User talk:Crum375/Archive 3

Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura
This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. Richardmalter and all other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern are indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. They may be blocked for up to one year if they do so. Blocks, and any alternative accounts or IPs used, should be logged at Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Care should be taken with anonymous IPs to avoid blocking addresses used by other users. The remedies in this matter apply to any article concerning the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT or PMRT) under any title. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Translation
Unfortunately I must apologize and with regret withdraw from translating that article this time due to a lot of work forcing me to take a wikibreak. I am sorry.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement notice
An editor has asked for a review of Richardmalter's recent actions at the Arbitration enforcement notice board. in view of the arbitration committee final decision. Although your name is mentioned in the Arbitration enforcement request, I do not believe your participation in the Arbitration enforcement request is needed at this time. I am posting here so that you may watch the request progress and participate should there be a need. -- Jreferee 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin nomination?
Hi, I've noticed some of your posts, and you seem very calm and civil, and also to understand policies very well. Are you interested in being nominated for adminship? Musical Linguist 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Give me a day or two to draft the nomination, and in the meantime, you can look through the standard questions and plan what your answers will be. If you have anything that you're particularly proud of in your contributions, feel free to e-mail me or to post on my talk page. Good luck. Musical Linguist 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here it is. I'm sure you know the procedure. When you've accepted and answered the questions, you just add that page to WP:RfA. Good luck! Musical Linguist 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The late...
Hello, you might want to check the contribs of User:Booshakla. That editor seems to be on a crusade to rid the encyclopedia of "the late" in many articles. Cheers. L0b0t 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mucoid plaque
Hello, since I much admire how you deal with pseudo-science, I wanted to ask for your help. I'm slightly worried that I might have made life difficult for User:Tearlach, so maybe you could look into the situation. He is concerned with the same issue of dealing with crazy theories where no reliable source has bothered to refute them. My questions... Anyway, could you just look into the situation at Mucoid plaque and decide what to do? ;) Thank you very much. --Merzul 19:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted on Talk:Mucoid plaque that we should either delete it or include whatever sources that are used to establish notability. But what do you think about this article, its entire notability is based on critical sources that some editors are refusing to use in the article.
 * Another very related issue is Jayjg arguments on Talk:Gillian McKeith that PubMed should not be used, and if one thinks about it databases like that are primary sources. When it comes to a biography of a living person, I would agree. But on an article with a scientific-sounding title like "Mucoid Plaque", do you think citing a PubMed query would be to much OR?
 * Thanks for your answer... I will just wait and see what happens on Mucoid plaque, if too much criticism is deleted, then I guess somebody will file an AfD. Oh, and I would be quite a character if I changed my support vote because of your answer! :) --Merzul 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:HawksbillTurtle2.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:HawksbillTurtle2.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay ( Talk )  01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well, since I was the nominator, I think I should be the first to congratulate you. Good luck with the tools. Musical Linguist 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Crum375! I hope you enjoy using the admin tools, and if you ever need any help with the tools, message me on my talk page. =)  Nish kid 64  01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My congratulations as well. Wikipedia, which has benefitted from your efforts to date, will be the better still for your future efforts as admin. GenghizRat 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear. I look forward to working with you in a new capacity! Tyrenius 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All I could say is, Crumbelievable! :) BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 03:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the word Crumbelievable in the AFD archive. It was deleted as a Neologism but you're a perfect candidate for the word.  :) BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 07:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And mine
Congratulations! Thank you for your comments—I just call 'em as I see 'em :D As for expectations, well, I've no doubt you will live up to them. Congrats again, and best of luck with the mop and bucket—it sounds like a cliché, but you've earned them. Fvasconcellos 00:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re
I wasn't involved in the content dispute over Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. I discovered this situation when ElKevbo reported an apparent three-revert rule violation by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling on WP:AN3. Looking through the history of the article, I noticed that most of the edits that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling had reverted were made from various IP addresses, and that ElKevbo had joined in the edit war started by the IPs. The use of IP addresses, especially multiple IP addresses, for the purpose of reversions in a content dispute raises the possibility of sockpuppetry by the established users participating in the dispute. Thus, as a concerned user, I filed Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo. If the result of that request had been a determination that ElKevbo was unrelated to the IP addresses in question, that would have resolved the situation. Indeed, if ElKevbo really were editing from "(rural) Tennessee" as he claimed on his talk page, Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo would have almost certainly have found that ElKevbo was unrelated to the IP addresses in this dispute, which were located in Chicago, Illinois. Perhaps this issue could be resolved by asking Essjay, who responded to the checkuser request, whether the IP address used by ElKevbo at the time of the incident is consistent with his claim that he is editing from "(rural) Tennessee". John254 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This gets weirder and weirder. John254 has now filed an RfA against me. I would guess that it will be denied but that it was even filed is puzzling. I guess no good deed really goes unpunished, eh? --ElKevbo 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarify blocking
You blocked my account for 24 hours for false accusations. I did not violate the 3RR (there has been different edits). Instead, I was the one who warned User:Keizuko having already violated 3RR. I did that informally without seeking an official Admin-block intervention. User:Keizuko approached then to the Admins board with unaccurate claims to avoid his blocking. The user never sought once the discussion page for his agenda. You also should have noticed that User:Keizuko is of very short record compared to my established history of edits. I have to ask you for statement on my talk page to clarify the misjudgement and send a reminder to User:Keizuko concerning his uncivil behaviour. all the best Lear 21 04:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor/Carfiend
Thank you for taking some action. Be aware of the possibility that Gravitor's suspected "meatpuppet", Carfiend, might pick up where Gravitor left off, as he often seems to. I'm been trying to avoid bumping into 3RR myself on that same page. Fortunately, there are other users who are equally fed up with that pair and are trying to hold them in check. Wahkeenah 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I see that Numskll managed to get pulled into the 3RR maelstrom and also got blocked, but by a separate admin. I'm guessing they each went to separate admins to complain about the other one. My little "rw" is one less keystroke for "RVV", or revert vandalism. "rw" could also be short for "rewind" or "rewert wandalism" (channeling Pavel Chekov there). Wahkeenah 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try and do things more conventionally. In this case, I got tired of explaining it in the edit summary of the consensus version and then having Gravitor parrot it back to me when he did his full revert back to his personal version. His behavior basically does strike me as vandalism, but technically I suppose it's not quite the same thing, it's more like just being belligerent. I think there is a case building to put a stop to both Gravitor and Carfiend (a revival of a case from last summer that went away when they did for awhile), but we'll see how that plays out. Wahkeenah 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do normally reserve the "revert vandalism" tag for the deliberate insertion of obscenities or obviously stupid stuff like "hi" and that sort of thing. Gravitor/Carfiend is/are playing a game with all of us, as they did last summer. The 24 hour block will serve to keep most of us away from focusing on that one small set of pages (among the hundreds on my watch list), which is also probably a good thing. :) Wahkeenah 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. Wahkeenah 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's something I'm wondering about: Can a user be slapped with a 3-revert violation for continously reverting stuff on his own talk page that he considers "trolling" and which the other user considers legitimate questions about the first user's behavior? That's what's happening on User talk:Gravitor right now. I'm getting a little tired of this stuff. Gravitor/Carfiend are having a great time, I'm sure, and they've sucked all of us into their little game. Wahkeenah 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that 3RR applies to personal Talk pages. But I would say that if a user is disruptive, the fact that s/he removes legitimate questions and comments from his/her talk page could be part of a pattern of poor collaboration and attitude. The best way to handle it is to try to engage them and encourage them to collaborate in a civil manner, if they refuse and continue to create mayhem, they could be blocked for disruption. Crum375 03:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * May I copy your statement into the article page? I won't bother copying it into his own page, since he already deleted my statement that I was going to notify you, labeling it "trolling". To be clear, this is Gravitor I'm talking about. Last summer, his clone Carfiend would do the same thing. Any complaints on his page he labeled "trolling". In this case, it largely consists of Numskll throwing Gravitor's own insulting words back at him. What a hassle. Sorry to bother you with this nonsense. Wahkeenah 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think his behavior has accelerated, because both he and Carfiend maxed out their 3RR's on the article itself, so they can only focus on the talk page and hurl insults at everyone. One at a time, though. They are never logged on at the same time. Wahkeenah 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you run a checkuser on them? Crum375 03:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked an admin to run one, and he said they're not the same actual user. It's just uncanny how their escalating-belligerent and near-paranoid style is so similar, that they use similar wording, etc. I'm glad he posted below, to give you an example of his style. He observes a double standard, constantly calling people names and reverting without discussion, and complaining that it is everyone else who does that. He also has never bothered to do a checkuser, he just parrots the sockpuppet question which we raised before (he and Carfiend are good at parroting; that's another similarity). Also, I would say that he is largely the instigator in this case. Basically, he acts like he wants his way with that page regardless of what the other editors think, but I think it's just a game he's playing. Wahkeenah 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you actually file a checkuser request? It's fairly easy, and you should get a formal result. I don't think that you can ever say that 2 account are 'not the same user'. The best you can do is say the IP addresses are unrelated (e.g. come from different countries). Why don't you give it a try - it would be educational for you to go through that process. Crum375 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Already done. They said the IP address ranges were different. I just asked Numskll about the possibility of posting a chunk of the statements that Gravitor keeps deleting as "trolling", right below his own comments here, so you can see what we're up against. If you don't want me to do that, though, I won't. Wahkeenah 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. You know, they started an RFC against Carfiend last summer for similar behavior, but he and Gravitor both disappeared around mid-September as did the RFC. I think the editors are reluctant to go through it again, and are hoping against hope that Gravitor/Carfiend will either just get tired of the game and go away again, or (somehow) decide to be reasonable. One thing they don't do, or hardly ever anyway, as I recall, is to resort to the extreme, vile, obscene attacks I've seen on some pages here. It's more like just being disruptive, unreasonable, and generally irritating. Wahkeenah 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:AstroHurricane001
Just to let you know, I protected User:AstroHurricane001 at WP:RFPP after you denied the request. Almost always (unless the guy is lying or something), we will protect a userpage if the user requests the page to be protected. It is outside the article namespace, so there is no restriction or repercussions against having the page protected. Thought I'd let you know, as I've seen many admins deny these type of requests at WP:RFPP.  Nish kid 64  18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor
Without wanting to drag you into this, there is a little more to this story than you're hearing. There has been just about every kind of process harassment by Wahkeenah and his friends that you can think of, checkuser, sockpuppet accusations, constant trolling of my talk-page. All have come back with nothing to substantiate his accusations. I have tried consistently not to be sucked in. He is currently involved with another user (perhaps a sockpuppet) in placing huge sections of irrelevant content repeatedly on my talk page. I am making an effort not to engage with the other user, who has been shown to be trolling. I have answered all the accusations thrown at me, and am no longer interested in discussing them with a known troll (Numskll). Thanks, Gravitor 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thr "huge sections of irrelevant content" is a compilation of Gravitor's personal attacks and uncivil behavior on various editors including those he accuses of "every kind of process harassment by Wahkeenah and his friends that you can think of, checkuser, sockpuppet accusations, constant trolling of my talk-page." I think his behavior substansiates itself. This content was posted on his talk page (where it belongs) in an attempt to get him to discuss this behavior. If you dredge through it you will find the only poor behavior in the disputed section is Gravitor's.  He has failed to address the comments and his behavior in any manner other than to delete this and all other discussion of his behavior from his talk page repeatedly and without comment (other than troll accusations). What is the solution when an editor behaves in this manner but won't discuss it? Here is a diff link which includes the issues. They begin around the section titled "Personal attacks." I am also likely the user he claims has "shown to be trolling" That is simply not the case. Gravitor seems to be willfully misreading the exchange that occured here  and discussed here . If you care to, please read over the links and decide for yourself. I would also like some protection (if that is the word) from his constant attacks. Simply because we have a difference of opinion does not make me a troll. Numskll 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Gravitor
As an FYI: A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Gravitor. --MECU ≈ talk 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you close a proposed merge?
Hi. I would like to ask a favor: Would it be possible for you to formally close the proposed merge that was discussed at Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings? (The debate appears to have ended about a week ago.) As you are finding out, the behaviour of some users on this topic is becoming more and more incivil, and I think that it is best that a neutral observer evaluate the arguements and make a final decision. Thanks for the help. Lunokhod 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR block on User:Melonbarmonster
This user appealed to unblock-en-l complaining that they'd not reverted four times, that it had been a good-faith edit, and then three reverts back to that in the editing back and forth with another user. On reviewing the edit history, another unblock-en-l user agreed that the first edit hadn't been a revert, and I reviewed separately and I also agree that the first edit didn't look like a revert to me.

Can you review the block and possibly unblock?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. The two edits here  were the first time that the language changed to "Forced"; that doesn't count as a revert, as far as I see it wasn't phrased that way back a number of revisions.  So that first one was a new edit.  Endroit reverted that back three times, and Melonbarmonster put it back to the way he'd done it in those two edits linked above three times.
 * The 3RR rule doesn't strictly require that you do a fourth "revert"; vexatious edit warriors can be blocked under it for less. But both Endroit and Melonbarmonster seem to have done equal parts of reverting per se.
 * I think the block ends on its own shortly (or just did) anyways, but I wanted to discuss the point. Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP courtesy deletion
Hi Crum, do you have any interest in helping to write this proposal? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry about that. I realized there was no violation and wanted to close the report. Thanks, LionheartX 11:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:Kiumars
Why did you protect the talk page of User talk:Kiumars? It seems unnecessary. How long will it be protected? GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry. I didn't realize he was blocked. Should have checked the block log. Anyway, I believe that you were the one who issued the protection because of this edit summary. I guess I was wrong? GofG undefinedundefinedundefined  Contribs 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hehe well, I was only going to edit it to give him a warning for NPA that I saw... It would probably be a good idea to add the "indef blocked" template to his userpage, as I missed SV's tiny little 12point arial note that he was indef blocked :) GofG undefinedundefinedundefined  Contribs 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Hi, Thanks for twice catching that I did not violate WP:3RR. I'm glad someone checks the accuracy of these reports. I have not been so... lucky in the past. KazakhPol 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tense convention
Hi, thanks for your reply to my comment re: List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. The fact the use of tense has been discussed at length is far from clear on that article's talk page. Could you point me to where it is located please? Pyrope 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiping talk comments
Could you please explain how my posting a talk comment is disruptive or WP:POINT? Thank you. Wjhonson 02:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please post out where I have received *warnings* not to post comments on talk pages? And also why this would be a warnable offense?  A few of us were discussing on that page, whether we could post to it.  That is productive, not disruptive.  Rather, the wiping out of our comments, disrupted a productive conversation.  That wiping out was what was WP:POINT in our opinion, not our postings to that page, which were not in violation of any policy imho. Wjhonson 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't it seem a bit silly to force us to have this conversation here ? Instead of where it should occur? Now we're going to clog up three other boards with this same issue? If you leave it alone it will die a natural death.  If you pick a scab it becomes infected. Wjhonson 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain how this is Point? I'm not the only person who feels the same way as you can see from the conversations going on. Wjhonson 03:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm Protection
Shouldn't there be a protected tag on the article? Felix Felix talk 07:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Fair enough, it's just that other protected pages I've seen had bigger protection tags-it took me a while to notice that one. Felix Felix talk 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Willdo, though a good cooling down period would be good. Nice pic btw. Felix Felix talk 17:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(Un)blocked?
I thought you blocked User:InvaderSora for 48 hours ... yet he's editing again. Keesiewonder talk 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah - My mistake then; I didn't realize that bit about one's talk page remaining available during a block. Thanks for the clarification! :-) Keesiewonder talk 02:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP
Hi Crum, regarding Gillian McKeith, that's fine, I'm sorry if the person had been issuing threats, which I did not know. Also, though, do you not think it would be appropriate to remove the whole section, which seems to be a personal attack? SV left the comment on my talk page, which I am content to leave even though it seems inappropriate even there, but the section on that talk page seems completely out of place, particularly as an entire section with a heading "Mackan's Stalking", which is then unsupported. In that regard, I did not stalk her or Jayjg to the page, but was asked to comment by Jooler on my talkpage, after I had made a comment on the 3RR board about Jooler's block. Do you think we could remove this? Best, Mackan79 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I guess I feel it's more appropriate to iron out personal allegations on user pages rather than on a talk page, particularly with that title ("Mackan's Stalking").  Would you be willing to raise the issue with her?  Otherwise, I'm not sure who I'd ask.  Unfortunately, I lack some confidence in her and my ability to iron it out personally based on this and previous interactions.  Also, though, would you mind showing me the personal attacks made by the anonymous IP, or at least which other individual he is alleged to be?  Thanks, Mackan79 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, you're saying the personal attacks weren't public? I find this very strange, but I guess I can't see the purpose in pushing the issue.


 * Regarding your suggestion for how to resolve the situation, I guess I find this somewhat troubling. I should say I completely understand the delicacy of your situation.  Objectively, though, is it not pretty clear that SV personally attacked me on that talk page?  Not only did she create an entire section called "Mackan's Stalking", but then filled it with unsubstantiated accusations such as that "Whenever there's a little dispute brewing that you think you could make worse, you're there like a bad penny."  I mean, is a person really allowed to create this kind of a section on a talk page?  And then not engage any response from me or others?  I suppose the answer could be that with a long-standing admin, the only way is through formal dispute resolution.  That might make sense; I guess my hope was simply that one uninvolved admin would be able to make a suggestion to another.  Either way, I appreciate your response.  Mackan79 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky
I told him to revert himself here, and he did. If you don't mind, I'd like to unblock him. According to Three-revert rule, "Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not breach the rule." Khoikhoi 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Khoikhoi 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Khoikhoi, what about the fact that instead of asking Aivazovsky to revert himself, you should have blocked him for this violation? And done so for 48 hours -- same as me for the same violation over a week ago, despite the fact that I realized my own mistake immediately and notified admins about it (yet no one offered me to self-revert myself, instead, just blocked me for 48 hours). This treatment is unfair and contrary to rules. --AdilBaguirov 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Marharishi Mahesh Yogi article
Insert non-formatted text here

Crum375, Once the 24 hour block you put on Vijayante expired, that editor threatens to revert up to 3 times per day, and continues to insist on applying "personal knowledge" rather than sourced information to determine what is acceptable to put about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (see discussion and edits) []. It is clear that not only is Vijayante a follower but an uncritical editor regarding any claims made by the group and is attempting to own the article. I request you examine whether the stated evidence of COI and stated attempts to circumvent the spirit of 3RR do not warrant a special restriction limiting that editor to one significant edit per day indefintely as has been done in similar cases by Thatcher131. --Dseer 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A clear pattern of reversions against consensus, lack of collaboration, and general tendentious editing is considered disruptive editing and can be blocked for disruption. If you see such a clear and consistent pattern, please let me know (with full diffs), and I will block again. One does not have to violate 3RR to be disruptive. You may also wish to notify the editor a priori about this, as our goal is not to entrap people but to guide them in the right direction. Crum375 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, while Vijayante has engaged in all the above disrupting actions, they continue to sincerely believe they are right. I will follow your suggestion, and notify the editor one last time.--Dseer 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 2 editors who I am in agreement with regarding this page: ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ who does not practice Transcendental Meditation and who is a respected editor on Wikipedia, who made 2 comments on the discussion page, and one comment in the history of the biography which are quite reasonable, and TimidGuy. I do appreciate that Dseer acknowledges that we sincerely believe that we are right, and I do acknowledge also that he sincerely believes that he is right.


 * But the main point is that TimidGuy yesterday posted on the discussion page 3 paragraphs of quotations from The Beatles Anthology, published 2000, which he purchased to give the exact words of George Harrison and Paul McCartney, as editors had requested proof that the Beatles denied the rumours which editors like to put forward.


 * Rather than print in tabloid fashion all the past rumours that revolved around the course in Rishikesh at that time, I suggest this following statement, which leaves the visitors to the page free to discover for themselves and read more if they like, but not in vivid colour to lay out every nuance of every rumour that was denied by the Beatles themselves, as this is unnecessarily defaming to a living biography, as Saiva Sujit stated. Refer to the discussion on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi


 * Therefore would suggest the following revision to the Beatles subsection of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's biography:
 * The Beatles spent the early part of 1968 in Rishikesh, Uttar Pradesh, India, studying transcendental meditation with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. They discussed their memories of this time in The Beatles Anthology.


 * Thank you. Vijayante 05:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Vijayante belongs to the sect and because of his beliefs and claimed personal knowledge does not want to acknowledge the differing views on the well known and historically interesting public controversy regarding why the Beatles and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi split, but rather only say that they studied with MMY and there was discussion of their memories in the Beatles anthology. All the other editors are trying to do is illuminate the controversy, by mentioning the various sourced positions on what happened during this period, both pro and con MMY, resulting in NPOV. Here is the text that Vijayante has deleted 5 times in less than 12 hours(!), including once after the warning you suggested:

The Beatles spent the early part of 1968 in Rishikesh, Uttar Pradesh, India, studying transcendental meditation with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. While none of them ever followed Maharishi Mahesh Yogi again after the public split, they discussed their memories of this time in The Beatles Anthology, and at that time, neither George Harrison or Paul McCartney said they believed the sexual allegations were true. This period in India and their apparent disillusionment with Maharishi was described in a book by Paul Salzmann, The Beatles in India, who was there at that time, and who met with and photographed the Beatles, Mia Farrow, Donovan and Mike Love of the Beachboys while there. He reports that: "To the Beatles, the Maharishi's apparent sexuality, was the heavy straw that broke the camel's back. They had earlier been concerned about two things: the Maharishi using them to promote himself, and what seemed to be his focus on money, unexpected by them in a spiritual teacher or holy man." .

Mia Farrow described what she interpreted to be a sexual advance during that visit by Maharishi in her book, What Falls Away.

According to the Canadian sociologist Stephen A. Kent, John Lennon and George Harrison became disillusioned with him after "they discovered that their spiritual (and supposedly vegetarian) guide was serving chicken to select women and often making sexual advances toward them."

Deepok Chapra, a friend of the Marharshi, claims that the split with Maharishi occurred because the Beatles began using drugs again while they were at his ashram. .


 * There will be no solution to this impasse until it is acknowledged by all editors that sourced material which enhances NPOV is not to be deleted by disruptive editing. --Dseer 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To give you a heads up, I've blocked Vijayante (talk • contribs) for 48 hours for seven reverts in 24 hours and Sfacets (talk • contribs) for 24 hours for four reverts during the same period. Dseer narrowly avoided a block with only three reverts. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates
Hi Crum,

I started a discussion last night at Template_talk:Protected2 about when to use that template. I just saw your response to my post at Talk:New antisemitism, and my thoughts are the opposite ;) - would you like to discuss further at Template_talk:Protected2? Kla'quot 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alot!
Thank You so much for protecting Squidbillies.. I was about to request for semi-protection until I saw you already did.. Kudos to you! Thanks! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 06:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)