Jump to content

User talk:Pierre BOQUIÉ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Faunus)

About our possible collaboration on the Prem Rawat page

[edit]

@Francis Schonken: Hello, before I go any further on the Prem Rawat page, I need to understand why you are acting the way you are. I had followed a process recommended by Wikipedia, allowing consensus to be reached before making a change. You have allowed yourself to intervene directly, without respecting this collaborative working method, which seems important to me to reintroduce into this work, too many editorial battles that have led to the present result.

Will you at least agree with me that this biography is anachronistic in 2021 and needs updating, for the sake of neutrality of point of view and respect for a living person? I would also like to have your opinion on what I put forward in conclusion and which synthesizes what I have developed in other posts, namely that Prem Rawat has evolved over the years, not to be hide or hide the culpable activities to which he would indulge, but quite simply because he had to acquire experience in front of the handicaps which were his on his arrival in the West: youth, cultural gap, supported mainly by the counter-culture of at the time, an innovative approach on the scale where it had the ambition to intervene.

Please enlighten me on your motivations and your level of knowledge of the subject. You seem more versed in music. We have one thing in common, knowing that I am more focused on contemporary music of all styles (jazz, blues, rock, newage, ethnic…). --Faunus (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken

[edit]

FYI. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Faunus: Thanks to warning me. he's a tough customer. --Faunus (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to avoid this kind of editorial war, when the discussions are biased and my interlocutor uses the Wikipedia rules as a pretext to block me, while he himself happily breaks free from them. --Faunus (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. A suggestion: provide a bit more detail and links regarding the "editorial war" - where is it, what efforts did you make to prevent it, etc. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advise. To understand this disagreement that is maintained to prevent me from seriously working on improving the biography of Prem Rawat, I invite you to read the exchanges that have taken place from this section of the talk page until the end:
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#Is_there_anything_to_be_done_on_this_page_to_make_it_acceptable?
But here is how I summarized it in a few points addressed to Schonken to make him listen to reason when he unilaterally reintroduced the different surnames attributed to Prem Rawat in his youth (a way of discrediting a person by exaggerating his exotic character by his ethnic origins):
“Francis Schonken, I disagree with your interpretation of consensus. I made a proposal on March 16. On the 17th someone asked me to get a consensus before I could make the change. Asking him how to do this since I had never encountered this process, I got no answer. On March 20, therefore, I made it clear whether there were any objections in arguing for the changes I was proposing. Littleolive oil agreed to my changes, asking me to allow a little over a week for any objections to be voiced. So I let 10 days go by and on April 1 I asked Littleolive Oil to make the changes. Unanswered and a bit lost in the process, so I re-did an “Edit request” on April 6th and that's where 2 users encouraged me to do them myself. Neither you nor Lawrencekhoo came forward at that time and it was more than 15 days between my first proposal and the consensus reached with the users involved. That you come today to question certain changes, without justifying them and deliberately ignoring this consensus, is not correct. You do not take into account this consensus found on the 6th, your first interventions on the page happened on April 14th, without making a proposal first on the talk page as is the rule for semi-protected pages.
I hope that sums up the sequence that led to today's stalemate. --Faunus (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since your help request has now been open for over a week with no response, I'm going to close it with the following advice:
  • if there's edit warring, you can report it to WP:3RN
  • if there are serious behavioral issues, you can report them to WP:ANI
  • if you're merely having a content dispute with another editor, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
  • if you're still looking for information on how to build consensus, see Wikipedia:Consensus.
I'm also going to ping @Francis Schonken: the editor you seem to be having a disagreement with, in case they'd like to add something. 78.28.55.108 (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, 78.28.55.108. I don't exactly know how all these procedures work. Thanks for advises. Best. --Faunus (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Francis Schonken has now been banned from Wikipedia for behavior such as you document above. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen that. Thank you --Faunus (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For information

[edit]

I have moved the different sections regarding observations, analyzes and new sources available regarding the Prem Rawat page on my User page so that they don't get mixed up with the discussions going on here.--Faunus (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"please don't start an edit war"

[edit]

You must have already have seen this, but just in case:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Prem Rawat. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Restoring disputed content to an article, after an explicit request to discuss it on the relevant talk page is generally inadvisable. Doing so with an edit summary stating "please don't start an edit war" [1] is more so. And doing so in relation to an article subject to discretionary sanctions (which you must surely have been fully aware of) is definitely not a good look. I suggest you revert, and comply with a simple request to discuss the matter in the appropriate place. If you fail to do so, I may feel obliged to take the matter up elsewhere - where your entirely inappropriate use of the article talk page as a blog/forum will also be raised, along with your partisan editing, stonewalling, and refusal to acknowledge Wikipedia's requirements for appropriate sourcing and neutrality according to external sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, it is you who have intervened on several occasions without any consultation on the Talk page to modify passages to your liking. I have simply returned information which is very much in relation to the action of Prem Rawat. And I fixed the reference for this new editor richard.rieve that you could help rather than discourage or try to scare him.
Read the sources cited. This film chronicles the first peace workshops held in a Texas prison, based on lecture videos by Prem Rawat. It has since become widespread in many prisons around the world. Agreements have even been signed in Italy and South Africa between the Ministries of Justice of these countries and the Prem Rawat foundation to generalize its workshops which have a very beneficial effect in the fight against detainee recidivism. The sources are on my user page here.
Everything I post relates directly to Prem Rawat's biography or affiliated pages. I am not doing any promotion. I explain why this biography is not honest because it uses very old facts and which were not extraordinary for the time, but were blown up by the press, then by the ex-premies later.
Can you give me a single criminal act attributable to Prem Rawat that would have been the subject of a conviction or even an indictment by the courts? Few people with such a long career can boast of such an exemplary past. You may not appreciate its action, find it unnecessary, but there is nothing dangerous or objectionable in it.
This relentlessness is incomprehensible, but I remain confident that one day the conditions will be right for an honest rewrite of this biography. --Faunus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to even read the above. I asked you to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Not here. On the article talk page. The place where article content is discussed. Either do so, or accept the consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stange. You start a discussion and you don't want to read me. This is your conception of collaborative work on Wikipedia? This is not fair, sorry. Please, come back to a construtive discussion. Thank you Faunus (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC expired

[edit]

Please see my comment here: [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]