This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{ WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose ( talk) 09:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{ WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi JN, Over at the Prem Rawat article I have proposed an edit based on Geaves' work on Rawat's lineage. I consider the roots of Rawat's teaching relevant to the Teaching Section which currently only presents the old scholarly view that Rawat's lineage derives from Sant Mat (and Radhasoami) traditions. This is refuted by Geaves in a paper dedicated to disproving this contention and asserting that his lineage is in fact derived from another sect called Advait Mat. Their lineage, he says, is also referred to by Prem Rawat (which I have demonstrated to be true) on a past website and he then goes into some detail as to the supposed lineage persona etc. I have looked into this subject with interest over many years and my belief is that, as much as I find Geaves' 'biased' in his natural enthusiasm towards Rawat as a follower, one cannot overlook his recent research and findings. There has been confusion between Swarupanand (Rawat's father's Guru) from the Advait Mat tradition and Swarupanand of the Radhasoami Sant Mat tradition which he explains. Anyhow it seems to me important enough that Prem Rawat and Geaves both consider the Advait Mat lineage correct. Interestingly the Advait Mat group claim succession from Totapuri (in the 18th century) who was the (or 'a') guru of Ramakrishna - who as you must know is quite widely revered. Although all these sects are interconnected in many ways and, as Geaves himself admits, the link with Totapuri was possibly contrived in the mists of time as an authenticity device by the Advait Mat historians, nevertheless it is a lineage that Geaves says Maharaji refers to as his own and actually makes some sense. I would appreciate your thoughts as whether we can use Geaves as a source in this respect. Thanks. PatW ( talk) 20:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for the heads up, this is more twisted than I could have imagined Weaponbb7 ( talk) 19:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you drop me an e-mail though the "e-mail this user" link? (Nothing insidious, I just wanted to ask you something off-wiki). Kindzmarauli ( talk) 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can just use the "e-mail this user" function (in the toolbox on the left). I have e-mail enabled. -- JN 466 01:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't have mine enabled! Kindzmarauli ( talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you recently commented on the FA nomination for Slipknot (band) and I have responded to your comments and made edits accordingly. I would appreciate your opinion once again and any further comments you may have, thank you. -- REZTER ^TALK ø 10:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have once again made dits and comments regaring your comments. -- REZTER ^TALK ø 14:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- JN 466 14:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your tiem and effort you've put in to the FAC so far. I really appreciate it. I have made edits and comments regarding your other comments and I would once again greatly appreciate any further comments and suggestions you may have. -- REZTER ^TALK ø 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being so positive about it. -- JN 466 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've seen your comment here and I wanted to answer to you. I don't answer on WR since it is hopeless to conduct a reasonable discussion there, so here we are.

I am quite sad that you, like the article commentator, think that the reason we're keeping the ending of The Mousetrap is due to "self-aggrandizing vandalism". Nothing could be further from the truth, at least for me. I do not like that keeping the ending makes people unhappy. However, I like even less having an incomplete encyclopedia entry due to that. I feel that, simply, people who criticize our decision do not have fully clear in their mind what the project is for (or do not care). We are supposed to collect, structure and present, in the clearest way possible, notable and public information, even when it is controversial or when this information can make people uneasy. I feel personally that, while a short-term disadvantage is that by doing that we can be making some people uncomfortable, the long-term advantage of building a free, complete encyclopedia is superior. I understand your mileage may vary, but that's the motivation. You seem to think it's a "power" thing. It's not. It's an altruistic thing: we only disagree on what is more altruistic.

I hope it helps. -- Cyclopia ^talk 17:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a pure rationalisation on your part. No one has ever suggested removing the ending from the article. I certainly haven't. -- JN 466 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, note that I have e-mail enabled, and you are always welcome to write to me offline. -- JN 466 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

( edit conflict) 1)You suggested to hide it in your RFC 2)I don't understand what do you mean by "I think this is a pure rationalisation on your part." 3)I thought about email, but I preferred my comment to be public. Thank you. -- Cyclopia ^talk 17:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, thanks for the talkback but it's not needed -I am watchlisting this for now) -- Cyclopia ^talk 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) I want to give the reader the option to reveal the ending if they want to see it. We don't have to push the spoiler in this particular article into readers' faces, bearing in mind there will be at least some readers who will be sorry they have read it. I don't see that requiring readers to click on "Show" inconveniences them to any significant extent. (2) My feeling is that you enjoy providing information that makes people uneasy, or which causes controversy and offence, but rationalise this as being motivated by altruism. 20 years ago I might have argued like you; I trust that 20 years hence, you might see your own motivations in a different light as well. (3) If you want to contact me about my activities on another site, I would generally prefer if you did it on that site, or by e-mail. I generally find that e-mail is more conducive to establishing a personal relationship. If you are concerned about potential canvassing, I was very careful to only post about the RfC on WR after it had closed, and I had been soundly defeated. :) Cheers, -- JN 466 18:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not concerned about potential canvassing, and I feel a bit uneasy that you seem to always look for hidden motivations behind people's actions. Yes, I often defend information that "makes people uneasy or which causes controversy and offence". That's because it's the information more at risk of being taken away for extra-encyclopedic reasons, and because I greatly fear slippery slopes in these cases. The controversiality of such information puts it in jeopardy, and therefore it requires committment to defend it. If it was endangered, I would be as much as committed if someone tried to remove the ending of Three Little Pigs. That said, I am happy to continue the conversation by email -but these were the points that I firmly wanted public. Cheers, and thank you for allowing me to talk with you. -- Cyclopia ^talk 18:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for using a plain signature on my user talk page. I really appreciate your making the effort. -- TS 19:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure. :) -- JN 466 19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not forum shop. This suggestion was previously voted down and it is quite frankly bad form to suggest something on a policy page without mentioning the previous discussion on the article, the current RFC or notifying those users who (are) participated(ing). If you continue to forum shop you will be blocked since this is not the first time you have been cautioned about this. Seddon ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? And for the record, I did mention the previous discussion, at 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC). -- JN 466 21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Discussion here we'd like to hear from you from you on. Involving Talk:List of cult and new religious movement researchers Biased list portion we are discussing a potential name tweek and narrowing of criteria for being listed on it. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 04:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice one Jayen, a prestigious accolade indeed, well done. Off2riorob ( talk) 06:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. :) -- JN 466 13:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)