User talk:24.69.14.159

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Jim Heller.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 24.69.14.159). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, -- Tawker 05:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your question on my page

Hi, Jim. I find your quotes from Rawat too ambiguous and vague for me to be at all sure of how to read them, sorry. You wrote on Talk:Prem Rawat: "Rawat has been inconsistent about all this stuff. In other words, although I can find you quotes where he claimed to be God, I can also find you quotes where he said he wasn't God, just a humble servant. But that was all part of the "wink / wink" that makes premies feel like they're part of some great secret, isn't it? You know exactly what I'm talking about." Well, I'm a plain blunt editor, I don't know what you're talking about, I have no intuition for the nuances and inside wink-wink of premie-talk. (My only qualification on that score is a brief fling with the TM meditation technique when I was younger — I found it helpful, in a practical way, but could never get into the ideological side of Maharishi. So, I can't be of much help. I have a question for you: why exactly do you want Jossi to stop editing Prem Rawat? He's a respected and respectable admin, and I'm sure he edits in good faith. In an ideal world I suppose he might consider giving up editing about a subject he feels that passionately about. However, the way it looks to me in practice (note of course that that I've only seen the discussion/editing of the past few days, and have no heart for those 13 archives) is that Jossi is if anything keeping the premie POV editing of Momento and Errol Vieth in check. I expect they are in good faith also — they simply "know" that the Rawat POV is The Truth, I guess, and call it as they see it — but IMO their input has shown a weak grasp of WP:NPOV. (And so I've told them, just now on Talk:Prem Rawat, so I make no scruple of saying it here.) I mean, you saw this edit, right? Jossi reverted it. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen,

Actually, the "wink-wink, you know exactly what I'm talking about" was directed to Jossi, not you. My questions to you were about the other quotes of Rawats. I'm very discouraged to hear you say that you find them too ambiguous to know just who he was talking about. He was Guru Maharaj Ji. He was the Perfect Master. He Was God incarnated, Saviour of Mankind and so on. In fact, Jossi still thinks he's all of that. If you would please spend just a little time reading the section of EPO or the Gallery of quotes I linked you to earlier, you'd see this in spades.

Anyway, Jossi is a rm personal attack through and through. He knows full well that Rawat was referring to himself. I mean, really, who else do you think he might have been talking about?

I'm very, very frustrated as you can tell. I'm a lawyer. Words and logic are my stock in trade. Plus I was in this stupid cult for years. I know it inside out. This Wiki article is a joke and it's being guarded by dishonest cult members. Now how much more do I have to say before I can truly be banned from this place and wash my hands of it forever?

Look, I expected to find links from you, and looked long and hard for them, but I just don't see them. What gallery of quotes? I see some quotes you reproduce on Talk:Prem Rawat — those are what I mean when I say "too ambiguous and vague" — and some print sources, and that's it. As for getting yourself banned, that's hard, man. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] WP:NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy:

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.
  • Comment on content, not on the contributor
  • Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

Note that you may be blocked for disruption.. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about Wiki but here is a link that can back up Jim's assertion that Prem Rawat is talking about himself when he talks about Guru Maharaj Ji.


http://gurumaharaji.info/video/

the one with Marolyn_foot_kissing would be helpful to back up statements that indeed he was referring to himself and he was encouraging followers to worship him.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.Sceptre (Talk) 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Go ahead, block me.

When Jossi says Rawat never claimed to be the Perfect Master -- when that is exactly how he pushed himself on the world and all us hapless followers for years -- he's a [***] and I'll call him that everytime. If the only way you can deal with that is by blocking me, quit the threats and just do it. --24.69.14.159 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have had no choice but to block you from editing for a period of 48 hours. I understand that it's easy to get passionate about a topic that you care deeply about, but editors are still expected to show some self-restraint. Please, use this time to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. – ClockworkSoul 02:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of discussion pages

  • Do not add your comments in between paragraphs of other editors' comments.
  • Do not change, emphasize or highlight text in comments made by other editor.
  • Always indent your comments by using colons, for clarity

I have restored and rearranged the comments at Talk:Prem Rawat. But please note that it is your responsibility to stay within the established guidelines and etiquette. You may want to read Wikipedia:Talk Page

Also note that although the the policy of no personal attacks is not applicable to other websites outside of Wikipedia, many editors are of the understanding that it is unacceptable to publicly make personal attacks against an editor outside of Wikipedia, only to come back here and attempt to engage editors as if nothing was said. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule violation warning

Regarding your recent reverts at Prem Rawat: If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 08:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 08:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)