User:Rumiton/sandbox

This is Rumiton's sandbox.

 worse.

Tu vois bien qu'est folle Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

17 in This article is written in British English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from American English and other varieties of English. This should not be changed without broad consensus. In particular, the British spelling of artefact should not be changed to artifact, which is the American spelling. [] xx Rumiton (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC) ship

qué practico es encentrar el lugar donde no tienen cabida ni el futuro ni el passado. 

@Richwales. Thanks for giving me this opportunity. Every question merits an essay, but I will be as concise as I can.

1. Briefly, what do you think are the best aspects of the Prem Rawat article as it currently stands?


 * I think the article is reasonably well-balanced. The flurry of ridicule and mockery that greeted his arrival in the West is acknowledged neutrally and the sources given. The positive reception he has received is also acknowledged.

2. Briefly, and without going into excessive detail or becoming confrontational, what do you think are the worst aspects of the article as it currently stands?


 * The article shows the scars from previous bitter disputes, deals and unworkable compromises. I hope this doesn’t confront anybody, but the lead currently says, to paraphrase: ‘’Prem Rawat was the leader of the Divine Light Mission which has been described as a cult, and he has been described as a cult leader by writers who oppose cults.’’ This was obviously inserted without discussion by editors who do not view him favorably and wanted to get their message across. The article suffers accordingly.


 * The article is also light wrt the post-1980’s, and the bar for sources for new material has been set very high. I can give specifics and diffs if required.

3. How do you feel the core Wikipedia content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP) should guide the content of the Prem Rawat article and related articles? In particular, to what extent do you believe the BLP policy may limit our ability to write a fair, balanced, and neutral article here?


 * I was a Navy and Merchant Marine officer for a lot of years. During this time my life was largely governed by 38 rules for preventing collisions. But the most important rule was never put to paper: Rule 39, “Do not have a collision.” In other words, if you follow all the rules doggedly and still create a catastrophe, you will at least partially get the blame for it. I think Wikipedia is the same. The rules are good; far-sighted, well-evolved and necessary, but there is something overriding them. That something might be called “intelligent kindness.” If we follow rules blindly and produce an article that does not honestly inform the reader, or that is unfair, or reflects the aims of bad journalists in manipulating readers’ feelings into self-righteous indignation or false intellectual superiority, we have created a shipwreck, and we have no one to blame for it but ourselves.

4. How should the Wikipedia community handle situations where various people have widely differing views on what the Prem Rawat article should contain and how it should be written? Do you believe it is possible for editors working on this article to reach a balanced consensus that is neither a whitewash nor an attack piece? To what extent (if any) do you believe the logjams can be resolved only by banning certain people (possibly you, possibly others, but don't name names here) from working on the article at all?


 * I am not going to say it’s easy. Last year I decided all the soapboxing and personal attacks made it too hard, and I would walk away permanently and concentrate on several hundred other articles: Somehow I ended up back editing. The answer I think is in more editors with a good grasp of these principles getting involved in content and responding to informal requests for comments. Perhaps a summary of principles might be placed on a banner on the talk page.  Unfortunately previous high-level input has reinforced the notion that in this article, negative stuff is neutral, and positive stuff can only be from a biased cult member.


 * Yes, I do believe it is possible to achieve consensus, but highly POV’d editors occasionally need an official reminder that that is what we are working toward. “The article that none of us might have chosen, but with which we all can live.”


 * I think banning is a radical procedure, really a last ditch action. Long after the dead editors have been hosed out, the smell of blood remains on the talk page, and whether banning an editor without supplying sufficient cause is classed as a personal attack or not, I can assure everyone that it feels like one. I think it does nothing for Wikipedia.

5. To what extent (if any) do you feel you are willing to accept content in the Prem Rawat article with which you are not personally comfortable?


 * I accept nearly all the current content, though I have some issues with emphasis and weight. I would have to deal with suggestions for new content case-by-case.

6. Do you believe you are able (and willing) to write in a way that fairly, accurately, and neutrally presents views regarding Prem Rawat with which you personally disagree?


 * Perhaps I cannot do that, but neither can anyone else. That is why I have always tried, and if reinstated will continue to try, to get input from as many other editors as I can (as I did here) . In the past it has rarely been forthcoming (apart from kneejerk opposition) and I do not understand why, as plenty of people seem to be watching the talk page. Too hard, perhaps.

I asked C'est alors que j'ai prié un agent de police de l'arrêter. I asked for a glass of water. here here

[speech here]