Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #153

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

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)Reply[reply]

My sandbox

• Link check [1]
• Traffic Tool [2]
• Article Watch Tool [3]
• Advanced User Edit Profile Tool [4]
• User IP address [5]

• Upload Photos [6]
• Photo Upload Log [7]
• YouTube at RSN [8]

hyphen –

WP:TPO Talk page guidelines

WP:ORGNotability of Organizations

WP:TALK

WP:DR Dispute Resolution

WP:CS

WP:HARM

WP:WQA Noticeboard for incivility in disputes

WP:LOP List of Policies

WP:IAR Ignore All Rules

WP:BOLD Be Bold

WP:EL External Links

WP:OR Original Research

WP:SPAM

WP:WEIGHT Undue Weight

WP:CRITICISM

WP:LINKSPAM Link Spam

WP:N Notability

WP:PEOPLE Notability of People

WP:ANI/3RR Admin noticeboard 3RR warning

WP:NOTLINK Wiki is not a repository of web links

WP:THIRD Third Opinion

WP:RFC Request for Comment

WP:PROD Proposed Deletion of Article

WP:ATHLETE Notablity of Athletes

WP:CIVILITY

WP:KEEPCOOL

WP:NOT

WP:OUTING

WP:CITE

WP:SET Search Engine Test

WP:MEDRS Medical Research, Recent Research

WP:RCU Check User requests

WP:CHU Changing username.

WP:TC Template messages/Cleanup

WP:BLP1E Bio of Liv persons, 1 event

MOS:BIO Manual of Style: Biography

WP:AGF Assume Good Faith

WP:ACF

WP:AN3 Edit War Noticeboard

WP:ASF "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves,"

WP:MORALIZE "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide."

WP:NCH New Contrib Help

WP:OTTO Be very careful of newspapers.

Resolved

 Done

In Dei nomine feliciter (Happily in God's name.)

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for ((copyedit)). The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!

This user talk page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. This page was last edited at 15:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC) (3 months ago) – this estimate is cached, update. Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with ((Under construction)) between editing sessions.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

(Talk page stalker) and of course the indispensable

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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 [9]:

• 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)

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Here it is

Rotary International describes the foundation as being established by Prem Rawat to "to improve the quality of life for the disadvantaged."^[1]

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

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

		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)Reply[reply]

Very belated thanks, Pedro. I really did appreciate it. Rumiton (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Cheers, Rumiton :) Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks! --Kevin Murray 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"...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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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))Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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, and which you also did recently when you claimed I said there was no diarrhea at Prem Nagar. 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 and also see here. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked you politely and instead of removing one offensive message you post another one. Jossi complains that one editor hasn't done enough research and you complain that I've done too much research. Let's just stick to discussing the topic and not each other. Please do not post any more personal attacks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to be very sensitive to criticism of yourself, while unable to find enough to heap on someone else. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Rumiton. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banned: for 1 week for disruptive editing in Prem Rawat related articles. After reviewing the arbitration committee's ruling concerning Prem Rawat related articles, and reviewing this request, I have decided to give you a 1 week ban from all pages and discussion relating to Prem Rawat, (this includes the mediation case and related pages). If you edit anything related to Prem Rawat, you will be issued an indefinite ban. If you have any questions or objections, please read over WP:BAN and WP:RCAM. --Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 05:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I strongly protest at this banning. I agree that my posts had become peevish, but a discussion about me was instigated by Will Beback and I was never informed about it until the decision to ban me was made. This is part of a pattern of tendentious behaviour by this editor, gaming the Wikipedia system to affect the content of articles. See also [[10]]
• I request that this decision be reversed. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your ban will be gone in less than 2 hours, so I have decided to not unban you at this time. When the ban is gone, I would request that any further discussion be in accordance with our civility policy, or you may risk being re-banned. --Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 03:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This is not really satisfactory to me, Chet. I intend to be civil, as far as humanly possible, but I have been involved in Wikipedia for 18 months, made thousands of edits to hundreds of articles and done some difficult mediation jobs. This decision marks my reputation, I think unfairly, and does not acknowledge the peculiar and difficult circumstances surrounding this article, nor the problematic attitudes developed by some of the contending editors. And it does not mention the abominable fact that I was criticised on Wikipedia, including by the mediator who was involved in this case, without even being informed that it was happening. Deliberately, I would allege. I look forward to something more substantial from you. Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As I said in the ban, you should read over WP:BAN. Nowhere does it state that the banned user has to have had a chance to speak before the banning is done. You were informed of the discussion, and over 6 hours later you were banned. If you didn't want it to mark your "reputation" you shouldn't have been incivil in the first place. --Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I consider this response to be simplistic, snide, sarcastic and yes...incivil. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AN#Steve_Crossin.2C_Chet_B_Long.2C_PeterSymonds.2C_and_inappropriate_account_sharing Jayen466 00:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks! I confess myself appalled. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also a translator and fully understand what you say in your page about bad translations. I agree, they are the cause of many things, also in religion. You know the Italian saying “Traduttore, tradittore”, translator and treason often go together, no better way to make an old scripture say what you want it to say than in a translation, and Emperors were Emperors, they called the church councils the first centuries AC, when Christian doctrine was shaped. Popes called councils some or many centuries later, (I can’t remember, it happened long ago). Emperors did not call councils without a reason. Were Emperors so concerned with scriptures, ideas and philosophies as they were concerned with other things?

And besides deliberate errors there are many more are due to ignorance. Imagine the translators and Christian “scholars” of the third to fifth century AC, where 90 % of Christian doctrine was decided, having to deal with sentences like “In the enjoyment of the Lord I die every day”. In a Bible site I found about 20 translations which could be grouped into 4 or 5 different interpretations, of course none of them was the yoga interpretation I consider right. And “Be still and know that I am God” is another description of Samadhi according to Yogananda.

The description of the first inner experience of the Apostles was automatically misunderstood as outer experience, so the “thunder” had to be outer thunder, etc., as these scholars had no idea of yoga and perhaps worse, had scientific knowledge similar to today’s children, so interpreting these mysterious sentences which are yoga or scientific concepts resulted in Christian doctrines that sometimes make people laugh with good reason, like creation in six twenty four hour days, not a second more, not a second less.

Why nobody asked for centuries how could God create the world in 6 days if He made the sun and earth, which make the day, on the third day? (or fourth, I can’t remember either, it also happened long ago). Unless He bought a Swiss stop-watch before starting creation. Do you know why God had to rest the seventh day? His last job was to create woman, tough job, exhausting.

And also much of the Bible is symbolic, and a symbol may be a symbol of whatever you want. And vice-versa, many mysterious things are not understood and therefore taken as symbolic while they are literal truths, but not with words meaning what Christian “scholars” thought 16 centuries ago.

If instead of saying God made the world in 6 days they had said in six “stages”, and the “waters” were not understood as H2o, for instance, it would be exactly like science says it was. Yogananda explains it so well. I never understood many things of the Bible, though I read a lot about it, as I was brought up a Catholic. I only understood many things finally in “The Second Coming of Jesus the Christ” of Yogananda.

Yogananda says the seven seals the soul must break to ascend to God in the Apocalyse or Revelation, I think of St. John, are the seven chakras. And I suppose the Jewish Menora symbol with 7 candles has the same origin, as the Aquarian Gospel says Abraham, or A-Brahm ows his name to the name of God in hindi and he learned from yoguis.

It it is impossible to convince a Muslim that what Mohammed was often doing in a cave near Mecca or Medina (again I can't remember, happened long ago), "meditating", might have been the same others do also in caves in the Himalaya, or a Christian that what Jesus was doing in the dessert for 40 days might have just been the same activity.

Words are so limited that all the philosophic and religious diversity is the result of what we might call the semantic wall: “where word-capacity stops, imagination starts”, or the semantic jungle, where people get lost. Just word games, a sort of Scrabble.

Many interpretations and translations say more about the translator/interpreter than about the text, as wishes guide interpretations so often, in what we may call “wishful translating”, similar to “wishful thinking”. We are free to choose one word or the other, the thing is why and how. And they were surely not paid per source word like we are.

Going back to Wikipedia’s biography I did not want to write long, but the repeated comments on Prem’s wealth in his Wikipedia biography (even if attributed to others they are there for a reason), remind me of the Spanish saying “Thieves think everyone is like them”. Few people accept that someone may have conquered attachment to material things. A materialist sees only matter.

I find experts opinions funny. What does a psychologist, psychiatrist, sociologist or whatever have to say about a guru? You can understand people of a lower or your same level but not of a higher level. Of course they assume nobody can be higher than they are, so they can judge. They can’t cure mental sickness but they pretend to know the mind. Scientific minded people prefer to think that each atom is in its place by coincidence than there is something else. Some think if they accept God they have to give up evolution, just like believers think if they accept evolution and science they have to give up God. It is incredible how none of the two can accept that may be they are just 50 % right, not 100 %, and perhaps there are both things.

Most experts know nothing about yoga, so no authority about something they ignore, or worse, they read what is written and cannot understand and/or accept that yogis have a better knowledge of body, mind and nature than western science at least in many things, perhaps in everything. If someone has read Yogananda’s God Talks with Arjuna or The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and still says he did not find it interesting or believable and that he still finds Yogananda a normal person, what is there more to say to a person like that? Absolutely nothing, it is time lost.

Sorry if I have written a lot, but it's free, isn't it? I like to write, and when I see somebody that agrees with me even if it is a little, I tend to abuse, as I live alone and speak only with my cat (and it’s a porcelain cat), so I have to communicate with someone. It was a pleasure to meet you in Wikipedia. But the debates are starting to bore me. So I prefer to do translations. Now I am going back to translations. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrero (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pedrero. Not too long, and interesting. Hope you stick around. Rumiton (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rumiton. I see they have erased all the former comments I and others wrote in the discussion page of Prem's article, and they are not in the archives. What things are archived and which ones dissappear? Do you know? Thanks--Pedrero (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pedrero, everything gets archived. Are you sure you checked the right section? Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Rumiton, I did find it, thanks, Wikipedia is really big, I get lost, but will learn with time. I have translated or enlarged more than a dozen articles, including "Perfect Master", Autobiography of a Yogui, Kriya Yoga, Karma, Reincarnation, Sivananda, Vivekananda, Sri Yukteswar, etc. but do not dare to touch Prem Rawat's, it is incredible what resistance is shown to include positive things or remove negative things, even if they are not important or relevant. It is clear to me now that Wikipedia is strongly biased in favour of megacorporations and Christian institutions, and against alternative and oriental doctrines. Example: euthanasia, a threat to the "pharma-hospitals-doctors industrial complex". Big profit to keep a person dying for days, weeks, months or years instead of a few minutes agony, with the excuse of being pro-life, like if they could make us immortal. Pro-life? Pro-what kind of life? They call save a life what is really prolonging an agony. Always semantic manipulation, like kill children instead of embrios o fetus. So half the article on euthanasia is "criticism", which usually comes at the end in Wikipedia, like Wikipedia's final and definitive word. It is clear that Wikipedia is run by people with definite interests, ideology (and emotions), despite their pretented "neutrality". Still, it is better than nothing. Best regards.--Pedrero (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discssion of Prem Rawat seem to get heated enoough without making personal remarks about other editors. Please don't inflame things further. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're kidding. When did I do that? Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I see now. I used a general and supposedly humorous reference that could be taken as referring to one editor. Anyway, she took it in good part. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Rumiton, I think you will like to read this. Here is another "truth seeker". Best egards from Pedrero.

Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas is elected Inttranet™ Linguist of the Year for 2008

Rouen, France (Inttranet): Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas has been elected Inttranet™ Linguist of the Year for 2008, for his courage in testifying as a court interpreter for immigrant workers arrested in Postville, Iowa.

The Inttranet™ Linguist of the Year Awards are honorary citations recognizing the struggle – and sometimes the personal sacrifice – of interpreters and translators who have helped increase public awareness of the importance of linguists and languages during the year.

Nominees are selected in relation to the frequency and impact of their presence in the press worldwide in 2008, and the winner is elected by the members of the Inttranet™ global network of professional interpreters and translators, and by subscribers to Inttranews, the network's official news service.

Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas accepted the Inttranet™ Linguist of the Ye! ar for 2008 award in the following terms:

"We live in changing times where the canons of ethics are being redefined in many professions. For translators and interpreters, the prime imperative is Accuracy, followed by Impartiality and Confidentiality. In cases of conflict, Accuracy governs. And today there are cases in which Accuracy must be regarded as something more than mere literal correctness.

If we are to be more than translation machines, more than automatons, if we strive to have a conscience and a heart, we must go beyond the words, to the deeper structures of meaning. For long, linguists have taken refuge in the comfort of formal correctness, but our world has closed that loophole. That ethical shelter is no more. Our Oath of Accuracy – we now realize – means a commitment to Truth."

For further information on the Inttranet™ Linguist of the Year Awards and on the work of Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas, please visit: http://www.inttra.net/lin! guists_of_the_year

Inttranet 216 Route de Neufchâ! tel 76420 Bihorel France

Press contact: Malcolm Duff (English) malcolm – duff [at] inttra.net Natacha Minguet (French) natacha – languet [at] inttra.net

About The Inttranet™ is a global network of professional interpreters and translators and the multilingual portal they use. It provides a complete range of services including a unique CV for members automatically available in any of 33 languages. Inttranews, the network’s daily news bulletin, is read each month by more than 50,000 linguists in over 140 countries and syndicated by more than 60 institutions, associations and universities worldwide. The Inttranet™ was included in the UNESCO Observatory for the Information Society in January 2006 and in the scope of ISO 9001:2000 certification in 2007. --Pedrero (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Rumiton,

1. ISBNs are assigned to editions of the book NOT to the book itself. Thus, different editions have different ISBNs.

2. The 1st ed of the subject was published BEFORE invention of ISBN. Thus, it was NOT assigned ISBN.

3. Infoboxes are supposed to include ISBN for the 1st ed only. Thus, no ISBN in infobox for All Quiet on the Western Front.

Please make yourself familiar with the issue before making the edits. Cheers.Henry Merrivale (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. Thank you for the clarity. Rumiton (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, have you given up on the assertion that water entered the Titanic via the anchor ports? Your arguments appear persuasive, but the questionable statement is still there, and is still lacking any citation or reasonable evidence, eg, based on the Titanic's design. (Is it possible for the anchor chains to be stowed below?) The fact that your query has not been responded to may be further reason to delete the questionable stuff. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have pretty much given up on the whole article, there is just too much ill-informed and speculative commentary around, a lot of it from otherwise "reputable sources." And no, the chains have to be contained in lockers that are not part of the ship's buoyancy and don't lead to the holds. Effectively they are part of the upper deck. If you want to give me some support, I am willing to have another go. Rumiton (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll certainly support removal of the garbage, but any corrected replacement will have to be done by finding authoritative references. In WPs large, disparate community, one person's "original research" or uncited evidence has to be given the same value as anyone else's. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the problem. Both publishers and authors with otherwise good records have spouted nonsense about the Titanic. I shudder at the prospect of convincing my fellow editors that much of what they have read is twaddle. I sympathise with the White Star management when they were forced to deny that the ship broke up on an almost even keel, though that is almost certainly what happened. They could never have convinced the newspapermen that this was inevitable, rather than evidence of a flawed design. The latter hypothesis was a much better seller. Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but I have removed some of what you term 'twaddle' --the 'openings at the bow' stuff. The problem of substantiation belongs to the poster of that theory, not to us, eh? Bjenks (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is true. Well done and good luck. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rumiton, also ganz daneben lagst Du da nicht: [11] Cheers, Jayen466 05:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought not, Jayen. Many thanks for your support and encouragement throughout. Rumiton (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pleasure. Actually, the more conclusive one is this: [12] Most amazing that he has forgotten. Best, Jayen466 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AE#Momento at Prem Rawat (continued, again) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see in your edit summaries you are using "rv" as an abbreviation for "remove", but that is commonly used to mean "revert". "Rm" is the move common abbreviatoin for "remove".   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I will change my ways. Rumiton (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have initiated a request for arbitration and named you as a party.[13] You may wish to make a statement there. Durova^Charge! 08:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 2/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 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may be missing something really basic and obvious, but you may want to check this out. Msalt (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Rumiton, I am not sure where and how to reply to your response on my Talk Page, so you will get it. Here is my reply:

Hi Rumiton, thank you for your reply. Queston, about your comment "We can only work with what reputable sources say about the subject". I just read your link "Especially learn more about reputable sources". So sources like the websites Words of Peace Global or The Prem Rawat Foundation, are primary and not reputable/reliable? I would think a primary source would be good since they do not want to give false information. So I need a third party, secondary sources instead, like the secondary source book Peace is Possible by A. Cagan? Any other comments about what I proposed above?

Verities (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verities (talk • contribs)

Your talk page is on my watch list. I have replied there. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Momento (talk · contribs) and Rumiton (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year. The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to revert limitations for one year. Several users are admonished for their conduct in the case and all parties and other interested editors are encouraged to restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat. Also, should Jossi (talk · contribs) return to Wikipedia to edit Prem Rawat articles, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee beforehand. These remedies are in addition to, and do not replace, the remedies passed in RFAR/Prem Rawat.

For the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this

I didn't think you were nearly as extreme as m or j. I was surprised to see you were banned equally. I would not have done that; but that still doesn't mean I agree with your view :) See you in a year? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, you will. I was banned on Adolph Hitler's birthday. Not sure what that might mean. See you next April 20. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol, don't go all conspiracy-theory on me, or I may have to retract my previous statement (and we all know how PR editors hate to say they were wrong! :) ). See you in in the technical ASAP! :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note your request to join this mediation. Please discuss this issue here. Sunray (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Check your email. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rumiton. You have new messages at Maelefique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Regarding this edit, could you cite a source saying that he was not permitted by religious authorities to attend? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm afraid I can't. I took it from this page. Now I see it isn't sourced there, either, so it may have to go. On the other hand, "Bomjon didn't show up" seems to have a contemptuous ring to it, unworthy of a Biography of a Living Person. Would you like to collaborate towards a more encyclopedic expression? Rumiton (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. You are welcome to suggest more respectful expression as long as its factual accuracy can be verified by sources. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That could take a few days. I don't think we even have a source to tell us he wasn't there yet. Maybe the whole section should go while we wait? Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made the sentence invisible. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I just found this site, "Wisdom Quarterly, The American Buddhist Journal", which substantiates the original version. Would this be a acceptable source? Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, no blogspot.com please. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, that's all it is. OK. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not interested in taking on that effort, but I agree that it needs work. I left a long note on the article talk page, and if the problems remain then it may be necessary to take some extraordinary steps to correct the situation.   Will Beback  talk  09:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Will.

I've added a note as well. Good to see you around, Rumiton. And Happy Christmas. :) --JN466 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Likewise buddy. Thanks for the present! Rumiton (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rumiton,

• I appreciate you for starting this effort. The article will definitely benefit from clean up proposal. You would have noticed that it has already started. I have been involved in this article since Jan 2009. I will like to address a few things here.

• I saw the links posted in the talk page regarding the sourcing. The first section which uses the Primary sources mainly is the Biography and Beliefs and Practices of devotees section. This discussion about the usage of primary source in this article was already discussed in the reliable source board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Reliable_Internet_Sources_for_Information_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba.

Please see GRBerry response: One other use to which official, but not devotional, sites can be used is to cite quotations from official documents that are posted on the site. An example of this in the UCC article is the section "Statements of doctrine and beliefs" contains a quotation from the organization's "Constitution and Bylaws", which is cited to that very document as hosted by the organization. To the extent that it is appropriate to cite such a primary source, the official site is the best possible host of an official document.

This is a religious article. There is a basic difference between religious article and other BLP articles in wikipedia. As I mentioned in the above discussion for instance please look at other religious articles like the "United_Church_of_Christ" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ. This has used references to all their official websites. Even may other religious topics use their official website links.

• The reason is that if we go with the Wikipedia rule that the article can use only third-party, published sources like newspapers then we won't be able to have even a Biography section in this article nor any other sections such as their beliefs etc as you will not find these information in a newspaper or third party sources. As per the RS discussion and resolution the 5 official websites could be allowed to be used in the article appropriately in a neutral way.

• www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation (1999-).
• www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation.
• www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division).
• www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony.
• www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos).

I agree that we can get rid of other devotional websites sources which are not official such as www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com.

Another issue in the article which needs to be corrected other than sourcing is the style of writing in the Biography section. I will work with the other editors and see how this section could be re-written to be more encyclopedic and neutral in tone with out advocating any point of view.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks for dropping by. I think with a concerted effort by all current editors to follow the guidelines set out by Will and others (Will Beback is a Wikipedia Administrator, by the way) the problems should be surmounted. From other articles I have worked on that attract strong POVs, I suggest you just go right to the article and do what has to be done. All the breathless devotion and mysticism needs to disappear immediately. If you wait to get agreements on each of the many points, expect to be there for about 5 years. I will reply more fully soon, when I have more time. All the best, Rumiton (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rumiton, I am also looking into couple of academic sources from Babb, Kent and others for the Biography. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your request about the German Koggendorf-Kakar for Sathya Sai Baba movement, I have not forgotten about it because I paid Euro 70,- for it, so I intend to use it. But I have little time even in the weekend. It is pre 2000, so not so much about the big controversy (sexual abuse) and like Babb she writes that she cannot write a biography of SSB. It is like nearly all other academic sources more about the movement than about the person of SSB. Needless to say that I strongly disagree with Radiantenergy about using official movement sources for the article to describes beliefs and doctrine. It is against Wikipedia rules and there is no need because this is described in third party reliable sources.08:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are on strong ground there. I am pressed for time also, but the habit some folk have of restoring adulatory primary sourced stuff needs to be opposed. It would not be permitted on any other WP article. Rumiton (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of your recent edits to the Featured article, 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, appear to introduce POV problems to the article. Perhaps you would be amenable to discussing at the article's talk page? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most happy to Curt. Nice to see you again. Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour Rumiton! Thank you for replacing oneself here [14]. I was blocked for quite a while trying to find the right wording. Don't you think that "could" should be changed to "can" since the sentence is in the present tense?

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Frania. Thanks for your good editing. I used could as the present conditional which covers both the present and past tense, though it doesn't matter very much. All these very useful and precise tenses are disappearing from modern English and becoming old-fashioned. I was complaining to Moses about this just the other day. :) Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour Rumiton! OK for "could" then. But I am not d'accord avec vous for having caps at marquise, comte, etc. If you check the article Catherine de Vivonne, marquise de Rambouillet, you will notice that it was moved from Catherine de Vivonne, Marquise de Rambouillet, as have been many articles on French nobility, as titles in French are not capitalised.

Andrée de Vivonne was a cousin of the Catherine de V., I am trying to find the exact relationship, which could be through Catherine's father, Jean de Vivonne.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. I didn't know that. My understanding is that if the words are in italics they can remain foreign terms with the foreign capitalisation. It looks a bit strange to me, but if that is correct, please go ahead and change them back. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please forgive me for not responding earlier. I just answered your 5 March note on my talk page: I have not had time to check the discussion at "Manual of Style", if that is what you mean. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I shall... when I have a few hours in front of me! Is what's bothering you the fact that I had changed upper case to lower? If so, there seems to be two schools of thought (if not more!) on this one & so many arguments RE French names/surnames/titles! So I usually stick to my "school of thought" until agreement is reached. In the meantime, I have not changed your changes as I believe, like you do, that correct facts on someone's life are more important. Cordialement ! --Frania W. (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour Rumiton: As I fail to see where I am wrong in using lower case, please direct me to the exact discussion that makes the two of us interpret this case differently. This is what I fell upon:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28France_&_French-related%29#Noble_titles.

Your correction to *Marquise* on the link to the article on Catherine de Vivonne, brings us to Catherine de Vivonne, *marquise* de Rambouillet. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. I noticed your edit summary stating: Capitalised some French titles as per recent Manual of Style discussion. A discussion is a discussion, not a vote or proof of consensus & the manual of style & other Wikipedia directives give several choices, among which French titles not capitalised. The discussion I just fell upon here [15] is not a poll in favour of capitalisation giving the "must" to follow, it is only a casual conversation. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour Rumiton: I did not feel excluded from the discussion & my opening statement at MOS Foreign titles was only a way of introducing myself as the "French speaker" you had mentioned. My argument in the discussion is that if the title is kept in French, then it should be italicised wih lower case: French: "duc d'Orléans", English: "Duke of Orléans", logic then being Catherine de Vivonne, marquise de Rambouillet, Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de Sévigné, etc... Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answered your last msg at my talk page. --Frania W. (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Busy at something else also: no time for Wikipedia for a while.

Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Hidden Page Barnstar
		I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you answered the phone? Pleasure doing business with you. ;D TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:47 & 19:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're interested in continuing collaboration (or if you're just interested in something new ;p), have a look at this. It can use some help (even tho I wrote it ;p). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'm going to AGF here, but this edit [16] of yours definitely restored vandalism, so I reverted it. Just a mistake? Philip Trueman (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Now I am confused. The version that is up now is not the one I restored. I need to find out why. You are quite correct in reverting it and in AGFing. Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) OK, I think I see what happened. User 205.155.216.41 made two edits, the first of which did not seem to be vandalism (though it might have been.) The second obviously was. Thank you for your on-the-ballness. Rumiton (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba article: Both the statements are right. Private Interviews are given to families or groups or individuals. The later statement by Ashok Bhagani is also right but its not fully mentioned in the article. That's what caused this confusion. Here is the full statement from the Payal Nair article. "Mr Bhagani also stated that when devotees are selected by Baba for a private interview, there is always someone else present in the room, and this is especially the case when women and children meet him.". But in the article only the first part of the statement is mentioned. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll copy this to the talk page so it can be looked at for reliability, etc. Rumiton (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ching_Hai. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Please make sure you read the guidelines before making any posts. Thanks. Ldp linux (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your welcome, though I have actually been around for a few years. The page you mention does not exist, but if you can point me towards any problematic edits I may have made, that would be good. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering why reverted this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=361216238&oldid=361144311 This source has been greatly undermined.

• Please take a moment to read under chapter (Public Reactions 31 - The Investigation page# 298 in the below google book) http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6wqmy4z3428C&oi=fnd&pg=PA13&dq=modern++Miracles+Haraldsson&ots=W2vC3gkI73&sig=mI_wH97NGotXfeX-xrPukS11VCg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here's why the research / investigation on the DD tape holds good. (I have copied only a fraction of information please read through the whole chapter)

• Investigation: Investigation was conducted by Dr. Wiseman who took the video to a company which specialises in investigating coorperate fraud.
• This company possess one of world's best equipment to enhance poor quality videotape.
• The video tape was run through a real time snell & Wilcox Kudos Noise Reducer.
• Inspite of the improving graininess of video still the resulting tape did not reveal information or firm evidence of fraud.
• The company analysed several still frames taken from the video. The resulting photographs did not reveal any further information of fraud as claimed by Deccan Chronicle.
• Also note that Deccan Chronicle did not have any of their crew members present during the function when this video was actually taken.

Author:

• Haraldsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlendur_Haraldsson, http://www.parapsych.org/members/e_haraldsson.html) is a very important academic source on Sathya Sai Baba. He has a number of journal publications on ParaPsychology investigations and experiments - http://notendur.hi.is/erlendur/english/svid.htm#5 and also has published a number of journal articles analyzing Sathya Sai Baba's miracles - http://notendur.hi.is/erlendur/english/svid.htm#6

Harldsson report on the DD tape is very important for this BLP article which has a paragraph of accusations on Sathya Sai Baba of serious fraud and sleight of hand. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. I reverted as per my edit summary. It seemed that expertise was being implied that may not have existed. And right now I don't have time to look thoroughly into your references, but I will look in the next few days. In the meantime you are welcome to restore your edit, pending discussion. Thanks again. Rumiton (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for changing the wording on the HIV status section of Freddie Mercury's page. I didn't really know I good way to say what needed to be said without completely deleting the sentence (which would be unfair because there was some factual information between the lines!!!)

biancasimone (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)biancasimoneReply[reply]

You're welcome. Rumiton (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.[17] Momento (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Thank you, AGK 11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

"OK, it seems I have misunderstood the requirements. Next time (if there is one) that I am personally reviled by editors on this talk page I shall respond by...", personal revulsion doesn't have anything to do with AGF, there are editors such as Jossi that have been proven to have worked in Bad Faith, and possibly others still working on the project. AGF doesn't have much to do with how you personally feel about what they said, only that they are believing what they say to be true and accurate, some editors here seem to think they have a ownership of "true", and I flat-out deny their accuracy of things, combine both of those factors against an editor, and there's no reason to assume GF from that editor until he's proven otherwise, which could take a while, at least in my opinion. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you have misunderstood my use of "reviled", perhaps confusing it with "revolted." I used the word correctly, I believe, to mean call by ill names, abuse, rail at. This is what PatW did to me, and has done before. He described me as "completely biased," "authoritarian, controlling, prefectorial" (I think PatW went to an English public school) and "pushy." He called me a "cult member" and said I have an "unethical agenda." These are insults, not facts. He might as well have said I have a big nose and halitosis. This is personal attack, disruption of the editing process, and an obvious attempt to influence a mediator against me. If you have no personal agenda regarding Prem Rawat, how is it that you do not see this? Regarding Jossi, I don't know what happened. If he sockpuppeted, he deserves what happened to him, but something that blatant and unlikely to succeed, not to mention dishonest, just doesn't ring true for Jossi. Also the edits "Pergamino" made were not in Jossi's style or direction. As I said, I don't know what happened. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. I did, in fact, misunderstand your use of the word, and your usage is correct. 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. If those are the things he said, then I think that's wrong (but can you really argue against "cult member"? lol, I'm kidding, I'm kidding!). I personally do not believe you have an unethical agenda, and unlike others on your side of the argument, (and I think I've said this before), I find most of the things you've discussed/argued/commented on to be of value to the process of these articles. I would like to believe the mediators can see all/any biases of the involved editors as easily as we can, although when they hand us 18 yr olds as mediators I do lose a little faith in that concept as well. Also, as I've said before, my first degree was in History, and I have a personal vendetta against the revisionism of history, I don't care personally what happened in Rawat's life, but I do want to know that it is recorded the way it happened, not how someone wants to "interpret" it many years later. Let the reader do that part. Regarding Jossi, I found him difficult, arrogant, pedantic, and quite frankly too "smug" for my tastes, and based on that, I have a hard time not believing he didn't consider himself above the rules, and therefore felt justified doing what he did. Which is too bad because he had access to lots of relevant research for these articles. If Wikipedia says they have proof he was sock-ing, I don't have a big problem believing that. So to sum up, oops, I mis-interpreted what you said, thanks for clearing that up, and have a great day! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for that, and for your moderate and good humored approach. I share your distaste for historical revisionism, and would love to see Prem Rawat's life story told with the detail and clarity it deserves. The problem is that the sources that were looking at him in the 70's were mostly making a cheap buck, or a cheap point, and not taking his work seriously, for whatever reason, and he has avoided all publicity since 1980. The original Indian import with its ashrams and robed mahatmas fully deserved the title "cult" (though all that stuff was considered normal and admirable in India), but PR has done a terrific hatchet job on it in the West, while retaining his ability to encourage people to seek satisfaction within. That's my view of it, with as much clarity and honesty as I have. I know you were joking about the cult thing but some are not. For the record, I do not consider myself a member of anything even vaguely resembling a cult. The only other editor here that I know personally is Momento, and I know him quite well. I can state with certainty that there would be no cult currently operating on earth that would consider having Momento as a member. :-) Rumiton (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't sound too far off from my general thoughts about PR either, as a brief summary of events. And while you might be right about him being accepted as a member, if they could teach him some skills in the subtlety department, they could definitely hire him in the Public Relations/Media Department! *sigh* I see there's a brushfire breaking out in the Teachings article now... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that -- I was deliberating about removing the "on" but I suddenly felt overwhelmed by the prospect of, were I to be consistent, attacking similar gangster articles: they are full of things like that not to mention historical inaccuracies. But just because you can't do everything doesn't mean you shouldn't do something...--Jrm2007 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like a pretty good philosophy. A little at a time is good. Rumiton (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Vipinhari || talk 06:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re your message: Since you don't know the editing time frame for the IP, I recommend that you start the page for him in your user space as she/he suggested on the talk page. That way they can get to it whenever they can and then you can move it once it is completed. I suppose you could also recreate the page and tag it with ((underconstruction)), but if the IP doesn't show up in a couple of days, it might get deleted again. That's why the user space option is the safest bet. Nobody should delete it out from under you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I used Template:-, although Template:clear would also work. It just forces a break after an image, so that the text starts after the image is complete. I don't use it often, but it is a nice save when the images pile up to much. - Bilby (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. That's really helpful. Rumiton (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rumiton! This morning, you deleted the "Steering mistake and continued sailing" section with the comment "removed absurd theory". However, I propose undoing your deletion; please read my rationale below. Before taking action, I wanted to touch base. If you feel strongly about the matter, would you please either promptly reply on the article talk page and/or my user talk page, or promptly place the content you deleted to whichever of the following two locations you think is more appropriate: "Titanic alternative theories", or Legends and myths regarding RMS Titanic?

Here's where I'm coming from. Firstly, I appreciate your concern and am uninterested in engaging in an editing war. At the same time, I disagree with your decision to delete the content. Secondly, at least one prominent subject matter expert disagrees with you. For example, in response to the questions, "Could the helmsman really have made that mistake? And if so, could it have stayed secret for so long?" James Delgado - the president of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M - told ABC News, "I think it's entirely possible".^[1] Thirdly, the theory in question has garnered significant media attention and will, undoubtedly, continue to do so when: (1) the proponent's soon-to-be-published book, which incorporates this subject matter, is released, and (2) credible experts have had more time to respond. Consequently, it would seem inconsistent for Wikipedia to ignore Lady (Louise) Patten's theory and the media storm it has created, while publishing alternative theories, legends, and myths regarding RMS Titanic.

Looking forward to your reply. - Ciao! - Froid 23:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. Rumiton (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look at Dál Riata. I think it is what you want. --Red King (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. That was exactly it. Rumiton (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I decided to be bold and proceed with merge of Loving Hut. I expect some reversion attempts from anon editors. Efficacious (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. If necessary I will add my shrill, piping voice in your defence. :-) Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not much logic was involved in the recent discussions in the TM talk page. Your call for logic was appreciated. I hope that you will take the time to analyse the situation in more depth, considering the pre-split state, the reliable sources on the subject, the reason given for the split, etc. This will be much welcome. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Rumiton, I can sense that you are a refined person. I might have been very sure about my own logic when I disagreed with you about some content issue and forgot that one might hurt feelings even when talking about content. I don't even remember what the content issue was, but I can remember the feeling that you expressed. I am now under AE and I feel I must apologize and reiterate that you are most welcome to return to the TM talk page. I do my best to improve myself. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Edith, your sincerity is undoubted. The problem I had was not really about content at all, it was just that your communication style makes you very, very difficult to understand. When a Wikipedia editor writes in a way that demands a lot of effort from other editors just to understand them, the possibility is raised that they might be doing it on purpose, hoping the others will give up and go away. I don't believe this is true of you, but I would honestly suggest that you get yourself a course in direct and clear English, including grammar. (If nouns and verbs don't agree, it is just another stumbling block for those trying to understand you.) It is useful to read over carefully what you have written and try to see it as a new person would, someone who doesn't already know what you are trying to say. Then cut and change your post mercilessly to suit. All, the best. Rumiton (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for making that revert on the TM article. I just came online and was shocked to see the changes. I also warned the editor that his unilateral changes are not appropriate given the contentious nature of the article. See what happens. (olive (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Yes, I saw that Olive. I think it was just a new user with strong feelings and an underappreciation of Wikipedia procedures. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder of you'd care to make another revert. He's been busy here too.[18]. I can only revert once and don't have roll back rights which I assume would allow someone to make the revert in one edit.(olive (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Looks like the sun came up in Fladrif's part of the world. Cheers again. Rumiton (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted your blanking of Pious fiction. As you are not the only (possibly not even, I don't recall) editor of the page, blanking in lieu of placing a ((db-g7)) is not allowed. Please take the article to prod or afd if you feel that it is unacceptable as a Wikipedia article. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your info on Graves' name. Could you add in that info to the article with a ref? Much obliged. Span (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Rumiton (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rumiton. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

That's some brilliant work. I have no say in who (if anyone) wins the $50 prize for "outstanding copyediting" in January of our A-class articles ... but if you qualified by starting by January 14, I'd like to encourage you to go for it. Just one question ... don't these excerpts say two different things? "In late December 1799 the American schooner Experiment had taken under convoy several merchant vessels to prevent their capture by French privateers. On 1 January 1800, Experiment's convoy (consisting of the brig Daniel and Mary and the schooners Sea Flower, Mary, and Washington) was caught ..." vs. "In late December 1799 the American schooner Experiment was escorting under convoy the brig Daniel and Mary and the schooners Sea Flower, Mary, and Washington to prevent their capture by French privateers. On 1 January 1800, the convoy was caught ..." - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Obviously if I don't get the 50 I will revert all my edits! :D I hope the descriptions of the convoys are correct, that is the way I understood the original text...that it is a rather wordy description of just one convoy. Do you have the source? Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't, Xavier probably has it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Are you questioning whether the convoy of 1 January was the same convoy of "late December"? Rumiton (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, I'm saying that from what he says, I don't know that those were the 3 ships they started out with. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps we shouldn't assume anything, but if late December meant the 25th Dec, and they sailed off and got becalmed on the 1st January...how many ships can you gain or lose in 7 days? Rumiton (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That makes sense ... to be safe, I'm asking him. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The four merchent vessels involved in the action were the ones that started out with experiment when the convoy formed, but it was a good question to ask as most of the convoys during the Quasi-War were extremely fluid in their composision with ships joining and dropping out at their leisure or getting picked off by privateers if they lagged behind. So one actually could gain or lose a few ships within the span of seven days, but in this instance they composition was the same at the action as when it started.XavierGreen (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you both. Nice resolution to my presumption. Rumiton (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam, Based on your comments on Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant I thought you would be interested in the current discussion taking place at its talk page. Njsustain (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I really can't understand why this article is on Wikipedia. Seems to be some kind of agenda involved. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. It seems there was a huge drive from one person to keep it up, but once the restaurant closed he no longer cared what happened to the article. Too coincidental for me not to be suspicious. Njsustain (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might be worth a Request for Comment, not sure which noticeboard would be best. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be futile, especially since the original article isn't viewable now. It's frustrating because it was so obvious, to me and others, that it was a puff piece (especially in its original form) and no one would have created an article like that about a non-notable local restaurant without a good reason. When I simply brought it up for question there was a big brouhaha about it... ANI and everything... Jimmy Wales was involved and I was called expletives by other administrators. The debate raged on and on, but if anyone else had created an article like that it would have been deleted out of hand... the AfD, if any, would have been a formality. It's just a sad commentary on how WP works. Any comments would and did fall on deaf ears because the article's creator, author, and voracious defender (until the restaurant closed) was an administrator. Well, thanks for letting me vent. Njsustain (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are probably right. Rumiton (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for copy editing the article. I hope you enjoy my research and the article a little. Please excuse my terrible English. I am a native German and write here on the English Wiki to practice my English. Thanks again. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought the English sounded a little Germanic, but it is really very good, and this is a fascinating article. I have worked as a German-English translator, and your English is WAY better than my German. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, do you know anything more about the Schutzkompanie Dahlem? In the convention of the time, Dahlem was probably the commanding officer, but what was a "Schutzkompanie"? Rumiton (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dahlem is a borough or district of Berlin. Schutzkompanie means "protection company" so Schutzkompanie Dahlem is the protection company of Dahlem. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I was wondering what type of unit this was. Civil Defence, some kind of police squad, or perhaps even Freikorps? Rumiton (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grützner explains that a ship commander, contrary to a fleet admiral, has to deal or better make his judgements, based on the short term tactical situation of the battle. Lütjens, as Admiral, had to make his decisions according to the objective of the mission. Grützner, citing other military historians, argues the short term tactical decision (continue the battle with Prince of Wales), should have superseded the long term strategic elements of the mission. Remember the goal of the mission was to attack the British merchant ships and not to engage, unless unavoidable, the British navy. I hope this makes it clear what is being condensed into one sentence. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thank you, it does and it is most interesting. Perhaps it deserves 2 sentences, or more? Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all your copy editing. If I would have known that my English was that terrible I would not have written the article. :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah god, don't think that! English is the most treacherous language on earth (or so I am told by people who know quite a lot of them.) You have to be born into it to get the nuances, and even we who are born into it get it wrong and get misunderstood plenty of times. Your English is fine and workable and does you great credit. You should read my German. It makes grown-up Germans laugh and cry. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I am just thankful and tried to make a joke. I added a little more to the article see the last sentences in the 2nd to last paragraph in section "Operation Rheinübung" about the destroyers attacking at night and the section "In popular culture". You may want to tweak if necessary. Thanks again for all your help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I knew you were being light-hearted, and so was I, but my point stands. There is a great difference between OK English and good English, and it is a tremendously difficult language. I am a bit of a fanatic on this subject, which is why I love copyediting. Thanks for inviting me to your project. Rumiton (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I have to thank you. I am kind of attracted to the somewhat unusual personalities of World War II. A while ago I had worked on Werner Mölders and Helmut Lent. You may enjoy their biographies as well. Thanks again and happy editing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess anyone who stands out for individuality in a time of rigid conformity looks interesting. I have a question: "It is thought likely that Ernst Lindemann's cousin, the former General der Kavallarie Georg Lindemann, intervened." Why would this be? Rumiton (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am speculating here but the most obvious reason for this would be that associated with the Knight's Cross were certain financial ramifications that could have helped his widow and family. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you seen the last assessment Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ernst Lindemann? I am a bit surprised of the strong opposition. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand Dank's point, but I think he is going a bit too far. To me, the German adds to the veracity of the article and isn't overdone. But it is something you probably need to decide for yourself in this attempt to further advance the article. You will have my support either way. Rumiton (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I am not saying that he doesn't have a point, and he is probably right from his point of view. What I don't want is to come up with an article that looks like an Osprey book. While they may be soothing to the English reading eye they are often terrible when it comes to veracity. The greatest common denominator of all sources happens to be the German original term, independently of whether you refer to a military rank or unit. And which makes my life difficult is that I don't know what the most common English translation for something like Kaiserliche Marine or Kriegsmarine is. Okay, "Imperial Navy" makes sense but should I use "War Navy" instead of Kriegsmarine? Or what about Gymnasium, the closest thing that comes to my mind is probably high school, but this doesn't match semantically. Does that mean I should forfeit semantic correctness for ease of reading? Assume we translate "Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaft" it would render something like "Prussian Central Property Mortgage Publicly Traded Company" I don't think that anybody would ever link such a translation back to "Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaft" and/or the Eurohypo. To my knowledge nobody has ever attempted to translate the Wehrmachtbericht to English before. What do I do here? The rules of Wikipedia states "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage" the emphasis is on should it does not say must. And in the end I don't care if they do or do not promote it to A-Class. I think it is the best researched and condensed summary of his life in the internet that fits on a few pages, also thanks to your contribution. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. It's a goddam good article, and getting better. And yes, I fully understand the problem. Some years ago I did my own translation of Im Westen nichts Neues and came up against these impossibilities constantly. Military ranks don't translate, for a start, and using the next best fit often creates even more difficulties. Attitudes of people don't translate either, and can't be made to. Sometimes a footnote helps, but publishers don't like them, and I don't think WP does either. But to me, reading the actual words spoken on the bridge of Bismark adds enormously to my understanding of the battle, the war, and finally, of life. I would be the poorer if they were left out. Wehrmachtbericht has no English equivalent. The British and American Armed Forces did not have their own news services, I don't think. They contented themselves with heavily censoring the civilian news bureaus. It is all certainly a problem. But if we work patiently, I think we can largely overcome it. Rumiton (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tide is turning! Two supports versus one oppose. I am enjoying this. Let's see how long the oppose will prevail MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:D Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I broke out the translations into a section called "Translations". Do you think this works? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It works for me. I like it and would be happy to see all the other terms (Kriegsmarine etc) in there also. The only objection might be that there is a more orthodox way of setting it out (though I don't know what it might be.) Rumiton (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: Do you know how to add Lindemann to Portal:Battleships/Selected biography? I think he would make a good addition. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I did this correctly MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it worked. Looks good there. Rumiton (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I will be travelling for a couple of weeks soon. Just in case the review of the article extends into my absence I would like to ask you to address the issues/concerns that may come up. I had originally hoped to bring the article up to FAC by 27 May this year. My idea had been to feature this article on the main page of WP on 27 May (70 years after the last battle of Bismarck). Maybe this is still possible but it may mean that I have to ask you to post the article for review during my holidays. If you are not comfortable with this please let me know. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. I'm not familiar with the process but I'll do my best to follow up on whatever is suggested. (Within reason.) Rumiton (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I submitted the article at FAC review. It is getting good remarks. This is your achievement! Thanks. I have my trip prepared now and I will be gone early next week. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our achievement. Team! Rumiton (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please check the translations of German to English ranks in the article? I am not the expert here and you corrected a number of them. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tried, but like many things, they don't really translate. The German military uses more ranks than the western forces, so they have intermediate ranks that don't exist in English. Also different ranks qualify people for different jobs. Some indicate command seniority, or a license to command vessels of a certain size. I wonder if there is a list of agreed comparitives online somewhere? Rumiton (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, you're in control now. I have made a number of changes, nothing significant. Have a look. Talk to you in May. Good luck. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll do my best, but still not sure what to do about the insistence on English rank-names when they just don't apply. Anyway, bon voyage. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Nanu, war das ein Blindgänger? Der hat sich wohl reingefressen". Might I suggest something like, "Lucky that was a dud! It really chewed its way in." It seems to me he was remarking that if the shell had exploded within the hull as it was intended to, it would have done a lot of damage. Rumiton (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if the first part works. When reading Von Müllenheim-Rechberg I got the impression that Lindemann was surprised that he did not observe the shell to explode instantly. It appeared that, with a small delay, Hood's explosion was the first observation that Hood had been hit. The translation of "chewed its way in" is indeed a better fit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, my silly mistake. Reading too quickly, I thought he was talking about a hit to Bismark. Anyway, I'll leave any change to you. Rumiton (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I had been wondering how to get rid of some of the repetition of "breaking point" and then you came along and fixed it for me! Thanks a lot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pleasure! Rumiton (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw you editing the article. Please note it is far from complete. Periodically I have go at it but I haven't found a layout that makes me feel good about it yet. Missing from the article is the history background of the term "Knight's Cross" (it dates back to the templers). Completely missing is the nomination and approval process (it changed a bit throughout WW2 and is a complete mess in the final phase of WW2 which caused a lot of grief with some soldiers who believed to have received the award (de facto) only to learn that the legal grounds (de jure) are not given). The article in some parts is full of stuff that is more or less useless and bears historic accuracy. If you are interested in helping out I might have a go at it again, I provide the facts and you could tweak my awkward poetry. If you want of course. I would enjoy this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, thanks. I wouldn't worry about it not being complete, the whole of Wikipedia is a work in progress. It's an article that deserves to exist, and it would be a privilege to tweak your poetry. :) Rumiton (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

great 'hungry lion' comment at NPON/N [19]which both nicely encapsulated the meaty mess and literally made me laugh out loud, something rare enough to point out. thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]