User talk:Rumiton

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

		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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cheers, Rumiton :) Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Thanks! --Kevin Murray 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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 []
• I request that this decision be reversed. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • I consider this response to be simplistic, snide, sarcastic and yes...incivil. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Rumiton! Thank you for replacing oneself here . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)biancasimone

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

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. Momento (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)
(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

I wonder of you'd care to make another revert. He's been busy here too.. 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))

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

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)

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)

OK. Rumiton (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

:D Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Pleasure! Rumiton (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

great 'hungry lion' comment at NPON/N 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)

Glad it worked for you. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

		Excellence in Reviewing
		For great work at Milhist's A-class reviews, with appreciation. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you, Dank. Most generous! Rumiton (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the second one I've given out for reviewing ... we have a quarterly system of awards based on number of reviews, maybe you can win one of those :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Aah. I am such a pedantic prosist that I doubt I will ever win a numbers contest. I have been known to spend months on one page, and still not be happy with it. But thanks for the thought. Rumiton (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

To each his own. Cheers - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As announced previously I am on a lengthy leave of absence. I am not sure if you misunderstood something but me leaving has nothing to do with the review of the Lindemann article. It is long planned trip I am taking which takes through Spain hiking all the way. I plan to be back sometime early to mid May. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood your use of "retired." It usually means a permanent departure. I am very glad to hear it is not. All the best, and have a great time in Spain. Rumiton (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting how these little subtleties in language can cause havoc. I am sorry about that. I noticed you made some edits on the "All quiet on the Western Front" article. By the way do you know what is meant by the term "Bettnässer" or bed-wetter? Of course it means someone who pees in his bed but that is not what it means here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I rather dread to ask...what does it mean? Rumiton (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the original text: Tjaden ist Bettnässer, nachts beim Schlafen passiert es ihm eben. Himmelstoß behauptete steif und fest, es sei nur Faulheit, und er fand ein seiner würdiges Mittel, um Tjaden zu heilen. Er trieb in der benachbarten Baracke einen zweiten Bettnässer auf, der Kindervater hieß. Den quartierte er mit Tjaden zusammen. In den Baracken standen die typischen Bettgestelle, zwei Betten übereinander, die Bettböden aus Draht. Himmelstoß legte beide nun so zusammen, daß der eine das obere, der andere das darunter befindliche Bett bekam. Der untere war dadurch natürlich scheußlich daran. Dafür wurde am nächsten Abend gewechselt... Rumiton (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Meine Vorfahren hießen Kindervater eigentlich. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is known that Remarque drew very much on his own experiences for this book...perhaps your great-grandfather has been immortalised? Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In my generation you called someone a Bettnässer if he or she is very inexperienced or someone who is afraid of everything. Kindervater!? The railroad engineer August Kindervater received the Ritterkreuz des Kriegsverdienstkreuzes (Knight's Cross of the War Merit Cross) on 7 December 1943. A relative? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

They would be distant relatives if so, we were "Kindervater" 200 years ago. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's distant. Anyway, as you know we have a similar usage for bedwetter in English, but I think there is no doubt in this case the meaning is literal. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Klar. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am humbled to be so elevated. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

BogdaNz (talk · contribs) is vandalising the article and is deleting cited information. If you have time please keep a watch on the article MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Rumiton (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What does headlessness mean? Rumiton (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume it is Kopflossigkeit. Rumiton (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the external link to that wiki, I began a discussion here on the matter, and the editors participating seem to be saying that that link is not appropriate, not only based on the WP:EL policy, but also WP:BLP. I invited you to participate in it to share your thoughts. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Rumiton (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton, Till now thanks to all your help we were able to maintain a good reliable article on Sathya Sai Baba. I see a lot of acts of Vanadalism today especially under the present situation. New unknown users are inserting invalid claims backed by no reliable sources. I request your help in protecting this article. We may need an admin help if new users and ip addresses continue to vandalize this page. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. No longer being a living biography makes it a bit harder. I think you will find the flurry of activity may die down in a few days, but it bears watching. Perhaps an admin might have a look.Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I see sweeping rearranging of the article which does not make too much sense by new users. Can we get some protection from Admin to stop make sweeping changes and reorganisation to this article and lock the more stable earlier version before the sweeping changes. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rumiton, thanks for your note. Sorry to here about the passing. I took a look at the article and haven't seen much vandalism. An influx of new users is a good thing and should be encouraged. Any damage can be repaired. If actual vandalism gets overwhelming then short protection would be justified.   Will Beback  talk  16:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, you are right, what's happening is not vandalism. But it's a little daunting watching solutions that have been arrived at after long and difficult debate getting tossed aside by people with a fairly rudimentary understanding of WP principles and no interest in the debate that has taken place. The thing to do I suppose is pull back for a while and proceed again when things cool down. Rumiton (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Solutions which resulted in omitting significant events in the subject's life, like a bloody assassination attempt, are probably best discarded no matter how much debate was involved. This is a deeply dysfunctional topic on Wikipedia, and I appreciate any ways in which you've improved it. But a fresh wind is good for blowing out the cobwebs. Another reasons for keeping the page open for editing is that the obituaries and related articles provide a flood of new sources which can help provide both overall balance and small details.   Will Beback  talk  15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall any discussion on the assassination attempt, though of course I have read of it. The problem as always with this subject is that there is so much hagiography and mythologising constantly going on that neutral or skeptical investigators mostly can't get a handle on the facts. The assassination attempt was possibly part of this. With the Indian Police describing an unlikely scenario (attacks by knife-wielders unavoidably met by deadly force, etc), there was probably no hard information for anyone neutral to report, and rather than include speculation, the decision was made not to deal with it at all. Obviously I am guessing here, but this is what I have seen with trying to get at other facts in the subject's life.

But the main problem right now is that so many editors are at work on the article that it's hard to even comment without edit conflicts, and since much of what they are trying to insert (controversial info from blogs, primary sources, etc) while not exactly vandalism, is certainly misguided, it needs to be done. As I remarked to RadiantEnergy above, things will no doubt cool down over the next few weeks. Let's watch and wait. Rumiton (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles often undergo a cycle of punctuated equilibrium.   Will Beback  talk  16:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Punctuated equilibrium. OK. I like that. Rumiton (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following the topic closely, so I'm not sure what precise advice to give. There are several noticeboards where outside advice or help can be requested for either content or behavioral problems. If there's a specific question then an RfC can help. It's important to avoid engaging in any problematic behaviors yourself while dealing with problems caused by others.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good advice for a start. :) Rumiton (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support during my absence. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you again. Rumiton (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

All I tried to do is give more details of Mr. Kreydick deposition as we were referring to his deposition. Anyways, the talk page discussions have become so big. Are you ok with the following statement regarding the case and Alaya Rahm? If not what will you like to rephrase? I am not sure if you had time to find the term "Self-Dismissed with Prejudice" in legal terms dictionary.

As per The Pioneer article published on 31 March 2009, Alaya Rahm filed a lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society in the Superior Court of California. The trial was set for April 28, 2006. Alaya (the plaintiff) self-dismissed his own lawsuit on April 17th 2006. His case and Counter Case were "Self dismissed With Prejudice" meaning that the same claims cannot be refiled again or barred from bringing an action on the same claims. No offers of monetary settlement were paid to either his case or the counter case dismissal.[137][138]

I am not in agreeance with this, it is contradicted by the court documents. It doesn't make clear that both clients dismissed their cases simultaneously and both agreed not to present those cases again. "Dismissed with prejudice" means the court threw the case out and barred the plaintiff from presenting that case again. "Self dismissed with prejudice" means the plaintiff threw his own case out and barred himself. I don't think this will be in a legal dictionary, as it is just "dismissed with prejudice" with a "self" in front of it. There must be no suggestion that the court barred either plaintiff from resubmitting their case as the court never heard either case to be able to make a judgement on it. Rumiton (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You said "Self dismissed with prejudice" means the plaintiff threw his own case out and barred himself. How did you come with this interpretation? I did not see the word called "Self-Dismissed" anywhere in the Case or even in the court document. In the case it only says Plaintiff dismissed the case and used the term "Dismissed with Prejudice". Radiantenergy (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not correct. See []. "...the plaintiff has agreed to dismiss his complaint, with prejudice." He agreed to it, it was not forced on him by the court....he agreed not to pursue his complaint any further. "...and the cross complainant has agreed to dismiss its cross complaint, with prejudice." Same for them. Rumiton (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The first part of the statement is right but you are missing the second part. "The Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss his complaint, with prejudice. The word 'With Prejudice' means the case cannot be filed again. We can use the same words instead of using the word "Self-dismissed" and giving our interpretations. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It is imperative that the article acknowledge that the mutual agreement not to refile against each other was made between Alaya Rahm and the Satya Sai baba Society, and not imposed by the court. Rumiton (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the reworded statement. This does acknowledge the Counter Case dismissal was also 'with prejudice' and the fact that no one was monetarily settled.

"As per The Pioneer article published on 31 March 2009, Alaya Rahm filed an allegation lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society in the Superior Court of California but withdrew his lawsuit on 7 April 2006. The case and the counter case were dismissed 'with prejudice', meaning the same claims cannot be filed again and no monetary settlement were paid to either of them". Radiantenergy (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? You must not keep saying "the case was dismissed with prejudice." I am getting very sick of repeating this. It is imperative that the article acknowledge that the mutual agreement not to refile against each other was made between Alaya Rahm and the Satya Sai baba Society, and not imposed by the court. I understand the dismay that will be caused by various webmasters at these words, since they are the opposite of the myths they have been propagating, but there is such a thing as the truth. Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, Rumiton seems to be right. According to , the matter was "settled", and both complainants dismissed their complaints with prejudice. --JN466 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If the source for the court document is considered unreliable (although note that it's a pro-Baba source), the actual court records are accessible here: --JN466 19:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest something like: In 2006, Alaya Rahm and the Sathya Sai Baba Society filed lawsuits against each other in the Superior Court of California. Rahm accused the Society of funding and encouraging a trip he made to India as a minor in (year), during which he claimed to have been sexually abused by Sai Baba. The Society alleged (what? I haven't been able to find out.)On April 17th 2006, both parties withdrew their suits "With Prejudice" meaning neither party can bring the same case to court again. No monetary settlements were paid to either party.[137][138] Rumiton (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There are problems with your statement:

In your statement you said In 2006, Alaya Rahm and the Sathya Sai Baba Society filed lawsuits against each other in the Superior Court of California' This is not true. Alaya Rahm was the one who first file the case. There's nothing to suggest that Sathya Sai Baba Society filed a lawsuit immediately.

We can certainly improve that wording. How about: In 2006, Alaya Rahm filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California against the Sathya Sai Baba Society for negligence, and the Society filed a counter suit aginst him. Rumiton (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You said " Rahm accused the Society of funding and encouraging a trip he made to India as a minor in (year)" -- this again is not true. Alaya Rahm knew who booked his trip. That was not Alaya Rahm allegation.

I beg to differ. The case was entirely about "negligence" on behalf of the Society [] in encouraging a minor to travel to India. The suggestion that SSB was alleged to have committed offenses and was somehow absolved by this case must be rejected utterly and finally. Rumiton (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The allegation case was filed by 'Alaya Rahm' and was not about 'Negligence'. You are confusing the case with Mr.Kreydick deposition relevance to this case. Alaya Rahm was accompanied by Mr.Kreydick who purchased his tickets. Alaya Rahm knows who purchased his tickets. In the factual summary it did state the reason for the case saying the case arises out of personal injury alleged by Alaya Rahm. And also in the dismissal - the statements are very clear. I think we should state as it states.

We have already mentioned 'Alaya Rahm allegation' in the Criticism section in detail. I thing the wording of the case should be as follows.

" As per The Pioneer article published on 31 March 2009, Alaya Rahm filed an allegation lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society in the Superior Court of California but withdrew his lawsuit on 7 April 2006. The case and the counter case were dismissed 'with prejudice', meaning the same claims cannot be filed again and no monetary settlement were paid to either of them". Radiantenergy (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Society did not allege anything here. The Counter Case probably was challenging Alaya Rahm's case.

That is correct, but by initiating a "counter case" the society is alleging that the original plaintiff is lying, or is at least mistaken in his allegations. Rumiton (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think statements should be correct and more neutral and not conveying any opinions or own interpretations. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop telling other editors to be "neutral." You do not have a monopoly on neutrality. Rumiton (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the 'Response to Criticism section' some responses needs to be moved to miracle section as some part of criticism was merged with the miracle section earlier. I can only do it after the article is unlocked. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That should be easy to sort out. Rumiton (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is not neutral at all now, because it gives the false impression that there are only two then young men who complained. In reality, there is quite a long list in reputable sources, spanning decades, starting with Tal Brooke in 1976. Andries (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Andries, Tal Brooke is filled with speculation. You very well know that it was never accepted as a reliable source. This is a biography and not a negative attack site on Sathya Sai Baba filled with allegations and rumours. Article has enough criticism and uses references from BBC, Seduced, India Today, Vancover Sun and Others. Being involved with one of the largest negative attack sites on Sathya Sai Baba in the internet don't try to push your personal agenda into this article. (Posted by User:Radiantenergy)

I commented on this on the article talk page. Rumiton (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton, we'll need to let Radiantenergy know about the SPI, so he can defend himself. I'll drop him a note. --JN466 13:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If it seems best, though it does say that "notification is not mandatory." Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't know that; I thought best practice was as for reports at ANI. At any rate, for better or worse, I've dropped him a note now. --JN466 15:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Onward and upward. Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 27, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 27, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ernst Lindemann (1894–1941) was a German naval captain and the only commander of the battleship Bismarck during its eight months of service in World War II. Born in 1894, he joined the German Imperial Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine) in 1913, and after his basic military training, served on a number of warships during World War I as a wireless telegraphy officer. After World War I, he served in various staff as well as naval gunnery training positions. In May 1941, Lindemann commanded Bismarck during Operation Rheinübung. The German task force, under the command of Admiral Günther Lütjens, consisted of the battleship Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen, was to break out of its base in German occupied Norway and attack British merchant shipping lanes in the Atlantic Ocean. The force's first major engagement was the Battle of the Denmark Strait which resulted in the sinking of HMS Hood. Less than a week later, on 27 May, Lindemann and most of his crew lost their lives during Bismarck's last battle. He was posthumously awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross ([Ritterkreuz des Eisernes Kreuzes] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)). The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recognized extreme bravery on the battlefield or outstanding military leadership. (more...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spartan_x-jackie-chan-comic

please make, -->

there are 5 issues

not in order: 1. http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/248389_218560671496078_100000264408830_825554_3580503_n.jpg 2. http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/250534_218560694829409_100000264408830_825556_49219_n.jpg 3. http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/250699_218560728162739_100000264408830_825558_7561392_n.jpg 4. http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/252064_218560751496070_100000264408830_825560_7421516_n.jpg 5. http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/252389_218560794829399_100000264408830_825562_7522170_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.226.244 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. Is there a copyright issue? Rumiton (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the directions listed at WP:AFDHOWTO to properly list a page for deletion. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation in Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Rahm on 3 July, 2011. It is a pleasure to read something this clear and well-written --Javaweb (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Thank you for the compliment! Rumiton (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have answered in the article's talk page on your doubts about Paulo Francis. Thnks for the interest!Cerme (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll go look. Rumiton (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton, how’s your life? I always say when people ask, it could be better but could be worse, so it’s automatically fine. I am lucky to say I have never been so happy as now, 67, retired, living alone. My Dutch sons and Spanish daughter find this fantastic. I suppose you have it good, as you have so much time, energy and enthusiasm as to be practically the only premie still writing in the discussion page of Prem Rawat, still dealing with classics like Will Beback, who can’t Beback because he never leaves. :-) Your patience is rather oriental, I would say.

I have read the page today, and it was fun, I enjoyed it, so I wrote something I hope you like. I wish you good karma, what in the west we still call “Good luck”, many seem to think we are what God uses to play roulette. How is the humor level in Australia rated? A recent survey shows Spaniards are the funniest Europeans and the most boring, you guessed, Germans. I am sure you are very modest saying you have “grundlegende Deutschkentnisse”, but humility is so nice I won’t object. I heard a British expert on cars in TV program Top Gear say in a program on Germany that it is not true it is difficult to make a German laugh, all you have to do is shout him the order to do it. :-).--PremieLover (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and humour. I will tell my German friends the joke and see if they laugh. Regarding Will, I have actually learned a lot about patience and thoroughness from him. He has his way of looking at things, as I have, but he doesn't get emotional about it and he does his homework. His style has a lot to commend it. Jayen is a similarly worthy Wikipedian. Very patient, calm and thorough in his approach. Rumiton (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell that joke to any German unless you are sure his control of emotions is at least at the level of Will Beback's. It may not be so easy to hear a joke coming from a foreigner as a native, and of course there are funny Germans with enough humor to laught about any joke, but most are tired of jokes about the nazi times, which I understand, so I would feeel a little like telling a joke about the Pope to a Catholic. I am sure Will Beback, despite my bad feeling that he was tackling me like in a football match, has qualities like control of emotions. That may be a spiritual quality. The difference between a lower person or criminal, a normal person like us and a saint, is just control of emotions, and 100 % control is still far away for most of us. But there have been people with control of most emotions, except a single destructive uncontrolled emotion, who can cause a lot of trouble. I remember Jayen was very reasonable, yes. It is difficult to be impartial and reasonable with this story, we all have emotions, otherwise would be robots. By the way, emotions have never been scientificaly proven, we only measure their effects on the brain, but not emotions themselves, so there is reasonable ground to assert they might not exist, which in quantum physics is possible, like everything. :-). --PremieLover (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I feel Catholics need to be told a few Pope jokes now and then. All the best. Rumiton (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I note that you are attempting to edit the LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin article. See: for a discussion arising from this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 backlog elimination drive update Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation We have had 55 people sign up for this drive so far, and 31 have participated. If you have signed up but have not yet copy edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! It's not too late to join the drive if you have not already done so. Another great way to help out is to watch-list the Coordinators talk page and participate in the ongoing development of the Guild. Progress report So far, we have reduced the backlog by 75 articles, or about 19% of our goal. We have also cleared January 2010 off of the queue and are close to clearing off February and March. If each participant were to copy edit two articles from February and March 2010, they would be completely eliminated from the queue. Rollover words Several concerns have been brought up this drive about the usage of rollover words. Rollover words only count if they're from the previous drive. For example, if you received 1,000 rollover words in March and didn't participate in May, your rollover words return to zero. This is to encourage participation in multiple consecutive drives. Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 backlog elimination drive report Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We would like to thank all who participated in this drive. Here is the end-of-drive report. Participation There were 58 editors who signed-up for this drive, of which 42 participated. This is a slight increase from the July 2011 drive participation, where 39 out of 50 people that signed up participated. Thank you to everyone! Progress report During the drive, we reduced the backlog by 146 articles, or by about 4%. Overall we did well, especially considering the exceptionally large number of articles that were tagged during September. Thus far we have reduced the copy edit backlog by 4854 articles, or by about 58%. If we keep up our current rate of copy editing, the backlog should be reduced by 65–70% by the end of this year. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. Barnstars will be handed out this week. Once again, thank you for participating in the Guild's September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Our next drive will be in November, and we hope to see you there! Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I too cannot shake the fact that Ladinsky a.k.a Wabashin is sock-puppeting- though it would hardly surprise me if Jim Wales told him to do it in a dream. I've mentioned it on the talk page of his article in question. But I'm not sure I'm the best person to raise a COI dispute because (a) I'm not exactly a neutral party, and I've admitted as much on the Hafez talk page and (b) I'm not accustomed to the wikidecorum surrounding such issues- though I'd be more than happy to help in any way I can. I hasten to add that the falsifiable information added (e.g. Ladinsky's having been translated into other languages) seems in fact to be true, at least according to my latest consultation with the google-gods- (though my brief survey of some of the critical responses to the Turkish translation of Ladinsky's new-age Hafiz-channelings suggests that informed Turcophone critics can barely conceal their scorn for the guy.) Oh, and it would be lovely if we could continue on my talk page.Szfski (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

cu there. Rumiton (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your articulate support on the matter of the photo showing the guns of A turret on the Prince of Wales. I was the one who called attention to the matter in the first place a couple of days ago. After seeing an even less trimmed photo than I had seen at first, it is even clearer. That breakwater is the truly defining evidence, plus the fact that the structure from which the photo was taken would have been in the way of these guns if they had tried to point straight aft. Your defense of the proposition that the guns in the photo are from the POW A turret was far more articulate than I could have provided.

One aspect of this that I don’t understand is that one editor is demanding citations in order to state that these guns are from “A” turret when that same editor seems to have been silent the whole time that the caption claimed that the photo was taken from near “X” turret.

207.30.62.198 (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at that editor's record, he seems to be rather a pedantic chap on several subjects. Hopefully he will fall silent. Rumiton (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You said a couple of days ago that you thought there were some issues that still need to be dealt with on Sinking of the RMS Titanic. Could you please explain they are? Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have started to address them. I'll try to do some more today. See you there. Rumiton (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied to your comment at my talk page. By the way, I'm quite a (fan?) of the Titanic, so if you could use some help, I'd be happy to pitch in. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. I think the Sinking article could use a fresh look from a copy edit point of view. It is a great article but I feel it is still a little clumsy in places. A new pair of eyes might be just the thing. Rumiton (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A copyedit, eh? Hmm, I can't make any promises, copyediting is not my strong point, but I'll print the article out and go through it. Apparently that can help. Discussion looks slow at T:Prem Rawat so I'll just keep my eyes on it. I did notice that the lede has changed since I looked at it last (which was a while ago. I wonder how that happened). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything you see that you have to read twice to understand would be nice to have pointed out. To me, that's the test. The Prem Rawat lead has changed because I added a sentence that had been suggested unopposed (not by me) on the Talk Page and Maelefique said he couldn't find where it had been agreed to and took it out. I showed him where it was agreed to, but he still won't allow it. I added two more secondary source refs to support the addition and so far he has ignored both of them. This is part of what is happening, and has been for years. I have to admit, I don't have much faith in Wikipedia mediation, it has shown itself to be too easily influenced, but if you can keep an open mind and try to act with fairness, you are welcome. Rumiton (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've printed the article out into plain text and I'm hilighting anything that looks remotely out of the ordinary, and making comments in the margins for improvements. As for Prem Rawat, mediation is tough. I've come a long way since 2008, and acquired a few more tools in my mediator bag. Anyways, let's see how discussions go. I've given my co-coordnators some reading material so they can be up to speed. I should probably read up on that myself... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your change to the Sinking lead was good, and was just the kind of thing I meant. I ploughed through that sentence myself quite a few times without listening to its cry for help! Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

*clap clap*. I didn't do much...but it's passed to GA :-) If you're ever interested in getting it to FA, I'll be happy to lend a hand with my hopelessly inadequate article writing skills :-) Best, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You underrate your abilities. But that is the intention...to get it to FA in time for the 100th anniversary of the sinking, which 14 April. You may well get a call. Ta. Rumiton (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be nice, indeed. Being on the main page for the 100th anniversary...great minds think alike, I was thinking about that last night, but more in the "On this day" section. April 14 doesn't give us long, so perhaps we should get a peer review underway to see what issues need to be addressed before we take it to FAC? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Prioryman has already taken it to FA, after getting a lot of encouragement from GA, which I guess is a kind of positive peer review. Hopefully FA will be filled with a sense of appropriate urgency. Rumiton (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Sinking of the RMS Titanic won its gold FA star a week ago. Congratulations! You have worked solidly on this article for a long time and stuck by it through the GA and FA processes. Well done! I look forward to seeing it as Featured article on 14 or 15 April. Dolphin (t) 14:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dolphin, and thanks for your help. Prioryman did the bulk of the article's promotion, and with an extraordinary patience and good grace. The actual FA approval came as a bit of an anticlimax; someone said "promoted" somewhere and the gold star appeared and that was that. No brass band, nothing. Ah well. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton,

Thank you for the explanation. Actually in a way it does make sense, when one considers "indoor plumbing" on ships is a relatively recent invention in the history of ocean-going vessels. Take care.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, I haven't read through it all, but I went to the link you provided after saying "Let's not waste time saying these are press releases", and the very first thing I notice? The link! http://www.rajvidyakender.org/press_release.html, it's saying right off the bat that these are press releases! *sigh*... I will continue to look at it all, although at first glance it seems like a lot of text to wade through, and on top of that, the website says "Raj Vidya Kender was founded by individuals eager to help in the dissemination of Maharaji's message of hope and peace", and already, my first impression is, irritated by not having this mentioned up front, I got the impression from what you wrote that this was some sort of an archive, not that it was a Prem Rawat promotion/fan site. Obviously, when I looked at the page, you knew I would see it was on a page labeled press releases, so why would you say "Let's not waste time, etc...", it just seems a little...*something*. I'm not trying to pick a fight on this issue, that's easy enough to do in article talk pages, but I dunno, if there could be a little less POV-pushing rhetoric on both sides, it would make it all seem a little less adversarial, and maybe, just maybe, it won't just come down to numbers of editors on every issue. Ok, fire away. :) -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Maaan...come on...additionally, after looking at every single picture of newspapers on your page, not *one* of them shows PR in any kind of crowd, not *1*! Every single one is a picture of a big crowd, with an inset picture of PR, of which most of them look like they were all taken at the same place (somewhere else). So he was not, as you say "clearly there". I am totally willing to look at things PR is doing (I didn't spend hours looking at all that prison stuff because I'm *not* willing to), and if it's relevant etc, discuss putting it in the article, but why the used car salesman routine here?? (I apologize in advance if you think I'm getting carried away here, some editors I don't expect much of, but you were not on that list) -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You can't show a large crowd and the person addressing it at the same time. How would you do that? From a helicopter? Or filming over his shoulder? Then you might say "We can't see his face." And the "In the news" appears to have been included in a broader section called "press releases." I just e-mailed TPRF about that problem, but I doubt that anything will change, for reasons I expressed earlier. I need to be at work right now. Rumiton (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those sound like good ways, here's a few easy examples, I can easily recognize the person, and see a large crowd, and they are at the very least, *in* the same photograph,(, , it's not hard to do, and I'm not really so concerned with how that would be done, just that you were suggesting one thing but in reality, it was something else. I'm not all that cool with that characterization. And I must have missed something where you said something about being at work, in any case, respond or not, at your convenience. -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pics of the Pope etc. I don't think those crowds are anything like the size of the Indian crowds that prem Rawat attracts, and a newspaper photographer wouldn't be allowed on stage with Prem Rawat. Publicity isn't the intention, whatever some may think. Not sure what you meant by "that characterisation," but the text makes it clear that these articles are not press releases, if that's what you meant. The reporters describe their impressions of the crowds, security measures taken, etc. And work? I have to get out of the house and earn a living, that's all. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think you're just humouring me now. First of all, I do have a problem if you're telling me he's more popular than the Pope, secondly, I have a bigger problem if you are telling me photographers can get closer to people who are constantly having death threats thrown at them, than they can to PR. Publicity isn't the issue I'm talking about either. None of those pictures show PR in a huge crowd, or *any* crowd. First you said they did, then you said it wasn't possible, now you're saying papal crowds aren't big enough?? You're either messing with me for fun, or you're stetching my credulity to the limit here. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you attempting to understand what I am saying? I am talking about photography. You can't show 450,000 people in one shot with a frontal view of a recognisable person addressing them. I showed you videos and stills a few weeks ago that came pretty close, at least you could see him with a vast crowd, but they were TPRF productions and you doubted them. Anyway, are you doubting that these huge events have been happening? I have been to one of them. I have also been to the Melbourne Cricket Ground to watch a game. That venue holds 100,000 tops and that is a huge enough number, a lake full of people. What I saw in India was an ocean. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with your plea at the start of this section. I don't know why things can't be simple either. Whenever I find a source that seems to confirm what I and plenty of other people have personally eye-balled, somehow it all turns to poop. I think it's something to do with Kali Yuga. Probably. Rumiton (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Irony aside (the last thing you should do when someone has to say "trust me" is trust them :) ), trust me, I am trying really hard to understand what you're saying. But you're talking about things that are not the same as what I was talking about. Essentially, this is how I see it, as basically as I can for this issue. I know that you would like to see more positive coverage of PR, I get that, and I'm willing to judge all material presented on its merits. Here's where I have a problem. You said (as I read it) something to the effect of "these pictures show him without a doubt talking to a huge crowd". No, they don't. If someone says one thing, but they actually know the opposite of that statement is the truth, what's that called? Aggressive partisanship? At best? It just kind of seems like a move I didn't expect from you, I'm kind of disappointed (not that you should care). And please, I am not for one second suggesting I don't believe he was there at those rallies, I simply don't know based on the photographs that were presented to me as "proof". That's all I'm saying, I'm not giving an opinion on anything else about them yet. FYI, the Pope's estimated audience in St. Peter's square is about 150,000, you can see a heck of a lot of ppl and you can clearly see the Pope, so it's possible to shoot at least that many for sure. If there was more than that, that doesn't mean you can't get at least that many in the shot (and trying really hard not to harp on this, but your pictures don't even show *1* person in the shots with him). -- Maelefique^(talk) 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do get your point. Thank you. The pictures go with the text produced by the Indian media. I don't think they leave any doubt, but I am still struggling with out-of-date Word files and poor translation into English. I will let you know when I have something better. Rumiton (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your violations of article probation rules, specifically incivility. The thread is Prem_Rawat_.28Did_you_miss_us_yet.3F.29_:.29.The discussion is about the topic . Thank you. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Sinking of the RMS Titanic know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 15, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 15, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The sinking of the RMS Titanic on 15 April 1912, with the loss of over 1,500 lives, was one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history. Four days into her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York, Titanic – at the time the world's largest ship – struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic off Newfoundland. Five of her watertight compartments were holed, causing the ship to flood deck by deck. She carried too few lifeboats for her 2,223 passengers and crew, and many seats were left empty due to a poorly managed evacuation. Titanic's officers loaded the lifeboats "women and children first", leaving most of the men aboard the ship. Two hours and forty minutes after the collision, Titanic sank with over a thousand people still aboard. Almost all those who jumped or fell into the freezing water soon died of hypothermia or drowned. The RMS Carpathia rescued the survivors from the lifeboats a few hours later. Public outrage at the loss of life led to tougher maritime safety regulations. Titanic's wreck was not found until 1985. The disaster has inspired a wealth of popular culture including many films, most notably James Cameron's Titanic in 1997. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand if you'd rather not discuss it, but this comment of yours "We can provide RS/N with evidence of Dr Gilbert's work and ask them if TPRF's description is justified" shows a misunderstanding of the term "Reliable Source". If that's not what you meant, stop right here, I don't need another "discussion". Here's the problem, even if TPRF says Einstein was a genius, and we present all the evidence that proves that, it still doesn't make TPRF a reliable source for the statement that Einstein was a genius (which is a euphemism for "Gilbert is an expert", just in case you missed that ), it just means they agreed with that proof. If the proof doesn't explicitly say he's an expert (or even if it does!), their conclusion that he's an expert does not make TPRF RS for that statement. That's my understanding of RS at least. -- Maelefique^(talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per this ANI thread, you are indefinitely banned from Prem Rawat articles and discussions, broadly construed. You may appeal that restriction in 90 days; in the meantime, I'll give you a bit of advice as a regular editor. Find a topic which genuinely interests you (I have a couple recommendations if you want) and do some good work; not only will that be good for its own sake, it will greatly help you if/when you make an appeal. I really do think you have a lot to offer as an editor, and I hope you can find something you enjoy. If you have any questions regarding the scope of your ban (or about anything else, now that I'm here), let me know and I'll answer as quickly as possible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Find a topic which genuinely interests you...and do some good work? I wonder if you might be confusing me with User:PatW who is a Single Purpose Account with no apparent other interests, often makes personal attacks and rarely suggests a constructive edit. I think most people would call my interests extremely wide. In over five years of editing I have made 8271 live edits on 928 articles, with 3735 article edits and only 83 deleted. I spent over 200 hours recently on the above article, Sinking of the RMS Titanic, playing a significant editing and source-finding role in getting it to GA, then FA, then Today's Featured Article for April 15, the centenary of its sinking. You will find 97 matches for my name on this archive page alone. Perhaps if you forgot to check my User Contributions when you made this decision to topic ban me, then you might consider looking at the situation again? Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not one for tit-for-tat type things, but I will note that if I see PatW have another outburst, I will see to it that sanctions are handed out. Apart from that, I'll also say that I've seen otherwise great users who just can't keep their cool in a specific topic area; sometimes it's helpful to just take a break from it. Seriously, come back in 3 months and request it be lifted; if you keep doing as good a job elsewhere, that'll really help your case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a case of outbursts in PatW's case, so much as a steady drizzle of self-pity and denigration. When I pointed this out to him, he claimed he was being "silenced." When I said to him, "Indignation is fine, though endless and predictable torrents of it make for tedious reading. Personal attack on any living person is not fine. Feel free to check this with those at the "highest level", I am sure they will concur," again nothing changed. Administrators warned him abundantly on his talk page, and he claimed he was "entitled" to express his displeasure. When I "kept my cool" and ignored him, you criticised me for "not listening" to him. Can you see I feel like this is a Catch 22? So thank you for the conciliatory tone, but this is really a miscarriage and I don't see myself going back to that poop fight. I hope I have the integrity never to say, "I'm so sorry I did the wrong thing," after enduring such endless frustration in an attempt to bring those articles up to the standard of other, better parts of Wikipedia. So in the absence of a grovelling apology I can't see myself being allowed back, even if I wanted to return.

So I will spend my time on articles where editors are really working for improvement, and use the rules and guidelines constructively to help, rather than mulishly prevent good changes. When impossible obstacles are created to the smallest article changes; when large chunks of useless trivia are defended; when a highly biased appeal to RS/N is made without discussion in an attempt to sway the decision; when the rules are constantly invoked to protect bigotry masquerading as neutrality, and it all passes unremarked by administrators, can you tell me what hope you see for improvement? I think banning me just locked the situation in for another x years. Rumiton (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton, I will certainly miss you and your WP-know-how here. I can understand the bitterness in your statements, but I ask you to get over it and to please think things over when the smoke has cleared, and to humbly apply again after those 90 days. Noone can fill the gap you leave. There is a German saying: Manchmal muss man über seinen Schatten springen, which is technically impossible, but by grace still can be done. What did you expect while trying to reach perfection in one lifetime? There can be no limit to our perseverance! I don't believe this situation had been unavoidable. "Now, you may have observed, when you walk into a wall, you get a certain sensation of reality" - The Incredible Stringband. Don't let it bring you down! I'd be delighted to see you here again, with renewed energy.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, but in this case I think you are calling for a level of patience that transcends the human. I value my mortality with all its implications, including the potential for getting burned out. That's where I am with this subject right now. If you can keep going then I wish you every success. I am also a little uneasy with your saying no one can fill the gap I leave. I have read that "One of the first signs of an impending nervous breakdown is the conviction that one's work is extremely important." If nobody else (except you and Momento, and thank you both) values it enough to take part in it, then it clearly isn't that important. So thanks again and tschüss. Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		Many thanks for your help in getting Sinking of the RMS Titanic to GA and FA standards - as a confirmed landlubber, I found your nautical expertise invaluable to getting the article to a safe harbour. Well done! Prioryman (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a pleasure working with you. Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

And thank you as the article is beginning to make sense even to me.

I have uncovered a few more interesting referenced facts that I would like to add in the next few day, should I make them to you or just make them?

I would also like to have contents number 5 usma directing staff removed I tried my self but it keeps being put back. the reason I would like to remove it as it has nothing to do with the cadet sword, this is an army sword and has nothing to do with the story.

I hope that I answered all your questions, please ask if you need anything.

Thanks again for your excellent work.

Andy

Andy2159 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome Andy. I'll have another look tomorrow. In the meantime, just do the additions you want to put in. Have you tried discussing the section you want to remove on the Talk Page? Perhaps your reasoning was not obvious. Rumiton (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton,

I have tried please check out the talk pages, in any case with the work you have done you've made total sense of what I've been trying to say. ALR is correct I am dyslexic but that never stopped me from trying.

Thanks

Andy65.35.73.243 (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Andy2159 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are fighting dyslexia and are still persevering in a subject you are passionate about, you have my total respect. Regarding content, copy editors don't usually get involved, unless there is something obvious. You might try for a Third Opinion, sometimes they can be quite helpful. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton,

I sorry it has taken so long to thank you for putting my garbled words into to something that makes a good deal of sense. I think you did a wonderful job and a good deal of credit in making it is what it is.

AndyAndy2159 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Again Andy, you are very welcome. And thanks for your diligent research. Rumiton (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for copy editing Polio in Pakistan. --SMS ^Talk 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Rumiton (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for editing Juan Medina! Oscar 02:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck with the article. Rumiton (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Will you be finishing your copyediting of the tammar article? LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, got distracted. Just did some more. It is an interesting and thorough article, and I think it reads quite well now. Please let me know if you would like any more polishing. Rumiton (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please look at the "Use in science" section? LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, could you make sure I got all the conversions. For some reason, the stride length in the "locomotion" subsections won't convert. LittleJerry (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Made a few more tweaks. Not being a zoologist, statements like BACs containing T cell receptor and immunoglobulin genes were physically mapped in tammar wallaby chromosomes by fluorescence in situ hybridisation make my eyes water a bit, so I can't know if they might read well or badly to an expert. Did you have any specific sentences in mind for improvement?

I couldn't get the conversion to work either, so have left your manual conversion in. It may be that a template for converting a range of 2 values, metres to feet, has not yet been developed. At least, I don't see it on WP:CONVERT. Rumiton (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

(←) Hi Rumiton. Thanks for all the good work you've been doing for the the GOCE requests page recently. It's appreciated. Because you invited comments on this one, I took a quick look at the first third or so of the article, and I agree with you that it does now read very well. I'll archive the request now.

@LittleGerry, about that "eyewatering" statement: It's too close a copy-paste from the source. Moreover, what little change you've made actually appears to change the meaning: mapped in and mapped to aren't the same. Please could you summarise the source in your own words, in a way that non-exsperts can understand, and not merely copying and marginally shuffling the sentence. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try but I really have no idea how to word it differently. I'm not good with this genetics stuff. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this to your talk page (which is where I should have raised it in the first place -- apologies for this, Rumiton). --Stfg (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Rumiton, thank for taking the time to copyedit the article. I did a few more changes. Can you please take a quick look and make sure the prose is still good? LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. And no prob, Stfg, it's all interesting. Rumiton (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Made a couple of small changes. It all looks pretty good. Rumiton (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you check out the "model organism" subsection? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rumiton (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting the Tim Henman article, and all the other articles you've copyedited. I really appreciate it; considering the fact that my grammar is not the best, its nice to have users like you around :) Even so, thanks. My exams are finished on Tuesday, so I'll probably begin expanding the Henman article on Wednesday or Thursday. --TIAYN (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, thank you for your thanks. Let me know when you are ready for more. Rumiton (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, being that you did a bit of copyediting at Grey's Anatomy, then decided to depart the article, I am looking for your opinion. I plan to nominate for FA, once the peer review is responded to, but do you think it needs a better copyedit to meet the FA criteria? If not, then I might as well remove it from the requests page at GOCE. Let me know, TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)TRLIJC19, please don't delete it. If Rumiton says it's done, I'll archive it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done some more and I'll now call it done. Good luck with FA. I will keep an eye on it. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Rumiton! TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now archived. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Is that one finished and ready for me to archive? --Stfg (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say No, but that might be the cleanest way. When the things I suggested get done, the editor can resubmit it. Maybe leave it there for 24 hours so it will be looked at. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, silly me, I forgot to look at the article history. Having done so, I don't think we should delete it. The best thing to do with this one would be to start a section on the article talk page, saying you'll be doing the copy edit but that you'd like to see certain work done before you start. Pretty much what you said on the requests page, in fact, but the requester and other editors will be more likely to see it there, and the GAR reviewer will be made aware too. If you want to put the request on hold and move on to something else while waiting for that, you can use the {{on hold}} template on the requests page to flag that. This might also be a good approach for Felipe Camiroaga too, as it's possible that other Spanish speakers could be watching that page. It might even be worth starting the copy edit of that one, if it's only that translation you're waiting for.

While I'm here, thank you for the large volume of high-quality copy editing you've been doing lately. --Stfg (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for the compliment. I already put that request on the Battle of Tulkarm talk page; I'll keep watching the article. Rumiton (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for copyediting this article. I very much appreciate your time and effort. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for your openness. Rumiton (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Felipe Camiroaga, I would like to see that block quote sorted out before I do any work, just to be sure it gets done. I will discuss that on the talk page now. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had a go at translating it myself actually, based on what I know of Romance languages generally and with help from Google translate. In the current translation, we can replace transverse with indirect, sillinesses with trivia and it makes just about enough sense to copy edit, except for the last three words. Cambio de switch seems to mean on-off switch, but I can't quite figure out the idiom there. Anyhow, good luck with it. --Stfg (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have worked as a German-English translator myself, so I could see where some of it came from. I would still like to see an approved translation, as even though it not a BLP, it is the subject expressing himself and it needs be as right as possible. I will keep an eye on the talk page. Tx. Rumiton (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the editor has taken it to a translator. Shouldn't take too long. Rumiton (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I looked at it because of your note on the requests page about the Services section being too promotional. I agree with you on that and have tagged it accordingly (the note on the requests page will become invisible when I archive the request). I think it would be good if you could check WP:OVERLINK, of which the article was one of the worst cases I've ever seen. A great tool for detecting duplicate links is User:Ucucha/duplinks. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of that. I'll watch it in future. Rumiton (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I plan to request a peer review (and later nominate for FA) the article Grey's Anatomy (season 3), but I believe it could definitely use some copy editing from some else's perspective. I would be tremendously thankful if you could copy edit the article, so that it can be in the best shape when I nominate it for FA. Thank you so much! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not really my kind of area, but I will try to find time for a look in the next few days. Thanks for asking. Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for considering it. I would be extermely grateful. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely grateful for the copy edits you've made for the article! I am also surprised and pleased to notice that I haven't made as many mistakes as I had thought (I tend to be extremely careless when I'm enthusiastic about writing something). Thank you so much! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Jonathan. I didn't quite finish the episodes info. I'll have another look tonight. (You did a good job. It really does read quite well.) Rumiton (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Profiting from the recent publishing in Brazil of a collection of columns by Paulo Francis, I've throughly rewritten the Wiki article on him and nominated it as a GA. If you could please take a look at it, I would be glad!Cerme (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to find some time in the next day or so. Rumiton (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just spent some time on it, but I am afraid it still doesn't read very well. I think an editor fluent in both Portuguese and English would be needed to bring out the subtleties in meaning and straighten out the syntax. Good luck with GA. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, anyway, Rumiton. As to the article's remaining shortcomings, they are entirely my fault. As I was once a Paulo Francis' big fan, I'm afraid that my writing in English suffered the influence of his crazed, avacalhada rhetorics more than I would care to admit. Cerme (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, you're welcome, and thanks for the insight. The article is still quite interesting and informative. Perhaps another knowledgeable editor less affected by avacalhada-ism might drop by and help you straighten it out a bit more. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Rumiton, I saw your comments at the GOCE requests page regarding this article, and at the requester's talk page. Since it's now at the top of the list I've decided to jump in and copy-edit the article - I hope that's okay with you. If User:Diego Grez gives you the translation you requested of him, please feel free to correct and expand the article as needed. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks! Rumiton (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain the intention behind this edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Assam_violence&diff=510106673&oldid=509931977

The fact mentioned is backed by multiple sources. You didnt leave any message on the talk page either. WBRSin (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I left an edit summary that explained my action. I am on the talk page now. See you there. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Prem Rawat#Exceptional_claims , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#More_discussion_if_needed". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 13:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi please would you comment here where I have invited discussion on Momento's recent removal of the following sourced sentence (in bold) from the Prem Rawat article?

• In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults.^[1] Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,^[2] warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat.^[3] Mishler complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill, but his charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.^[2]
  

Thanks! PatW (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that, since you insist on continuing to argue on the Talk Page, you correct the false impression you have given. Some sources may imply he was was "removed" but others say Mishler says he 'resigned'. The implication is that he may have been "asked to resign" but you need to be honest about what the sources say. Price, Maeve (1979) says "Maharaj Ji resented the advice given to him by his chief subordinate and dismissed him when a clash of wills occurred.... Maharaj Ji denied that he had sacked his international director but claimed he had changed his 'service' (p. 34). In fact the said official has dropped out of the mission altogether." I also think you should qualify your "They were only disgruntled employees" remark, by fully explaining that Mishler was the President of DLM in the US. He inaugurated it for Rawat whose position was a Minister of the 'Church'. Hand was vice-president according to sources. Your description leaves the interpretation open that they were just employees - which was not the case. Also you suggest that the "disgruntled" was just on their part. Maeve Price says otherwise.PatW (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't "insist on continuing to argue on the talkpage", I just have not accepted the invitation by Guy to disappear for a week and let him run the show. Mishler was removed or he resigned. I did not give a false impression, the sources do not all describe his departure in the same way. I don't think it matters much. The article goes into more detail. He held a prestigious position, then he somehow lost it, then he attacked his previous employer. Them's the facts. Rumiton (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would have done this a couple of weeks ago, but other forces prevented me from doing it then. I'm exercising the nuclear option on Prem Rawat; under the discretionary sanctions in force on that page, I'm indefinitely topic banning you from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat. I honestly hate to have to do this, but I think that the only way to stop the endless deadlock on the article is to go nuclear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Rainer_P. has filed an amendment request which involves you. Your comments would be appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Actual case is found here. [] Rumiton (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy.

2) Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement.

3) The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hello again! I could use your help again. I just started working on the article and I could use some creative help on my wording. Maybe you have some time and if you find the article interesting as it evolves over the next few days/weeks I would truly appreciate some constructive criticism. I remember how helpful your contribution was on the Ernst Lindemann article. Thanks in advance MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Nice to see you again. I will have a look in the next few days. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help so far. I think I am done with the Childhood and World War I sections of the article. I currently have no more info for these sections to mine. I will next focus on the Silesian Uprisings. I hope you enjoy the article. I find his biography very interesting. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I do find it interesting, also. I recall you said once before that you found characters from the German side of WWII interesting when they stood out in some way from the norm. Ernst Lindemann was definitely such a person, and this Graf Strachwitz seems to be also. They are a different kind of hero, at least. May your interest grow and spread! Rumiton (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You remember well. Indeed you are correct. One of my last articles was Werner Hartenstein. I got interested in him when I saw the BBC mini-series The Sinking of the Laconia. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I more or less finished everything but his WWII career. If you focus your copy editing on everything but WWII we are safe. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Rumiton (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, he was not sentenced to death, they just wanted to shoot him without a trial, they put him before a court after they wanted to execute him. Is it not incorrect to say that his sentence was commuted to forced labor? I believe I once had stated this differently. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Why don't you just change it to the way you understand it happened, and I will take another look when you are finished? Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you getting bored yet with the article? I truly hope that you enjoy this at least a little. It is not easy for me to read the sources in German, condense the material so it still makes sense, and then write this in English. It will be a process of successive approximation before I am done with this. Please stick with me; it helps me a lot that someone else is reviewing the material. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Not bored at all, enjoying it. You are doing a great job. I believe successive approximations describes the true creative writing process, especially when translation is involved. I think this Strachwitz article has real potential, perhaps to even become a Featured Article. Please continue. Rumiton (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I finished section "Balkans campaign", cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll take a look. Rumiton (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton, did you see my question there ? Do you remember what did help most to see reason? Kind regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied on the article page. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I had to undue some additions but I can not get it back to 14:57, March 8, 2013‎ which is the most correct copy Please help. Please post to article talk page. Thanks Andy Andy2159 (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK Andy, I'll have a look now. Rumiton (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Rumiton, Perfect as always. Andy2159 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I got sidetracked today. I got a bit interested in this guy and found enough for a DYK nomination. Can you do a review for me please? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Rumiton (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Glasdachfabrik - a factory which manufactures roofs made of glas. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, yes, I can see that. I have just never heard of a glass roof before. Is it just a glass section, which would be a skylight, or a whole roof, like on a glasshouse for plants? Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I see someone is accusing you of a pro-Nazi POV in these German WW2 articles. I guess that was inevitable. Let me know if you need any help. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You probably know my articles better than most people here. If indeed I am taking a pro Nazi POV on my editing please let me know. I believe I don't. Feel free to comment if you wish. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so at all. To me the major question of the 20th century is how a lunatic like Hitler could pervert two well educated and cultured nations like Germany and Austria into such lengths of heroism and self-sacrifice (and often criminality) in the support of his insanity. I think your articles are valuable in helping underscore the question. Rumiton (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I undid your recent edit to WP:AE, which removed MastCell's comment you responded to. You may respond to it in your own section, or on the other editor's talk page.  Sandstein  16:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand. I thought I did respond to MastCell in my own section, and that response seems to be still in place. Am I missing something? Rumiton (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see that Olive put it where I should have put it. Thanks for your help. Rumiton (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the now-archived appeal thread with the following summary: "It is unclear whether there is (sufficient) consensus to grant this appeal. According to the procedures, any party may make a request for clarification to the Arbitration Committee, or seize the Committee directly with a new appeal." This means that the ban remains in force until lifted by the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  14:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Rumiton, I hope you are going to continue your appeal as, once again, rules have been broken to derail your legitimate claim. Below is the conversation I had on Sandstein's page. You'll note that the real figures show a 6 to 1 ratio in favour of having your ban lifted when additional input was requested. But Sandstein eliminated Olive's vote and included Zhang's which is clearly contrary to the stated procedure. What do you think of my new signature? MOMENTO 23:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎

Am I reading this right? A sanction can be overturned "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard". Since the activity being discussed is my sanction (not Wikipedia or editing in general), the division is between those editors who were "involved" in my sanction, and those who were "not involved". In this case, the editors who were involved in my sanction were BotNL, Steven Zhang and me. So those editors "involved" in the sanction are not included in the consensus. Only "uninvolved editors" are counted for the "clear, substantial, and active consensus". Thanks. MOMENTO 08:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion you refer to which resulted in your sanction.  Sandstein  09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to the section on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎ page which explains the requirements for an appeal to be upheld. I am also interested whether a sanction can be applied without evidence of wrongdoing being provided as per "The Principle - Burden of proof and personal attacks" as stated by ArbCom which states "the onus is on the sanctioning editor to provide the evidence to prove his claim" . The reason I ask is that it appears that this requirement is not always followed and as "Level of Consensus" makes clear "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. MOMENTO 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you ask of me, advice or some action? And about what? (See also WP:GRA.) If you want my opinion about whether certain editors should be considered involved or uninvolved in any discussion about an appeal of sanctions by you, I can't give a definitive answer, as that would depend on the interpretation of any of their thousands of edits that could be considered an indication of bias.  Sandstein  21:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we take the Rumiton Sanction for example, you have counted Steven Zhang is an "uninvolved editor" when he was "involved" with BotNL in the decision to sanction Rumiton and me. So he doesn't count for the consensus. You have said that Olive is "involved" but she had nothing to do with Rumiton's or my sanction and none of her edits indicate "bias". So by my tally we had Sandstein, Rich Wales, KeithBob, Jayen, Cailil and Olive agreeing the sanction should be lifted and IRWolfie the sole "uninvolved editor" for keeping it. So a 6 to 1 majority want to end the sanction, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". Am I missing something? I don't feel confident to appeal in this arena when so many errors are made. And what is your position on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page? Are you the only admin who manages this page. Thanks. MOMENTO 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comment illustrates that being "uninvolved" is very much in the eye of the beholder. I suppose that in most discussions we won't be able to come to complete agreement about who is involved and who isn't. So, yes, you'll have to risk a certain margin of error (or rather, disagreement). As to your other question, I have no particular position at WP:AE, it's just that I am one of the few administrators who regularly replies to requests made there.  Sandstein  17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The procedural notes are very clear - Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action". In this case Rumiton is involved because "he is in a current dispute with the sanctioning editor" and TBotNL and Steven Zhang are involved involved they are in "a current dispute with the sanctioned editor", being either side of a sanction. All the rest are "uninvolved" because none of them are or have been involved in any dispute related to the contested enforcement action". It is clear that a 6 to 1 majority wanted to end the sanction and that is a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". Even if you discount Cailil because he might change his mind that is a 5 to 2 majority to lift the ban. Still a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". This isn't going to go away, the figures speak for themselves. MOMENTO 21:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement.

1. I can't read your new signature on my screen. Select a darker color perhaps.

2. Your faith in the Wikipedia appeal system to follow community rules on this subject (Prem Rawat) and be even-handed about consensus, and especially about a neutral point of view, is touching, but at the moment I cannot share it.

3. Though I am feeling like a mouse being invited to return to playing with a cat, I probably will appeal again. I am getting advice on whether I should request a second opinion on whether a consensus was formed, or if I should start a completely new appeal. And on whether the first option, if it fails, would preclude the second. (It might.) Rumiton (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How about this? MOMENTO 03:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd go for the second opinion on consensus. It's clearly 6 to 1. MOMENTO 03:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I can read it now, but it still looks insipid. Go for a stronger colour. Yes, I know it is clear to you it is 6:1, but where are you getting your definition of "involved" from? Involved with the current dispute or disputants, or previously involved with the topic in any way? The latter is what I have seen in the past. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If you go to your appeal, directly under "Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rumiton" it gives Procedural notes. The procedural notes are very clear - Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action". In this case Rumiton is involved because "he is in a current dispute with the sanctioning editor" and TBotNL and Steven Zhang are involved involved they are in "a current dispute with the sanctioned editor", being either side of a sanction. All the rest are "uninvolved" because none of them are or have been involved in any dispute related to the contested enforcement action" Insipid is exactly the feeling I want to evoke. MOMENTO 12:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC).

Insipid is as insipid does. I don't think you read far enough. The next sentence says, "Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone." This section of the admin page expands a little more. Rumiton (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

So Olive isn't "involved" because she took no part in the dispute or the sanctioning of us. Her opinion counts for the consensus. But Zhang is "involved" because BOTNL says that they discussed what to do with us, therefore Zhang became involved in the dispute. And BoTL is excluded from the consensus making for the same reason we are, we are "in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action". Otherwise Rainer and my opinions could be counted in the consensus about your appeal. MOMENTO 13:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Olive has taken part in the talkpage discussions, and I have seen plenty of cases where involvement is construed broadly enough to disqualify her for that. Did you read the relevant admin section I posted? BOTNL is an admin, acting as an admin and he asked (or previous admins asked) Zhang to help, so probably neither of them is involved. You and Rainer are involved under any definition of the term. Anyway, I am going to wait for more advice before going any further. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been commenting and following an Enforcement which is similar to yours - two teams using an incident to continue fighting. The upshot is "no consensus"/"undecided" at which point someone suggested " t is agreed that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions allows the parties to refer an unclear result from AE to the committee by a request for clarification". Naturally Sandstein didn't suggest that but I think it is your next step. MOMENTO 22:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be my next step. I am still getting clarification on what "following the rules in future" means when I haven't been accused of breaking them in the past. There is no point in going through another tedious appeal then getting banned for life after my first edit. This could take a bit longer. Rumiton (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton, I happen to notice that you made an edit at Eckhart Tolle. I was wondering what you thought of that article and if you find it to be neutral and balanced. The Teaching section has troubled me for a long time. It consists of quotes and passages from one of Tolle's books that have been hand picked by a single editor. That doesn't seem like objective article content to me ie Tolle talking about himself through the editorial eyes of a single editor instead of using secondary sources and what they report Tolle's teachings to be. There is also undue weight given to this area IMHO since there are full articles on Tolle's books. Anyway those are my thoughts but you may see it differently and I was wondering what your view would be. Thanking you in advance for you input and feedback. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Most of the article reads promotionally, with some criticism thrown in for "balance." I am sure more informative sources must be available, but Tolle is a very popular author. Right now, his book "The Power of Now" is front runner for an online contest for "the book that most impacted my life", here.

It is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia that, in spite of all policies to the contrary, majorities do tend to prevail. Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the candid evaluation. Maybe they'll be a discussion there sometime and we can join in to help balance the tone. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just had a look at The Power of Now and found it to be 100% spam. But again, I doubt that anything can be done about it. Rumiton (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. There was consensus on the talk page that primary sources are overused and the article has been tagged as such for 2years.

• Um, wow. Keithbob is right - this article is totally violating WP:PRIMARY. There is way, way too much focus on the intricate aspects of this book, and actually this ends up coming off as an advertisement for the book, as well as a fansite created by someone that's extremely devoted to Tolle and the book. There's a recommended structure for nonfiction books, particularly in the way of synopsis. I would seriously advocate trimming down this article - mostly the Underlying philosophy and Ways of transformation sections. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you like we could work on it together, paring down the book reporting on itself and adding secondary source descriptions of the book. What do you think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you have access to some good sources and want to make a start, I will do my best to help. Give me a nudge if I don't notice. Rumiton (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll put it on my To Do List and next week I'll do some digging and see what's around. Thanks for you willingness to help :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many secondary sources. I've started to list them (with links) on the talk page. Please join in when you have time. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop deleting quote marks from Rimbaud. They indicate (and attribute) a direct quotation from the original text and without them the text is plagiarised.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A rather harsh response, I would say, considering the amount of cooperative work we have both done on that article recently. To me that sentence is not significant enough to stand in quote marks, and not original enough to conceivably give rise to copyright problems. Anyway, it can easily be paraphrased if necessary. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite. Please have a look when you have time and give feedback on the talk page or make changes as you see fit. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Had a go. See what you think. Rumiton (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I promise I'll stop now. I was just too tempting to pass up. EEng (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. A Persian friend yesterday asked me for the meaning of irony and sarcasm (apparently in Persian they don't have exactly those things.) I was going to refer him to you. :) Rumiton (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Rumiton

Please check the article as some editor has moved a image and it changes points of references.

Personally I think that he vandalized the article.

Would you please change it back to my last edit.

Thanks

Andy2159 (talk)AndyAndy2159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you if you could change it to the last update on Aug 18, as that is the best before all changes where made..

Thanks again

Andy2159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll go look. Rumiton (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank youAndy2159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burpedworm (talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been busy elsewhere (WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Phineas_Gage), so haven't been following your ongoing work on MX, participate in the usual exchange of mutually admiring pleasantries, etc. Keep up what I am sure is your usual good work. At some point I'll drop by to gild the lilly. EEng (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks bud. Malik is keeping an eye on me, and has corrected an incomplete cite I put in. I am sure many of my lillies could do with a good gilding when you find the time. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Rumiton,

OK, please read the links. If any of them made unsearchable in the meantime, ask me I can find the way round.

Another thing which is obvious, when assessing your "double-standard" comparing the existing article and its edits by pro-bomjonists, with my edits: the existing article's 2 listed controversies actually cite the very same sources as I myself, and do the same: rewrite with a few own words the very content of the links. I did the same. The Ekantipur and Himalayan Times , which had been listed among the references and links inside the existing article, were the very same sources I had used to back up my edit: the only difference being that I had extended it to about 15 cases, a wide range, not only of violence but also forgeries and land issues. That is the only difference between my edit and the one entered by someone before me!

So I came to the conclusion that you might have minded my own words. Maybe you wanted direct quotings, because you did not simply believe (lack of time to go through all links?) that I was writing the truth. While you believed (who knows why?) that the entirely own words of the previous editor, accusing Darshan Subba Limbu directly of sexually abusing Marici, are surely true - because you left it there and did not consider it a criminal accusation.(Not that I would claim here that it is not true: but I myself would never dare to write such direct accusations on Wikipedia, while I can do it on my own websites etc.).

I am not so sure if a sentence accusing a person of sexually abusing another, without providing any evidence of a police investigation, is in tune with Wikipedia standards. Yet it was not deleted. So apparently it is just some personal prejudice on your side: If A and B is doing the same - sourcing controversies concerning violent attacks from media - and A is not deleted but B yes, it is not neutrality.

I have learnt now that when I repeated the same content with my own words (with better English and shortened), the identical information had been rejected by the editors. So I had now replaced my own words by direct quotations of reliable sources (at least of the same standard as the reliability of sources of the author and previous editors before me).I did not do this because I read somewhere on Wiki instructions that authors should not copy but rewrite. But in case the author/editor is not trusted (lack of time or will to compare?), there is no other way than copy. Feel free to delete this version again. Yet please provide a reason which is valid for both directions and applied "evenly".

Anyway, how to write about controversial issues concerning a Third World country, where law enforcement is based on bribes? If police reports are stopped because the chiefs are well-paid by the accused? Does this mean that the controversies are not grave enough to be mentioned? Just because there is no law enforcement and media is forced to stop writing or delete critical articles? This topic could be brought to some general discussion. Marici Punarvasu (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Marici Punarvasu Marici Punarvasu (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I have read over your post above and the edits you reinserted in the article. I have found multiple problems.

No doubt your complaint about the difficulty in obtaining justice in a lawless country is correct, but that part of the world also has a press that is a law unto itself. Wikipedia has a far higher standard.

The Nepali Avenue TV documentary about the case of the two women needs translating before it can be considered as a source.

Your website website is not a reputable source and must not be linked to in a living biography.

The next sections contain direct quotes from the Himalayan Times and breach copyright. They need to be paraphrased (neutrally and in good English.) It is also entirely unclear what they are referring to. What is the VDC? Who is Ansari? What is a CDO? What is a Sangh?

The Halkhoriya Jungle section is unsourced, as is the reputation clearing campaign and the Buddha Boy and Buddhism section. This means they are WP:OR original research and unaceptable for Wikipedia.

The Irregular Times, which calls itself “a garrulous gazette by godless gadflies, [and] offers news unfit for print” is not a reputable source for a living biography.

I will also look at the sources for edits that have been made prior to your edits.

I strongly suggest you now self-revert all your edits and discuss them one at a time on the talk page. I also suggest you stop accusing other editors of bias or of being cult-members. I have no connection with this subject, and if history declares Bomjon to be a saint or a criminal or something in-between, it is only of passing interest to me. I do care about the way Wikipedia treats difficult subjects and living people. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. I can see how a wall of text is off putting, volunteers or not. Whatever opportunities there are to simplify, I'm all ears. This is a tough topic, I do need all the help I can get. SAS81 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made collapsable boxes (not sure what you call them) around most of my post on the BLP, I hope that helps some. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra_representative._Biographical_bias.2C_overtly_critical.2C_UNDUE_BLP_concerns SAS81 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, and thank you for the barnstar. It isn't so much the "wall of text" that is a problem, it is what we find written on the wall. To take an example from your prose: thanks for looking out. what advice have I been given that i have ignored? Please inform me. As far as I can tell I have obliged every request, and with the exception of sources (i have much more but still finding the best way to format here for all of you) I am unclear exactly what you are referring to. The steps I am taken are the exact steps that are laid out in BLP for a representative to follow. Tell me, what would you recommend I do specifically?

We can reduce this to: Thanks for helping. I do have many more sources and will produce them soon. As a subject representative, I have tried to follow the advice in WP:BLP closely. Can you point out areas where I have gone wrong and suggest how I should proceed from here? Rumiton (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it! SAS81 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

sorry for the edits, but removed your page from "Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters". Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What you have done appears to be a Good Thing. Thanks! Rumiton (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I was proposing a concise wording. Sorry if you consider that heavy handed. Your edits I believe are overly precise to the point where I cannot see the distiction. Glennconti (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by that, we just should not be making value judgements where they are not justified. The sources tell us he came to see his time with NOI as "largely wasted" but not totally. It's an important distinction. Rumiton (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Look at my edit. I used your words "largely wasted." I just got rid of the verbose part "come to be regarded as." Glennconti (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You are misreading the edit, I hope you are not doing so deliberately. The words you removed were: which he had come to regard as largely wasted. It was his value judgement, not a universal truth. You appear to be trying to use the voice of Wikipedia to turn this into an indisputable fact. Rumiton (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Surly comments are not appreciated. I think you are splitting hairs and could take a dose of ego-less editing. But this is not the place to discuss edits. Bottom line is I think that sentence can be made less wordy and more comprehensible. I'll think about it more and take it back to the appropriate MX talk page. Thanks. Glennconti (talk) 13:41, 18 March 201correct

Hey bud. I don't know if this is the proper channel for what I'm doing, but hopefully it will have the same effectiveness. I noticed on the Malcolm X page, which was last edited by you, that his birthplace is listed as Omaha, Nebraska. I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. My recollection of the autobiography that Alex Haley assisted Malcolm with is that he was born in Lansing, Michigan. Or perhaps Flint, MI and he lived in Lansing before his move to Boston. I'm not one hundred percent certain, as I no longer possess a copy of said autobiography, but you may want to look into that. Not trying to be a dick by the way. Sincerely, Paul Harris

Hi Paul. Not dickish at all. I don't have dead-tree sources, but the first 30 Google results all show Omaha. I don't think they are all likely to be wrong, but by all means raise the issue on the talk page. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, the non-breaking space was not displaying properly in that part of the article.

Please enlighten me, what is the significance of a non-breaking space?

Daniel.inform (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Daniel.inform (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. It looks OK now. It isn't a big deal, but non-breaking spaces are mainly used to keep dates together, so that if someone makes an edit and the date ends up at the end of a line, it doesn't get "orphaned." Eg 26 Feb doesn't become 26

Feb. This is one of the rare occasions when it is needed for a name. We don't want to see Malcolm

X. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You really should be discussing and exercising WP:BRD, not reverting in an edit-warring fashion. And, the comments you left about the photo mentioned nothing about removing it or your unilateral decision to do so - not to mention they were in the discussion section of the RfC. Nothing wrong with the photo being part of the article. In fact, it's a great photo of Malcolm X and needs to be included. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice that my comment on the crowding together of very similar pics had gone into the RFC section, which was about a different pic. I just created a separate section and notified that I had removed one of them pending discussion. There are 7 likenesses of MX now in the article, which is a lot, even for one so photogenic. Any more will really have to earn their keep and compete with hundreds of other potential images. Rumiton (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The photo came from Commons, where there aren't hundreds available (oddly, enough). An article as big as this with as big of a subject (it does refer to him as "one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.") should be well illustrated. Further, the article is a FA - where one criteria for such is that it be well illustrated. I really don't think one more image (and a very good one that shows a serious side of the article subject) is going to make the picture count unreasonable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I know it is a FA, I did quite a lot of the work to make it one. This really isn't a big deal for me, some of the other battles with MX's beatification campaigners have been way more wearing. Maybe we can find a better place for it, where it doesn't look so shoehorned in. 180.181.123.201 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. Did I catch you at a good time? If so, can you please take a look at the facts presented on the Rajneesh Wikipedia page regarding the name change? DavidWestT (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

are you seeing consensus for that move request? I'm not. I have proposed a review. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:CD3A:BE58:71EA:4683 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

move review is now open if you care to comment. Pandroid (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus either. I have only a passer by's knowledge of the subject, but I do feel Osho is not his best known name. But as the subject himself appears to have specialized in controversy, it seems unlikely that any further discussion will ever result in a strong consensus. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 16:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rumiton,

As a very late update to the Prem Rawat arbitration case, the contentious topic designation, previously "discretionary sanctions", originally "article probation", has been removed following a successful request for amendment.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

This notification may be mostly unnecessary, but as you had been a party to the original case, I thought you might be interested in hearing that after about 15 years, this remnant has been removed. Until today, it was listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions § Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)