Ayyavazhi is not a denominatin of Hinduism. But a seperate religion. I've explined it many times earlier. Also University papers are used as citations for this. Don't you see? Then on what ground Ayyavazhi is see as a Hindu denomination? May or may not Indian govt accredit Ayyavazhi as seperate. But as per wiki guidelines valid third party sources are considred valid and a wikiarticle have to go through it. All these were told by me many many time earlier. Simply reverting without minding valid sources seems too bad. So please don't revert. Thanks - Paul20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend Paul, I will try not to repeat on my talk page what I wrote in the discussion page. I understand that you may feel very frustrated that you have not been able to gain a consensus for your additions, and that leads you to repeat your arguments. However, repeating your arguments does not significantly contribute to the discussion. I, and I believe other editors, are already familiar. So that you understand this, I will attempt to restate your position for you. According to you, followers of Ayyavazhi consider themselves a separate religion. Christian missionaries in the 1800's described Ayyavazhi as a new religious phenomenon. A paper published by a University (which I haven't read) describes Ayyavazhi as a distinct religion. Do I have this right? Please let me know, because I would very much like to stop hearing the same evidence.
I do not think you will change my mind. However, if you wish to try, you need to begin with the understanding that I am aware of your evidence, and yet I still think mention of Ayyavazhi is inappropriate in the India article. Perhaps it would be helpful if you could attempt to paraphrase for me your understanding of the reasons I have given for why I think mention of Ayyavazhi in the India article is not appropriate.
Dear friend Paul, I would like to repeat my suggestion that you attempt to restate back to me your understanding of my position. Doing so would give me some hope that we can have a fruitful discussion. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew my support based on your answer to #6 primarily. You see, when I joined Wikipedia, or shortly thereafter whatever, there was a whole bunch of articles relating to video games- List of Halo series vehicles, Zergling, et al, which were proposed for deletion. I protested; for the Halo articles, they said they were 'game guidish' and 'cruft', to use A Man In Black's words. Which was true. Several users besides me wanted to keep the articles, at least give us time to address issues; however they were quickly deleted without consensus. As for the Starcraft articles; no one who voiced deletion said that the info should be removed; we voiced the option of transwiki-ing or merging the info. Once again, before we could do anything, they were deleted. In short, I bear you no ill will; however I simply think that far too often deletion, speedy or no, is considered as a better solution than trying to fix things; and I believe, (perhaps I am mistaken) that you are one of those people.
Either way, your adminship still bears a good chance of succeeding, and admin or no your edits have I believe for the most part been constructive in nature and intent. I hope to see you around Wikipedia. If you'll now excuse me, some IP vandal is trashing me on an article page again, so I'll have to talk later. Best of luck,
--David
P.S. You really need to archive your talk pages, methinks. I would be a little more organized, but just a thought.
PPS. Oh yeah, I do think however that it shows your character that you were nominated by someone else. Not by seeking the power, but by receiving it, can we truly use what we obtain for good use.Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a number of editors voted oppose on the basis of my answer to question 6. Perhaps I did not communicate well, or perhaps there is something that I do not understand. I would have thought that I expressed a desire to avoid deleting such articles, so it surprises me that others have such a different reading. Perhaps I am not aware of differences between us that may really exist. My answer read in part:
"As a normal editor, have tended to prefer removing spam and stubbification to outright deletion for bad articles about encyclopedic subjects. As an admin, I think I would tend to avoid deleting such articles."
It would be interesting to see if all the other 'oppose' people are opposing you for the same reasons- it would be entirely possible that they think you should delete all that stuff; regardless, I think you should bring it up on your candidacy page. Sorry for the late response, I got blocked by editing because some punk was trying to vandalize stuff using my name. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I wasn't experimenting. I was preaching the truth, an accurate description about what is widely believed to be true about the Deerfield campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.109 (talk • contribs)
Well, there were a number of factors that persuaded my vote here. The noobie biting with the speedy deletion tags (even if it wasn't intentional at the time), inability to AGF, and I'm a bit worried about your answer to Q6. I'm sorry, Boston, but for all the reasons above, I had to oppose your RfA. Nishkid6414:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was very much my reasoning as well. Perhaps you can try again in a few months once you've sufficiently changed these things, since you are otherwise a good editor. Cheers, TewfikTalk19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Don't know where I belong anymore.) Whatever happens this time does not matter. I know you for what you are and have faith. No doubts. You are good (although perhaps misled at times, but aren't we all!) I am in your corner because I know you are capable of learning. I would vote for you, except my name still has such a high profile and I don't want to cause harm. Happy New Number! Sincerely, Mattisse03:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM - Look at the part about sending the same message to more than just a few users. Someone asked me about this just the other day. It is touchy. The higher-ups don't like it. Sincerely, Mattisse13:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen an action taken by User: RasputinJSvengali during this arbitration (and, as far as I know, an ongoing mediation) which not only rewrites the text of the article and deletes the entire "Featured Speakers" and "Featured Entertainers" sections, but adds "Satanists" and "the Illuminates_of_Thanateros" to the list of people attending. I am afraid that this has been done to bait me into a revert war during the arbitration. As an objective party who has offered to help with my efforts to rectify the problems caused by the disagreements between myself and other editors, I would like to ask you to reverse this action and request that User: RasputinJSvengali refrain from such actions. For several weeks I have only reduced the number of links and added 3rd party citations, all of which were requested by editors during the mediation, and have engaged in civil discussion on issues related to the article on the discussion page without actually doing the editing (except for one grammatical edit). Thank you. Rosencomet17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Ok, my first question is this, is any of the material that was added non-factual? Do "the Illuminates_of_Thanateros" regularly attend? Satanists? Is the claim giving undue weight to information that might be true, but which may give a reader a misimpression of the overall nature of the event? --BostonMA talk 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There has never been a class by a Satanist at Starwood, nor would any ever be accepted, nor do I know of any real Satanist ever attending, nor would he/she be welcome. There has never been a speaker at Starwood who listed either being a representative or even a member of the Illuminates of Thanateros (a group I just heard of minutes ago), nor have any of the people associated with that group listed in the Wiki article about them ever presented at (or, as far as I can discover, attended) Starwood. This, and the massive deletions, are IMO vandalism. (I do not know who User: RasputinJSvengali is, but I smell a sock. He/she has been here for a short time, and had numerous run-ins with Hanuman Das.) Rosencomet18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have more support on your RfA than I got on mine! If you fail this one, you are likely to succeed on your next in a couple months. I failed my first RfA. You can contact me by e-mail(or on wiki) if you want any advice. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal. If the RfA fails this time around, I'll be happy to re-review should you be renominated again in a few months. Cheers, Tomertalk01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page of the RFAR on Starwood you said you "strongly wish that Paul would drop the issue of your (Rosencomet) edits in the last few weeks and accept that none of them, at least in my view, are in any way disruptive." Perhaps I'm being needlessly nitpicky and wikilawyer-ish about Rosencomet's more recent edits on the ACE/Starwood articles. It is not my intent to hold a grudge or not "assume good faith". However I have seen a consistent and longterm pattern of flouting WP policy, guidelines and consensus on Rosencomet's part. This does not lead me to be as gracious and generous as I might be toward other editors. I'm less willing to grant him leeway because of my evaluation of this history on WP. Perhaps this is a flaw in my Wikipedian outlook. Is "flouting" too strong a word? An example: It has been recommended many times by many editors over the past months that he read certain WP policy pages in relation to these complaints. His behaviour and comments up to the present time have consistently indicated to me that he has either not completely read those pages, doesn't understand them, or is deliberately ignoring them. None of those options inclines me to AGF about his present edits. He is not a novice editor (I only recently passed his edit count) and it's not about BITING at this point.
As for his most recent edits to these articles, I would qualify them as cosmetic rather than substantial. The removal of a name, adding another name, grammatic, etc. And, at the risk of being repetitive, I believe the lack of contention to his edits is because other editors have backed away from the articles for reasons enumerated in the RFAR evidence.
I'm sorry to dump this on your talk page but I thought your comment deserved a personal answer since you have been involved in the situation over time. In my opinion, your past input has been very helpful. --Pigmantalk • contribs02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A strong second on Pigman's comments. Plus, please check the Starwood talk page before unilaterally taking Rosencoment's side and unilaterally changing the Starwood page. The page is not his but Wikipedia's. WeniWidiWiki weighed in with an opposite view, supported by links to Rosencomets site proving otherwise, on the topics for which you took Rosencoments word and modified Starwood accordingly without gaining consensus on Talk page per Starwood Mediation talk template message. Please consider other editors working on the page. He does not WP:OWN. Sincerely, Mattisse03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note too that WeniWidiWiki disagreed and had proof, yet WeniWidiWiki respected the process and made no changes to the page without feedback first on talk page. I support Pigman's statement that other editors have backed away. So I urge you to have equal respect and not take sides. Sincerely, Mattisse12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that Rosencomet has a long history of ignoring policies that have been pointed out to him. However, I think the focus should be on prevention of future misdeeds rather than punishment for past misdeeds. In my opinion the purpose of Wikipedia sanctions is as utilitarians action to protect Wikipedia and not as punishment. You may take a different view. Arbcom may take a different view. But that is my view.
If you believe rosencomet's recent edits did not improve the articles, please let me know. My opinion is that they were improvements and that no bona-fide editors (I am excluding socks) would revert those edits. Surely editors don't intend to add new names to the list of those who appeared a starwood, or to add new links to rosencomet dot com. Some editors may wish to remove more material, but that hardly makes rosencomets edits contrary to community consensus.
With regard to my making edits at rosencomet's request. Since rosencomet has a conflict of interest, the appropriate thing for him to do is to post comments suggesting changes and let others make those changes. That is what he has done, and I am very grateful that he has taken that step. The changes that he proposed looked correct to me. There was unsourced material that he claimed was false. According to policy, any editor may remove unsourced material. In actual practice, editors tend to not remove "good" material, even if it is unsourced, as a source might be provided in the future, especially if the material is "fact" tagged. However, in this case, rosencomet asserted the information was false, and I had no problem removing it for him. I think the removal was doubly justified given the suspicions that the editor who added the material is a sock [1]. If other editors wish to restore the material I removed and have references to support that material, I do not (currently) have any objection. Sincerely. --BostonMAtalk13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you should respect the process and utilize the Starwood talk page. I also think you should have consulted WeniWidiWiki before taking it upon yourself to remove material thought objectionable by Rosencomet upon his request when WeniWidiWiki provided reference links to Rosencoments site in support for the material remaining. Other editors in good standing should not be ignored upon Rosencomet's request. Sincerely, Mattisse13:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mattisse, I meant no disrespect to WeniWidiWiki. I removed the satanism claims at 18:34, 1 January 2007 [2]. WeniWikiWiki's comments were not made until 20:09, 1 January 2007. [3] I don't think there was anything wrong with being WP:Bold in this case. The material was unsourced. An editor claimed that it was false. The material is potentially defamatory. There exists concern that the user who added the material is a sock [4]. If the material is indeed appropriate for the article, my actions can easily be undone. Again, no disrespect was meant toward WeniWidiWiki or to any other editors. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk14:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boston, just wondering why you don't respect the talk page and consensus process. Why do you do things that affect others without consulting them. (This was my problem on the India pages with you, so perhaps I am more sensitive to not being consulted about things that affect other editors than most.) But Starwood did go through mediation, and one of the mediator's conclusions was to use the talk page to mediate changes. Why does this not apply to you? And, of course, now that you know WeniWidiWiki's view, you could always rectify your sole removing of possibly valid material. Sincerely, Mattisse14:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mattisse, please forgive me, but in my opinion you are mixing up respecting consensus with making no changes without talk page consensus. Let's consider an extreme example first. Suppose someone replaced the page with the line "Joey is gay!". Would we need to discuss that on the talk pages before reverting? I hope not. I think that everyone would agree that reverting such an edit would not be disruptive, and being WP:Bold is the right choice. Now consideer the other extreme. Someone proposes deletion of mention of A.C.E. in the article. Should that be discussed in the talk page before a change is made? I hope so. Such a change, made without prior consensus, could easily result in an edit war, exhange of incivilities etc. So where does the current case fall? For all the reasons I have given previously, I think being WP:Bold was the right choice, and if we need a discussion about whether the satanism material belongs, we can have that discussion. Undoing my removal of the satanism material is not a big deal. I hope this helps to explain. However, please continue to express your concerns if it does not. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk15:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boston, actually I'm not in kindergarten. I am reacting to the very real feelings I had about how you treated articles I was involved with regarding India and the reason I will edit such articles no longer (unless protected by someone like Dinesh). And I am reacting to the difficult situation in Starwood, as Pigman expressed above. Really, I am advocating extreme care in Starwood -- which is not a situation that calls for WP:BOLD but rather the opposite as the mediatior recommended. WP:BOLD is what mediation was seeking to halt. This is not an ordinary situation. In my opinion, you are running a substantial risk of aggravating the situation by taking sides and doing the biding of one editor when editors who do not agree have been forced to halt. Of course, I could be wrong. I'll just reiterate that I agree with Pigman. Sincerely, Mattisse15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your reply near the top of this section: I am in agreement with you about Wikipedia sanctions being to protect Wikipedia rather than as punishment. I believe this is fairly clearly laid out somewhere. However we differ in our projection of future actions by Rosencomet. And I realize this is where my AGF is less than perfect in this case. I contend his current behaviour is a direct result of two very immediate things: 1) fear of sanctions by ArbCom, and 2) the lack of opposition to his current edits and suggestions. I think when these factors change, he will revert to his former style. He's been incredibly argumentative and adept at verbosely avoiding central issues in the past and I have seen no indication that has changed. He has shown immense resistance to consensus, even when it is overwhelmingly against his positions. My experience with him leads me believe he will pugnaciously argue until he frustrates, wears down, and outlasts any dissenting opinions. Consensus process should not be an endurance event.
I admit my AGF falls down when it comes to the point of predicting future actions by Rosencomet. I try to separate the actions from the personality but I see a pattern and I strongly suspect it will continue. So this is where my concept of "protecting" Wikipedia comes in. Without some "official" action, I sincerely expect and forsee future Admin Incident reports and RfCs on his future actions and behaviour. (This is not a personal threat or desire, merely my forecast and suspicion.) I don't want to punish Rosencomet but I do want him aware of consequences for his actions. Also important to me is having him understand that he does not OWN these articles, the articles he began or the articles he works on. This is central to the WP project, in my opinion.
I'm particularly concerned that he does not bother to pay attention to WP processes or decisions. Thirteen days after the mediator summed up and basically closed the mediation, he still writes (above, on this talk page): "I have just seen an action taken by User: RasputinJSvengali during this arbitration (and, as far as I know, an ongoing mediation)..." (my emphasis added) This strikes me as stunningly inattentive or willfully ignoring the results of the mediation, neither being good signs. This is by no means the only recent example of this attitude.
Again I've spewed quite a bit here. My apologies if it's a little much, particularly at the time of your RfA. However I thought it worth making the point that I am also more interested in protecting WP than punishing Rosencomet. --Pigmantalk • contribs19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the tag team was on vacation, so others had to be appealed to in their place to maintain control. If others are not willing to carry out one person's agenda, then WP:OWN is much harder to pull off. WP:OWN, in my opinion, is extremely destructive to the core Wikipedia philosophy and process -- probably the most destructive of all editor failings. AGF is needed in order to achieve consensus but it is consensus that is the central mechanism to counter the ownership propensity. That is my concern here, independent of the quality of the edits. Sincerely, Mattisse20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though Matisse and Pigman have covered much of what I'd have to say, there is something that's been weighing on my mind that I would like to add. You commented on Matisse's talk page:
"I think Rosencomet received some bad advice and some bad examples, but now seems to be trying to work with the community. ... I am actually somewhat disappointed that focus contiues to revolve around rosencomet. If there is a potential for continuing conflict, I think it comes more from the parties to the arbitration who previously advised Rosencomet."
I must respectfully disagree. Rosencomet has repeatedly shown himself to be disinterested in WP policies, guidelines, and community consensus. This wound up in arbitration because Rosencomet has ignored the community consensus on talk pages, in two RfC's, and in the mediation.
Time after time when a wide variety of Wikipedians have attempted to educate him about basic WP policies, instead of educating himself he becomes argumentative. He continues to take WP policies as personal attacks and merely the "opinions" of those who point out the policies to him. This is a common newbie mistake but, after all this time and all these edits, Rosencomet is not a newbie. Yet he continues to act like a newbie by his own choices.
You blame those who advised him. But I look at his talk page and see it was not just abusive and abrasive people who attempted to advise him. Yet the people with whom he chose to ally himself were the abusive ones. He has seen appalling behaviour from his chosen allies, yet as recently as a few days ago (Dec. 28) he applauded their behaviour, calling the actions of Hanuman Das, 999 and Ekajati "constructive instead of destructive."[5]
Rosencomet is not a child nor an innocent. At any point during this debacle he could have looked at their vicious behaviour and made a choice to disassociate himself from it, but he has not. To me this is an indicator of character, and character is an indicator of future behaviour. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫20:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kathryn, I think we are in violent agreement about some things. Rosencomet has approved appalling behavior, even recently. He did choose which editors to have as advisors and which to ignore, and so he is not an innocent party. So let's not argue about these things unless we get some enjoyment out of it. But there is a point that I would like to make. Rosencomet seems to be quite focused in one particular area. I don't think he is interested in conflict per se, but is in providing a presence for certain things on Wikipedia. Conflict and user conduct issues seems to come as a side effect of that interest. On the other hand, I think the user conduct issues of the other editors are, unfortunately, not necessarily a byproduct of WP:OWN. That concerns me a great deal more than rosencomet. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[6]This is very devious - when it shows up on the watchlist you can't click on the user - you just get a page with no User contributions like RevStang). But you can in the history, like here [7]. It is similar to the RevStang trick. What type of person would be clever enough? Sincerely, Mattisse01:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote above [[User|RevStang]] rather than [[User:Revstang]]. That is, there is a "|" rather than a ":". The former goes to the page User, the latter goes to what would be Revstang's userpage, except that he has never editted it, so it doesn't exist. If you have a link [[User|Tunnels of Set]] on a page, you will have the same problem. --BostonMAtalk02:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I copied the Username from a page -- I did it on purpose to show you how it looks to others. For a long time when I ran into RevStang (spelled that way) and I would try to look at User Contributions, there were not any. I couldn't figure it out -- the same with Tunnels of Set. (You are not understanding what I am saying and I don't know how to explain.) It's a way of disguise and using a bunch of names that to the unsophisicated person is not easy to detect. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I haven't looked at all Revstangs sigs, but it looks like he usually signs [[User:Revstang|RevStang]] which shows up as RevStang. If you click on such a link, it will go to his non-existant user page. But if you copy and paste somewhere, you get the problem with the small "s" vs the capital "S". Try it with Bostonma --BostonMAtalk02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know how that guy's mind works. Did you go to the user page? Then look at the types of edits he is doing? It's busy work -- lots of busy work -- but it's done in such a way that it won't show up on anyone's radar. That is, until he is ready. (It's the sign of an over active mind with not enough to do -- but trying like heck to stay out of trouble, for now anyway.) Sincerely, Mattisse02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I was worried when RasputinJSvengali removed the links from Starwood because their removal would undermine the Arbitration by defusing the issue. (I suspected at the time that was why they were removed. With the links gone there is no current evidence of Rosencomet inappropriate link behavior -- just past link behavior so the "people giving bad advice" argument could more plausibly be made.) Thankfully you restored them, so Salix alba's truly masterful sumnation of Evidence makes its point. If those internal links weren't there, his argument would lose much of it's punch. Sincerely, Mattisse13:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure what links you are talking about. What links did I restore? Do you mean the lists of featured speakers/performers? --BostonMAtalk13:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That was a masterful stroke on the part of RasputinJSvengali. He completely cleaned up the article. To the Arbitration people it would have looked like a completely appropriate article. Sincerely, Mattisse13:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about being mentioned in the ArbCom case. I am going to ignore it. I am not harassing anyone but simply have concerns about original research being presented on Wikipedia from somebody's personal site. I see that while I've been gone for the holidays, they have simply removed the tags, etc. How would you suggest proceeding with this? Jossi has agreed with me that if it is a personal site (it is), then it cannot be used as a source for Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. How does one go about getting Wikipedia rules enforced? Jefferson Anderson17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. If you need a nominator in the future, please let me know. I know how you feel right now, and it's not fun. Just H19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was sorry to see that your RFA did not pass. I think too often that process has become incorrectly focused. It bothers me that trustworthy people are turned away for no particularly good reason. Meanwhile, there are a number of admin processes that are perpetually backlogged. Please don't let it discourage you and I will support you again should you decide to go through it in the future. BigDT19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about your RFA. :-/ Please don't be discouraged and keep up the good work in order to achieve a successful RFA in the (near) future. Regards, Húsönd20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a John Hancock Tower reflection for you! John Hancock Tower reflections somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing!--Húsönd20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add my disappointment on it as well. However, the reasons for it not passing were pretty minor, and I believe you can reapply very soon. Michaelas10(Talk)20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as per Michaelas10 ;) Personally I would have thought a 2:1 ratio would be good enough, but I guess that they felt the 'issues' were too great. Either way, my hat's still off to you for getting nominated by someone else, and I'd be happy to co-nominate you the next time. In the meantime, I'll see you around, Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome! I definitely think you would make a great admin. It really should have passed...anyway, don't lose hope and maybe it will succeed if you try again in a few months. –Llamamansign here22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boston, while I stated oppose, I don't see a problem with you having a successful renomination at some point soon. I think it was a matter of bad timing. My main concern, as noted at the RfA, was that there was an ongoing dispute at ArbCom which listed you as an involved party, yet you hadn't deigned to provide a statement of your involvement (or lack thereof). That seemed to me to be rather odd. Additionally, the multiple Checkuser requests you made there appeared to be contrary to Request for Checkuser procedure and the Socketpuppetry policy, which notes, ""Fishing" – or general trawling of users in a debate for possible sockpuppets – is not supported and requests for such checks are unlikely to be agreed to." After the dust settles on the ArbCom case, consider giving it another run. Regards, --LeflymanTalk23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite welcome, Boston, for my support on your RfA. I'm disgusted that you didn't pass (why do people get so uptight about who can be an admin?), and I'll be happy to support you again in the future. Until then, keep up the good work! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also wish you well in a future nomination, perhaps in a month or so. If you address some of the policy-related concerns that nearly headless nick brought up—in my view—you'd be more than qualified. savid@n08:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it appears to be the custom for individuals to send out thank-you's after an RfA, whether it succeeds or not. I am nearly through. Do you have an objection to me completing the list. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk12:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, complete it. But some users don't really appreciate it; especially when you are leaving the same message on everyone's page. A better way to do it would have been leaving a note on the talk page of your RfA and thanking all for participation. — Nearly Headless Nick12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know if you are nominated again. While I cannot guarantee to support you, I'll be happy to give it a careful look. --Dweller13:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - as I said in my neutral vote on the rfa, I very much would have liked to have voted support. I think the same is true with quite a number of other people who voted. It shopuld be clear from the comments on the rfa in general where any problems lie - mainly an itchy trigger finger - and I think if you work on that then a future rfa should pass easily. I hope you do stand again - you certainly have the skills and temperament to make a good admin. Grutness...wha?13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to your message: I am sure that you shall continue to strive more diligently to create the sum total of human knowledge. All the best and a Happy New year. Time is dynamic and so is life... --Bhadani17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BostonMA, as I noted in the RfA I !voted because of this example by JJay: [8] and others. My main concern is telling an established user that you can no longer AGF. That to me is a very strong statement, and is virtually the same as calling someone a vandal, i.e. assuming that person wants to harm the project. Following the diff I cannot see the situation justifying that statement, hence I think your statement was unwarranted. If I were you, I would be more careful with the issues that were raised by JJay and the others in the future. You seem like a good editor with good potential and a bright future here, and I think if you address these issues and try again in a few months, being able to show that those problem areas are fixed, you'll pass easily. I wish you success - let me know when you are up again for RfA. I do appreciate the chance you gave me to express myself. Thanks, Crum37519:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sweat it BostonMA. You've clearly shown how much of an asset you are here; I'd work on the minor issues brought up on your RfA, and I'm certain you'll have no problem with the next. Indeed just give me a buzz on my talk page and I'd be happy to nominate you when you feel ready. Take care, and all the best in 2007. -- Samir धर्म21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I didn't initially oppose per Q6, I apologize for making a mistake in understanding your answer to that question. I know that it ultimately resulted in your unsuccessful RfA, but I know that in a few months, you'll definitely pass your RfA. =) Nishkid6421:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page asked about the first use of the word "domainer". I added a source, with the note "according to", that provided a link to what the newsletter says is the first incidence they found where the expression "domainer" was used.
The reliability of the claim "this is the first occurrence we found" is neutral because the subject itself is not an absolute issue. The newsletter provides a verifiable link to the occurrence, and it doesn't present it as an absolute fact, just that it is the first use that they found. A claim of this nature will always be open to dispute because someone might have heard or seen the word in use before the date stated, which is why I used the expression "according to" and why the newsletter used the expression "first use we found".
If someone else knows of an earlier use of the word domainer, they could edit the article and provide a new source that shows an earlier occurrence of the expression. But if you delete the information entirely, they will not know that the first use of the word domainer is even an issue (they might not read the talk page where this was requested), and valuable information will be lost, possibly forever.
Valuable information will be lost forever? You appear to have a connection with the newsletter that you cite. Could you clarify your relationship to that newsletter? Generally speaking, emails, blogs, newsgroups, personal websites and online newsletters of unknown reliabilty are not suitable sources for Wikipedia. Please avoid adding material where there may be a conflict of interest. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Boston. The article name of the town of Gajanur (linked in Dinesh's article) is called Gajanur Shimoga. This makes no sense. It is near Shivamogga in the Shivamogga District of Karnataka, India. Can you think of a more appropriate name for it? The name is already taken by another town in India. Maybe they both need to be renamed with a qualifier. Thanks. Sincerely, Mattisse21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the article could be called Gajanur, Karnataka or Gajanur, Shimoga District (or any alternate spelling of the same.) My preference would be Gajanur, Karnataka unless there is another Gajanur in Karnataka (this is a possibility, as there are other towns/villages with duplicate names in Karnataka, such as Begur -- yes, I know that is a problem -- sorry, it's not my fault ;-) ). I guess I would still go with Gajanur, Karnataka until/unless a duplicate is found. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The interwiki links are meant to connect articles in different wikipedias dedicated to the same topic. They are added when new articles are created or spotted, and removed when they turn out to be inaccurate. Andres15:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with the term Neo-Sufi except as used by Hakim Bey (who really should appear at Starwood IMO). The main Sufi speakers that have appeared ar Starwood (that I can recall offhand) are Laurence Galian and Paul Garbanzo (AKA Paul Hudert, AKA Misha Karamazov, a member of the Flying Karamazov Brothers). Their bios don't use that term. There is no "Neo-Sufi" article on Wikipedia. That's about all I can say on the matter for now. Rosencomet18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I complained to Mattisse about his stalking behavior (putting my user name on what appears to be a "shit list" on a personal subpage). When he did not answer, I removed them myself. Now looking at links to my user page, I find that there is now a link from one of your subpages, User:BostonMA/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist. I hope that you will be more polite than Mattisse and please tell me what the hell is going on here. I am feeling creeped out by this and feel like I am being stalked for no reason. Tunnels of Set20:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I've looked at the Starwood Festival article now and I can assure you that I will not be editing it or (most likely) any of the pagans associated with it. My interests run to darker traditions, mostly Western such as Aleister Crowley, Kenneth Grant, Thelema and traditions which might be labelled Satanism, though I have no patience for the sort of person who creates an "Order" by creating a website and putting an article about it on Wikipedia. You'll see that I've put several such articles up for deletion... I might also edit a few Eastern articles such as Kali and Kundalini as they are integrated by Kenneth Grant into his work. Since you have responded politely, please feel free to continue to watch me for a while if you feel the need, but I am quite unlikely to edit Starwood Festival or the articles of any of the pagans listed in that article... Tunnels of Set22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing that up, I had a heck of a time figuring it out. I kind of wish WIkipedia had a drop down/fields based structure for those reports, or a model to follow. I'm pretty good at AfDs, CfDs, and others, but that one was completely confusing. ThuranX21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is a valid one. I've altered my comment and apologized to Rosencomet for my excessive response. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'm afraid this whole affair has contributed to a certain edginess and snappish quality to some of my interactions. I'm not proud of it but at least I seem to recognize my overreactions when they are pointed out to me. The attitude I displayed was is neither helpful nor conducive to resolving disagreements. Thank you again. --Pigmantalk • contribs21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From: Behavior that is unacceptable
(quote) Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.
(my comments) Of course, this does not make it "unethical" for the wikilawyer mentality. But if you ever do that to my talk page I will not consider you a friend. I feel very strongly about this - rather as you do about DBachman, the Mohaman.jpg, the Hindi symbol and other of your passionate causes. Sincerely, Mattisse02:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't she pretty? Hope you're doing well:). I should have been paying more attention to RFAs. I definitely will from now on. Nina Odell17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to tell you that I appreciate the fact that you can see there are at least two sides to the controversies that have been raised surrounding the Starwood Festival article, and that you can recognize progress rather than remain mired in the past. I find it astounding that Pigman, Kathryn and Matisse, who all seem to be involved in the Neo-Pagan community in one way or another, would gang up on you so much for daring to edit out the obviously inappropriate and unsupported references by User: RasputinJSvengali to Satanists, etc in the article. They seem to be so opposed to anyone cooperating with me on this article that they would accept what they know to be untrue, even when they very well know why it is so important to prevent further association in the minds of the public between Satanism and Neo-Paganism.
And for the record, as you can see in my response on the Starwood Festival talk page, Weniwidiwiki did not offer "proof" to support the Rasputin data. All she did was to find one past speaker who, in his bio, mentions membership in the Temple of Set, and a book in our bookstore catalog by what she characterized as a "know Satanist". The speaker in question never spoke about Satanism at Starwood, nor does his bio call him a Satanist, and the Temple of Set is not characterized in its Wiki article as Satanic (in fact, it clearly states that it was created as a rejection of the Church of Satan by former members). And neither this sole speaker, nor the fact that ACE sells a book by someone who was never at Starwood (along with many other books by people who they would never have as speakers and who's ideas they don't support, but which are available for research purposes), supports the statement that Satanists are among the groups that regularly attend the event. As you know, since you agreed with the deletion, and so did User:Che Nuevara on Rasputin's talk page.
In fact, Weniwidiwiki did not object to the deletion, and had a civil conversation about it with me. Weni has made positive contributions to the article, and discussed issues of clarification of terms and such, which is as it should be. Even Kathryn has done a bit of that, but to some extent she, and definitely Pigman and Mattisse, seem to want to jump all over you, Jefferson Anderson, and anyone showing any desire to work with me or take anything but a hard line on what I do, regardless of the changes in my editing. And when even Pigman tempers his language, Mattisse is there to try to fan the flames. Rosencomet19:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to - if she will stop rallying people to fight with me, saying things about me that are not true, and otherwise stop trying to make trouble for me. (Not that I've posted on her talk page more than twice in months, both times replying to things she's said about me.) Rosencomet19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Please do not post on Mattisse's talk page, whether or not Mattisse or any other editor writes things there about you, or which annoy you. Thanks. --BostonMAtalk19:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Tamil People and Dravidian People pages get vandalised by user deeceevoice and WikiRaja, their contribute to those pages are extremly political motivated. Additions from other user get deleted in seconds. It would be nice if u would take a look at both pages. And solve the problem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asian2duracell (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Asian2duracell, I will look at the pages and the edits that you would like to make. However, I would like to make some preliminary points. First, I assume that the other editors involved are editting in good faith. Good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are not vandalism, even if they are factually inaccurate or introduce bias. Second, a quick look at the material that you removed shows that much of it was supported by sources. The material may be biased and/or it may be inaccurate. However, the solution is not to simply excise that material. Wikipedia needs to express the significant views of experts on the subject in question. So, what needs to be done is to determine what are the significant views of experts in anthropology etc. and give appropriate weight to each of those views. If you could provide sources for the views which contradict those of the material to which you have objected, it may be the case that the material to which you object should be removed as representing a fringe point of view. However, it may be that the material to which you object is a significant point of view that deserves mention in Wikipedia. So, while I am looking over the articles, please try to supply sources that meet Wikipedia standards to support your case against the material to which you object. Thank-you. --BostonMAtalk21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I meant to get back to you, and then I forgot. Yes, it was XP/Rootology. Of course if I had put the notice on the user page like I should have... Tom HarrisonTalk19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your support. I'm confident we'll be able to resolve the issue with patience and respect. While we haven't always agreed, I've been most impressed with your honesty and with the integrity you've shown. Many many heartfelt thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling@20:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where wikipedia gets you editing clowns but they may want to consider kicking over some different rocks.
Get some talent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.93.61.166 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Why are you picking on me calling me a Sock Puppet but you did defend me by stoping that crazy kid that keeps harassing me all i did is change Vercetti gang and Vercetti Crime Family to Vercetti Crime Ring you guys are breaking alot of rules and you 2 can get Blocked for Cyber Bullying well anyway some Latin guy told me your the guy to see if i have problems with Bishoptutu hes harassing him to but i dont see how you can help lots of Wikipedians are roiting on how they blocked the page ofr non users and changed all cuzz of some Bishop kid taking over the site i heard some guy clam he was racest maybe i should paste Cyber Bully on you and Supertic on his page XD that will show you to and keep you 2 in line--Butterrum11:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some "Latin guy" told you, eh? Hmmm, now why don't I see that message on your talk page, hmm? You're digging yourself a bigger hole, Butterrum. I hate to seem antagonistic, but, if you can, Boston, please help me stop this guy. BishopTutu17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu murthis - I didn't put that statement there
"The Hindu murthis are considered to be self-manifestations of the deity...." I didn't write that part . It was already there. I removed much of what was in the article but I left that for fixing later -- didn't want to get more people mad at me For your future reference, I never put anything in an article without a reference footnote. Sincerely, Mattisse
Change it if you have a good reference source and can cite it. Otherwise, do not change it. It is for Dinesh's Feature Articles and I am trying to clean up some of the articles that are linked to it. Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to respond right away, but I was away from a computer for several days. I see somebody (was it you logged out?) removed the userbox. It is not intended as an attack, but rather as a defense. I've added several more. I hope this meets with your approval, but frankly don't see how it is your concern. Best regards, Jefferson Anderson21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are not an attack. I could see interpreting them as an attack if they said that I was a sockpuppet of somebody, but I fail to see how saying I am not could be considered an attack. If you are concerned with incivility, perhaps you could have a word with Paul Pigman, Kathryn NicDhàna, WeniWidiWiki and Mattisse about their incivility towards me on the CR mediation page and on Alan.ca's talk page. Do you know how to go about getting an advocate or somebody to look into these things for me? Jefferson Anderson21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicOTalk · Sign Here13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have anything to add right now to the question of sufis at Starwood, but I wouldn't use the term "Neo-Sufis" since while I do know folks who call themselves sufis who come to and appear at Starwood, I don't know any who call themselves Neo-Sufis. I'd appreciate it if you either take the tag off, or delete it AND the mention of sufis at the event, if you think it shouldn't be there without some sort of citation. I'll leave it up to you; it's not that important a factoid to me. But I'd like to get rid of the tag. No worries. Rosencomet22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I had tried to creat the account with Niraj as the username, but it says the user exist with that name. Personally I also believes that the "nirajrm" will be fine.
Thanks for your help.
Can you tell me how can I add the "Useboxes" to my profile?
--Nirajrmtalk00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would enter this in Arbitration but I cannot follow the arbitration and don't know how to do it or where.
Jefferson Anderson shows up on my talk page on January 12, having had no interactions with me before and posts the following many posts all on that day, then lists me as a rude editor on his user page along with a Mattisse sockpuppet box.
January 12 sequential diffs:
*JA (his first edit on my page but he copied something above that I did not write .[11]**I don't know that to which you are referring when you say he copied something above that you did not write. What was it that he copied?***The statement about WP:SOCK above his posting here - I don't know where that is from - maybe he posted that first. That was a very busy day, mail-wise and I did not notice at the time.
JA first edit titled Sockpuppet harassment (Note: person who posted on my page just prior to JA is A Ramachandran - one of the batch of socks just blocked wasn't he?) [12]
The last edit summary I made asking him not to post on my page again has been used repeadedly since as an example of my harrassment of him. On January 18 he posts on my talk page again: [34]I am suspicious of him now because he posted on my page repeatedly without knowing me, his subject was sockpuppet (known preocupation of Hanuman Das and Ekajaki), he was overly invested in me as shown by his posts, after I apologised deeply three times, he listed me as a rude editor and posted the Mattisse sockpuppet box on his user page. Why would a disinterested user invest so much time in me? Sincerely, Mattisse15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sincerely, Mattisse[reply]
I'm sure you know already as you post to Rosencomet often, Jefferson Anderson has posted there also [38] Sincerely, Mattisse
If you follow this diff[39] down and look at the page, you will find that Jefferson Anderson's first posting on my page was some obscure sockpuppet references and changes he had made in policy or something -- I didn't have the patience to read it. Sincerely, Mattisse04:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a mess -- I would delete it but I am afraid
JA first edit to me titled Sockpuppet harassment (Note: person who posted on my page just prior to JA is A Ramachandran - one of the batch of socks just blocked wasn't he?) [41]
The last edit summary I made asking him not to post on my page again has been used repeadedly since as an example of my harrassment of him. On January 18 he posts on my talk page again: [64]I am suspicious of him now because he posted on my page repeatedly without knowing me, his subject was sockpuppet (known preocupation of Hanuman Das and Ekajaki), he was overly invested in me as shown by his posts, after I apologised deeply three times, he listed me as a rude editor and posted the Mattisse sockpuppet box on his user page. Why would a disinterested user invest so much time in me?
These are JA susequent relevant posts
JA [65] restores userbox after Salix alba removes it
That entire strawman was beginning to feel like an intentional effort to nullify my arguments through intentional misstatement and repetition of misstatements. Actually, it kind of still does! In any case, thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling@01:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what you are telling from the section undue weight? Ayyavazhi is definitely notable than zoroastrians, and few thousand jews regarding majority minority issues. Also in the article there is no output of any views of Ayyavazhi but mere mention of the word 'Ayyavazhi', That's all. Also what voilation? Please don't use such words, Thank You. - Paul22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, in a list of religions of India, Ayyavazhi is not more notable than Jews or Zoroastrians. If you look at lists of religions of India, for example the census, or literally thousands of books on the religions of India, Ayyavazhi is rarely mentioned. Wikipedia gives weight according to the weight given by experts in the particular field of interest. Please do not continue to make contentious edits on the India page without consensus of other editors of the India page. It is disruptive. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling the university papers cited are all false reports? Or, the University scholars are not experts? - Paul22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that Wikipedia gives weight according to the weight given by experts in the particular field of interest. When making a list of religions of India, we give weight according to the weight given by experts in religions of India. Of the lists of the religions of India that have been drawn up by experts, the vast majority of these, and the most authoritative ones, do not list Ayyavazhi. --BostonMAtalk22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your POV what is "authoritative ones"? 'University of Madras' one of the three oldest in India or Universities views generally is not in (your) the circle of authority? - Paul22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does your book even list the religions of India? If so, what religions does it list? If it does give a list of religions of India, and I don't mean merely mention various religions in separate places, then I would consider it to be one of the views of experts on the religions of India. However, we don't give weight according to what one expert might say, but give weight according to the weight found among all experts in the field of interest. --BostonMAtalk22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I even presented the conclusion of the book. Then what more to do? Then the LMS (the largest and the first protestant missionary) Reports. Then a couple of historian views (cited in the Ayyavazhi article. What more? Still Iam telling all are mentioned on the factual existence of Ayyavazhi.
If a person with a doctorate from some university publish a book out side the university then it could be taken as one expert view. But since it was an university publications it has to pass a series of experts rewiews from several universities before getting accredited. Definitely, you know all these. Then what credit do you earn by hearing these things from me as mere repeatations? Friend, pls Ustand. Thank You. - Paul22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, we are not debating the factual existence of Ayyavazhi. We are discussing the notability of Ayyavazhi. So please stop repeating your arguments about the existence of Ayyavazhi. The census of India reports state that when individuals have been asked to identify their religion, they have given something close to 1500 different answers. An overview article on India should not contain a list of 1500 different beliefs. We must limit our list to the most notable and describe the remaining beliefs as "others". Which beliefs are the most notable? We decide that by looking at the reputable sources. All of the reputable sources, and not merely a single book. It is not even clear to me that that the single book upon which you place so much weight even lists the most notable religions of India. If so, the book even if completely factual, would not do us any good for determining which beliefs should be in the list of religions in the India article. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ayyavazhi was not individually created as something noted by you from the census reports. Then the notability 8000 worship centers from one book, thousands of worship centers from another, and as thousands across the nation from another book; All are university papers which are cited is the most valid third party sources. Then the LMS. Nothing to tell more on their case of Notability. Then a set of historian views. My question is simple. Aren't all these people experts on your view?
Ayyavazhi is definitely notable than zorosatrians and few thousand jews. Midst, inspite of all thease valid third party citations, I don't understand on what ground these set of users here in wikipedia are assuming as being neutral, acting aginst something merely because of the reason of lack of official accredition. It is something to be wondered!
I'd never seen a three-eyed person; But its existence is proved by valid citations by some one. Iam going on arguing it never exists, merely because I'd never seen it!!! It's like so the things are going here. - Д|Ж|Д18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [71] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher13101:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little scared off by your immediate statement that you think your advice might be taken as criticism. I certainly have had plenty of that, and little recognition of the work I've done to make things right. However, if it's constructive criticism, I'd welcome it, of course. At least you have occasionally supported a point or two that I've made when you thought I had a valid one. But please don't take offense if it turns out I disagree with your criticism; I promise to be respectful of your opinion nonetheless. Rosencomet02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a mixed bag. 1. I don't think I can stop posting on the arbcom case, since there seems to be no one to defend me anymore who hasn't been blocked or scared away, and one arbitrator seems to already have decided to ban me indefinitely. 2. The only edits I've made for a while to Starwood have been to reduce the lists (and keep the column lengths even). If no one tries to vandalize it with mentions of Satanism or something, I don't have any plans to do anything else for now. 3. As for Mattisse, I know you feel a need to be her protector for some reason. I have said before and I'll say again; if she stops trying to make trouble for me, I'm happy to leave her past behavior in the past. But she keeps weighing in on other talk pages with fresh encouragement to people to act against me. 4. As to my "allies" as you put it, I don't have anything to say anymore about all this checkuser and sockpuppet stuff; it's gone beyond my ability to even follow the conversation from a technical standpoint. 5. You'll have to explain why you think it's a good idea for me not to defend myself. Are YOU going to defend me? When I see misrepresentations of what happened posted there, if I don't object, am I not sunk?
As to editing something else, I'm not sure what other fields I have expertise in enough to contribute. I didn't get into this because I love to edit; I wanted to write articles about people and things I knew about that weren't already there, and improve ones that are there. I want to contribute both to my community AND to Wikipedia. In most of my other interests, there are already people who know more than I do editing those articles. And I certainly don't want to become one of these bastards who seem to think that tearing apart other people's work is the same as a creative act. Rosencomet04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I understand that you are tired and frustrated at dealing with Paul but wikipedia needs you to take his case to whatever the next step is. Before I make my argument for why you need to do this, please read the following message that our dear friend left on Darcy's talk page after he was banned for 3RRR:
"Sir you blocked me for 24 hrs as violating 3rr. Please see does the 4 reverts comes within 24 hrs [21]. The fourth revert is made after 10 minutes after the duration exceeded. The guideline says "An editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24 hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing." Then on what conscience you blocked me. - Д|Ж|Д 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"
Basically, he waited till 24 hours were up and then sneaked in his now infamous pov. However, his message tells us two things:
i) We are facing someone far far far more patient and determined than us.
ii) He is able to research the rules and try and make them work for him.
In many ways, we already knew this as it fits his method of "discussion." Even after all of your and many, many other editors work (Venus/Parthi, Fowler, etc.) he has managed to sneak in the mention of a religion that many of us are not even sure is a religion (forget about significance) in dozens of articles. Yet, I am willing to bet that 90% of the Indians you will ask on wikipedia (including ones from Tamil Nadu) would have never heard of this religion. It is almost like the religion is being invented on Wikipedia. This is wrong and it must be stopped. You are the ideal choice to lead the "cleansing" as you not only have the experience needed on this matters but also have dealt with him often enough. I hope you agree!--Blacksun03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I have actually not had that much direct interaction with him but have seen what many others have said and done. After following your discussion with him, I could not think of one thing I could have said that would make him understand. Similarly, I have seen few other respected editors waste lot of time on the matter too. Basically, I have more of an overview of what has been happening and it has become clear to me that we need something more official. I will try and find out all the people he has had conflicts with and send you links sometime tomorrow night (Europe timezone). --Blacksun20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parthi beat me to it. Please look for his/her post at my talk page regarding Paul's edits. I will try and make a list of articles in en Wikipedia where he has been prolific.--Blacksun10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument usually put forward by Paul Raj/Vaikunda Raja goes something like this: '1.Ayyavazhi is a religion. See the couple of University papers. 2. It is notable. See the news reports of local holidays declared by the Tamil Nadu Government. 3. It is a separate religion because the founder/prophet (Vaikunda sami) said so, eventhough most of the followers consider themselves no different from Hindus.' Trying to make him understand the notion of undue weight is a futile exercise. It is next to impossible to find an independent source for the existance of this religion, as 99% of the hits are from Wikipedia or one of its numerous mirrors. The Hindu, the most respected broadsheet from Tamil Nadu, does not have any mention of this religion : [72], [73], [74], [75] - Parthitalk/contribs22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Parthi, You noted 'impossible to find an independent source' relaed to Ayyavazhi. Are you telling the university papers are dependent to Ayyavazhi? Then the online sources. It was really too bad compared to offline, related to Ayyavazhi. But offline sources are also valid. - Д=|Θ|=ДPaul|23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and Ayyavazhi continues to increase in popularity on Wikipedia.. On Eastern Philosophy page, Paul has moved it to top of the list and justified it based on alphabetical listing. On Ayyavazhi page it sounds more and more like it is a brand new religion and I am sure in few years Hinduism will be reflected as a sect of Ayyavazhi. He has added a paragraph as big as Jainism and Buddhism on Dharmic Religion article for Ayyavazhi. Ditto for Eastern Religions where he distinguishes it from Hinduism even more and no doubt will cite that to change other articles in future. I hope you are working on the RFC. --Blacksun13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you telling that article is not in alphabetical order? Also why you are telling this. You've completely deleted Ayyavazhi contents from there. In Dharmic religion article one six to seven most important lines are included regarding Ayyavazhi, with each and every lines cited. - Д=|Θ|=ДPaul|19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sending you this message in regards to a report I am filing against Asian2duracell to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. He has been found guilty of racial intollerance, name calling, trolling, sock puppetry, and vandalism. All other methods of conflict resolution have been tried and failed. Please let me know that you are aware of this request and if you would like to participate in this. Regards. Wiki Raja01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is written by Professor Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)