Hi!
Just a quick 'heads-up' to let you know that the 'Wiki-bias' you battled with last year has led to a new development:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/
gives the gist of it.
Perhaps there's hope for Wikipedia's credibility yet?
(there will be if enough whistle-blowers pucker up!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that your experiences on the Prem Rawat page are being discussed in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. I know that my evidence section at [1], describes your block and unblock, the Memento sockpuppetry accusation and cites a Talk page comment directed to you and someone else as an example of a threat by Jossi. Msalt (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Momento, in his evidence regarding the Prem Rawat affair, has suggested we are "related" here. Under the sub-heading "Sock puppeteer?". Presumably because we share the same first 4 letters, and I bet he doesn't know what the word means. Anyways, is there even a point in your opinion, to pointing out over there that you have no idea who the heck I am, or vice versa? (: -- Maelefique (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- re: "are you sure you're not me?", I'm starting to wonder, made me laugh, and you're almost too intelligent/common sensical in your viewpoint, not to be me! lol! Happy editing! -- Maelefique (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say I blame Momento for making that assumption, I'd have probably done the same thing given our similar styles. Of course, I probably wouldn't have made an issue of it at an RfA with no proof and no concurrent edits being made from our two accounts...but I can't really speak as to his thought process on that.
- Okay, I lied. ;)
Mael-Num (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to inform you that per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Proposed_decision#Article_probation
Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course. You know that I know this is the policy. We discussed it earlier today[2]. Assuming your memory isn't faulty, I wonder why you would opt to post this on my talk page? It goes without saying that this must have been done in good faith, of course, and that this isn't in fact a none-too-cleverly veiled threat intended to intimidate me and discourage my participation. Surely no admin who values his position would do such an irresponsible thing. Indeed, you must have meant this post as a helpful reminder, and completely overlooked the possible chilling effects that such a post may have on future discussion.
- Howevever, Jossi, now that I have made you aware of this possible alternate interpretation of such actions, I will encourage you to refrain from posting such ambiguous (yet helpful!) reminders on my talk page ever again. After all, with so many eyes on this article in general, and your actions in particular, I'd hate to see your adminship jeopardized due to the perception, misguided though it may be, that you are a bully. After all, no one likes a bully, and I'd rather we all got along and worked together.
- I'm going to take the liberty of copy-pasting this over to your talk page. I hope you'll find my insights helpful, and I wouldn't want you to overlook them. Mael-Num (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please have a look at my request regarding this case, and please either accept or rejcet the idea. You're also the last one who needs to comment, then we can move on. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Steve, but I'm not sure where you'd like me to comment. Anywhere? Everywhere? I don't want to hold things up any more than I have... Mael-Num (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it too much. An academic paper copied into a subpage of a user isn't likely to cause a strong reaction from a copyright holder. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Worry's too ingrained in my nature, but thanks for the reassurance and for the quick response.
- I undid my addition already (as I mentioned), just in case. I wouldn't want to rely on its obscure location as protection against copyright violation, and I especially wouldn't want you getting any static for my screwup. Mael-Num (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; I left a message at the talkpage. Note that simple reversion is not considered edit-warring, and I won't be reverting my edit. The policy is Bold (a change to the page, what you did), Revert (what I did), Discuss. Not Bold Discuss. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a comment on your page. Basically, you're tag-teaming with another editor to delete whatever you don't want in the article. We got through the first two stages (Bold/Revert) and now we're up to "discuss". I'm well aware of policy...you're either willfully ignoring it, or just aren't terribly observant. Mael-Num (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to your rather rude message on the article talk-page. Let's keep all further discussion to there, not on either my or this talkpage. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. "Rude". Seems to be a bit of that going around these days... Mael-Num (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I point out that being incivil, dismissive of others' arguments, using phrases such as "yadda, yadda, yadda" and accusing people of being megalomaniacs really isn't constructive, and isn't likely to lead to useful discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can. Mael-Num (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being incivil, dismissive of others' arguments, using phrases such as "yadda, yadda, yadda" and accusing people of being megalomaniacs really isn't constructive, and isn't likely to lead to useful discussion.
- I hope that helped...someone.
- And next time, sign your name. If you're going to try to be funny, at least take credit for it. Mael-Num (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quit making me snort coffee out my nose! :) -- Maelefique (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mael-Num - It seems that we're outnumbered on this issue, and can't make edits on the article... but it might be more productive and/or appropriate to discuss that at the "Chronology of the Doctor Who universe" page's talk page - a page which I didn't know existed until earlier today. They actually place the events of that episode between June and September, and make no mention of the "president-elect" issue, so it could be interesting to throw that into the mix. But it probably won't pass muster as a reference source for the SoD article, since it's all speculation, and using other WP articles as references is frowned upon anyway, but it could be interesting. Later. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey...thanks for stopping by to point that out. I'll mention it over on that page. You're a good fellow, and I'm pleased to have met you. Keep in touch. Mael-Num (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm getting a bit ganged up on over at the Sound of Drums talk page... could use some help if you have time and still agree with me :) Thanks —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 06:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to your crap on my talkpage and on the article talkpage. Read statements before you reply to them, and then kindly desist from scoring minor debating points. Stick to the issue at hand, which is original research, not good faith, bad faith, bananas on toast or anything else. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I take matters like that very seriously. If you'd care to check my edit history, you may see that I'm no stranger to articles that attract debate. It seemed necessary to inform you of policy in order to prevent you from making a very serious misstep. As to your other request, I will try to avoid using your talk page in the future, per your preference, but I am entitled to edit wherever it is necessary. You are welcome to archive or remove my comments in their entirety, if you'd like, after I make them.
- I also wouldn't waste administrative energies on this if I were you. You'd likely find it counterproductive. Mael-Num (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. I asked that the AN thread be closed, this isn't an issue an administrator really needs to intervene, it's a content dispute that needs a neutral party to look over. I'll see what I can do, of course, being neutral. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus appears to be firmly against you on President-Elect issue, and the endless threads at WP:AN are becoming disruptive. You've got a few days to decide how you're going to behave once the page protection lapses on The Sound of Drums, but I can assure you, the page will not be re-protected, rather, troublesome users will start being blocked, leaving those who aren't forcing page protection to be able to edit articles in peace. If you continue making the sort of edits you've made tonight, which are frankly hostile, combative and disruptive, you're going to end up blocked or topic banned from anything to do with Doctor Who. Please just stop. Nick (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How have I been "disruptive"? I'm not even sure I've made edits to any articles tonight, only talk and special pages. What's up with this coercive talk? Mael-Num (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you're doing is disruptive, comments like [3] are disruptive, re-opening threads at WP:AN is disruptive, edit warring and forcing page protection is disruptive. Nick (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't edit war, no one has even accused me of such. That cited argument uses strong language, but did you read what I was responding to? "Everything" I've done isn't disruptive. I'll own up to making a mistake in reopening a case, but even the Mediation Cabal rep eventually agreed that some more attention might need to be paid to this case, and retracted his request to see it closed.[4] (which, after it was closed despite the retraction, he retracted...try saying that when you're drunk). It's not an excuse, but I think it helps to explain my actions.
- I don't appreciate being treatened, being told that I should stop editing articles "or else". I don't appreciate false accusations. I welcome advise from my peers, but this isn't helpful. You're not being fair. Mael-Num (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I discussed this on IRC with a few admins, one thought the post had some issues that may need addressing, the other one thought otherwise. My opinion stayed the same, I thought it should have been closed, and retracted my withdraw when i saw it had been closed before I posted it. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Steve. By the way...I'm me over at IRC. Who are you? Mael-Num (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mael-Num,
Actually, it is sort of considered poor form to alter your own writing significantly after someone else has responded to it; it makes it look like they are responding to something different than what they were really responding to. The best thing to do in that case is use strikethru to "take back" something you said, and italics or small print or something to add new text, or at least add a note to the end of the paragraph indicating you changed the text after someone responded. Obviously it's OK to change your own prose, you just want to make clear to others that you did so. --barneca (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think someone had yet responded to me. Otherwise, I wouldn't have "gentled down" my language. What would be the point? But thanks for taking the time to reply to me here. I'll make sure I'm more attentive (and "gentle") in the future. Mael-Num (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you're right, no one had responded yet; I misread, and thought Steve's comment below yours was a response. I'm not sure now what the complaint is about for that particular diff; it seems to me a wise de-escalation in wording. In any case, I've not got the time to get involved in the actual conflict, so hopefully Steve Crossin can sort things out for you folks; I was just handing out free drive-by advice. --barneca (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much obliged all the same. Come again anytime, I'll make coffee. =) Mael-Num (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'm not the guy to hold a grudge. You should however be careful when reopening matters on that page -- when an admin closes a matter and you're reopening it (especially when it's a matter you yourself have opened) you really have to double-check your reasons, or you might end up being accused of abuse. Just to be clear on that, I'm not accusing you of anything, it's obvious it was just a misunderstanding -- but some people are more sensitive than others, and you might end up stepping on the wrong person's toes. :-) --Gutza T T+ 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, and thanks again. Mael-Num (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to you at Talk:The Sound of Drums. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a new section there as well. Mael-Num (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone on quite long enough. [5], [6] and countless other diffs, all of which are designed to inflame the situation. They are excessively combatitive and do nothing to help solve the problems with the article. Nick (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't you supposed to put some sort of template here? Mael-Num (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find they can be rather humiliating for the user in question, and I would rather you discussed proposed changes in your behaviour that will see you unblocked, rather than discussing a block template. Nick (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you propose? Mael-Num (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock-auto}}
-
- Block lifted, but if you do end up blocked again in future (which I sincerely hope you won't be), do not try to circumvent the block by logging out of your account and trying to edit with your IP address, this is how you managed to trigger the autoblock on your IP address (and which in turn prevented you from using your account once it was unblocked). Nick (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did no such thing. I never logged out, to my knowledge.Mael-Num (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (I don't even remember my own password unless I check my email...I never log out.) Mael-Num (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My admin powers don't grant me any extra weight in content disputes, but I am fairly sure that the articles as many unmerged entities will not survive articles for deletion. I think your plan of having several lists is a good one, so be bold and go ahead with it. I'll give you any help if you need it with deleting, protecting, and so on. You also might want to take advantage of a number of pictures I uploaded which were deleted as orphans -- see User:Andrevan/Archive42. Andre (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still planning to work on that? A question's come up at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2 ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I am, but unfortunately this morning I woke up with a fever and a pretty nasty headache. I've been in and out to check email and make a couple of minor edits, but I've been very much about the bed rest today. I'll try to catch up asap. Mael-Num (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Take it easy, and drink plenty of fluids. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Doing much better today. Mael-Num (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
