User talk:Mael-Num/Archive 1

Civility

Mael-Num, you're getting awfully close to incivil with this comment. Please cool it down a bit. The article is clearly going to be kept, but that doesn't mean you need to badger the people !voting to keep it in the process.--Kchase T 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'm "getting awfully close" I guess that means that I'm not yet incivil, right? I guess it was your opinion that I should be warned though. Just as it is the opinion of the Fox News set that the article be kept, and my opinion that those people are morons. Opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one. Maybe I should write an article about my own asshole today? Mael-Num 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you being so combative about this? We don't disagree with you because we hate you, we just have different opinions about whether an individual is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. it's really nothing to get wound up about.--Kchase T 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that I don't know that? For the record, I am at worst completely indifferent about those that merely disagree with me. What ires me is the false and deceptive reasons people cite in order to make their claims seem valid. It's what's wrong with Wikipedia. Wiki cites that other sites' cites need to have been subject to "independent fact-checking" or "where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication", and yet Wiki itself fails both of these proofs. Too often it's a case of mob rule, which is to say, no rules. Mael-Num 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete cited info as you did here [1]. This is considered vandalism. Anyone can add cited content to wikipedia. Kerr avon 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted material that, while cited, wasn't from a WP:NPOV. This is a no-brainer. You know this as well as I do, so drop the veneer of nicety and innocence. As guilty as WarHawk and Supreme Cmdr are of being biased in favor of Smart, you are biased against the man. Neither is good. If you disagree with me on the neutrality of the subject, take it to the talk page. Until them, I am duty-bound by WP:BLP to remove it. If you return it to the page you will be reported for edit-warring and violating Wiki policy. Mael-Num 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks, as you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Smart&curid=1239511&diff=93907133&oldid=93899564 here. Personal attacks are never appropriate. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement of facts. Don't resort to trying to sway people who may pay more attention to form rather than function when you cry "foul". Stop crying and prove my argument wrong.Mael-Num 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? I challenge anyone to read that link and find a personal attack in the edit-difference. Tragic romance 16:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll want to look in the first line; it's hidden in a link. Wikilinking an editor's username to the phrase 'dishonest and single-minded users' is a pretty clear attack, and Mael-Num would be well-advised to steer clear of such remarks in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I looked at that edit again and saw the linking. Thanks. Tragic romance 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also remember to assume good faith: you don't get to label all reversions on the Derek Smart article as Vandalism. Please review what vandalism is at WP:VANDAL. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is wisdom in what you're saying, that responding agrily feeds into the behavior of people who are looking for that sort of a response. Just so I can know to be more aware in the future, would you mind pointing out what I posted that prompted you to take the time to get in touch with me? Even if you cannot do so, thank you for your thoughtful attention, and I'll try to "keep my six-shooters holstered". Can't promise I'll ever hang them up, though, pardner. ;) Mael-Num 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It was an edit summary you made on the Derek Smart article where you said "Future reversions will be considered vandalism". I apologise for the use of standardised templates, which was why I added the second message at the end: normally I reserve the templates for vandals which you clearly are not. As I mentioned at AN/I, I really don't forsee this article going anywhere but to ArbCom and I'd hate to see another editor get too fired up and get in trouble with ArbCom when they eventually rule on it (And I'm positive that it will eventually come to that: this is far too contentious to stop). Just remember to chill out, find your zen and all will be well. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ohmmmmmm Mael-Num 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, young grasshopper. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

crossposted from my talk page

Derek Smart

I think it's beyond you and Kerr Avon. Hell it didn't start with you guys. It started with WarhawkSP, Supreme Cmdr, the IPs, and a half dozen other accounts. It involves interpretation of policy. RFC is only going to be useful here as a checkbox to move towards Arbitration. I think mediation would work if everyone agreed to it. I've asked for administrator intervention, and I think the page should remain semiprotected for the time being. As is, the only real solution is to have those that actually understand policy enforce it, (those being admins), and enforce it strongly and switfly (with temporary blcoks). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration filed on Derek Smart

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed on the article Derek Smart, which you have been involved with in some manner. If you would like to contribute to the request, or subsequent case if accepted, please visit WP:RFAR. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearing your name

The easiest way to distance yourself from the Smart single-purpose accounts is to edit articles unrelated to Smart. The more articles you edit and improve, the better for your reputation. And the encyclopaedia :-) Guy (Help!) 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your apology

I'm looking forward to your apology for your behaviour on the Prem Rawat talk page and on mine. Several people have already warned you about personal attacks on this page, stop doing it or stop editing.Momento 07:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to winning the lottery. But before we get ahead of ourselves, what am I apologizing for? Mael-Num 09:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, I would sure love to win the lottery... Then I could start the company I'm always dreaming about, and the non-profit fund I keep thinking would be nice to found later in life... Smee 10:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I've thought really hard about this, and I've decided that I would have my winnings converted into coin, fill a large room with it Ducktales style, and learn how to swim through "me money bin". Mael-Num 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, there can be downsides to winning the lottery... Smee 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Ha. A cautionary tale for all of us dreamers. I guess the lesson here is that looking forward to an apology is far less likely to win you marriage proposals. Mael-Num 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing and summarizing versus quoting

The subject of the claims of divinity by Prem Rawat is a hypersensitive subject. Because it is so sensitive I stopped paraphrasing and summarizing sources and started quoting sources which yields less chance of distortion or perception of distortion by others. I have been repeatedly and heavily accused of misrepresenting sources regarding the Rawat's claims of divinity. Andries 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And now, in an apparent no-win situation, by quoting sources instead of paraphrasing them there is a push to have the quoted materials ripped right off the page because it may not be possible to dredge up Dutch originals of all of these scholars' works. Delicious. I wonder how long I'll be able to continue assuming good faith on the part of the obscurantist deletion crew and when I'll start calling spades as I see them. Mael-Num 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem in finding the Dutch originals. They are all in the talk pages or the archives or the history of the article. I know, because I wrote them there. I can easily make literal English translations that can be checked for accuracy by one of the hundreds other Dutch editors of the English Wikipedia. An alternative to Dutch Kranenborg would be the 1980 German book Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit by Reinhart Hummel of which I made a copy that makes to some extent the same comments. Andries 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see some problems with allowing this to stand as a policy. The first most obvious: what if you had given up on the article? I am no longer a student and living in the United States, and I don't know that my local public library system would have Dutch-language materials for me to use in sourcing this article. Similarly, what if this standard were to be applied to other articles where the original authors who made the original contributions had moved on, as you hypothetically did in the previous example? Would it be right to start tearing careful research from the pages because of a too-strict standard that, in all fairness, no scholarly publication requires (as far as I know)? Maybe it's just my instinct, but I don't like seeing people suddenly moving the goalposts because they don't like what is being said, and my reflex is to resist such behavior. Mael-Num 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

All that being said, I'm very glad that we do have you and your contributions, because they completely disarm any effect that the pro-deletion camp are having (at least on this article). Mael-Num 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This allows more permanence. User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English I still cannot find some of the Dutch originals in the talk pages e.g. Jan van der Lans, though I am sure that they are there. Andries 10:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked you for 3rr, then noted that your "opponent" was blocked for vandalism, so I've unblocked oyu. Nonetheless, please be more careful in future William M. Connolley 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful consideration, and I will continue to be careful in the future. Mael-Num 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Meat Puppets

You want to know about Meat Puppets M-N? How about this from the Anti-Prem Rawat forum where Jim Heller attacks Andries.

Oh my God! Now I see what happened:

I contributed this about Geaves:

Geaves has written a couple of articles about Prem Rawat, his guru, for various scholarly journals without publically disclosing in those pieces that he is a follower of Rawat (a/k/a Maharaji). Critics of Geaves allege that these works are dissembling, revisionist propaganda and far too biased and inaccurate for proper scholarship. For instance, in a 2006 article, Geaves commented on the "Millenium" festival Rawat held in Houston in 1973, noting that "The event had taken on millenial expectations in the U.S. with devotees announcing and advertising Maharaji's appearance at the stadium as a second-coming, complete with angelic and alien visitors. Only 20,000 attended the event and Maharaji did not appear to have any knowledge of his American followers' expectations. He spoke as he usually does at such gatherings with no hint of messianic promises." However, in a letter that Rawat himself wrote inviting followers to the festival, he called it "the most Holy and significant event in human history". And later, "This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe."

Then you anonymously changed my text to this: Geaves is a long-term follower of the Indian spiritual leader Prem Rawat, formerly called, Guru Maharaj Ji and has written several papers about him and affiliated organizations.

I then changed it back at which point Jossi changed it back to your namby/pamby nothing vandalized replacement of my text. I changed it back again and this time blasted Jossi for the vandalism when he posted on the talk page admitting he'd done that edit. He changed it again and we went back and forth a bit before your other friend, Momento, joined in the fun and reverted. So what's the deal here? You guys covered off each other so none of you could be guilty of doing three reversions leaving me vulnerable for that bullshit accusation? And you never had the guts to step forward and explain that it was you, Fresco and Momento but instead allowed me to get blocked, allowed me to write that long complaint about Fresco, knowing full-well that it was in fact all three of you? You little worm!!!!

And you have the audacity to then lecture me on learning the Wikipedia rules better? Why? So I could play nasty little tricks like this? Signed Jim Heller

I think you should put on your bio suit and gas mask and visit the anti Prem Rawat forum before you accuse me of being a sock puppet or a meat puppet.Momento 10:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of this, except for you to hide behind another man's words and insult me with names like "worm" by proxy. This is inappropriate and cowardly. The original author may have some fair objections, but as one can see from your contributions, you are clearly a disruptive single purpose account. The action I took was appropriate, though you are of course welcome to protest. In the future, try to find your own voice in doing so. Mael-Num 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an example of how the anti-Rawat members collude to edit, it has nothing to do with you. How you can think "worm" applies to you eludes me? As clearly stated in the opening senetnce the above passage is "from the Anti-Prem Rawat forum where Jim Heller attacks Andries".Momento 02:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it you don't understand what "by proxy" means, or you are merely being disingenuous. My meaning is quite plain. Mael-Num 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an example of non-collusion and disagreement between posters on the anti-Rawat forum. Andries 09:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Andries, and an example of how editors on the PR article discuss the article in a POV forum rather than on the talk page. And argue when the expected collusion goes wrong.Momento 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "collusion" between ex-premies about editing on Wikipedia. If there were collusion between us "apostates," you can be sure that in the current advertorial whitewash that is now called the Prem Rawat article, there would be a helleva lot more truth about Maharaji's life. This collusion business is in Momento's imagination, his/her invention. It's true that sometimes the wiki article is discussed on the forum, but isn't it odd that premie Momento believes that that is not acceptable -- that somehow our exercising of free speech is wrong when applied to being critical of Prem Rawat? It is also quite telling that Momento feels free to trot Jim Heller's very old post from the ex-premie forum while he posts here anonymously. That's true to form for any devotee of Prem Rawat. So, good luck, Mael-Num. If you plan on trying to continue editing the Rawat article, you're going to have to steel yourself to be the recipient of some outstanding pretzel logic by devotees. Best wishes, Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 14:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, you are really funny. You present clear evidence of lack of collusion as evidence that there is collusion. I see nothing wrong with discussion of edits in Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia. Andries 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Prem Rawat’s view on God.

In his first talks in the West in 1971, Rawat laid out the main pillars of his teaching. 1) that no human being could be God because God was perfect and pure energy and energy was everywhere. 2) the role of every human being is to realise their divine nature by discovering God within.3) the role of the Guru is to help in that quest by providing the means to experience God within (Rawat himself needed his Guru to help him), much as religions claim the need for priests to bridge the gap between humans and God.

1) It is impossible for a human being to be God

PR talking in Toronto, Canada; September, 1971 "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk".

PR Peace Bomb Satsang 1971 -"So dear premies, receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God is within your own heart".

PR talking Westminster 1971 - "The world thinks, people think, that God is man. People think that God has got ears, nose, teeth, and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And they think he is an old man and has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy".

PR talking in Colorado 1971 - "Some people think that God is a human being but he is not. God hasn't got ears like us, nose like us, teeth, tongue, lungs, chest, bones. He isn't like that".

2) Know yourself, you are divine because God is within every human being

PR Peace Bomb Satsang 1971 - know God within yourself & God is within your own heart".

PR talking Westminster 1971 – God is inside

PR talking in Fulham 1972 – You have to dig inside to find God

3) The Guru's role –

PR talking Westminster 1971 - To realise this Knowledge even I had to go to a guru

The saying “The Guru is greater than God because the Guru can reveal God” was often explained by Rawat as – you’re dieing of thirst in the desert. You need water to live but unknown to you there is water a few feet below you in the ground. Fortunately a man appears and digs a hole and gives you water. Who is more important to your life – the water that was always there but you couldn’t access or the person that enables you to reach the water?

Hope this clarifies. Momento 06:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of research on Rawat, mostly using the internet and resources cited in the article itself. It's a lot to try and take in, being a complete newcomer. Thank you for taking the time to explain some of this to me; it's very helpful.

Given this information and what Andries is saying in the talk pages, what do you think is the source of the disagreement? Do you feel he is trying to put across an idea and not phrasing something correctly, or perhaps that he is misinformed? Mael-Num 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries edits to discredit Rawat.Momento 07:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, there's got to be some sort of middle ground, because I don't think this issue is going to just go away. You asked me to be more moderate, so here I am asking how I can do that. As I see it, Andries is on one side, and Momento and yourself are on the other. The best possible article is somewhere in between. Compromise seems sound, and that starts with communication. Mael-Num 09:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There aren't two sides to the truth. It's either true or it isn't. So a compromise isn't a compromise, it's a failure.Momento 09:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha. I thought, strangely, that you were Jossi, as I invited him to speak with me about his views on the subject. Not that it matters, I still appreciate your taking the time to discuss the subject and I still stand by what I said before. The truth, as you put it, lies between your version of events and Andries. As such, you both have important roles to play in the discovery of this truth. If only you two would stop snarling at each other to get it done. Mael-Num 09:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this is where we'll have to differ. The truth doesn't lie between Andries' view and mine.The truth, as clearly shown above, is that Rawat has never believed or said he was God. There is no middle ground, no compromise.Momento 10:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that as presented in your argument. Restating again and again that Rawat never believed or said he was God isn't compelling by and of itself, particularly in light of the fact that other sources contradict this. Mael-Num 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not restating it, I have given you several instances of Rawat public stating it before thousands of witnesses.Believe what you like.Momento 03:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't want to argue with you, but I want to converse so that, maybe, I can understand your point of view. I have looked through your quotes above, but you must admit, Rawat has said a lot of things. He's an incredibly active speaker. Your selection of quotes supports your claim, but how do you resolve these quotes with what you are saying?

"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion?"

"God made the mind but He never made a stoplight. And when He saw that 'There is no stop in this mind which I have made,' He was very sorry. He had to take a form. The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the 'Supremest' of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity."

"To be here as individuals, and yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything; in which everything is, and he is in everything. Guru Maharaji. The Lord. All powerful."

That last one is interesting, I think, because it uses words that have a pretty strong meaning to the Judeo-Christian Western world. Rawat would definitely be aware of these meanings because, remember, he was educated in a Catholic school, and after years of exposure to western ideas, his awareness of the implications of this sort of speech would have only increased. What are your thoughts, on all three of these quotes? Mael-Num 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, because there is a lot of previous understanding necessary to understand the meaning 1) Everything is a manifestation of God but (in Indian culture) the Guru has special prominence because the sole function of a Guru is to direct you to God. God is everywhere but the it helps to have a focus, which is why Christians pray to saints, go to churches and temples and listen to priests. 2) Again Rawat is stating the unique role of the Guru (in a humourous vein). God forgot to give humans a brake for the mind so he had to create a special person, a Guru to show you how to stop the mind. And since God can't talk, God send a Guru to fulfil that role.3) Again from Indian culture, the Guru who is able to show you God is the most important person in your life. He is your link to God; as far as realisation of God is concerned he represents everything that God realisation is.Momento 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll break up your comments so that it's easier for us to further expand on them in the future.

Everything is a manifestation of God but (in Indian culture) the Guru has special prominence because the sole function of a Guru is to direct you to God. God is everywhere but the it helps to have a focus, which is why Christians pray to saints, go to churches and temples and listen to priests.

Since you mention a Christian parallel, I'll go with it. Christians also believe that God is present in all things. However, they don't believe that God is manifest in anything other than Christ. Christians do not pray or give devotion to saints, at least not any sect that I am aware of. Rawat's quote is saying, "If I am here, God is here. I am the manifestation of God, give devotion to me." Equivocating about "Indian traditions" is irrelevant; he wasn't speaking to Indians but Westerners, and he must have been aware of western traditions, as he went to Catholic school, and it would not have been possible for him to attend a Catholic school and not been taught Catholic doctrine.

If Christians believe God is present in all things then it follows that everything is a manifestation of God, including Jesus. As for " Christians do not pray or give devotion to saints", 200 million Catholics have gone to Lourdes to pray to a vision of a 14-year-old local girl.

I think this is devolving into a metaphysical debate, and that wasn't my intention at all. Suffice it to say that in Rawat's on words, he is distinct from God's other works in that he is the "highest manifestation" of God. "When Guru is here, God is here" implies that when guru is not there, God isn't there. Seems pretty elementary to me. As far as Lourdes, it's clear you have some misapprehensions about the Christian religion. Christians don't worship anyone but God. It's really that simple. Catholics and some Orthodox churches (and perhaps some others) hold a special reverence for Mary, but she is not God, and therefore, not worshipped. Mael-Num 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are so careless with your argument. I said "pray to saints". And Rawat said "To whom will you give your devotion". No one said worship.Momento 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again Rawat is stating the unique role of the Guru (in a humourous vein). God forgot to give humans a brake for the mind so he had to create a special person, a Guru to show you how to stop the mind. And since God can't talk, God send a Guru to fulfil that role.

Rawat's words here, "The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the 'Supremest' of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity." refers to himself as the incarnation of God. This is further emphasized by his declaring his works to be "not like those of humanity". The implication is that his actions are divine, because he is divine, reinforcing the statement of divinity.

Rawat is talking in parables. He starts by talking about God making a mistake,....I'll repeat that.......Rawat is saying God makes mistakes!!!!! God forgot to give humans a brake and a stop light? So poor old God has got to get out of bed and make a Guru to fix his divine mistake. The Guru is the divine fixer. He does the divine job of giving people a message from God. God message is be peaceful. The Guru is on a "mission from God".

Your interpretation here only supports my argument. Saying that God is imperfect, relative to a "perfect master" is implicitly stating that a guru is superior to God. Ignoring the obvious metaphysical conundrum of an imperfect thing giving rise to a perfect thing, the message is that Rawat is effectively "God 2.0", the New and Improved Lord of the Universe, and therefore worthy of your prayers and worship. Mael-Num 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not ignore the metaphysical conundrum of Rawat saying "God is pure and perfect energy" and then saying "God made a mistake"! You take Rawat literally when it suits your purpose and ignore him when it doesn't. If you take "God made a mistake" literally why don't you claim that Rawat said "human beings need a stop light.Momento 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again from Indian culture, the Guru who is able to show you God is the most important person in your life. He is your link to God; as far as realisation of God is concerned he represents everything that God realisation is.

The fact that he is speaking to a non-Indian culture audience, and the choice of words, "Guru Maharaji. The Lord. All powerful." which sounds almost as if taken from the Nicene Creed verbatim makes me very suspect that he was completely ignorant of the implications of his words. Rawat was certainly not naive nor was he ignorant. These words were carefully chosen, I think, to have a certain resonance with a western audience.

For a start, when Rawat mentions the word "Guru" he is talking about Indian culture, no matter who he's talking to. And you either undertand it or you don't. So God is love, God is everywhere, all powerful. But when you're in love with someone, where do you experience love? All over the place, in every person or more intensely when you're with that special person you love. God/love may be all around but where does love manifest for humans? In the human form of the loved one. Spiritually it's the same. Spiritual God may be everywhere but the spiritual lover experiences that love most intensely in the human form of the Guru. Both are love personified beacause they are the cause and experience of love. The Lord. The Beloved.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Communication always must consider the audience. Denying this is so...insane I don't even know how to address it. Rawat is aware of linguistic theory...I've heard him talk about the significance of terms like "perfect master" with respect to western audiences, which shows that he is aware of it. Sidestepping my comments about the relevance of these terms given the audience doesn't change the fact that the wording is relevant. And given the other two quotes which (among others) indicate his claims to divinity, it is safe to conclude that this is another claim of divinity, crafted specifically so that western (presumably Judeo-Christian) listeners would be receptive to this claim. Mael-Num 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think repeating "wrong" three times makes you right. And please note their is a difference between claiming to be God and claiming to be divine. Rawat has always maintained that a human can't be god, end of story, and he has always maintained that God is within every human being. He's divine and so are we.Momento 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Anyway, in light of scholarly observations that he did indeed claim divinity, I'm inclined to see how the inclusion of these observations in the article are valid. They seem to have some basis in Rawat's words. I also see your point, and I agree your interpretations are valid and insightful, but if we're including scholarly opinion, and these guys are scholars, and their opinion is that his words could be taken to be claims of divinity, it's not our job to reinterpret that. Mael-Num 05:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never suggested that scholars' claim that Rawat claimed that he is divine should be omited from the article nor have I ever taken them out. I would like to see the actual comments of the Dutch scholars because Andries translations have been found to be a little inaccurate.Momento 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Rawat we are all "divine". Divine meaning "of or from God". I haven't seen the actual scholar's statements. But what we know beyond doubt is that Rawat doesn't believe he is God and has denied it several timesMomento 12:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't read the scholars' statements, why are you so quick to have them dismissed from the article? Shouldn't you read something before you condemn it? Mael-Num 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

At no time have I asked that they be dismissed from the article. Nor have I condemned them. I have simply responded to your request for more information on Rawat's opinion of God. So I provided you with Rawat's clear and unambiguous publicly stated and recorded opinion that it is impossible for a human being to be God. If you can't understand what he said, I can't help you.Momento 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While Maharaji did deny his own status as God or "Greater than God," divinity to the mainstream media, with which he has had very little contact over the past 40 years, the fact remains that he also made many, many confirming statements about his personal divinity to followers. Maharaji's claims of divinity, God, or 'greater than God' status was published by Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital (DLM/EV) itself. While Rawat adherents have arranged to disallow the massive amount of material about this issue, that's available on EPO, that doesn't make the his statements magically disappear. After all, the material scanned onto EPO was originally published by Maharaji's own DLM/EV organization.

Evidence of divinity claims can be found by reading the words of the DLM version of the song Arti, a devotional song which Rawat himself mandated (agya or orders) to be sung by all ashram residents twice per day. Prem Rawat personally wrote the Ashram Manual which mandated this schedule of singing Arti. In the U.S., Arti was also sung nightly at community satsang events by all present. This song was also sung directly to Maharaji during most of the the live programs by throughout the 1970, 80s, 90s and is still sung at Amaroo or played instrumentally. Further evidence of Rawat's divinity claims can be found by reading the entire Peace Bomb satsang.

These are but a scant few of the examples of Maharaji's claims of personal divinity Guru, Master, God and the Supreme Lord and these examples don't scratch the surface of the hundreds of times Prem Rawat sang his own praises as the Lord, Supreme Lord, greater than God, like Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Rama, etc.

Contrary to adherents' assertions, one doesn't need to have a "special understanding" of Prem Rawat or Knowledge to comprehend the words he has spoken over the years. Maharaji's teachings are comprised of what his spoken words have actually been. While Maharaji has said that "God is within each person," he also has said the "Guru Mahaaraj Ji is inside each person," and has always, above everything else, emphasized the need for the Living Perfect Master, Living Lord, in a premie's life, and that person is himself, Prem Rawat. In the Rawat religion, all those things are true -- then and now. One also doesn't need to have special knowledge of Hindu or Indian traditions in order to understand Maharaji's references to Perfect Master and Indian saints,or Hindu traditions, etc. All one needs to do, once again, is to read or listen to Maharaji's own words to discover that he quite often claimed his own divinity.

If the above-linked material above isn't convincing enough, here's even more material that blows Momento's arguments completely out of the water: The DLM/Elan Vital Gallery. Furthermore, if all of the above isn't enough evidence that Maharaji/Prem Rawat claimed divinity frequently, here are actual videos of him saying so and while dressed up as Krishna, complete with crown and sitting on thrones: Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital videos. Best wishes, :-) Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 18:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh Momento. Just...ugh. I'm not even going to bother responding to the "I say pray, you say worship"/"we've all got God in us/God isn't any person" doubletalk. I think I'll just have to agree to disagree with you. Mael-Num 10:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mael-Num, I think that there is some truth in Jossi's complaint that you give undue weight to the criticism of brainwashing in the lead, because there are more prominent criticisms, such as sumptuous life style and lack of intellectual contens. We cannot mention all the criticisms in the lead section. I also think that your interpretations of the sources do not stay close to the source. All this would not be serious if the article Prem Rawat was just a stub, but because the article is already well-developed, the bar for edits is higher. You are a newcomer and admit that you do not know much about the subject. In contrast, all the regular editors in the article have studied Rawat and the sources descring Rawat for years, so I think that the appropriate way for you to behave is some modesty for the time being. I do not see such modesty when you repeatedly revert Momento, though it will be clear that have major disagreements with Momento too. Please take your time to study the subject, the sources, and the talk pages including the archives. Andries 11:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maelnum, I responded to you on my talk page. I don't blame you for not bothering to engage in Momento's non-arguments. PatW

Er.. I just deleted my attack on Momento in the spirit of trying to keep a cool head. CheersPatW 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Mael-Num. You don't know me but I hope you don't mind that I've linked to your rebuttal of Momento's argument (above). The link is from the following paragraph on the Rawat discussion page

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#Momento_20:12.2C_3_February_2007_.28UTC.29

And I'd also like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to challenge the hold that he and jossi have over that article. Your writing skills and common sense make for a welcome breath of fresh air, and are much appreciated. Revera 15:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely surprized that you were right

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Momento. I do not trust myself anymore because I was certain that your accusation was unfounded. Andries 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's OK Andries. You are right, the accusation is unfounded.Momento 11:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

According to whom? Jossi? Yourself? The fact of the matter is your admin-buddy pulled weight, and the finding of your being a sockpuppet was suddenly reversed. Your statement here is laughable. Mael-Num 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

According to reality because I have never posted as anyone else other than Momento, that's how I know.Momento 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmmkay... Mael-Num 22:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sawx

Don't worry, I'm a huge sawx fan and have roots from south easter Mass. Have a good one :) Yanksox 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Huge sawx fan, eh? Good for you. I'm a bit torn, having grown up in NY and coming here. I usually just keep my head down, my affiliations to myself, and watch the games. If you've ever been outside Fenway when NY is in town and seen what sort of police presence is maintained, I don't think you'd blame me! Anyway, here's hoping that '07 will be one worth remembering, win or lose. Cheers. Mael-Num 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, as someone who spent the first 18 1/2 years of his life living eight miles from NYC, and the last 3 1/2 eight miles from Boston, that (sober) people in Boston aren't as insane as they're made out to be. They're certainly more fanatical than Yanks fans, but unless you're at the bar or a game, you won't get your head bitten off for liking the Yankees.

Unless you look like post-caveman Johnny Damon. I don't know a single Bostonian who doesn't despise that guy. -- Kicking222 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, your travels sound pretty similar to my own. I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in recognizing that fandom in Boston is more, well, let's call it "devoted" than elsewhere (I also have lived a number of years in Pennsylvania). But good for them; gotta give your team some love. Still, I try to keep my mouth shut when they're playing the Yankees...call me paranoid but I'd prefer to keep my "Nooyauk" drawl to myself.

And yeah, I vaguely remember the local news stories when Damon's contract deal/satanic betrayal were revealed. "Sawx" fans tend to take that sort of thing hard. Mael-Num 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey no problem

Well my general philosophy is that admins are "higher" than others when they are being totally neutral, i.e. blocking vandals, protecting pages, etc. But as soon as they get involved on a specific page, they are not higher on that page. Look at my contribs on American Idol (season 6). I'm just a plain old editor there. I think some people forget that and always treat admins as better somehow. So yeah. Just be more careful next time. My personal policy is to do 2 reverts and then talk it out instead of reverting again. You will rarely get blocked for doing that, even if the person you are reverting is an admin. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My response at User_talk:Woohookitty#Thank_you. Now I need to go and catch my flight. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

In response to the note you left on my talk page, the fact that you received this notice does not mean that you have been determined to be a single-purpose account. The notice is given to all the parties to the case. Administrators who take responsibility for enforcing the decision will determine which editors are single-purpose accounts by analyzing their overall contributions. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I certainly do not feel you are a sockpuppet of anyone. And while your contributions may have been a bit "concentrated" early in your editing, a SPA you are not; you can't be blamed for being initially interested in the hullabaloo of the DS article. I hope you get some satisfaction in this issue. I'd be as upset as you if I were in your position. Cheers. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As a person that sometimes disagreed with Mael-Num on editting decisions, I always thought he was a positive influence. I do not consider him a Derek Smart surrogate. If he wishes to edit the Derek Smart article, I think his contribution would improve the article. I do admit that the unfairness of painting Mael-Num with the same brush as the other single purpose accounts did bother me a bit at the time but I would hope that we can just let that go and move on with whatever Wiki editing catches our fancy. Regards, Bill Huffman 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Awarded to a user who learns and improves from criticism and never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikpedians ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm honored, Jossi. Thank you very much, and I'll try to live up to the ideal of self-improvement. Mael-Num 18:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Purple Barnheart

		The Purple Heart
		I, Smee, award this barnstar to Mael-Num for your most admirable attempts at civility and politeness in the face of Wikipedia chaos. Thank you. Yours, Smee 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

• Feel free to post on your user page and/or leave on your talk page as you see fit. Yours, Smee 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Help I'm being driven mad!

I need some support please!...Jossi is being very unfair to me on Prem Rawat talk page! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat) PatW 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mael-Num. I want to invite you (and anyone who is neither a student of Rawat or an ex-student) to add their comment in the concluding section to a discussion we have had on my user page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatW#Arguments_about_most_honest_use_of_quotes_to_describe_views_about_Rawat.27s_perceived_Divinity Check it out. I'd love to know what you make of Momento's arguments.PatW 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mael-Num. I'm replying to you on my user page. Thanks.PatW 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Would like your opinion on this, please

Hi MaelNum, I'd like to ask your opinion on a small matter regarding the communication we had over at my talkpage a couple of months ago. Jossi has seen fit to censor it by removing the link I included in my communication to you on 27 February 2007. He cites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material/

While some of the material on the website I linked to might not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, there was absolutely no attempt by me to quote from or to include any of that material on my talk-page. There was simply a link to an external webpage.

And WP:BLP says (of removing unsuitable material) that These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages".

Does that allow Jossi to remove my link? There was no biographical material quoted whatsoever!

Would appreciate any feedback you'd care to make. Regards, Revera 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! Revera 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what do you know? Jossi appears to have removed the whole discussion on his talkpage regarding BLP! I wonder where it's gone?Revera 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my talkpage for an update on what appears to be some very dodgy so-called "archiving" by this Jossi. Revera 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Now it's getting serious! I ask Jossi to explain his censorship and, guess what? - apparently I'm now a 'troll'!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jossi#Why_have_you_deleted_my_question_to_you.3F Revera 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Melnorme.png

Hello, Mael-Num. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Melnorme.png) was found at the following location: User:Mael-Num. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mael-Num (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I should not be blocked because I complied with and noted WP's 3rr rule. I avoided further reverts and noted that they should be avoided . In addition, there are only 3 reverts on my contributions, and these revisions are to restore cited material which, per WP:3rr#exceptions is simple and obvious vandalism. Therefore, none of these should be counted against me to begin with. Finally, given that I am the one who reported this (upheld) violation to begin with, the fact that I am being punished for reporting a policy violation is absurd. If everyone were to be punished when reporting a 3rr violation (especially when according to WP:VANDAL and my edit history, I have not committed such a violation myself) the chilling effect it would have on WP enforcement would defeat the purpose of a self-policing editorial staff.

Decline reason:

You are not entitled to 4 reverts a day; you can be blocked with only 3. You clearly knew you were engaging in an edit war, yet persisted. — Haemo 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mael-Num (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Also, apparently some admin summarily denied by unblock before I had even added an explanation or a reason for why I should be unblocked. That is completely unacceptable. In any (fair) judicial system, one is allowed to speak in one's own defense. I strongly recommend some other admins (preferrably one who can count to three) take a look at this situation. This is clearly unfair, and poor policy.

Decline reason:

I see no problem with the above. Continued use of the {{unblock}} template will result in this talkpage being protected for the duration of your block. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 01:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will note that while the request was improperly formatted, I did review his request, which was visible in the text, as you can see here. I stand by that assessment. Our "judicial system" is not a bureaucracy, and it is forgiving of minor formatting errors. --Haemo 01:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense. You denied a request for unblock before my request was properly completed. The fact that this denial occurred so quickly that I wasn't even able to properly edit it alone is highly suspect. Add to this your apparent sympathy for the fellow I reported ("I know it can be frustrating...") and the picture starts to become clear. You aren't fit to review this, and therefore should recuse yourself and bring in a third party. Of course, one can go back and take the time (note the difference in response times, the initial very fast denial and the longer turn-around once I called this review into question; Haemo needed time to track down and review my defense, which clearly wasn't done the first time around), but that doesn't change the fact that I didn't get a fair shake the first time around. Mael-Num 01:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd; from the diff above you can clearly see your request was visible in the text in a virtually identical form. Your accusations of bad faith on my part are ridiculous, especially when I declined the unblock request by that other fellow with basically identical reasoning. I have taken longer here because I'm 'having my Thanksgiving leftovers, not because of whatever malign smear you care to impart on my behalf. --Haemo 01:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith goes only so far. When there's a quacking, waddling, feathered thing before me, it's a frickin duck. Your first response came across in 2 minutes (barely enough time to see my request, open the page, fire off a response, and click "save"), and the second took over 10 minutes (the turn around time one would expect from an admin who bothered to read, which you appear to have done only to defend your knee-jerk dismissal).

Yes. Thanksgiving. Of course you were. Does that explain the 2-minute turnover? That you identified my request, read an ill-formatted response, considered it carefully, and typed out a response in under 2 minutes? Yes. That seems likely. Far more likely than your summarily dismissing my request, and then backpedalling to find excuses as to why it should stand.

All sarcasm aside, since you're obviously unwilling to admit wrongdoing here, I request that another admin review the situation. Kindly forward my request to another impartial admin. Mael-Num 01:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Assume bad faith, much? You assume I'm a liar, based on nothing other than you find it incredible that I'm capable of reading and evaluating your request in Wikiformatting. I would have thought it was a favor, since I reviewed your request anyways, even though I could have summarily declined it for being improperly formatted, but no — that just demonstrates my bad faith here. And the speed of review! Again, I would think that you would appreciate a conclusion to your request in a speedy fashion, but again, apparently not. Instead, that's just more evidence that I have some kind of bizarre vendetta against you — even the speed is not surprising, given that I had just declined the unblock request for the other party to your edit war on the same article and noticed your behavior there. But then again, you just assume I have a grudge against you because I "sympathized" with the plight of being blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Why? I have no idea. I've never met you before, I've never come across your edits. In fact, I don't know anything about you whatsoever. I mean, apparently I have a vendetta against you, yet you claim I have no time to review what happened. Well, which was it? Better still, the staggering delay of 10 minutes, following an email reply to me, at 6:30 at night (suppertime) is clearly evidence that I'm — doing what exactly? "Covering it up"? Covering what up? I haven't change my rationale, and I haven't altered anything in my assessment; because I stand by it. I hope you realize how totally ridiculous this sounds, and alter your attitude accordingly. These ridiculous personal attacks and a total failure to assume good faith are totally inappropriate. --Haemo 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

With such a strident rebuttal, you clearly must have nothing to prove as to the authenticity of your claims. Between the facile logic ("I could have summarily declined it for being improperly formatted" -- yeah, that would look really good on review by your peers), the bizarre false dichotomies ("I have a vendetta against you, yet you claim I have no time to review what happened"), and the continuing defensiveness and avoidance of what I've spelled out quite plainly ("'Covering it up'? Covering what up?"), I believe this "discussion" is most certainly over. "Ridiculous"? I think anyone taking a look at this would certainly agree, but most likely not in the sense you meant.

In any case, I thank you for your time and attention, and request that you not reply here. I've had quite enough. Mael-Num 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocked

My block was lifted earlier today by an admin Nick, per our conversation on IRC. Thanks in advance.