User talk:Jim Heller

WP:3RR violation

you have been blocked for violating the three revert rule on Ron Geaves, after being warned on the talk page. please do not continue this; i hope you can make good faith edits upon your return in 24 hours. thank you. --He:ah? 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Geaves and etc.

Hi Jim, thanks for the letter. Not to be dismissive of it in any way, but i should first mention that 3RR explicitly has nothing to do with whose content is correct or incorrect; rather, it has to do with how many times you've reverted. as Jossi's edits- correct contentwise or not- can't rightly be called vandalism, policy dictates that you can't revert those edits more than three times in 24 hours. Also, while Jossi may be an admin, s/he didn't go ahead and block you or anything, they followed policy by reporting it; if Jossi also is violating 3rr, as you claim, especially if using anon ips to avoid 3rr and admitting it, next time please put a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR so it can be dealt with!

So this is the "unconsidered" reply. You do bring up interesting points, and I plan on looking more into this content dispute itself when i have a little time. but the content dispute has nothing to do with 3RR.

So i'd suggest for now you make your case on the talk page of the articles and talk to Jossi.

(and briefly, if we are going to talk about content, Jossi shouldn't be reverting your edit as you describe on my talk. but on the other hand, it isn't vandalism according to wikipedia's use of the term, and i do think that a controversial statement like the one you are making needs some more backing with citations and whatnot, especially considering that Jossi seems to be contesting it. So find those, i'm sure you have them . . . )

Happy editing, and please feel free to stay in touch about this and ask me any questions you might have or whatever.

I also see that you haven't been given the boiler plate welcome notice, which has some good links and whatnot about how wikipedia functions. So i'll leave that below.

cheers --He:ah? 03:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heah,

Thanks for your reply. First, I wrongly assumed that Jossi had started the deletions. He just joined in and was the one who reported me for reverting. I didn't know that there was an edit log that tracked all activity but someone showed me afterwards. I still maintain, however, that these deletions were indeed acts of vandalism. They weren't corroborative edits, that's for sure. They were, as I said, wholesale, repeated deletions of original text. You speculate that the problem might have been my lack of citations but, in this case, I can assure you that's not the problem. Jossi's fully aware of the fact that both Geaves' comments and Rawat's own contradictory words (in his letter inviting his followers to the Millenium festival) are proven and accurate. Here's a link to the Geaves' article:

[1]

Footnote 5 is the one where Geaves' relieves Rawat of any knowledge or responsibility for the Millenium hype.

And here's a link to the letter Rawat himself wrote which clearly puts the lie to Geaves' revisionism:

[2]

The Wiki rule about vandalism states that most is dealt with by fast reversions. However, it doesn't say that persistent efforts in this regard may nonetheless violate the three-reversion rule and trigger blocking! It does seem a little Kafkaesque, don't you think?

Finally, on the more general complaint I have about Jossi Fresco, I do invite you to take some time, if you would, and review his editing of the Rawat articles. He is a paid web guy for a person who is most certainly a cult leader, a man who still has many, many followers who believe that he is God in human form. Jossi is adept at using Wikipedia to ensure that the articles never truly capture the story of the man. The fact that he's a Wikipedia administrator is worrying, in my opinion. --Jim Heller 18:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Jim Heller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

WP:NPA violation

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.--Shanel 17:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. Bacher's failed lawsuit

Before you make any comments about Bacher's failed lawsuit, it would be a good idea you talk to her about it. Ask her about it before you put your foot in your mouth. There was no such "involvement" on my part, just her failed attempt to go on a "fishing expedition", maybe because I edit Wikipedia and I am visible, that's all I guess. You will have to ask her for her reasons. Note that I will not respond to any more comments about this, so consider this to be my last comment. If you want to add stuff from the public records of her failed lawsuit to the article, just make sure that you stick to the facts, basically that undeniably she gave up her futile quest and that she did not obtain any legal redress for the alleged defamation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarifications:

I was not "involved" in the litigation, there was only an attempt by Mrs. Bachers to interrogate me via a subpoena, a thing that never happened;
I am not a lawyer, but I understand that statements made in court pleadings, such as the statements made by Mr. Staker about you in his defense, are privileged;
This article does not mention your name at all, so I do not know what you are asking. If you have complaints about things said about you in websites other than Wikipedia, please contact the owners of these websites. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, you said that you weren't going to discuss this with me any further so I'm surprised to see you comment at all. In any event, the fact that you were subpoenaed means you were involved. Don't quibble. Also, you're right, you're not a lawyer and your comment about Staker's comments being privileged are ludicrous. Third, you're right, the article doesn't mention my name at all but it will. If you can't see the obvious parallel between the litigation account already in the article accusing ex-premies of harrassment and defamation and Staker's admission that he entered into a court-enforcable settlement wherein he aplogized for falsely accusing Marianne Bachers of criminal conduct and, in the litigation leading to the settlement, falsely alleged that I myself admitted criminal conduct -- which allegation EV itself made, then I can't help you.--Jim Heller 21:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Heller's statement about me is wrong, and is a misrepresentation of a court approved announcement written by a court appointed lawyer. Jim states, "If you can't see the obvious parallel between the litigation account already in the article accusing ex-premies of harrassment and defamation and Staker's admission that he entered into a court-enforcable settlement wherein he aplogized for falsely accusing Marianne Bachers of criminal conduct and, in the litigation leading to the settlement, falsely alleged that I myself admitted criminal conduct -- which allegation EV itself made, then I can't help you."

Jim, by claiming that I apologized for making a false allegation you are implying that I was aware at the time of making the allegation, that it was incorrect (i.e. that I falsely alleged). However, the court approved announcement clearly states that "I mistakenly posted statements that attributed criminal conduct..." There is a huge difference between making a mistake, and making a "false allegation" as you put it. I have acknowledged making a mistake, and I hope that you are honest enough to do the same. I await your apology.

Readers may view court approved statements at http://www.one-reality.net My clarification on this web site should not be misconstrued as a comment on the settlement or the plaintiff. Jim has publicly misrepresented me. I reserve the right to publicly correct his misrepresentation.

Jim, I also note that you claim to have been falsely accused of criminal conduct. You have made this claim here and on an ex-premie forum. You have never at any time contacted me to ask me to remove material from my web site which you apparently claim is defamatory. Wikipedia editors and interested readers can view this material, and decide for themselves whether or not it is defamatory. http://www.one-reality.net/heller.htm

Jim, if I have defamed you, as you apparently claim. I invite you to commence litigation. web master, www.one-reality.net

I am not quibbling, I am stating a fact: Her attempt to interrogate me and other students of Maharaji (and I will not comment on what I think of her action, as it is not relevant to this aricle) obviously failed. As for additions to this article, you are welcome to do so, with the usual caveats as described in our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I have a copy of the Declaration of Deborah Drooz in Support of Non-Party Joseph Fresco's Motion for Protective Order which includes her letter of March 24, 2005, wherein Drooz wrote Marianne Bacher's lawyer suggesting the terms of your deposition. It reads in part:

Here is the "scope" proposal we discussed during our telephone conversation yesterday. Naturally, we are willing to entertain any counterproposals you may have.

[Fresco] will answer questions that seek to elicit information on the following subjects:

1.[Fresco]'s personal involvement and/or responsiblity for the publication of the statements challenged in the complaint.

2.As to each statement challenged in the complaint, [Fresco]'s knowledge of the identities of individuals or entities who were involved in and/or responsible for its publication.

On March 31, 2005 Marianne's lawyer wrote back confirming that continuing discussions between the lawyers had failed to reach an agreement about just what you were going to testify about at which point Drooz scheduled this application for a protective order. It wasn't to keep you from having to testify but rather to limit the scope of your deposition. You know that. Anyway, your motion was filed April 18, 2005 but taken "off calendar" May 10, 2005 pending the determination of Staker's SLAPP suit appeal. (He lost but filed a notice of appeal).

Bottom line is that it's completely untrue to say that Marianne's effort to interrogate you failed.--Jim Heller 23:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts are (a) that the judge never got to hear arguments on my protective order, and (b) the deposition never took place, so Mrs Bachers did not get away with it. So, think whatever you want. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "opinion" is that you were telling something decidedly different than the truth when you said that Marianne's attempt to interrogate you ... "obviously failed." You got caught on this one, Jossi.--Jim Heller 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine. In regard of the letter from which you cite, I do not find it on the sftc.org website where all court documents are filed [3]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some things aren't merely a matter of opinion. Staker's lawyer agreed you would testify within a limited scope. Marianne's lawyer wanted you to testify about even more. You brought a motion which was then struck off the list pending the outcome of Staker's appeal of the dismissal of his SLAPP suit. Saying that Marianne's attempt to interrogate you "obviously failed" is clearly false. She didn't fail at all. You had already agreed to testify, the fight was over about how much.

As for the document, it's there at the courthouse along with all the others. Hire a transcription service to make you a copy.--Jim Heller 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is that she did not get away with deposing anyone other than a Carlos Harden. That is what counts and that is why I rightfully stated that she failed in deposing other students. Please note that I made a mistake in responding on these pages, as all these comments are off-topic. If you want to discuss personal issues, you are welcome to do so on my talk page, or in yours. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please note that your attempts to conduct an interrogation in Wikipedia talk pages about my personal affiliations, work, political views, personal beliefs, will be thoroughly ignored. Also note that any attempts to disclose any personal information about me or other editors in Wikipedia talk pages may result in a permanent ban as per Wikipedia policy. See WP:BLOCK. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly guidance

The editing of Prem Rawat and associated pages has been quite heated for quite a long time. I have no views on the subject of the dispute but I do want to remind the involved editors to keep a cool head. Policies do indeed caution against people heavily involved in a particular subject editing on that subject, but this does not give a license to other editors to hunt down and publicise the real world identities of those they suspect are raising issues under the policy. Doing so can feel intimidating and create a negative atmosphere, being regarded as a personal attack by the user concerned.

Wikipedia's administrators have no privilege in editing. Adminship is merely a way of volunteering to do the donkey-work of administration, not a statement of endorsement of someone's contributions. The flipside of this is that admins are not held to any higher standards when it comes to violations of other policies such as 'point of view' editing and the three-revert rule. David | Talk 09:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, may I ask, did you post this at Jossi's request? Are you someone who's ever edited the Rawat articles? I think I recall a David at some point. Was that you?

In any event, while I agree with the general point that editors shouldn't be "hunted down" etc., is that really a fair way to characterize my asking an editor if he's ever been a paid publicist for the article's subject? Do you think that's an irrelevant question, especially in light of Jimbo Wales' saying just the other day that ideally articles shouldn't be edited by interested parties but that it was hard to know who was who given the ease with which people can be anonymous? Besides, Jossi's not anonymous, is he?

Sorry, but I find this confusing. Wales says Wikipedia's a free speech forum, Jossi says it isn't. It's all too subtle for me, I'm afraid.--Jim Heller 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was acting as an uninvolved admin taking up an issue raised on the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard. In my view, while the tone and temper of the talk page debates have been questionable, blocks for personal attacks are not merited and a friendly note of guidance is better. I have not edited any Prem Rawat article so far as I can remember (it's possible I might have reverted vandalism if it was obvious).

The WP:AUTO policy does say that those involved with a subject should avoid direct editing in their area. The best way to check this is by means of a Request for Comment rather than individual comments. The general principle is, and remains, that comments should be on contributions and not personalities. David | Talk 22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]