User talk:Lemongoat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mudaliar, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

1 Warning
- 1.1 Blacking your own talk page
2 Association of Members' Advocates
3 Rename
4 Devadasi
5 An Automated Message from HagermanBot
6 Devadasi Mudaliar stuff

[edit] 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.

also, please see WP:POINT. Disruption of wikipedia to make a point will result in editing blocks to you. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove warnings from your talk page. Warnings serve to state for the record that you have been warned in case you persist disruptive behavious and admin intervention is needed. If you keep deleting warnings you are violating wikipedia rules and will be reported for blocking accordingly.

Please do not remove any legitimate notices from your user talk page. Your user talk page does not belong to you, it belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. (see WP:TALK) If you blank and/or vandalise this page in the future, you could be blocked from editing without prior notice. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin223 09:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blacking your own talk page

I thought you'd like to know that while it is your own talk page, it is still considered bad faith to remove warning signs. If you don't like them, it's best to ignore them. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Penwhale. I will do exactly that. I find it amusing that Rumpelstilskin has persisted in his behaviour, despite the fact I could quite easily have done the same thing to him - but refrained since frankly life's too short.

My intent for warning you was not to harass you but inform you that your behaviour is disruptive and counterproductive.Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildes even in your talk page like this ~~~~ Rumpelstiltskin223 11:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You believe that my behaviour is disruptive and counterproductive. I believe you are being disruptive and counterproductive, but I have been courteous enough to refrain from putting this kind of crap all over your user talk page because I believe it is polite to give somebody the benefit of the doubt. Please keep your comments to the discussion page of Devadasi. Lemongoat 11:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Lemongoat

We will talk about the devdasi article there. We will talk about your trollish conduct here, as is the norm.My actions have been completely within the bounds of wikipedia rules except for some reactionary quips that assumed bad faith, for which you have my apologies. However, any further trollish behaviour (essentially offtopic dicussions in talk pages not directly related to the dispute at hand) and wasting of wikipedia's resources to that effect will earn you consequences. Rumpelstiltskin223 13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop threatening me. Thanks for your apologies. Can we now close this matter? Lemongoat 13:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Lemongoat

It is especially amusing to see this, considering that Rumpelstiltskin removed warnings from his own page, twice! See [1], [2]. I thought he didn't know that wasn't allowed until I saw this. Quite hypocritical, but also amusing. The Behnam 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Association of Members' Advocates

As part of the Association of Members' Advocates, I have recently taken your case with regards to the Devadasi talk page and the user, Rumpelstiltskin223. I have a minor request, please post all comments concerning this dispute on the case page, found here, I believe that given how isolated your case is now it will make everyone's life easier if we keep it in one place. Please under the discussion section post your original argument, in other words post what you accuse the other of doing. In the time you do that and the time it takes Rumpelstiltskin223 to respond, I will have finished reading all the talk pages, and I will put my input in, we will proceed from there. I look forward to working with you, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I can't help with the username thing, however if you could head over to the case page, i'd like to show you guys something before we end the debate (it will be up in five minutes), then if you could fill out the closing form that'd be great.--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I posted my final comments under the discussion, I think you should take a look. And then if you need any help filling out that final form, feel free to post something on my talk page, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 08:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

As requested, I have changed your username. You can now log in using the new name. Warofdreams talk 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devadasi

Thanks for the information. It definitely should be incorporated into the article. Also, it would be another good source to show Rumpelstiltskin that the study of the prostitute aspect isn't some Western conspiracy against India with the ultimate goal of killing Hindus. My experience on WP has seen quite a few Indians paranoid about that sort of thing, but it isn't as much of a trend as they think it is. Some of the sources I added were by Indians too, but he doesn't seem to acknowledge this. He seems to want to downplay the prostitution even though it the issue with devadasi that receives the most notice, and hence should receive the most coverage on Wikipedia. His strong POV on the subject and an almost racist bias against Westerners is evident on my talk page [3]. Also, I sincerely doubt that the entire "library" in the references section was used in creating the article; perhaps some of these should be relegated to a "Further Reading" section. Anyway, how do you propose we neutralize the article and stop undue weight in a way that Rumpelstiltskin agrees to? So far he has been stubborn about it, but he is at least changing his arguments in response to my points, which is a good sign that he may eventually be willing to compromise. The Behnam 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I also tried to support the ancient role with my edit. Rumps doesn't appear to recognize that they are prostitutes these days, but he also doesn't argue that they are dancers. Instead, he considers them some sort of positive spiritual voluntary sex deal; see [4]. He has shown and acted upon an obvious and extreme POV, so I don't think that we can, at this point, assume good faith with his edits. Note that Rumps is currently blocked for POV pushing elsewhere. Anyway, part of proper coverage will ultimately emphasize the contrast between their ancient and modern roles, without downplaying that their modern role is definitely prostitution. We can't appease Rumps entirely, as that would likely involve undue weight, though it would be nice to find a good compromise solution. As for the "library," considering that the in-text citation notice has been up for awhile, and think it is OK to relegate them elsewhere, and let the people who support them as references re-introduce them using in-text citations. If the page is unprotected, we can work on these things. I plan to reinstate my version, and it would be nice if you could do a general Indian sensitivity check on my version. I would like this to work out without pissing off too many Indians, so I figure you may be able to improve my version. Thanks The Behnam 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the admin who protected it to undo this so we can begin the work. The Behnam 06:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is unprotected, and I restored my original version. Obviously, my version still has some of Rumps apologetic phrases, simply because I never removed them, but if you could take a look and make the first adjustments to my content, I'll follow up on it. My goal is to eventually cover the entire article, as the rest of it is clearly written in Rumps apologetic style, and instead have it reflect well-accepted realities and satisfy mainstream audiences. The Behnam 09:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I think the changes have improved the article, though the last edit seems to try to blame colonialism for devadasis becoming prostitutes instead of upper class temple servants. This is contradictory, since it says that colonial ideas objected to the practice because of the sex, so therefore they were forced into the sex to make a living. Do I misunderstand? Perhaps it just needs to be clarify. Also, I don't think this is intentional, but I don't see the word "prostitute" being used very much, even though it is the aspect that has received the most coverage. Also, what was so unreliable about child-abuse.com? I know it is dedicated to addressing child abuse, but that doesn't mean they make up cases for their website; they only study devadasi because it is situation of child prostitution. And considering that sources call it prostitution and mention that minors are involved, I don't think the website is making a great leap in calling it child prostitution. Thanks again for the good work. The Behnam 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean in avoiding "prostitute" and using Indian Gov sources. Of course, the other sources are explicit, so its sort of generous on "fundamentalists" (or whatever Rumps classifies as) to avoid the word "prostitute." I suppose if it is covered more precisely later down the page that will be just as well. What needs to be clear is that the sex before the colonialists was more of a concubine/mistress/dancer form than just plain prostitution. I'll get around to it if you are too busy, of course, but thanks again for the good work at keeping the lead as neutral as possible considering the topic. The Behnam 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the amount of work you are putting into this whole thing. So Rumpel just creatively misinterpreted every source in support of his claim? It sort of makes sense. I couldn't imagine why feminists, even sex positive feminists(were that the case), would ever downplay such a practice. I'll try to get around to incorporating the sources you've put forward and clarified soon. By the way, in light of the good internet sources that we are turning up, and the copy you are getting, would it be alright to demote the "References" section as previously discussed? The Behnam 08:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 09:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)