User talk:Revera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome, Revera!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some pointers to learn more about this project:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC) . . .[reply]

Thank you for your welcome, Jossi, but since when has editing an encylopedia been down to luck?
Rest assured, I have taken the trouble of preparing myself for what I consider to be a serious and responsible task - and touchstones from the links you so kindly reminded me of are ones that I intend to keep in mind whenever contributing to this project. I'd like to post them here, if only as a reminder:
  • All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.
  • It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
  • As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
  • … when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence.
  • … we do not try to decide or claim that an opinion is "true" or "false". We state instead, neutrally and factually, which people hold what views, and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Remember, Facts are never subject to consensus.
Jossi, you evidently have much time at your disposal to edit here. I don't. But I hope both of us can respect the spirit (at least) of the excerpts from the Wikipedia guidelines that I've posted above. Revera 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)revera[reply]

communication with Momento re. Rawat's claims to divinity[edit]

Momento, you have selected some quotes that support your opinion. But in doing so you make transparent your bias. It's blatantly clear that, by omitting quotes that demonstrate that Rawat made claims to divinity which are relevant and notable, a very bright spotlight is shone on the supposed "neutrality" of your position as editor, and your subsequent influence on the article.

No. I have selected quotes that represent Rawat's view on God.

"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion?" "God made the mind but He never made a stoplight. And when He saw that 'There is no stop in this mind which I have made,' He was very sorry. He had to take a form. The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the 'Supremest' of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity." "To be here as individuals, and yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything; in which everything is, and he is in everything. Guru Maharaji. The Lord. All powerful."
I'd love to see you try and explain how the meaning of the words "The Lord all powerful" and "God" are so very different!

Certainly. From Wiki on Gurus -
There is an understanding in some sects that if the devotee were presented with the guru and God, first he would pay respect to the guru, since the guru had been instrumental in leading him to God.[13][14] Gurus are said to be greater than God because they lead to God.[15] Some traditions claim "Guru, God and Self (Self meaning soul, not personality) are one and the same. In this context, saints and poets in India, have expressed their views about the relationship between Guru and God:
Kabir
Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate?
I bow before Guru who introduced God to me.
Brahmanand
It's my great fortune that I found Satguru, all my doubts are removed.
I bow before Guru. Guru's glory is greater than God's.
Momento 05:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No, momento, Lord God, Lord almighty, God almighty, Lord all-powerful - all are terms which any sane person would accept refer to the same thing.
"In a religious concept, The Lord is a name referring to God, mainly by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity)". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord
Your response does not answer my question. Either your sophistry is bordering on being willfully deceptive, or perhaps you are simply in denial. Neither should be attributes of a Wikipedia editor. Revera 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to change your mind, I can only give you the facts. In Hinduism, and we are talking Gurus here, Gurus are said to be "greater than God" because they lead to God. So if God is the Almighty, the Guru is the Almighty Plus. It's a pity you didn't include this sentence "A Lord is a male who has power and authority. It can have different meanings depending on the context of use". Exactly. Momento 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, he was educated in a Catholic College and was addressing an American audience at the time he claimed to be "the Lord all-powerful". And more: "The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the 'Supremest' of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity"
That is more than a claim to being able to "lead people to God" (and by the perverse semi-logic that some Hindu teachings apply, thereby being 'greater than'). Rawat was not just any old Hindu guru who, in their controversial arrogance, liked to claim to be greater than God. The Sant Mat tradition had plenty of contenders for that title. Rawat pretended - to a Western audience - to BE God. Are there any other Hindu gurus who had the chutzpah to do that?
And the above quotes prove it.
Revera 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to express your kind words on my talk page. I've found that making a stand for what I feel is right can sometimes be frustrating when facing an entrenched opposition. Your encouraging note helped make a difference. Mael-Num 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find battling with Rawat's promotion team can get a bit too time-consuming (not that I get too caught up in it). For a breather, I like to take a look at contributions to sites like http://hamzen1.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=duh&action=display&thread=1161430405 Words can often play second-fiddle when faced with a good picture essay! Regards, Revera 20:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've just read something in which the author makes a point which I wish I had found earlier: "The things which are true must be said, and your ability to keep cool and keep thinking and writing on the subject in hand, without being too thrown off balance by the barrage ..."' You get the idea. Revera 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you. When life's getting to you, there's nothing quite like a picture of an obese cult leader in a funny hat to turn a frown upside-down. ;) Mael-Num 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC Source for the term "cult leader" is Saul Levines article in Marc Galanter's book

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bad_faith_or_overzealous_BLP_enforcement_by_user:JossiAndries 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by former religion[edit]

I created Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Sathya_Sai_Baba You may be interested in creating Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Guru_Maharaji Andries 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the suggestion, Andries, but personally, I find that identifying with labels such as "Wikipedian" and "ex-premie" doesn't really float my boat, if you get my drift! Revera 07:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BLP and Deletion[edit]

Honestly, I'm not sure how that would apply here. You make an excellent argument that the information, as presented, is not biographical in nature. In the spirit of what Jimbo recommended (which is what BLP policy was written to formalize), there's nothing wrong going on here. You're not presenting defamatory or false information, which was/is obviously Jimbo's concern.

You should be able to say what you'd like on your own talk page. Moreover, you should be able to say what was removed because it's not being presented as factual (which is the case in a biographical article, and arguably talk pages related to that article) and the only comment that is related to Rawat (obese) was presented in a humorous style, which is parody and therefore protected speech which is not defamatory by legal standards. At least not in the US. Even if it wasn't considered parody, it's true and correct, so either way you win.

All that aside, I just don't like the way that phrase in the BLP is being applied here. It should be struck, as it can be (and in this case, is being) used to censor speech in a manner that is at the very least counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia. Such a rule could be invoked by anyone seeking to produce a chilling effect towards critics of any given biographical subject, throwing all hopes for NPOV out the window. That and I've never been partial to the thought police.

I can't tell you what to do at this point, but like I said and detailed above, I think you've got at least a few pretty good reasons why you should be able to preserve what was written on your page if you choose to.

Mael-Num 01:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding - and so quickly! I've given Jossi something to think about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jossi#Contentious.2FBLP
Can it really be true that Jossi is the one who's re-writing the self-same BLP Policy? Does he know what the word "contentious" means? Is Judge Dredd ( http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950701/06300060.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Dredd ) his hero?! Revera 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned before that Jossi was one of the major contributors to the WP:BLP policy. You can check the edit history yourself; this seems to confirm it. I can't comment as to whether his efforts in crafting the policy have any motive other than just making a good working policy, but as I've already said, I think the portion of BLP that's being invoked here may have undesired effects and consequences. For that reason alone, I think it should be revisited. You know, even though we're not admins here, we can have input in Wikipedia's policies. You may want to take this up on BLP's talk page.
And as an aside, I like Judge Dredd. Even the Stallone movie. I smile every time I hear his "I am the law!" line. ;)

Mael-Num 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess I'll just have to respect your respect for Judge Dredd! But what do you make of Jossi's apparent attempt to emulate him? It appears to me that he's just removed all reference to the WP:BLP discussion from his talk page. At least, I can't seem to find it, though it was there a few days ago. Revera 20:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems he archived it with the last comment being made on 18 April, see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jossi/Archives/15#Contentious.2FBLP - but that was long before my contribution to the paragraph. I wonder what he's playing at? And how to take him to task on it?Revera 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how the following got left off his so-called 'archive'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJossi&diff=128799130&oldid=128598905#Contentious.2FBLP

I see that you, Jossi, have taken the liberty of censoring part of a discussion I had with another editor on my talk-page. You did this with no warning, and no explanation other than to cite WP-BLP- 'Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material'. You removed two things - a link to an external webpage, namely http://hamzen1.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=duh&action=display&thread=1161430405 and a reference made by the other editor to an "obese cult leader", replacing both with "..." (an ellipsis).

Whether you consider the site I linked to be poorly researched or not, you should not have the right to interfere with my communication with another editor in this way. Editors need to refer to other sites for many reasons - for research, to gain another perspective on a subject, even sometimes simply to take a light-hearted break - the latter being my motive for linking to the site in question - a site which does indeed make fun of the "obese cult leader" in question. It is common knowledge among other editors of the article 'Prem Rawat', that you are in fact Mr Rawat's webmaster, and you have declared that you do indeed have a conflict of interest in matters relating to him.

Your censorship of part of my discussion with fellow-editor Mael-Num is quite remarkable. Is this a precedent that you are setting for Wikipedia? Are talk-pages going to be subject to the NPOV rule too? Quite frankly it's ridiculous that you should try and abuse our freedom of speech by removing a description of a notable public figure simply because it doesn't conform with your own inflated opinion of him. Contentious material it may be - to those who share your opinion of Prem Rawat - but since when has that been a criterion of what people are allowed to talk about? Remember it is my talkpage that this is about - not a Wiki article.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and we should be free to express those opinions to each other on our talkpages. You seem to think you can take it on yourself to police my communications with a fellow editor in such a high-handed manner, it almost beggars belief!

I request that you restore the passage in question to its original form. Revera 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

__________

It's been four days since my request. In the absence of any action/response from you to my concerns above, Jossi, I have restored the paragraph to its original form myself. Revera 07:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

__________

Update as of 13 May 2007
Yet more censorship by Jossi - he has now removed the following from his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJossi&diff=130324547&oldid=130293611
== What's with this 'selective archiving' idea, Jossi? ==
WP:ARCHIVE states that "you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page".
I recently (6th May) asked you several questions about your censorship of my talk-page in relation to WP:BLP and contentious material. As you have not yet addressed that question I consider the matter to be ongoing.
What's more - when you moved the section to your archive, you in fact deleted my contribution from that section! This link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJossi&diff=128722960&oldid=128534922#Contentious.2FBLP details the passage you have 'disappeared' What's the game, Jossi? Revera 09:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revera 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

I have nothing else to tell you that I have not told you already. See responses given to Andries about this subject. Any and all further messages from you in this regard will be excised from my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you have NOT told me, Jossi. By your own admission you responded to Andries, whose involvement in this I was not even aware of until today. Why respond to him, and not me?
And yet again you censor my request for an explanation from you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jossi&oldid=130875508#Why_have_you_deleted_my_question_to_you.3F
Good grief! Despite your efforts to remove this issue from the records, your actions are saying a great deal more about you - and your methods of stifling debate - than you might realise. And are you going to attempt to delete even this comment from the archives?
And I've just noticed that you've deleted my response to Travis from your talk-page as well, yet left his accusations there. That is a serious denial of right to reply, Jossi, and you should reinstate my response to FCYTravis' serious accusations immediately. Here, for the record, is what you have deleted from that page:
Trolling? Jossi, that is so far from reality, I can hardly believe you're accusing me of it. The facts are these: 1. You censored my talkpage. 2. I asked you why you had done so. 3. You neglected to answer me. 4. I requested that you address my question. 5. You deleted my question from the archive.
And now my attempt to get to the bottom of this is, according to you, "trolling"?
You need to explain yourself Jossi, and your actions - after your break, naturally. Revera 20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
And as for your input, FCYTravis: you speak of "violation" and "abuse"? That's pretty strong language. And this is the first I have heard of it. Are your accusations addressed to me? If so why place them on another editor's talk-page? (who is not my 'friend', as you wrongly assume). I request that any further communication you wish to have with me on this matter be put on my own talk-page, rather than his. That way I might see it. Revera 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Kindly reinstate my response as it was originally given Jossi. If you refuse to do so, then heaven help the future of Wikipedia.
Revera 22:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

Please refrain from personal attacks.[1] Try to focus on the content and not the contributors. I understand it can be a heated and touchy topic, however insults and related commentary about other editors is unwelcome on Wikipedia. Please try to keep your cool and if you feel unable to comment in a civil fashion, focus on other wiki articles and tasks until you feel calmer. Be well. Vassyana 02:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full text of what I said to Jossi, upon hearing him declare his conflict of interest:
"Sounds like you're looking for someone to hold your sword while you fall on it. Well, having declared your conflict of interest, you could do the decent thing and leave the article about your employer well alone. You could, couldn't you? Or would that entail you having to relinquish your 'position' with your paymasters?"
Well, Vassyana, it's interesting to note that my suggestion is now being taken more seriously, viz: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia inter alia.
Also interesting that my observations and questions re. Jossi were judged by you as "personal attack". I could say the same of your accusation of me, couldn't I? But that wouldn't be NPOV, would it!
Boy, oh boy, the Wikipedia policy on this competes with the best Dutch cheeses! (and no, I'm not attacking you, I'm drawing attention to the vagiaries of Wiki-policy. And I wasn't attacking Jossi either. My intention was to bring attention to his evident evasion of Wikipedian policy).
Revera (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
afterthought - if an editor abuses Wikipedia guidelines, and is 'brought to task' for having done so, does that constitute 'personal attack"? Hmmm?Revera (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. 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! --SineBot (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's been a while since I've contributed. Thanks. Revera (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Register, Eh?[edit]

Thank you very much for the link to this article. It would have otherwise slipped completely under my radar.

If you'll indulge an old hand who's been a long time AWOL, how goes the war?

Mael-Num (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War? Well, there's war and there's war (words vs swords?)

The possibility of "Peace in our time" has always been a prominent feature of Guru Maharaj Ji/Prem Rawat's claim to fame. Those of us who might have a better understanding of history - and how it can repeat itself - might care to take that into consideration. Especially given his 'messianic' history! Revera (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi blocked indefinitely[edit]

Just for the record, Jossi has been blocked indefinitely for "abusively using one or more accounts". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pergamino for example of one of his sockpuppets.

HDSK[edit]

I can't find any information on HDSK. The "About us" page says they've been around since 1991, but doesn't mention Elan Vital. I'm not sure what to do at this point. The Wikipedia article is about Elan Vital. If we have a source connecting them then we can add whatever it says. Maybe we should wait until the situation is clearer, but I'm open minded about it.   Will Beback  talk  19:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On WP's 'Elan Vital' page, the link to their UK site is given as http://elanvital.org.uk/ If you click on it, it redirects you to HDSK. Revera (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If we can find a source that connects the two then we can add something to the article. A web redirect probably isn't sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your persistence. I also checked the HDSK website and after much searching found a page there that mentions Elan Vital too. I've added a sentence to cover the name change.[2] I've also created a redirect from HDSK. If the HDSK gains more prominence we may have to rethink how we arrange the topics and content. Probably the next step would be to create a section in the Elan Vital article for HDSK. And perhaps the US group will change its name too. We'll see.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Persistence? Moi? I hardly ever dip a toe into the waters of Wiki, Will. If you don't mind me saying so, you're persistence - personified! (and personally, I think Wikipedia's a better place for it). Mind you, there's a couple of old contributors whose return after a lengthy absence is shortly anticipated. I wonder what the future holds for all the Rawat-related articles! It'll be interesting to watch. Revera (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaji.org website date[edit]

Hi there Revera - I have extremely limited access to internet as I'm abroad right now and reception is very dodgy. The website was live circa 1990 and was I believe, the one Jossi helped him build. It was taken down at some point but was live for quite a long time around then. I recall that it was also available on one of the web archive sites but I wouldn't be surprised if it's been removed from them by now. I guess Jossi may have engineered that when we the same subject came up here a while back and we used that site to support the lineage thing. I'll see if I can dig anything else up when I'm back. BTW I think the Geaves paper is perfectly legimate as a source and that states clearly that the info was on MJ's website. I happen to possess this paper which I could share as pdf on return. cheers. PatW (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to any further light you might be able to shed on this when you're back, Pat. Revera (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey! No sooner have I written that, than I find what we're looking for: http://web.archive.org/web/19991012111809/maharaji.org/masters/masters.htm Revera (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Revera. Interesting to be able to see the whole site preserved in the 'Akashic Records' or internet equivalent! As you can see I've re-opened the discussion. I think that this source simply lends weight to the idea that it is relevant to include the information. The question only remains whether Geaves is a reliable source and whether this is contentious. I can't see how it could be construed as contentious. This information probably belongs in the Teachings section. The Teachings Section was separated from the Pre Rawat article and given it's own article as you must know. That 'Teachings of PR' article itself reads to me as extremely biased. Not surprising as it was largely compiled by Jossi and Momento. I think that article is in dire need of missing balance too. Whether I have time to work on that is another question. I have a brief hiatus between my return from holiday and getting back to the grist of work. I imagine my time will be quite limited from henceforth. Anyway, I feel more comfortable to take a back seat since Momento has been again exiled. I find the other premie contributors quite reasonable on the whole.PatW (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say something along the lines of: "You chill, brother", but that'd be quite at odds with street credibility. (Mine, that is. I know nothing of the patois in the environs of Brighton, though my sister lives just along the coast in Goring. Probably chalk and cheese. though.) Hope you don't take too much offense at my comment on the Prem Rawat talkpage following your recent comment, but partisan ain't the way, I'm sure you'd agree, no matter how much our histories might coincide. Be well. Revera (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken of course. Goring is nice and quiet compared to the urbanity of Brighton. One thing that's good about Wikipedia is that there is this kind of growing understanding (almost like morphic resonance or something?) about practising neutrality. I'm quite enjoying being a part of that noble thrust. :-) Cheers! PatW (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation of Prem Rawat[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Prem Rawat was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No obligation to contribute, is there? I don't know what you're thanking me for!Revera (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The Request for mediation concerning Prem Rawat 5, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Pensions in the United Kingdom[edit]

I think the best place for a discussion about the pensions article is the Talk page of the article itself. I actually think there are pros and cons of CPI and wage inflation as measures of the pension worth, and would be happy to contribute on the talk page. --Phil Holmes (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

Could you please try to tone down the jocular postings? It's easy to write comments that sound amusing to oneself, but which fall flat on the written page. Some of your comments about "weasel words" give the appearance of picking a fight. I'm sure that's incorrect. Nevertheless, it'd be best if you could make your comments more, um, boring. ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Doesn't change the fact that, over his "career" as a whole, the media has often described Rawat as a cult leader, as Jim Wales observed.' That is what I posted, Will. A simple fact. Nothing jocular about it. Then another editor describes me as posting 'weasel words'. I defended myself against that impertinent allegation. Just whose fight are you taking sides with here? The one that Jim Wales started? (which, by the way, was a fight to get an evidently historical fact recognised in article that erred just a little too far into the realms of revisionism). Seems his input was a one-off though - Wales has stated that he won't be editing the article again (one has to wonder why, considering the splash his edit has made). Perhaps he only wanted to give the impression that he only gives an occasional toss about the misuse of Wikipedia by cultists - such as former Wiki golden-boy Jossi Fresco. You advise that "It'd be best if you could make your comments more, um, boring. ;)" Is that the advice you'd proffer Jim Wales too? Revera (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doublethink edit[edit]

You wrote, Have removed limitation in the wake of Iain Duncan Smith's resignation yesterday. I agree with your removing the limitation. But could you explain what you're talking about with the rest of it (Iain Duncan Smith, etc.)? I don't understand the reference. I understand he's a British politician. But what has this to do with editing the Doublethink Wikipedia page? - Embram (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

  Sorry for the long delay in replying, I rarely log in to wikipedia these days.  To answer your question, the topical mention of IDS was just an aside, though as an accomplished proponent of doublethink, he's a fine example.  For someone with his political record to identify with being a 'compassionate conservative' is one of the clearest modern-day examples of the use of doublethink I've found.  Why is this my opinion? This article may help to explain: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/21/iain-duncan-smith-empty-truth-compassionate-conservatism .
I see. So your comment has nothing to do with Wikipedia's purpose, but is your own opinion regarding contemporary politics. In that case you should not have removed the limitation. If doublethink was the act of ordinary people in Orwell's mind, it's not for us as editors to redefine the word based on our own experiences or opinions, or based on our view of subsequent history. - Embram (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a quote where Orwell implies that doublethink can only be used by "ordinary people". Then show me evidence that a politician like IDS thinks of himself as ordinary. Then take your perceived "Crimethink" back to the Ministry of Love and chew on it! Revera (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not contesting your change and had no plans to change it back. I was merely talking about reasons to change a Wikipedia article and reasons not to, in response to what you said. However, I do object to your personal attack on me. I see you've done this sort of thing before. I don't appreciate it. - Embram (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revera&oldid=1079463434"