Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jossi (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 21 January 2007 (WP:3RR Warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Civility

Mael-Num, you're getting awfully close to incivil with this comment. Please cool it down a bit. The article is clearly going to be kept, but that doesn't mean you need to badger the people !voting to keep it in the process.--Kchase T 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'm "getting awfully close" I guess that means that I'm not yet incivil, right? I guess it was your opinion that I should be warned though. Just as it is the opinion of the Fox News set that the article be kept, and my opinion that those people are morons. Opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one. Maybe I should write an article about my own asshole today? Mael-Num 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you being so combative about this? We don't disagree with you because we hate you, we just have different opinions about whether an individual is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. it's really nothing to get wound up about.--Kchase T 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that I don't know that? For the record, I am at worst completely indifferent about those that merely disagree with me. What ires me is the false and deceptive reasons people cite in order to make their claims seem valid. It's what's wrong with Misplaced Pages. Wiki cites that other sites' cites need to have been subject to "independent fact-checking" or "where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication", and yet Wiki itself fails both of these proofs. Too often it's a case of mob rule, which is to say, no rules. Mael-Num 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete cited info as you did here . This is considered vandalism. Anyone can add cited content to wikipedia. Kerr avon 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted material that, while cited, wasn't from a WP:NPOV. This is a no-brainer. You know this as well as I do, so drop the veneer of nicety and innocence. As guilty as WarHawk and Supreme Cmdr are of being biased in favor of Smart, you are biased against the man. Neither is good. If you disagree with me on the neutrality of the subject, take it to the talk page. Until them, I am duty-bound by WP:BLP to remove it. If you return it to the page you will be reported for edit-warring and violating Wiki policy. Mael-Num 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks, as you did

Statement of facts. Don't resort to trying to sway people who may pay more attention to form rather than function when you cry "foul". Stop crying and prove my argument wrong.Mael-Num 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? I challenge anyone to read that link and find a personal attack in the edit-difference. Tragic romance 16:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll want to look in the first line; it's hidden in a link. Wikilinking an editor's username to the phrase 'dishonest and single-minded users' is a pretty clear attack, and Mael-Num would be well-advised to steer clear of such remarks in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I looked at that edit again and saw the linking. Thanks. Tragic romance 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! ⇒ SWATJester 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also remember to assume good faith: you don't get to label all reversions on the Derek Smart article as Vandalism. Please review what vandalism is at WP:VANDAL. ⇒ SWATJester 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is wisdom in what you're saying, that responding agrily feeds into the behavior of people who are looking for that sort of a response. Just so I can know to be more aware in the future, would you mind pointing out what I posted that prompted you to take the time to get in touch with me? Even if you cannot do so, thank you for your thoughtful attention, and I'll try to "keep my six-shooters holstered". Can't promise I'll ever hang them up, though, pardner. ;) Mael-Num 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It was an edit summary you made on the Derek Smart article where you said "Future reversions will be considered vandalism". I apologise for the use of standardised templates, which was why I added the second message at the end: normally I reserve the templates for vandals which you clearly are not. As I mentioned at AN/I, I really don't forsee this article going anywhere but to ArbCom and I'd hate to see another editor get too fired up and get in trouble with ArbCom when they eventually rule on it (And I'm positive that it will eventually come to that: this is far too contentious to stop). Just remember to chill out, find your zen and all will be well. ⇒ SWATJester 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ohmmmmmm Mael-Num 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, young grasshopper. ⇒ SWATJester 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

crossposted from my talk page

Derek Smart

I think it's beyond you and Kerr Avon. Hell it didn't start with you guys. It started with WarhawkSP, Supreme Cmdr, the IPs, and a half dozen other accounts. It involves interpretation of policy. RFC is only going to be useful here as a checkbox to move towards Arbitration. I think mediation would work if everyone agreed to it. I've asked for administrator intervention, and I think the page should remain semiprotected for the time being. As is, the only real solution is to have those that actually understand policy enforce it, (those being admins), and enforce it strongly and switfly (with temporary blcoks). ⇒ SWATJester 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration filed on Derek Smart

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed on the article Derek Smart, which you have been involved with in some manner. If you would like to contribute to the request, or subsequent case if accepted, please visit WP:RFAR. ⇒ SWATJester 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearing your name

The easiest way to distance yourself from the Smart single-purpose accounts is to edit articles unrelated to Smart. The more articles you edit and improve, the better for your reputation. And the encyclopaedia :-) Guy (Help!) 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your apology

I'm looking forward to your apology for your behaviour on the Prem Rawat talk page and on mine. Several people have already warned you about personal attacks on this page, stop doing it or stop editing.Momento 07:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to winning the lottery. But before we get ahead of ourselves, what am I apologizing for? Mael-Num 09:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, I would sure love to win the lottery... Then I could start the company I'm always dreaming about, and the non-profit fund I keep thinking would be nice to found later in life... Smee 10:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I've thought really hard about this, and I've decided that I would have my winnings converted into coin, fill a large room with it Ducktales style, and learn how to swim through "me money bin". Mael-Num 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, there can be downsides to winning the lottery... Smee 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Ha. A cautionary tale for all of us dreamers. I guess the lesson here is that looking forward to an apology is far less likely to win you marriage proposals. Mael-Num 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing and summarizing versus quoting

The subject of the claims of divinity by Prem Rawat is a hypersensitive subject. Because it is so sensitive I stopped paraphrasing and summarizing sources and started quoting sources which yields less chance of distortion or perception of distortion by others. I have been repeatedly and heavily accused of misrepresenting sources regarding the Rawat's claims of divinity. Andries 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And now, in an apparent no-win situation, by quoting sources instead of paraphrasing them there is a push to have the quoted materials ripped right off the page because it may not be possible to dredge up Dutch originals of all of these scholars' works. Delicious. I wonder how long I'll be able to continue assuming good faith on the part of the obscurantist deletion crew and when I'll start calling spades as I see them. Mael-Num 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem in finding the Dutch originals. They are all in the talk pages or the archives or the history of the article. I know, because I wrote them there. I can easily make literal English translations that can be checked for accuracy by one of the hundreds other Dutch editors of the English Misplaced Pages. An alternative to Dutch Kranenborg would be the 1980 German book Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit by Reinhart Hummel of which I made a copy that makes to some extent the same comments. Andries 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see some problems with allowing this to stand as a policy. The first most obvious: what if you had given up on the article? I am no longer a student and living in the United States, and I don't know that my local public library system would have Dutch-language materials for me to use in sourcing this article. Similarly, what if this standard were to be applied to other articles where the original authors who made the original contributions had moved on, as you hypothetically did in the previous example? Would it be right to start tearing careful research from the pages because of a too-strict standard that, in all fairness, no scholarly publication requires (as far as I know)? Maybe it's just my instinct, but I don't like seeing people suddenly moving the goalposts because they don't like what is being said, and my reflex is to resist such behavior. Mael-Num 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

All that being said, I'm very glad that we do have you and your contributions, because they completely disarm any effect that the pro-deletion camp are having (at least on this article). Mael-Num 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This allows more permanence. User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English I still cannot find some of the Dutch originals in the talk pages e.g. Jan van der Lans, though I am sure that they are there. Andries 10:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)