User talk:Msalt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fundamentals
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Contents

[edit] Foley

Hi Salty. I probably should have sorted things out with you a bit more. But, a bit of context, so you can see where I'm coming from:

I've spent the better part of 3 days on that article, trying to keep it together. I wrote at least half of it, likely more. Obviously, it's getting edit by a whole shit-storm of anons, and passers-by. And, I just can't discuss every edit I make beforehand, as I've made several hundred. Normally, it's a different matter. But I don't think it's an exageration to say this article would be a complete pile of crap without the lengthy efforts of myself and few others, including Kyaa. Clearly I don't own the article, and don't pretend I do. But, that's why I get a little impatient. I also got a bit pissy since you didn't WP:AGF. I am willing to go to Talk once engaged, as you can see.

I kind of enjoyed being called a Republican though. Just yesterday, User:Grazon told me to "go back to playing with my Ann Coulter dolls". I cut my teeth here writing the Swift Vets article in 2004, which is still in large part my work. And I had to battle some conservative POV-pushers the likes of which Wikipedia may never see again. I'm quite proud of that, and if you happen to read it, you'll see that I completely busted the nuts of those lying sacks of shit. But, I did it with absolute scrupulous dedication to neutrality, so it reads (at least to me) like a very credible and even-handed article (which it is).

Anyways, I am extremely dedicated to NPOV. When the facts are on your side, there's no need to spin at all (and it actually hurts you). I'm not saying you're otherwise, but I try to lean extra hard on the side of caution on that. And that explains my edits which you took to be Republican partisan, so much so that I need an "eye" on me. Derex 11:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I'd say this is clear enough regarding the FOX timing. Note the line "and there the matter stood for nearly a year". I'm done editing, but I thought you might want to adjust the phrasing yourself. Cheers. Derex 07:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work keeping that article together. I've been a bit pre-occupied with the birth of a son. Yay! Derex 11:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scoop

We should take care to not make it seem as if it was Foley who publicized Mercieca's identity - he was scooped by the Sarasota paper. Haiduc 23:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a scoop, their account was the only ONE in the media for a long time before anyone else mentioned Mercieca's name and then when other accounts popped up they all credited the paper. I also saw at least one article praising their journalistic coup, but felt I had no reason to preseve it. It is a fact though, call the paper if you do not believe me. Haiduc 11:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Rodham Clinton subarticle deletion

Since you recently stated that HRC's 'baking cookies' and 'Tammy Wynette' remarks were major controversies, you may want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R 15:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Foley Scandal

Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] agreed a deal with

Hi, you picked up on a couple of grammar errors in Osho. But just for reference: [1] -- could be that it's a Britishism. ;-) Cheers, Jayen466 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. Is "agreed to" incorrect in the British (orthodox?) English? I assume "made" works with either, and it seems like universally understood phrasing is the best.Msalt (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I didn't know that it was not okay elsewhere. :-) If you "agree a deal with someone", the implication seems to be that you are both equals, neither dictating to the other, and working out the terms of the deal together. If you say "agree to a deal", the implication is that the other proposed the deal and you accept their terms, rather than having contributed to their formulation. At least that's how it computes at the moment. Cheers, Jayen466 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting. I guess in my particular dialect (Oregon, USA if that matters), I would use "work out a deal" where you say "agree a deal." There's probably a rule of grammar that covers verbs that need "to" after then == I want to say "transitive" but honestly I have no idea.
The only comparable construction that occurs to me is the colloquial (idiomatic?) term " a spell", as in "I need to rest a spell". But "a spell" is an adverb meaning "for a while", not the object of the verb. I guess the "for" is implied, and my brain clunks on that when I try to parse "agreed a deal." You could actually say "We agreed a fair deal" and it would make perfect sense, but it would mean "we agreed on a lot of things, actually" (but implicitly not everything.)
 :-))) Great! "To agree to sth." would be intransitive, since it can also stand without the propositional construction (you can simply say, "I agree", and the sentence is complete). The moment the verb takes a direct object, as above, it becomes a transitive verb, which means that the object can (in British English at least) also become the subject of a passive construction: "A deal was agreed". So you were on the right track. :-) -- Jayen466 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Just to make sure you don't miss it, here is my sincere apology again. Please take into consideration the fact that between Feb 6 and Feb 9, no less that four dormant accounts become suddenly active, raising suspicions of attempts to gaming the system. Hope you take my apology withing that context.

On another matter, you may want to read Laozi, that became a Good article recently, and in which I worked alongside User:Vassyana and others. If you have an interest in Taoism, there are many articles on the subject that could benefit from copy-editing and expansion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, I appreciate it, and thanks for the pointer on Laozi. Msalt (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A comment

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your comments and your eloquence in keeping the debate in a tone that is constructive. In my experience in Wikipedia, the quality of an article is directly related to the quality of the discourse and debate in talk pages. Talk pages in which abusive comments are made, or in which the focus are the editors or the subject rather than the article, produce a lot of smoke but little fire (i.e small or no improvements to the article).

So, your help in advising editors to stick to an orderly debate is most helpful. Yes, we can have a vigorous debate, and that is expected, but let's show that it is possible to conduct a debate in a manner that does not impair our ability to create good content and have basic respect for each other while doing so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it (and of course agree.) Wanna go fix the Arab/Israeli pages? Msalt (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried, Msalt, I tried. Got involved in working on several articles on that subject, , as well on a few arbitration cases. ~... not easy (an understatement...)≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I wasn't really serious! Even MY optimism doesn't get near that level... Msalt (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Whateverhisfaceis

You are quite mistaken. The IfD is closed. Next time, look before you leap, and please remain civil. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. Obviously I should have checked, and left a less curt Edit Summary. I'm feeling a bit defensive about your admonition to be civil though. I've been very active on this very heated webpage and I think it's fair to say I have stood out for my civility -- see Jossi's thanks just above. You may not know this, but that image was deleted at least 10-15 times by Rawat devotees while we waited for the IfD to be decided -- including once just a few hours before yours, with a new and shaky justification. When your Edit Summary didn't make it clear your action was 'official' (and I didn't know how to check), I reacted and I apologize.
The fact is, I voted to Delete myself, on Fair Use grounds. It wasn't clear to me that your role was official. I added a note to the 5th (yes fifth!) section of discussion on this one photo on the Talk Page, so no one else makes my mistake. Msalt (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries. We all edit in haste sometimes. Lord knows I've done it enough. Nandesuka (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Msalt (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simplicity

Liked this a lot. "Experiencing the recoil one thousand times is the best way to not know it is coming. This makes no sense at all, logically, but it’s still true. If you can accept that, then you understand the value of simplicity." (I was a sharpshooter in a far, far way land, many years ago) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a very high compliment (and validation). I'm finishing my last major revision before seeking agents, so it's great to hear that. Esp. since that passage was based on my very limited experience with shooting; I'm much relieved and gratified to hear confirmation from someone far deeper into it. Msalt (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an excellent article on the last New Yorker Wired magazine, that covers this aspect. A sharpshooting instructor gives exactly the same advice.... I will check if the article is available online. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
He says: "The trick, is using the technique of the 'surprise break'. If you pull the trigger slowly you will never know when it will engage—so you can't freak out." Easy said ... it takes indeed thousands of rounds to get to that point ... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png 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! --SineBot (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop making false allegations

Several times in the last week you have suggested that I have admitted to "COI". I have not. Please stop.Momento (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I have misunderstood. Are you not an acknowledged devotee of Prem Rawat? Msalt (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know, and for helping with that process in the first place. Msalt (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional RS problem

I now have an additional RS problem at Lapis armenus where Sumerophile is blanking references, edit warring and accusing me of vandalism. Please take a look at the references that i have added to that article and see if they look to be in order. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty stretched for time, and I'm not sure about the propriety of canvassing me personally anyway. Probably the best thing to do would be to post an update to the noticeboard item that I saw in the first place. Good luck, and please try to use more measured tones even when someone is greatly annoying you. It just works better, and reflects much better on you. (Something I learned in my divorce.  :) Msalt (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full texts

Please note that it is not advisable to copy/paste full text of articles, even in sandbox pages, as that violates WP:COPYRIGHT. Sandbox pages can be used to put some quotes from texts, or short chapters from long texts, that can be referred to in the course of developing an article. I would suggest that you self-revert your additions to the scholars' sandbox. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for the tip. Here's my concern: I believe that the current excerpts are not a fair synopsis of the relevant parts, but are in fact are cherrypicked to leave out criticism, in some cases quite pointedly. Do you mind if I re-excerpt the text for what I consider a better balance?
Also, do you mind if I move and recap this discussion to the Prem Rawat talk page? I don't want to blab a personal conversation but it seems like this is something that could profitably be shared with various editors there. I'm still trying to get the hang of public vs. private space between talk pages, user pages and email (both wiki and off-wiki) here. Thanks! Msalt (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You must have access to the source, don't you? If that is the case, you do not need to copy/paste the whole text there. If you want, you can add some passages that you think are useful. As for where to discuss what, I think that this mention of WP:COPYRIGHT is suitable here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, how's that? Msalt (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat articles, should go to RFAR

In my opinion 1rr, and DR via AN and ANI, and discussion, have failed. Take it to RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

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

Hello Msalt. You are named as you have been involved in editing the article over the last months. Participation as a party is voluntary, and not compulsory. FYI, the case has been accepted (it requires 4 ArbCom members to accept), so the first step will be presenting evidence. In this phase, editors involved or not, can present evidence mainly in the form of diffs, as well as other commentary. The second phase is the Workshop phase, in which editors and arbCom start putting together the basis of five sections, one about the locus of the dispute, one on principles, one on findings of fact, one on remedies and the last on enforcement. The third phase, the arbCom starts his work by evaluating and fine tunning proposals from the Workshop page, and the last phase is voting. See an example here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2. Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does. Thank you very much. Msalt (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat alone holds the keys

The fact that there is a mandatory initiation either by Rawat or his direct representative, though the techniques could be but are not distributed via DVD to immedialtey to everybody, is I believe essential. (I was busy watching the keys DVD yesterday but have not finished it). At the very least, the initiation requires waiting long and extensive listening to Rawat. Why is that? I do not know but it is remarkable and described in reputable sources. Andries (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What should be treated is the strange discrepancy between the public availability of the meditation techniques and the claim of Rawat of himself to be essential for success in meditation. Andries (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but if we're going to add it we need to carefully frame it as such. As it stands now, your edit reads to me as a straight out sales pitch for Prem Rawat, by treating the statement as a face value truth. Do you mean to say "Despite the fact that scholar Melton describes these techniques as "quite common in Sant Mat circles", Prem Rawat claims that he alone can teach them to initiates." ?
I am hard pressed to see how a statement could capture the nuance of this without turning into advocacy either for or against Rawat. Msalt (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not follow the sources? I admit that the sources put a different emphasis and differ somewhat from what I state here. But by stating my rather personal observations and questions here, I hope that you can see the relevancy of what the sources state. Andries (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Different phrasing?

"Jossi and Momento openly complained when uninvolved editors got involved. [306] [307] [308] In fact, Jossi "charges" Francis here with "injecting himself into the dispute." So did I, and Will BeBack, and LAWRENCE, etc. etc. What is wrong with that?"

I had to re-read this three times to get your meaning here... maybe you could rephrase it? Hohohahaha (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't mean to be a smartass when I ask, what exactly was not understandable? Not surprisingly, it made perfect sense to me. Also, I'm not sure about the protocol of changing something when people might have already read it. Is it the "So did I" part? Would it be more clear if I said "Well, I injected myself into the dispute too then, and so did Will Beback and LAWRENCE and every new editor who comes to every article in Wikipedia. What is wrong with that?"

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divine Light Mission

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission has become active. Your participation is required to make it a success. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for stopping by...

...my talk page to keep me appraised of what's going on in the world of Prem Rawat on Wikipedia. It's such a complex subject, it's hard to come back after an absence and catch up, so contributions like that definitely help.

Cheers!

Mael-Num (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)