Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. Re the missing flames. I wiped the Talk Page following warnings, to show willing to conform to Wikipedia protocol. I suppose it is effectively not really removed as all previous content is recorded in the history menu. So it was essentially just a gesture towards compliance and civility.PatW (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some further research and was unable to find the characterization "satirical" in any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, so I removed this characterization from the article. For us Wikipedians to make that characterization without direct classification as such in a secondary source, would be a violation of WP:NOR. I made a note of it at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say probably a good idea to let the RfC run another week or so. Do you think it would be a good idea to post a notice about the ongoing RfC on relevant talkpages of associated WikiProjects, perhaps WP:FILMS and WP:JOURN? Cirt (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have your preferences set for a different time zone? I leave mine set for UTC. Anyway, I think you're misreading the logs slightly. They only give hours and minutes, not seconds. Here are his recent edits, most recent first, time in UTC:
08:34, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Divine Light Mission (→Reception draft: Shupe or Hammond)
Between 7:21 and 8:00 he made eight edits. That's not incredibly fast. I've made twice that many regular edits in the same time and even more simple edits. What Momento's contribution history does show is a single purpose editor who devotes significant time to this topic every day. ·:· Will Beback·:·08:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources that have done studies or mande comments on the members of the DLM - their ethnic, economic, and religous backgrounds, their education, their previous drug use, even their mental health. With so much material it's logical to have a section on DLM membership. ·:· Will Beback·:·09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Estate
The estate is probably better left out of its present location. It may be worth mentioning in some kind of description of the general situation of the leader, a topic covered in many sources. So I've removed it myself. I hope you don't mind. The other editor who was removing it was giving some poor justifications and he shouldn't have removed it for those reasons, in my opinion. I've given what I think is a better reason on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback·:·10:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maelefique, in 5 reverts (without explaining why) you just reverted the Prem Rawat article to my last version [1] - thanks for the compliment, but: why? I didn't think Rumiton's edits that bad, did you actually consider them? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to self for future reference, this user was banned from Wikipedia, and had his adminship removed for gaming the system, sockpuppeteering, and evading ArbCom sanctions. After months of deliberately impeding the process of articles I worked on with him, it's nice to see that the system here does work, albeit slowly) -- Maelefique(talk)15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to Meet You
My "mael"-icious counterpart. It was worth mentioning, if for nothing else but to tell the story. Sorry for not attending to your heads-up sooner, and please allow me to be the first to inform you (with authority) that I am not you.
Regarding this edit, I can't just turn a blind eye on it. I did make it clear in the beginning of the mediation that I won't tolerate incivility or personal attacks from any user in the mediation. That includes all parties, yes. Please, in future, be more mindful of what you say, before you say it. Steve Crossin(talk)17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to self for future reference, this user (Jossi) was banned from Wikipedia, and had his adminship removed for gaming the system, sockpuppeteering, and evading ArbCom sanctions. After months of deliberately impeding the process of articles I worked on with him, it's nice to see that the system here does work, albeit slowly) -- Maelefique(talk)15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note this on your talk page, but respond here pls. I still fail to see any personal attack in what I said, I discussed the merits of arguments as they were presented, I mentioned no names except Jossi's, who, if I'm not mistaken, presented no arguments in the discussion at all, or at least none I objected to, and the diff referring to him is a fact, not an attack. I didn't think going into too much detail on the arguments was a good idea, as I would have to start with names and specifics, in which case, yes, I could concede your point. However, I didn't, and the majority of arguments made in that section are completely spurious, and basically ridiculous. -- Maelefique(talk)17:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I don't forget, this section started after Jossi made a personal attack against me in an article talkspace, which another editor took offense to, and the following exchange took place on Jossi's talkspace:
Do you think comments like this are helpful and civil?
When did you made any useful comments and proposals? Last time you did any research?. Zero so far.
Please remember that civility is a requirement, not an option, and that this topic is on ArbCom probation. Comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Facts are facts and have nothing to do with civility or lack of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed? Well then, if only you had any facts to work with, that might help your case. Your statement is an opinion, in direct opposition to the facts. If facts allow you to bypass civility (no doubt the same way contributions allow for childishness?), you should probably include some next time. Some might be difficult, how about just 1?...Quick get out the archiving machine! -- Maelefique (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My last entry was wrapped within an edit summary of Newflash, Jossi says "Civility Optional!", translation = "All those times I warned ppl about civility, I was just kidding!"
Jossi then deleted my comment, (oh look, there's the archiving machine now!) leaving only his reply to Will Beback as the end of the discussion.
I then added another comment below again,
oh, I see this page is only for "Jossi-facts", not the type the rest of us use...the kind based in reality.
Shockingly, deleted again. Well, I try and try to get through to people, so I tried once again, in a simpler easier to understand style, with:
Since you are unwilling to address any of my comments, I will just have to assume my positions are correct and you have realized your errors, no need to lose face by actually typing, I understand.
Any guesses if he deleted this comment as well? Of course he did! and then he has the <insert your own word here> to leave messages in my talk space, this section originally started with the sentence below. Readers, please note, this is as factually accurate as I can be, any edits to this section above this sentence will be reverted without further notice. Hey, at least on my page you get some advance notice! (in case you missed it, it was the previous sentence).
Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen. Again, you have never claimed I've said one thing that wasn't true, you only avoid the issue every single time, and then do silly things like erase my comments. Ridiculous. Still. -- Maelefique(talk)04:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just to wrap this section up completely, to answer the original question of when have I ever done any research, I'm particularly happy with these contributions, [3], and [4] (in fact, I'm quite happy with my work on that page in its entirety actually), and if he was looking for something more recent, well, with all the sections and articles and drafts we've been working on lately, you all know where the "My Contributions" button is, I count over 50 edits in article space, and hundreds more in article talkspaces. I'm guessing (no pun intended) that they were all based on some kind of research, I'm sure I have these books here for a reason...and while that number may pale in comparison to some editors frenzied scribblings, last time I checked, 50 was more than 0, I guess "everyone" doesn't know where the "My Contributions" button is afterall! ...aaaaaand scene! <fade to black>. -- Maelefique(talk)08:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to self for future reference, this user was banned from Wikipedia, and had his adminship removed for gaming the system, sockpuppeteering, and evading ArbCom sanctions. After months of deliberately impeding the process of articles I worked on with him, it's nice to see that the system here does work, albeit slowly) -- Maelefique(talk)15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a misrepresentation, I was discussing the broader issue, which is we can probably stop discussing Cagan, on point, I agree with you, and your topic heading, "time to end this". But thank you for your comments. That's not incivility, if I had said something like "so and so is being a jackass, but I agree it's time to end this" that would be incivility. I hope you see the clear difference. -- Maelefique(talk)06:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read [7], you would have seen incivility covers - Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. And quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them.Momento (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sure does! You said we should stop discussing Cagan, I agreed. Point to the lie please. You can't. Point to where I asserted false information please. You can't. You said "Let's move on", that's not an opinion that gives any view, or maligns you in any way. So point to the incivility...oh ya, you can't. I agree we should move on from Cagan, so generally, we're in agreement, and anyone over 12 can read what you wrote right above my entry and understand it all on their own, it's not like I quoted somewhere where you said something archived, or on a different page, or even in a different section, your statements and mine will both die an archival death together, where anyone can read them whenever they want. I see nothing here worth discussing further. If you need anything else explained, or you see an error in my arguments, feel free to respond, I may get back to it later in the week. -- Maelefique(talk)07:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your copyedit of Prem Rawat, which helped it. You may not have seen a new article,Millennium '73. It's in the midst of a Featured Article candidate review, so we're trying to polish it. If you can make any improvements to the grammar or language that'd be great. ·:· Will Beback·:·21:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: New lede:
Maelefique, is it so hard for you to take a person serious, when their view differs from yours? And what do you mean with that strange bit you dropped on my talk page? We have learned from Paul Watzlawik: you cannot not communicate, but sometimes I have my doubts. I find your conduct towards me based more on arrogance than on rational discourse, highly emotional, but not very convincing. Has anybody ever brought your attention to your command of civility? Will at least shows effort for neutrality in his communication style and I don't think he needs a hatchet man.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not why it's hard to take people here seriously at times. Suggesting Time is in the same category as The National Enquirer might be a good reason it's hard to take someone seriously at times though. As for your talk page, if I felt it was an appropriate discussion here, I'm sure I would have brought it here. Please try and keep discussion here on topic as much as we can be. Ironically, I have a similar feeling towards your input here. You seem to use highly emotional descriptions such as "embarrassing shot from the hip", "no need to pretend it is faultless", "is at least obliged to keep up with reality". These are supposed to be your convincing, non-emotional statements? What did I say that was highly emotional? Anything inaccurate? I don't see anything, feel free to enlighten me (although this is probably not the right page for that, I guess that's what usertalk pages could be for!). My command of civility, uhm,... yes, jossi and Momento both did I think, but they've sort of lost a little of my respect lately so I'm not sure those are the role models you were looking for. If it makes you feel better, I think you often have something more helpful to say than some others who edit here and it was not my intent to make you think I wasn't taking you seriously overall. Any further discussion on *this* matter should probably, again, be moved to a usertalk page. -- Maelefique(talk)01:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting piece of information ("so it's coincidence...")! I see your point. Maybe I was a bit premature in my assumption, sorry for that. Still I am only mildly surprised, and not much indignant. I presume, there has been a lot of volunteer work on the side of Rawat's students, as this is part of being a student. I don't know if one should be called an "employee" then. I am an employee, but not of Rawat. If I were to edit an article on my employer, I would definitely experience a COI. If I do things to help Rawat, then it is from my personal conviction or opinion. See my opening statement on the mediation page. Thank you, anyway.--Rainer P. (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Signature bot
There is at least one signature bot, but it doesn't work instantly and it specifically avoids some pages or users. I'll look into it and see if there's a problem. Will Bebacktalk00:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The log of blocks, bans, and restrictions, here does not list me as blocked. I do not know why I was blocked. I assume it's for reverting 2 edits that were vandalism of the article. I see from the block,ban, restriction log that Equalwhom was already blocked for one week for violating the editing restrictions[9]. One of my edits was to revert his[10]. He has evidently already been found guilty of being disruptive (imo vandalizing) the article since that's why he was banned. That would indicate that my first revision of the article was completely justified. Therefore, I've only made *1* other edit to the article. There is no basis for banning me for 1 edit[11] (from a conveniently new anon IP editor, who made a major undiscussed change to the article, who has only made 7 other edits ever[12], all to this group of articles, all within the last 48 hours, and has never spoken on any of the article talk pages to discuss changes). Unlike the other 2 editors I've discussed, you can see that I have been quite active on the talk pages[13], and in fact only kept the article stable to a state that had a general consensus. I added no new text and did not revert back to any edit of my own. You can also see from my contributions that I do not edit articlespace very often[14], as I prefer to work with the group in talk pages[15], and arrive at a consensus. Please revert this ban, or at the very least, update the block log so I can see why I was blocked in the first place. Thank-you. -- Maelefique(talk)20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Reason for block well-documented; your latest revert was not for clear vandalism by any stretch. Regardless of whether the addition was appropriate, given your probation, you should have left it for someone else to handle. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
We spend the better part of 2 weeks crafting a sentence, days on just the last half of one, we get a general consensus, and then some anon IP drives by and reverts without discussion (Even though he seems very familiar with the topic!), but that's not vandalism?! You should supply your definition of "vandalism" with a statement like that. -- Maelefique(talk)03:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Maelefique, As I stated before the edits made by Equalwhom and the anon IP were not clear vandalism which was the requirement of the arbcom ruling in this matter. This page is likely to assist in answering your question further - and you should note that vandalism is defined as any addition, removal, or change of content. Change of content in this context does not appear to include moving whole paragraphs from one to another location but rather to actual change of the content detailed - although I could understand that being a concern in some rare circumstances. Nevertheless please note also that the content of the vandalism policy page specified that you have the right to inform administrators in the case of suspected vandalism and if you had done so that may have resulted in a similar reversion but would not have placed you in the position where you were infringing upon the Prem Rawat ruling. I hope that assists.--VStalk04:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maelfique, my apologies as I neglected to add the details of block here (in fact I did do so at the time but I either did not save it at the time or I had a ISP malfunction). I have added the details there now and I hope they explain the situation to you adequately - however for the purpose of clarity I note that - this section provides that no editor may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations. I am sorry but I did not see either of your reversions as dealing with indisputable vandalism. I note that others detailed here and linked on your page above also did not so indicate about your edits. I did leave an informative comment at that location previously and I blocked your account differently to that of Equalwhom - whom I saw as instigating the matter(and perhaps using his IP or another Meatpuppet to re-add the material you had already reverted once).--VStalk23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Maelefique, what is this "research" you did that showed I was a past employee of Prem Rawat's? Unless you can prove it, which you can't as it isn't true, I require that you apologise. (I am really ticked off about this.) Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't categorize it as "research", but I'm only going on what you said. Does it mean something other than what it says, that you work/ed at Amaroo for several years? I don't think that information was used inappropriately, or contorted in any way by me, was it? I can understand why you're ticked too, in the current atmosphere of these articles, it certainly doesn't paint you in the most favorable light, and as I said elsewhere, I was kinda disappointed to come across this information. It's moot now I suppose, as he's retired, but have you met/do you know Terry? -- Maelefique(talk)15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see now and I am not ticked off any more. In this litigious environment I should not have used the term "worked." I run my own business and do translation jobs for a living. Before that I was a long time in the Navy. Part of Prem Rawat's teachings are that people doing his meditation should get involved in voluntary work, perhaps for a charity such as TPRF or directly helping make the experience more accessible to people. I live near Amaroo, so this is my choice. It is not in any sense employment, it is just occasional voluntary work at Amaroo, the same as thousands of others in any year. Would you be so good as to explain that to Mr Beback? Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a courtesy, I am letting you know that I have started a thread on Geaves on RS/N. However, I would ask you to refrain from commenting until uninvolved editors have had a chance to comment. I have linked to our recent discussions of the topic, so outside editors can see what we have been talking about, and what our respective arguments are; there is no need to duplicate these arguments at RS/N. Thank you. --JN46617:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation
I have asked the Mediation Cabal to facilitate mediation on the subject of the disputed sentence in the lead and named you as an interested party.[16]Momento (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving
Those redlinked entries are there for future expansion. If we used a {talkheader} template it would automatically add new archives, but someone on that page prefers the archive box, so we have to manually add new archives. The "fix" would be to get rid of the box and use the template instead. Will Bebacktalk23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation of Prem Rawat
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Prem Rawat was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.
The Request for mediation concerning Prem Rawat 5, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
You wrote to Rumiton - I missed whatever rant PatW cast towards you, I'll confess I don't always read his posts in full as his bias is just about as obvious as Momento's imo.
I might remind you that Momento's been banned for 2 years for crossing lines that I have not approached. I confess I'm disappointed and a little sad that you feel this way as I consider you a valuable more neutral voice and I'd appreciate you look at the substance of my argument rather than style or assumed bias.
If you think Rumiton's bias is less obvious than Momento's or mine then that's rather odd IMHO since we 3 are all biased. Furthermore Rumiton gives as good as he gets as regards barbed comments - but then maybe you don't read his posts either :-)
All that aside, I invite your comments on the current edit proposals at Prem Rawat. Perhaps you could take a look. Thanks. PatW (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to whom the pronoun "his" refers. Looking at it again, I see you were agreeing that R's self-declared "rant" was POV, not the reporter's article. Will Bebacktalk17:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline which prohibits any editors from commenting at noticeboards. OTOH, I'm not aware of any standard method of designating involved editor. On occasions, I've seen editors segregate the comments into subsections, one each of involved and uninvolved editors. But those divisions are sometimes ignored and enforcing them could become disruptive. Will Bebacktalk04:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP Policy stuff
Easy one first: If you open a page for editing, make no changes, and press "save page". nothing will happen. The page will go back to what it was before, and no entry will appear in the page history. Try it. [17] The link he sent was useless because it would not have contained the changes he was trying to save, which would only show up on his computer until the page was saved at his end.
Strange though it may seem, sometimes we do need to "pretend that we don't know stuff that we know", or at least not share it publicly. In some cases we can refer to the information in general or elliptical ways.
As for the source itself, my opinion is that it all of the self-published sources should be taken with a grain of salt, but that the connection to a banned user is probably unimportant. However every such decisions comes down to the specific reference and claim. WP:RSN is the place to discuss those issues, but you should only do so in the context of a proposed edit, not a hypothetical or unspecific concern. Will Bebacktalk19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[18][19], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.
I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.
Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)
PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal. As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study.
Editing issues
Your last two edits to Prem Rawat contained punctuation errors. Your last edit contains unsourced material. And you reversion of my edit to the Satpal Maharaj article is incorrect. Please stop.Momento (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your last "evidence" from Google contained egregious factual errors resulting in a complete fabrication of the truth. Please be more careful. My revision was not incorrect, your attempt to change another article to bolster your position on the PR article is incorrect. Please read all of WP:MOS, not just the sentence you think works for what you want to do. -- Maelefique(talk)22:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self. Still no revert of me on the Satpal Maharaj article, even though it is "incorrect" and it's five days later. I wonder why that is... -- Maelefique(talk)17:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i'm still happy to help out however I can; my experience in Indian articles is that more admins is better. You'll find I'm a lot more willing than other admins to impose restrictions on users, but I always make sure I'm protecting the neutral editors in the process. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresentation
Do not misrepresent me as you have done in your RFC. And do not misrepresent what has been stated on the Prem Rawat talk page.Momento (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(originally, the first 2 comments were placed in the above section, moved by me to keep my page tidy, title is my own, and is in reference to this accidental edit)
I am really sorry, Maelefique, this has happened purely accidentally. The change was actually supposed to go to MY edit further below, where you can find the same words in a space after "God". I remember making a change and not finding it afterwards, so I repeated it, this time correctly. I was not aware that it did take place in your edit. I would not do such a thing on purpose, as I agree with you completely that this is not o.k. Must have happened in a moment of inattentiveness about the curser's position, and I beg your pardon.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate timing, however, if you say it was an accident, I accept that, and have stricken the mentioning of it from the DRN action I have taken. -- Maelefique(talk)06:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accepting. BTW what advantage would such an incoherent intervention into somebody else's edit bring, if it were deliberate? But now: What is the expected behaviour on that DRN? Are involved editors supposed to make statements there at all?--Rainer P. (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your second question first, I'm not sure, I've never done it before. I am hoping they will help guide us through the process and let us know what we need to do.
In answer to your first question:
adding that phrase implies that I'm not sure about whether or not I need to refer to God at all or that it's not important, which would weaken my argument
It implies I'm not sure about my complaint in general, which weakens my argument
On a purely esoteric level, it lowers the level of grammar, which (as a native speaker of the language) doesn't make me look too bright, (this would not be something I apply to *your* text, as I understand that English is not your first language, and I have nothing but respect for anyone who manages to achieve the level of competency you have in a second language). I do hold myself to a higher standard, as I completed 4 years of university studying in English Literature, I try and remain grammatically correct, especially in formal situations
a. - I think that issues that are poorly or confusingly written tend to get slightly less effort put into them by the busy admins here
4. It's annoying as heck if it had been done deliberately
5. There may be other reasons, but that's what I think off the top of my head, if that helps
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Prem Rawat 6". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 April 2012.
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Prem Rawat 6, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 6, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
Just in case you were interested - [this essay] is a reasonable summary of the situation imho.
Also in case you missed it - This Collier quote is as close as I could get to a fair secondary source summary without quoting Rawat directly using primary sources (that are awash with God claims. Of course I argued this with Jossi and Momento before and they would have none of it. Maybe you have found something else better though.
Collier, Sophia, Soul Rush, back cover ""Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world ... surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.' ""
Oh yes, thanks, I had forgotten about Mike Finch, but then I'm only about 35% of the way through my secondary sources list, and he starts with an "M". I have left a note for Seddon, if he wants more examples, I have at least another 15, a couple of which I think may be stronger than what I have already listed, one is from an article entitled "Prem Rawat says he is God" (or something close to that, I don't have it front of me right now), so I'm not short on material yet, but thank you for your interest, I will be happy to look at any sources, although if you'd like (and if you think you can restrain your uhm.."more enthusiastic" impulses), I'd be just as happy if you added yourself to the mediation page and posted there. -- Maelefique(talk)00:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a case of 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. These arguments are better not always framed as a battle between 'very impartial and reasonable' Rawat followers and 'bitter' ex-follower 'hate group' members :-) Incidentally, I hope, before they were removed, you mined those ex-premie links I posted. There were a lot of books there.PatW (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to be the wrong place for JClemens to get up on his soapbox about how right the decision was and how wrong Will was; it's a little bit like having Will on the other side of a fence and watching as JClemens walks around his car spitting on it, imho. If he wants to do that, he can do it on his own talk page (and it was Collect that suggested the idea to me). However, if you want to revert my edit, I won't fight it. -- Maelefique(talk)17:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will's talk page is one of the few that I watch. I considered him a very reasonable editor. I think that the evidence that the arbs present to justify his indefinite ban is sufficiently poor that he will come out looking positive in the end. Take a look at the actual diffs if you have time. I however understand your sentiment with respect to some comments being inappropriate there. This conversation however needs to be had and Jclemens and Roger Davies have the right to defend there position. I have moved a collapsed version back. Anyway all the best and happy editing :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with your description of what happened, I did read the entire event as it unfolded. I don't have any problem with you moving it back, I think I made my point anyway. Thanks for taking the time to explain it though. -- Maelefique(talk)00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the advice of the Mediation Committee, this case will close. The mediation broke down after a party demanded a change in mediator, alleging that the mediator had misinterpreted content policy [he might equivocate with WP:OR] mistakenly and then maliciously. The committee did not agree that such a change was warranted. As a result MedCom is considering referring the case to ArbCom.
unfortunately it seems that you have rejected your interest in this article. I think help is necessary. I am not skilled enough to deal with this matter myself and as a former follower i am not neutral, but i see that the article is going to be whitewashed by momento and nobody is willing to stop it.Surdas (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some good ole neutral moderation might do the article good. I see you haven't been active in WP for a while, hope you're alright.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is only intended for uncontroversial deletions. This seems potentially controversial, plus you are citing arguments/opinions that are unsourced. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Maelefique. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
