or an IP has edited your favorite articles? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world, you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess. May be awarded to any person who consistently brightens your day, but especially where their involvement in something that is bothering you lightens your load. Renee 12:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc/user for Shashwat pandey

Dear Rumiton,

Users Sethie and Reneeholle have filed an Rfc for user Shashwat pandey.

Because you have contributed to either the Sahaj Marg page, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page, or both, we would appreciate it if you could provide your comments of this user at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shashwat_pandey

Here are the guidelines for responding [1]:

• Other users can endorse a view (under 1.7), by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
• Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
• You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement (under section 1.7), and/or the subject's response (under section 2).

Thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated! 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Hi Rumitron - Re: techniques originating from trappings...Where are the quotes and citation/s if that is what the researcher said? See footnotes 43 and 75...it's verbatim. And even if that's what the researcher said, why repeat poor grammar and faulty logic/information? At least putting quotes accurately assigns factual errors to the original author. Ella2 25 July 2007

Hi Ella2, if you are reading this. It was a poor sentence by a sometimes sloppy researcher. He meant the word "originated" to refer to the Hindu background, not the "trappings," but of course even then he doesn't have it right. A huge amount of work has gone into that article to get it even reasonable. Check out the discussion page and the archives. There are some who would like the article to be a schizophrenic babbling mess, as that would be off-putting to the casual reader, which seems to be their goal. The only way we have got any coherence into it is by identifying neutral and professional researchers, then sticking to their exact words. I had to reverse the change you made, though of course it would have been a good one if we had the freedom to make it. If I hadn't almost certainly someone else would have, and probably mucked around a bit more while they were at it. If you care to get yourself a user page and e-mail address, we can talk some more. All the best, Rumiton 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rumitron, Thanks for the explanation. I have a user page but not much for talking really, and not much of a "navigator" in the wacki - I mean wiki world :) I would like to know though, why the phrase isn't in quotes if it's the "exact words"? [Ella2] 27 July 2007.

Hi Ella, that's a good question. Normally the article's text should be a smoothed paraphrase from the original sources. When you have a highly disputed article like this one, you get forced to make your selections closer to the original, but I think actual quote marks are still redundant. That lousy "trappings" sentence and the Time quote are about all that now remain from a really deplorable version that was around a year or so ago. Maybe we will be able to get something better in time. Cheers, Rumiton 10:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your user name is coming up in red, which means Wiki can't find your user page. If you would like to edit some more (given the daunting article situation) it might be helpful to have it. Cheers, Rumiton 10:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of cite

Because in my experience, some editor sooner or later will surely challenge it or remove it. Technically, any fact can be removed if it is not cited. True, it is more likely if the fact is controversial. Given that many editors are rather insistent about every possible things being cited, I see no reason for removing a citation when one actually has been provided. IPSOS (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer that all citations (presuming they are reliable, etc.) be left in indefinitely. Any stability on Wikipedia can be illusory. New editors are arriving all the time. Old editors discover new articles. People insert bogus information into cited sentences and paragraphs. Without the citation, another editor could insert a bogus child into the list. With nothing to verify against, it is hard to guess whether such an insertion is true and in good faith. Were such a thing to happen here w/o a citation, I would probably revert if it was done by an IP address, but assume good faith on the part of a registered user. With a citation, I know that any addition should be reverted, even if done by an established editor. The problem is that Wikipedia is so dynamic. Much more needs to be cited in such an environment than would be the case in print publications. IPSOS (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Hi. Not sure how you got there, but thanks for coming in as another neutral party on this article. It's always much easier to end a revert war with two neutrals rather than just one. IPSOS (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

I really appreciated your brief visit to the BKWSU article. I am sorry you feel that you didn't get the support you hoped for regarding the edits you made. If I'd seen a request for other editors to comment then I would have done so. I was kind of hoping IPSOS would stick around and continue refereeing the article since that's what I think it really needs. Otherwise it is virtually impossible to make even small corrections to the article without it being reverted and yelled at as you discovered. Welcome to the wild west! I'm not sure what to do. If I leave it (as I did for a couple of months) the article becomes POV'd up with OR, bias and undue weight. If I resist and try and preserve other editor's attempts to keep the article NPOV etc then I end up being considered part of the "edit war" problem. I hope you can appreciate I feel a bit stuck.

When you say that you have passed the situation on to more experienced editors and admins, have you done that? I would really like as many sane and bold editors and admins there as possible right now so if there is anything you can do or anyone you know who can help then please invite them over. I've tried to raise the issue so many times over the last year that I think I'm just seen to be crying wolf now. Meanwhile we have a somewhat misleading article. At least it's not as overtly defamatory as it used to be but even keeping as it is now is like treading water.

Why should you care? Well, I am convinced that what is happening on this article is setting a bad precedent for Wikipedia. I believe that a small number of very determined activists are demonstrating how it is possible to overwhelm all of Wikipedia's defenses and gross-out and intimidate any would be editors. Others may be watching and learning and may soon try the same tactics on other articles. I have read many arbcom cases, Rfcs etc and have not yet seen any case as blatant, co-ordinated, tenacious and persistent as this. The case you just saw of the Sahaj Marg article was probably the closest I've seen to it but that article had the benefit of several neutral editors present and very active at the same time and, as far as I can tell, only one editor working alone against it.

I am currently writing up an Rfc although I'm not sure who I can ask to co-sign it right now.

If you need my support to back you up on other articles please give me a shout. I think I need to start creating some good karma here and I've certainly got plenty of experience from the front line now ;-)

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing things to the attention of the admins. Vassyana has already put a 48hr block on the page so that we can reach consensus. Please feel free to chime in if you have any views. I have a lot of regard of Jossi. He did help out a lot last year although I wasn't fully active at that time. Unfortunately I feel a bit hesitant to approach him now because I think collectively we (meaning BK editors) let ourselves down somewhat. He also helped in the arbcom case as a neutral party.

For now I am following IPSOS's advice and aiming for consensus one topic at a time.

Best regards Bksimonb 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

i think the major problem is , you don't know the subject and you appear not to have read any of the references......e.g. BK raja yoga does not "differ from" it is "entirely different from" despite the Bkwsu attempt to repackage its recently introduced practise as "Ancient Raja Yoga"

it is not "ancient raja yoga" , it has no relationship whatsoever......the practise they teach today only started sometime after 1950 , whereas "Patanjali's Raja Yoga" started over 2,000 years ago

i am grateful for your attention to detail over spelling mistakes but you stepped across the line and started to change meanings and quotation which alarmed me............putting them right is hardly "antagonism" . I am sorry but the wiki would become an awful mush if we did not stick to what was accurate

if folks have not read the references on some subject , best they stick to technical roles such as spelling and linking . thanksGreen108

Regarding "changing meanings" I have no point of view at all on this subject, and therefore no reason to want to change meanings. My only interest is that the subject is covered in a neutral and encyclopedic way. The phrase "entirely different from" is not neutral, nor is it encyclopedic. If unbiased references state that the practices are unrelated, then that is how they can neutrally be described -- unrelated. There are other similar examples. I am happy to continue putting time into this article if there is sufficient goodwill to ensure cooperation. I will try to understand the subject, and express it in an acceptable Wiki style, and other more knowledgeable editors can, in a friendly way, tell me if I got it right. At the moment I don't feel there is enough goodwill, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. Rumiton 10:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Black is entirely different from white

Black is entirely different from white..........whats not neutral about that!?!

"some people believe that black is a kind of white albeit an absence of white whilst others believe that white is a very light grey with aspect of blanckess about it!?!

In this case , BK Raja Yoga and Patanjali's Raja Yoga are wholly and entirely unrelated..........its black and white and folks you be allowed to be aware of that.

you see , the bks use the language of classical hinduism to attract others whilst claiming to be nothing to do with it

in fact......the Bks believe that Hinduism is the mere worship of them and their leaders from last kalpa , if you have followed Maharaj Ji you will know about the kalpa cycles.........for the Bks it is 5,000 years only , there is only one , and all other religions follow them ... even though they only started in 1930s.

to them , becaue of his fame, wealth and power , Maharaj Ji would be considered merely a new soul , come down from the soul world to start a new religionGreen108 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Colour is entirely nicer than black and white

Hi Rumiton. I am sorry you have had to endure all this. Well-meaning editors should be welcomed to an article not scolded. I hope this experience hasn't coloured your view of either the BKs or even the ex-BKs. I see that many NRMs have critical or anti-websites and groups associated with them including Prem Rawat. Some are cool in their approach. Some are crazy. Some are the worst!

Rather than try and put straight every misleading statement that was made about the BKWSU, me and other editors I just request we all keep an open mind and let the truth speak for itself through reputable sources who really understand eastern NRMs.

It seems now that the long arm of wiki-law is finally catching up with editors with an axe to grind and we can look forward to a more cordial atmosphere to work in.

Best wishes Bksimonb 12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I never doubted you for a minute :-) Regards Bksimonb 15:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ref spacing

I've undone your addition of spaces between the punctuation at the end of a sentance and the beginning of that sentance's ref tag. According to the Wikipedia:Footnotes style guide, specifically the section Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place reference tags:

When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space, in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line.

-- saberwyn 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rumiton

I am writing this letter in regards to the deletion of Discount Tire's wikipedia article today and the comment you made back in July. I would like to know why you think this article was deleted. There wasn't to much detail given except for blatant advertising. I, of course, want to meet Wikipedia's standards and I just want to know what sections of the article were more of an advertisement then factual information. If you can provide the answer to this question it would be very much appreciated. The last thing I want to do is make the same mistakes when I decide to post a new article for Discount Tire. Thank you very much!! Jlsathomas 15:27, 22 August 2007

Hello. The main requirement, as you say, is that Wiki articles show a neutral point of view (NPOV.) This means that only concrete statements are allowed, not emotional statements, and even concrete facts need references to "respected sources" to be unchallengeable. "Primary sources" ie the company itself, are generally not acceptable; you have to quote what some other source, eg a trade magazine, government research office or scholar, wrote about the subject. (I suspect that the main problem with your article was that sourced and unsourced statements were interwoven in a way that might make untangling them unfeasible.)

For example when you write Discount Tire Company is the world's largest independent tire and wheel retailer that is a fact that can be independently sourced, provided that words like independent and retailer don't provide problems. (They might.) You would need to find a reputable source that says exactly what you have written. But when you write His philosophy has remained consistent... you are getting into the emotional and unprovable areas. If an independent source could be found who says something like According to the ITC Terms of Employment, 1960, employees were expected to... and in 2007 the same terms were applied, reflecting a continuity of standards you could use the statement. Otherwise it is unprovable. The Wiki term for this is cruft or even worse, spam. Even neutral sentences that refer perhaps to the size of the company need supporting references, again preferably not from primary sources.

Phrases like offering them service that reflects the skill and knowledge of our employees are not only unprovable, but essentially meaningless, as are assertions like Discount Tire Company has a vision that not only lives, but thrives, in the hearts of its employees, each and every day.

When you say Building customer relationships has allowed Discount Tire to become a leader in the industry who says so? Someone else might claim the company got ahead by pork barrelling or uncompetitive practises (I live in Australia and know nothing about the company, I am just pointing out what can be alleged.)

Its continual growth not only provides greater opportunities for employee advancement, but allows even more customers to remain confident when choosing Discount Tire for all of their tire and wheel needs. Do I need to go on? This is advertising, not encyclopedic research.

One thing to consider when writing is "How might a competitor or a disgruntled ex-employee respond to this article?" Remember they will have the same editing rights that you have. If you write with meticulous neutrality and respect for sources you might, among other things, save yourself a time consuming and harrowing edit war down the line.

Good luck with future attempts. Rumiton 13:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more

about humor at Talk: Alice Bailey! Thanks so much for helping inject some. Hope I didn't trail any cosmic debris along behind me... ;) Eaglizard 14:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rotary

Hi Rumiton, where exactly does Rotary Int. say that thing about TPRF? I'm trying to utilize this for the German page, but somehow can't find the exact quote in the footnote? Best--Rainer P. 14:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it now either, the Rotary page has changed. Maybe you could contact Rotary. Sorry not to be more helpful. Rumiton 10:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here it is

Rotary International describes the foundation as being established by Prem Rawat to "to improve the quality of life for the disadvantaged."

(from The Prem Rawat Foundation )≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm afraid I still cant' really find the original quote...--Rainer P. 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

They have changed their site and the URL does no longer work.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Teachings

I think that the summary you wrote about Teachings of Prem Rawat for its main article may need some attention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Granny Killer

Hello, may I ask what you mean by disgusting article. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, do you have to ask? All that drooling over the details of the sexual murders of old ladies by a lunatic. I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia, and I think even tabloids should have more taste. Rumiton 12:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting as it may seem or is, it does rate well when it is air on TV and the books are best sellers in Australia. After the story about the granny killer was aired on tv a few weeks ago, the article received quite a few edits from ips and other editors, but mainly to clean up my work. I also have the book at home so that was my main motivation for adding the content. I skipped all the boring details and went straight for the blood and guts. If you think thats bad check out this one, William MacDonald (serial killer).

If you like to copy edit, check out my other articles which may need some work, Wanda sandhills, Bankstown Bunker and the WWII section in this article Bankstown, New South Wales. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 12:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Adam, I am sure there are nastier articles around. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like that stuff. It's too close to voyeurism for my liking. But thanks for the other pages, I'll have a look. Rumiton 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Titanic - challenge

OK. Do you want to work together to improve this? My experience with popular articles is that you need a group of dedicated editors willing to "police" the page to protect the text from hit & run opinions, and force major changes to be discussed first at the talk page. I see you are realtively new to WP, but you may be well experienced already in our processes. While I may not be an expert on Titanic specifically, I am familiar with how to repair articles etc. at WP and am glad to lend that experience here as I can. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to meet you! I'm heading out on my boat for the weekend, leaving tomorrow, but I'll be back to WP-work on Monday or Tuesday. I look forward to working together. If you ever get over this way, let's get out on the water. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Normanhurst Boys' High School- Notable Alumni

Hi, I noticed you added "Richard Shine PhD(Zool), DSc, Federation Fellow (Australian Research Council.) Noted herpetologist." to Normanhurst Boys' High School's list of notable alumni. If you have a reference for this, can you please add it, otherwise please refrain from posting unreferenced material. Thanks. Cdlw93 23:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thnks for adding that reference. Correct me if I missed something, but I wasn't able to find any actual reference to NBHS on the web page you linked to. Also, these types of references should be published in reliable, third-party sources as per WP:V. Please reply here or on my Talk page so we can sort this out. Cdlw93 08:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence, but I wonder if it is warranted for such a non-controversial issue? I am sure if I spent some time, I could find his qualifications and memberships mentioned neutrally somewhere, but I doubt whether I can find any reliable, neutral source who will tell us he attended NBHS. I happen to know he did, he was in my class from First Year through to Year Six, and was a snake nut throughout. Brought one to school one day (which was against the rules.) Why not just leave it there for a while and see if anyone else feels like verifying or disputing it? Rumiton 09:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that you have added "Richard Shine" to the Normanhurst Boys' High School wikipedia article (more specifically, the notable alumni). I see that your reference link has no reference to Shine being an ex NBHS student. Even if the linked article did have reference towards Shine being an ex NBHS student, the references should be in a third party source (check WP:V.) I will not take off the adding of the alumni, but try to find a third party source with reference towards Shine being an ex NBHS student. brennerdlinger (Talk|Contribs) 09:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove the citation since it has no reference to Shine, but will however still have his name on the notable alumni list, and add "citation needed" next to his name. But if a third party source doesn't mention Shine, he unfortunately is not worthy of a spot on the notable alumni list. I trust you that he has done great things, but so have many other ex NBHS students not on the list. I'll search around for a third party source on Shine, but for now I'll remove the citation, since it does no good. BTW Normo is pretty good these days. brennerdlinger (Talk|Contribs) 06:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. RE the name of Professor Richard Shine PhD(Zool), DSc, Federation Fellow (Australian Research Council.) on the NBHS alumni list, I've changed it to Richard Shine, as the rest of the information next to his name is not needed, and if anything makes the page look a lot uglier. Thanks for the co-operation. brennerdlinger (Talk|Contribs) 07:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For some particularly fine content contibution, as well as working on the minor things that help make articles great I humbly award you this barnstar. Pedro :  Chat  12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Breakup

What you said about the breakup seems supportable. Do we have references? --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not. I could lead a class of interested students through the process but I know of no Naval Architect who has done so. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we are precluded from presenting original research. But we can quote a third party who has published an opinion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know Kevin. I was mostly just expressing myself. I will have a look in my local library to see if they have any naval architects writing about this or similar breakups. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Can personal attacks be completely deleted from the history?

Rumiton, thanks for addressing the use of the (Jesus Army) talk page for personal attacks, occurring yesterday. If you hadn't intervened, I'd been thinking today that I might have been forced to keep a low profile from now on, rather than risking further online character assassination, which I think was the intention. I see that the malicious allegations are still in the history. Is it possible to have them removed completely, especially the last, which is actually not merely a distortion, like the others, but a complete fabrication - and still easily read by anyone who cares to see it? -Peter Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you talk to user:Jossi who is an admin, there may be a way for clearly libellous statements, but I don't know of it. Good luck. Rumiton (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rumiton. I will talk to Jossi. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

syntax

Originally based on a village Baptist chapel in Bugbrooke near Northampton, East Midlands, its founder was the chapel pastor Noel Stanton."

Rumiton, this is about syntax rather than content so I hope it is ok to mention this here rather than the JA talk page. This sentence does not actually make sense as it suggests that the founder was based on the chapel. I think it has come about because of having several editors work on it. -Peter Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, Peter, and thank you for your refreshing pedantry and dogmatism, so rare in these uncaringly ambiguous days. I shall fix.  :-) Rumiton (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. But may I say that the rewrite is very well done without being accused of brown-nosing? Strictly speaking, though, JA was a 1980s innovation. It was JFC which started in 69. I mention this here only because we have passed this part in the write:)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. We can and will go back as necessary. And I didn't mean to be ouchful. In my pompous and convoluted way I was trying to say I really do value scrutiny and care about writing. Most people couldn't care less. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Rumiton :) Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

http://ja-1984.blogspot.com/2007/11/god-i-hate-wiki-writing-process.html Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

I notice you have removed a whole section from this article with the comment: "Quoting the opinions of an extreme left-wing political commentator in a Biography of a Living Person who is leader of an Eastern religion is VERY Undue Weight" - presumably referring to my recent edits and insertion of references. In fact, I like the way you have edited the article and removed all the disputatitive material that was really not very appropriate.

In my defense, I would like to point out that I was trying to counter some of the blatant propaganda that had previously made up this "Criticism" section which was "supported" by references to the work of Michael Parenti (who has previously been shown to have made very serious, ill-informed and heavily Chinese-slanted mistakes in his articles on Tibetan history) and who is a well-known apologist for Stalin and Slobodan Milošević, as well as some by Christopher Hitchens who has presented a wide range of extreme views on many subjects - swinging from left-wing to later association with neo-conservatives and support for the Iraq war. Neither writer, in my opinion, either knows very much about Tibetan history, nor approaches it with even a modicum of objectivity. Their views have frequently provided comfort and support to the Chinese Government when it tries to justify its actions in Tibet and, it seemed to me, that this is what was being attempted in the section headed "Criticism".

I referred to the account of Thomas Laird, a biographer of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, on the actions of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama (as well as information on the same subject from the 1968 book on Tibet by Thubten Norbu - the eldest brother of the Dalai Lama - and the anthropologist Colin Turnbull) in abolishing the death penalty and setting up a system of checks on prison conditions, because I have no other sources to hand that discuss these issues. This does not mean they are not true - I have seen references to them in other books and articles some years ago - but no longer have access to them. Also, I have never seen these claims about the actions of the Thirteenth Dalai lama to liberalise the laws in Tibet ever questioned - as I am sure they would have been if they were at all in doubt.

Anyway, thank you for removing the whole section - I think the article is better without it. Cheers, John Hill 11:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, John. Let's try to make it even better. Rumiton 11:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

I think that we have made some nice progress in trimming some fat, fantasy, and fluff out of Titanic. Today an editor made major major changes to the tone and content, going a bit chatty again. I've reverted him twice now, but would prefer some help at keeping this on track. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kevin, I like your "fat, fantasy and fluff." Long may they disappear. Also applaud your reversion (apart from the inadvertent changing of a ref in the sentence beginning "But on Tuesday...") Yet I wonder about this article. It will continue to attract so many passionately enthusiastic amateurs, both to Wikipedia and to maritime history, that I wonder if it will ever be "clean." Maybe I'm just feeling pessimistic. I'll help all I can. Rumiton 14:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kevin Murray 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

AGSM

Hi, you've just added this to the MOS resources list. Is there a web site? Can you provide a few more details, such as the city of publication? Is 2002 really the most recent publication? Tony (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tony. My edition says "Printed in Australia by C.J. Thompson, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra." Copyright enquiries: Manager, AGPS Press, Australian Government Publishing Service, GPO Box 84, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601. ISBN 0 642 03345 5. See http://www.agimo.gov.au/information/publishing/style_manual. It's a great style guide, clear and comprehensive. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's good, but not perfect. That website leads to another, which says John Wiley & Sons, Australia Ltd publish it. The 2002 appears to be correct. Canberra or Brisbane? These details need to be inserted at the reference list in MOS, as for normal referencing practices. Tony (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Units and capitalization

Hi Rumiton,

I noticed you changed "kelvin" to "Kelvin" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style, with the edit summary "All units named after their founders are captitalised." You might be confusing unit names and unit symbols. The unit name "kelvin" begins with a lowercase letter, even though the unit symbol "K" is uppercase. You'll find lots of valuable information in the BIPM web site in, for example, Table 3. Coherent derived units in the SI with special names and Symbols, SI brochure (Section 2.2.2). Looking at this table, you'll see that the names of units named for people consistently begin with lowercase letters, while the corresponding symbols begin, as you correctly noted, with capitals.

Best regards,

Fg2 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Most interesting! The year of the change, 1968, was my last year at university. Thanks for that. Rumiton 07:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks also for your courteous approach. Rumiton 07:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quivering with fear

I dread the day the scornful gaze of Rumiton the Wrathful falls upon me! :) Hope you're well. Vassyana (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am well, thanks, and yes I know, only foolish people make threats they cannot fulfill. A short-lived peevishness seems to be all I can manage these days.  :-) Very glad to see you are still around. Rumiton (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Snip

Hey, nice touch on removing that redundancy which I had failed to see as it repeated itself while I did not remove the redundancy of its repetition. :D Can't believe I didn't see that when I edited that sentence before. :/ Eaglizard (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Oh, btw, do you agree with Adam's merge of Djwal Khul with this article? I've asked him why he did it, but apparently he's a bit busy right now, what with his school exams and a RefCom threating to desysop him at the same time. Eaglizard (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard, thanks for that. I think the merge was probably a good thing, entities not generally deserving their own article, but given the high feelings that have prevailed on that article (which I have had trouble understanding) he was rather foolish to do it without discussion. My $0.02 worth. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Jesus Army

Regarding your recent edit to Jesus Army . re: Took out unmoderated forum as discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_Army&diff=179097196&oldid=178974236 www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk is not a unmoderated forum, it is a website mainly consisting of accurately sourced and reproduced previously published material on the Jesus Army. (see the discussion page) The Voy forum linked to by www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk is not unmoderated either, despite the falsehoods regarding it on the discussion page. I'd appreciate it if you either revert your edit now that i have alerted you to you reasoning being untrue, or specify the real (and truthful) reason why the link has been removed. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for your tone, Mike. If you would like to rephrase your message, removing the sarcasm and innuendo, I will reply. Rumiton (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit to Jesus Army .described as ‘‘Took out unmoderated forum a discussed.’’

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_Army&diff=179097196&oldid=178974236

Background: www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk is not a unmoderated forum, it is a website/web archive mainly consisting of accurately sourced and reproduced previously published material concerning the Jesus Army. (as discussed on the discussion page relating to the article)

The Voy forum linked to by www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk is not an unmoderated forum either.

I'd appreciate it if you would consider reverting your recent edit, due to the reason which you have given for the removal of the link being untrue.

I understand that Jossi has informed you that the link should be removed from the links section within the article, having previously explained that citations to the contents of jesusarmywatch.org.uk would not be permissible within the article itself.

As the maintainer of jesusarmywatch.org.uk, I would appreciate a truthful/factual reason for the removal of the link being provided, as I do not believe that the link would be reinstated if the forum was removed from the jesusarmywatch.org.uk website, as has been suggested. Or would it? --Mike Aldrich (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. If there is material in the site that are copies of newspaper articles, the newspaper articles (those that are reputable) can be cited directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the thousands of blogs and forums on the net, very few are truly moderated, and these are mostly university or research-sponsored. See http://www.palmerpatent.com/CL705/anonymous_user_74/6209100_moderated_forums_traceable_contributions.html for some definitions. Basically, rigorous steps must be taken to ensure all contributors are identified, and lists maintained of real and user names and addresses. There has to be a person (the moderator) who is an expert in the subject, and also, where necessary, in the laws as they apply to defamation in different countries. The posts are "asynchronous" which means not in real time. They are sent to the moderator first, who vets them from every angle before posting them him/herself, so libellous material is never seen by the public. It is not enough to say that incorrect or potentially libellous material is removed if someone complains, that is a requirement of all internet sites. In a moderated forum, it has to never get there in the first place. Regarding the JAW site itself, it is not enough to quote from "published sources" however accurately. They have to be reputable sources. The same standards apply as would for inclusion in the main body of the article. Reputable sources are unbiased authors who are acknowledged experts in their field. The sources currently quoted in the JA article I believe fulfil these requirements. The sources quoted in JAW often do not. In particular, I feel the pieces reproduced from the Northampton Chronicle & Echo show a strong prejudice against the Jesus Army, and a sensationalist style.

You are welcome to make a request for comment on this or to ask for the advice of other editors or administrators. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the clarification. There is no need for a RFC, as long as we treat all potential sources and links equally.

Please see the articles discussion page, describing the removal in the past of information from the jesus.org.uk ‘unmoderated’ forum, in a similar manner as you describe above.

Regarding reputable sources, particularly your mention of the Chronicle and Echo, please see the discussion page (section regarding sources). Where a link is provided to articles reproduced within the jesus.org.uk website which are also from the Northampton Chronicle and Echo.

In dismissing the 'Chron', you may also wish to re-consider the inclusion of citation No 8 from the ‘Northampton Mercury and Herald’ – (that being a free weekly newspaper, by the same publishers, which includes stories from that weeks Chronicle and Echo)

I’ll take a longer look at the rest of the article after the holidays.--Mike Aldrich (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We could and perhaps should remove that link, if it is to a newspaper connected with tabloids, but it wouldn't change the article text which is similarly reported by three other more reputable sources. Rumiton (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a link, it's a citation. Neither the Chronicle and Echo, or the Mercury and Herald are tabloids. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree that the method of removing offensive posts you describe falls within the definition of a "moderated forum." While it is admittedly long-winded and tedious to read, please look again at http://www.palmerpatent.com/CL705/anonymous_user_74/6209100_moderated_forums_traceable_contributions.html . Basically, "moderate" (verb) does not mean "remove," it means "make moderate." This is done by disqualifying offensive posts before they become publically viewable, not some time after the offense has been caused. But even if this objection were removed, I think it is likely that this forum by its nature would be considered partisan. Rumiton (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your choice of definition. All discussions on web forums have contributions removed after they have appeared, once someone has objected to them (except, wikipedia it seems – where objected to discussions are kept in a 'history' and not removed).

I also disagree with your point of view that the an entire web resource be considered 'partisan' due to it including/linking to a forum allowing discussion with minimal censorship. If you wish to remove the link on those grounds, i'd suggest discussing that on the talk page first. I'll reinstate the link until that is done.--Mike Aldrich (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You will not reinstate the link. You have the opinion of a neutral editor (me) and a respected administrator (Jossi) that this site and forum do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia's linking policy. If you are dissatisfied with this decision, your next step is to file a request for comment. I will give you help to do that if you need it. Rumiton (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the JA moderation extends to not allowing some postings which conflict with the official JA line (censorship), should the JA forum not be considered partisan too? (I don't think I will be able to get online again until after 28th, so will not be able to verify this or respond to comments until then).Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Divine Light Mission

Can you think of a description for the Divine Light Mission, to say what it is? I was wondering, becasue each time someone comes up with a description for it, someone else removes it. This is strange, as though there is group of people out there who'd rather nobody knew what it was. 84.9.48.35 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"...a group of people out there who..." Wow, spooky! Nothing of the kind. As far as I can find out, the original DLM was an organisation set up to assist Prem Rawat's father in spreading the techniques of knowledge, promoting and caring for the technique instructors (mahatmas), and running the system of Indian ashrams. There was nothing at all weird or hidden about it, but no reputable and neutral scholar seems to have looked very far into it, probably because it was not considered interesting enough. So we in Wikipedia are limited in what we can say about it. Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

David Clark reference restored

Please justify your removal of this reference, which after all, is in the Critics section. David Clark, through his involvement in the Tammy diNicola case, is a prominent commentator on Opus Dei. Your removal is, at least prima facie, a POV censorship of strong language that Opus members and sympathisers find offensive (the word being "cult" and its derivatives). Whether pro-Opus people are justified in this offense is an open question. I have therefore restored the sentence, which is fully documented. --Jaimehy (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here, and I will try to deal with them properly, giving relevant Wiki policy links, when I get some more time. The word cult is on the Wikipedia list of words to avoid for good reason. It is essentially meaningless, and is used exclusively as a perjorative, generally by people who are themselves in a religion that has enough adherents to protect it from such a charge. It does not mean their beliefs are any less bizarre than those of the sect or group they are stigmatising. Prominent commentator is not the same as reputable source, which is what Wikipedia requires. If Mr Clark has published studies in respectable journals on similar groups and issues, then he may be accepted as a reputable source. Tabloids are never acceptable as sources of contentious statements. Reports that appear in tabloids are not considered to be documented. A moment's reflection should make the reasoning here plain. Rumiton (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Ireland was NOT PART of britain look up your history it was part of the UK but was built in ireland which makes it Irish. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, just as Wales and Scotland were and still are. In my opinion it is misleading to the modern reader to describe it as "built in Ireland." We can discuss this on the talk page. Rumiton (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then i think it will be best to change the introduction bit where it says "British ocean liner" to "UK ocean liner" as that will be less misleading wouldnt it? p.s. how would it be msleading to say it was built in ireland anyway? Pathfinder2006 (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that bad, but the Ireland of 1912 bears little relationship to the Republic of Ireland today. She was British registered, which is where her nationality is determined. Perhaps we should say "built in Belfast"? Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

yea alright tht be fair enough. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To add some geographic pedantry: "Great Britain" is the landmass of England, Wales and Scotland; "Ireland" is the landmass which contains what are currently the Irish Republic and the province of Northern Ireland; the "United Kingdom" is a shortened form of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and was prior to the formation of the Irish Free State the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"; and the "British Isles" are Britain plus Ireland. Of those definitions in italics, only the United Kingdom is a political term, the others are geographic. Phew! John Campbell (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John, I missed that before. Thanks...I think.  :-) Rumiton (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey the file is now in a shared folder.BobtheVila —Preceding comment was added at 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you Bob, I'll take a look. Rumiton (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Please watch out for this kind of semi-correction of vandalism. You wasted the tag. Regards. --Damifb (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sir. It won't happen again. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Army

Could you drop by the Jesus Army page again and offer a little input, please. It would be much appreciated. John Campbell (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello John, nice to hear from you again. I had a look at the talk page and it looks like common sense and good standards are prevailing, but I will keep in touch. You both might consider making the point that primary documents need to be interpreted by reputable sources before they become acceptable in Wikipedia. Regards, Rumiton (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have a Source for that point? (seriously) John Campbell (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, wade through the first bit of wp:nor, then go to Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Arbitration, Evidence page

Please do not add text to other people's section. Only the clerk can do that. Please move your comments to your own section. (I hope he doesn't have copyrights on that statement...)-- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, you haved edited text into my portion of the Evidence page as well. You should move that to your section of the Evidence page, under a new heading "Replies to other evidence presented" and a subheading for "@User:msalt", as well as one for Maelefique, etc. Note how I replied to you.

Sorry guys, I misunderstood. Got it now. Rumiton (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom, re: google search in your evidence section

It looks like you did the wrong search, I was referring to a search on "ex-premies" (no quotes), not on "Prem Rawat", and I didn't say anything about the results being negative, only that there were significant amounts of relevant results. I just re-read my original comment, I don't think it was as clear as it could have been, I said "Rawat's ex-premies", what I meant was "the ex-premies that are related to the Rawat stories, as opposed to ex-premies that are related to pre-natal discussions". Further, I'm sure in general there are more results pointing to pre-natal types, but I would have to argue that even if there was only 1 hit for the Prem-ex-premies in the top 10 of Google, that it's probably important enough to warrant a disambiguation page, at least for the time being. You can leave your evidence as is if you like, but I'll have to add a comment in my section that you did the wrong search and that pretty much invalidates your point. I'd rather not do that, I think we all have enough to read on this case already, and I think it was you that asked everyone to condense where possible to begin with. If it's your opinion that there shouldn't be a disambiguation page, I suppose your best course of action would be to just entangle things a little further and we can all bloat this up a little more. If you think that a disambiguation page is reasonable, and you have a suggestion how to proceed, I'm all ears (on a totally unrelated note, just once, if Spock had said that, I probably would have laughed my ass off...I have no idea where that thought came from, just popped into my head...). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Maelefique. Thank you for explaining that, I understand your point now. I certainly don't want to bloat things up any further, quite the opposite. Also don't much care about the disambiguation page, though I do feel that disenchanted leavers of groups often try to appear more numerous and significant than they really are. Rumiton (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that some of the disenchanteds do seem to try pretty hard. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my original statement on this issue, it wasn't until I re-read it with your response that I saw the problem with it. Guess I should "measure twice and cute once" huh? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to change/remove that statement on your evidence page, or do I need to address it in my section?-- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I sorted it out. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, looks good to me, thanks. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo catching

Thanks Rumiton. I am doing so much small chopping and changing while typing fast that I overlook stuff. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Acad. That's what we are all here for. Thanks for the good development you have made to the article. Rumiton (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad there's someone out there cleaning up the messes I leave. You were correct, it was "day".Acad Ronin (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Titanic

There was no Ireland in 1912? Where did you get that?( Not to be rude) Gregory E. Miller (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

I really must excuse myself from further involvement in this trickiest of national debates. I think we are all familiar with the general situation. Ciaou. Rumiton (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission has become active. Your participation is required to make it a success. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Will, I somehow missed it. I will go and put my bells on and be there. Rumiton (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Roger. I shall go and look. Rumiton (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Army "sanitisation"

It is being suggested on Talk:Jesus Army that the recent round of editing of Jesus Army in which you were involved amounted to no more than sanitisation. Perhaps you could advise? John Campbell (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello John. Yes, I had a look yesterday. Sanitisation means, I guess, disinfecting something for public use. I don't believe reputable sources ever implied that the JA was in any way infected, and the phrase is typical of the loaded words and biased attitudes some are trying to inject into Wikipedia. I notice there is a suggestion about lowering the standards of sources to include newspaper articles. I am also up to my neck in this issue on some other articles, and I see it as pushing a point of view in a way that will debase Wikipedia to a point where it will lose the respectability it has achieved. But quite a few others believe it will result in a more people-friendly encyclopedia. The jury, as they say, is still out. I would suggest you and Bristol chat about the issues. Whatever is done to the article has to be by consensus among committed editors, which largely means the two of you. Wikipedia Words to avoid is an important page. Weasel words also. If editors want words like "cult" to appear in the article in the Wikipedia voice, rather than as a report of something a source has said, ("seen by many" are weasel words) then they will have a daily battle on their hands, one that no one will end up winning (edit-warring). It is far better to accept a neutral and balanced version, which I think you and Bristol were doing in an admirably civilised way. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC) On the hopeful side, sanity has prevailed today and a consensus has deleted List of groups referred to as cults (notice the name in red?) Rumiton (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And, yes, I'd been following that debate closely. John Campbell (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Arising from the current discussion on Talk:Jesus Army, is there any rule which says that controversial matters have to be discussed before editing, or is it merely good sense to avoid edit wars? John Campbell (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a tag that an admin could place on the article talkpage advising that, but I don't think there has ever been a rule to that effect. It might be good to ask user:Jossi for some advice and help. It is certainly a good idea, and is being done with some other controversial articles, with at least some good effect. The article has to develop by consensus, which means that all involved editors have to at least be able to tolerate what it says. Maybe the first thing that needs to be understood and agreed is that it is futile to put things in the article that will only be taken out the same day. Talk first. All that said, though, I think Wikipedia right now is under a determined attack by some editors, with the goal of making it an entirely secular reference source. The editors making edits towards this end see themselves as white knights lifting the veil of darkness from suffering mankind, and that kind of zealotry is always going to be hard to deal with. Takes much patience and perseverance. Good luck. Rumiton (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the edit summaries you've been using lately, since my little hissy-fit, your summaries have made it much easier to follow what's going on with your edits, so uhm, thanks! :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, pal. I learned too.  :-) Rumiton (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

question

hello. i am unsure if this is an appropriate way to request help. if it is not, i apologise. i was wondering if you could (if it's appropriate) look at the Tucker Max article, specifically the controversy over the sources that www.tuckermax.com receives "millions of hits" vs putting the alexa.com ranking of the website. i don't wish to present any evidence to you to make it sound as if i were seeking sympathy for my own edits vs someone else's edits so i won't mention any more details. i would just ask that you view the discussion Re: 1 million unique hits so we can have an outsider editor's perspective. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Hi. I will sure have a look, but my time is very limited right now. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the comment. i made a mistake, however. i had you comment on an older discussion. would you mind viewing the newest one? it is at the bottom of the page. i am sorry for wasting your time by telling you to view the wrong one. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I think your best chance, if talking on the article discussion page doesn't work, might be to file a WP:RFC on the sources given for the phrase "millions of visitors." Good luck. Rumiton (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Barnstar

Thank you! Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil remark

Please remove your assertion that I am obsessed to the point of having a mental disorder. I find that offensive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not inclined to. I never made an "assertion" nor said "a mental disorder." What I said was ... approaching the proportions of a disorder. You have misquoted me to bolster your POV, which is what you are used to doing. I find offensive your habit (it may not be an obsession, though it looks like one) of spending hours each day trolling through the most biased and tabloidal of sources to find material critical of a living person while denigrating more balanced or positive writings. Civility applies to the living subjects of Wikipedia biographies as well as to the editors. You have previously claimed you didn't know what "tabloidal" means. Follow the link and read carefully the first paragraph. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)