User talk:Maelefique

Maelefique will be away on vacation until August 15 and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Re: this: Your initial statement will continue to be read and considered by everyone, however it is advisable to distil it down into smaller chunks of evidence, and place them on the evidence page. Take a look at one or two prior cases to see how the evidence is presented:

talk) 03:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. Re the missing flames. I wiped the Talk Page following warnings, to show willing to conform to Wikipedia protocol. I suppose it is effectively not really removed as all previous content is recorded in the history menu. So it was essentially just a gesture towards compliance and civility.PatW (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have done some further research and was unable to find the characterization "satirical" in any secondary

I'd say probably a good idea to let the RfC run another week or so. Do you think it would be a good idea to post a notice about the ongoing RfC on relevant talkpages of associated WikiProjects, perhaps

WP:JOURN? Cirt (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Do you have your preferences set for a different time zone? I leave mine set for UTC. Anyway, I think you're misreading the logs slightly. They only give hours and minutes, not seconds. Here are his recent edits, most recent first, time in UTC:

• 08:34, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception draft: Shupe or Hammond)
• 08:13, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception draft: Ricahrdson)
• 08:00, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Prem Rawat‎ (→Downton and Divinity)
• 07:58, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat‎ (→Collier: Collier facts and bio)
• 07:51, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat‎ (→Collier)
• 07:35, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception draft: footnotes and references)
• 07:30, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception: restoring Barret ref)
• 07:29, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception: restoring Foss&Larkins ref)
• 07:26, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception: restoring Geaves ref)
• 07:21, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception: restoring Levine ref)
• 06:47, April 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Divine Light Mission‎ (→Reception draft)

Between 7:21 and 8:00 he made eight edits. That's not incredibly fast. I've made twice that many regular edits in the same time and even more simple edits. What Momento's contribution history does show is a single purpose editor who devotes significant time to this topic every day. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources that have done studies or mande comments on the members of the DLM - their ethnic, economic, and religous backgrounds, their education, their previous drug use, even their mental health. With so much material it's logical to have a section on DLM membership. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The estate is probably better left out of its present location. It may be worth mentioning in some kind of description of the general situation of the leader, a topic covered in many sources. So I've removed it myself. I hope you don't mind. The other editor who was removing it was giving some poor justifications and he shouldn't have removed it for those reasons, in my opinion. I've given what I think is a better reason on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maelefique, in 5 reverts (without explaining why) you just reverted the Prem Rawat article to my last version [1] - thanks for the compliment, but: why? I didn't think Rumiton's edits that bad, did you actually consider them? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• (Note to self for future reference, this user was banned from Wikipedia, and had his adminship removed for gaming the system, sockpuppeteering, and evading ArbCom sanctions. After months of deliberately impeding the process of articles I worked on with him, it's nice to see that the system here does work, albeit slowly) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "mael"-icious counterpart. It was worth mentioning, if for nothing else but to tell the story. Sorry for not attending to your heads-up sooner, and please allow me to be the first to inform you (with authority) that I am not you.

Cheers!

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

• (Note to self for future reference, this user (Jossi) was banned from Wikipedia, and had his adminship removed for gaming the system, sockpuppeteering, and evading ArbCom sanctions. After months of deliberately impeding the process of articles I worked on with him, it's nice to see that the system here does work, albeit slowly) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note this on your talk page, but respond here pls. I still fail to see any personal attack in what I said, I discussed the merits of arguments as they were presented, I mentioned no names except Jossi's, who, if I'm not mistaken, presented no arguments in the discussion at all, or at least none I objected to, and the diff referring to him is a fact, not an attack. I didn't think going into too much detail on the arguments was a good idea, as I would have to start with names and specifics, in which case, yes, I could concede your point. However, I didn't, and the majority of arguments made in that section are completely spurious, and basically ridiculous. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually responded on my talk page :)

Do not deliberately misrepresent me as you have done here. [5] See [6].Momento (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a misrepresentation, I was discussing the broader issue, which is we can probably stop discussing Cagan, on point, I agree with you, and your topic heading, "time to end this". But thank you for your comments. That's not incivility, if I had said something like "so and so is being a jackass, but I agree it's time to end this" that would be incivility. I hope you see the clear difference. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read [7], you would have seen incivility covers - Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. And quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them.Momento (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure does! You said we should stop discussing Cagan, I agreed. Point to the lie please. You can't. Point to where I asserted false information please. You can't. You said "Let's move on", that's not an opinion that gives any view, or maligns you in any way. So point to the incivility...oh ya, you can't. I agree we should move on from Cagan, so generally, we're in agreement, and anyone over 12 can read what you wrote right above my entry and understand it all on their own, it's not like I quoted somewhere where you said something archived, or on a different page, or even in a different section, your statements and mine will both die an archival death together, where anyone can read them whenever they want. I see nothing here worth discussing further. If you need anything else explained, or you see an error in my arguments, feel free to respond, I may get back to it later in the week. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I saw your copyedit of Prem Rawat, which helped it. You may not have seen a new article,Millennium '73. It's in the midst of a Featured Article candidate review, so we're trying to polish it. If you can make any improvements to the grammar or language that'd be great. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maelefique, is it so hard for you to take a person serious, when their view differs from yours? And what do you mean with that strange bit you dropped on my talk page? We have learned from Paul Watzlawik: you cannot not communicate, but sometimes I have my doubts. I find your conduct towards me based more on arrogance than on rational discourse, highly emotional, but not very convincing. Has anybody ever brought your attention to your command of civility? Will at least shows effort for neutrality in his communication style and I don't think he needs a hatchet man.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not why it's hard to take people here seriously at times. Suggesting Time is in the same category as The National Enquirer might be a good reason it's hard to take someone seriously at times though. As for your talk page, if I felt it was an appropriate discussion here, I'm sure I would have brought it here. Please try and keep discussion here on topic as much as we can be. Ironically, I have a similar feeling towards your input here. You seem to use highly emotional descriptions such as "embarrassing shot from the hip", "no need to pretend it is faultless", "is at least obliged to keep up with reality". These are supposed to be your convincing, non-emotional statements? What did I say that was highly emotional? Anything inaccurate? I don't see anything, feel free to enlighten me (although this is probably not the right page for that, I guess that's what usertalk pages could be for!). My command of civility, uhm,... yes, jossi and Momento both did I think, but they've sort of lost a little of my respect lately so I'm not sure those are the role models you were looking for. If it makes you feel better, I think you often have something more helpful to say than some others who edit here and it was not my intent to make you think I wasn't taking you seriously overall. Any further discussion on *this* matter should probably, again, be moved to a usertalk page. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting piece of information ("so it's coincidence...")! I see your point. Maybe I was a bit premature in my assumption, sorry for that. Still I am only mildly surprised, and not much indignant. I presume, there has been a lot of volunteer work on the side of Rawat's students, as this is part of being a student. I don't know if one should be called an "employee" then. I am an employee, but not of Rawat. If I were to edit an article on my employer, I would definitely experience a COI. If I do things to help Rawat, then it is from my personal conviction or opinion. See my opening statement on the mediation page. Thank you, anyway.--Rainer P. (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least one signature bot, but it doesn't work instantly and it specifically avoids some pages or users. I'll look into it and see if there's a problem.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an AE (arbitration enforcement) thread on recent editing at

]

July 2009

Oops, violated arbcom remedy, still think it was vandalism though...(or someone gaming the system)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for per [8] and as warned above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS talk 08:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Maelefique (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The log of blocks, bans, and restrictions, here does not list me as blocked. I do not know why I was blocked. I assume it's for reverting 2 edits that were vandalism of the article. I see from the block,ban, restriction log that Equalwhom was already blocked for one week for violating the editing restrictions[9]. One of my edits was to revert his[10]. He has evidently already been found guilty of being disruptive (imo vandalizing) the article since that's why he was banned. That would indicate that my first revision of the article was completely justified. Therefore, I've only made *1* other edit to the article. There is no basis for banning me for 1 edit[11] (from a conveniently new anon IP editor, who made a major undiscussed change to the article, who has only made 7 other edits ever[12], all to this group of articles, all within the last 48 hours, and has never spoken on any of the article talk pages to discuss changes). Unlike the other 2 editors I've discussed, you can see that I have been quite active on the talk pages[13], and in fact only kept the article stable to a state that had a general consensus. I added no new text and did not revert back to any edit of my own. You can also see from my contributions that I do not edit articlespace very often[14], as I prefer to work with the group in talk pages[15], and arrive at a consensus. Please revert this ban, or at the very least, update the block log so I can see why I was blocked in the first place. Thank-you. -- Maelefique (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Decline reason: Reason for block well-documented; your latest revert was not for clear vandalism by any stretch. Regardless of whether the addition was appropriate, given your probation, you should have left it for someone else to handle. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. We spend the better part of 2 weeks crafting a sentence, days on just the last half of one, we get a general consensus, and then some anon IP drives by and reverts without discussion (Even though he seems very familiar with the topic!), but that's not vandalism?! You should supply your definition of "vandalism" with a statement like that. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hello Maelefique, As I stated before the edits made by Equalwhom and the anon IP were not clear vandalism which was the requirement of the arbcom ruling in this matter. This page is likely to assist in answering your question further - and you should note that vandalism is defined as any addition, removal, or change of content. Change of content in this context does not appear to include moving whole paragraphs from one to another location but rather to actual change of the content detailed - although I could understand that being a concern in some rare circumstances. Nevertheless please note also that the content of the vandalism policy page specified that you have the right to inform administrators in the case of suspected vandalism and if you had done so that may have resulted in a similar reversion but would not have placed you in the position where you were infringing upon the Prem Rawat ruling. I hope that assists.--VS talk 04:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have contacted the blocking admin. -- "talk" 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Maelfique, my apologies as I neglected to add the details of block detailed here and linked on your page above also did not so indicate about your edits. I did leave an informative comment at that location previously and I blocked your account differently to that of Equalwhom - whom I saw as instigating the matter(and perhaps using his IP or another Meatpuppet to re-add the material you had already reverted once).--VS talk 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

MedCab

Hello. You're the only one who is yet to agree to the

Hey Maelefique, what is this "research" you did that showed I was a past employee of Prem Rawat's? Unless you can prove it, which you can't as it isn't true, I require that you apologise. (I am really ticked off about this.) Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't categorize it as "research", but I'm only going on what you said. Does it mean something other than what it says, that you work/ed at Amaroo for several years? I don't think that information was used inappropriately, or contorted in any way by me, was it? I can understand why you're ticked too, in the current atmosphere of these articles, it certainly doesn't paint you in the most favorable light, and as I said elsewhere, I was kinda disappointed to come across this information. It's moot now I suppose, as he's retired, but have you met/do you know Terry? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now and I am not ticked off any more. In this litigious environment I should not have used the term "worked." I run my own business and do translation jobs for a living. Before that I was a long time in the Navy. Part of Prem Rawat's teachings are that people doing his meditation should get involved in voluntary work, perhaps for a charity such as TPRF or directly helping make the experience more accessible to people. I live near Amaroo, so this is my choice. It is not in any sense employment, it is just occasional voluntary work at Amaroo, the same as thousands of others in any year. Would you be so good as to explain that to Mr Beback? Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link on his talkpage. --Maelefique ^(talk) 16:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great trip. I'm envious. Take lots of pictures. I look forward to hearing your views of Collier when you return.   Will Beback  talk  18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you're going on a little hike!!! What an exciting trip. Have a great time and safe journey to you... Sylviecyn (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, I am letting you know that I have started a thread on Geaves on RS/N. However, I would ask you to refrain from commenting until uninvolved editors have had a chance to comment. I have linked to our recent discussions of the topic, so outside editors can see what we have been talking about, and what our respective arguments are; there is no need to duplicate these arguments at RS/N. Thank you. --JN466 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[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.[16] Momento (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those redlinked entries are there for future expansion. If we used a {talkheader} template it would automatically add new archives, but someone on that page prefers the archive box, so we have to manually add new archives. The "fix" would be to get rid of the box and use the template instead.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]