User talk:Maelefique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Maelefique! 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
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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) 02:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: this: Your initial statement will continue to be read and considered by everyone, however it is advisable to distil it down into smaller chunks of evidence, and place them on the evidence page. Take a look at one or two prior cases to see how the evidence is presented: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence (case closed) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence (case yet to be closed). John Vandenberg (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


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)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for explaing the "red-herring" comment. I appreciate it a lot. Be well. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of the Universe question...

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)

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)
Okay. It's been 3 days, after all. Thanks for providing your input. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing speed

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)
  • 08:13, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception draft: Ricahrdson)
  • 08:00, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Prem Rawat‎ (→Downton and Divinity)
  • 07:58, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat‎ (→Collier: Collier facts and bio)
  • 07:51, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat‎ (→Collier)
  • 07:35, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception draft: footnotes and references)
  • 07:30, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception: restoring Barret ref)
  • 07:29, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception: restoring Foss&Larkins ref)
  • 07:26, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception: restoring Geaves ref)
  • 07:21, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception: restoring Levine ref)
  • 06:47, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception draft)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ·:· 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting without explaining

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)

[edit] WP:COOL

Cool it, please. Your comments are embarrassing no one other that yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I take exception with your language, tone, and innuendo. I have asked the mediator to intervene [2]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, you didn't object to the facts as I stated them. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Cheers!

Mael-Num (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility Warning.

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)

And, this is not a direct response to Jossi alerting me about this, I'd have done the same if I'd have found out myself. Steve Crossin (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

I actually responded on my talk page :) Steve Crossin (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)