User talk:Sfacets/A1
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006 edit
The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
RE: (Very) late reply: Sahaj Marg / Shri Ram Chandr Mission NPOV edit
> The POV template is usually taken down by consensus between the editors of the article, there is no committee as such, unless no consensus can be reached for a long period of time, in which case moderators are called in.
> So yeah, I'll see what I can do to make myself useful...
Thanks for your interest and help. If you see anything that's obvious, go ahead... Ironically, The vast majority of the text I would consider non-NPOV was written by the same person that posted the POV template. I don't disagree with the POV status, just the fashion in which the article is written.
I've decided to forgo editing this article. I'm involved with the meditation group, and while I don't feel that this would overly bias or hinder my contributions in any way, I do wish to avoid any lengthy or drawn out confrontations. It is more important to me to foster an atmosphere of love and cooperation than to feel that my meditation group is represented fairly online. Weirdly enough, after giving the matter a considerable amount of thought, I'm content to simply let the POV status stand as-is.
Thanks again for taking an interest in the article, and on a personal level for everything you're doing for the Wikipedia project. As an avid WP reader and sometimes-editor, I appreciate everything you've done. Keep up the good work!
MatheoDJ 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! edit
The Editor's Barnstar
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for helping to monitor POV edits on the Hinduism page! Come back anytime to help out with the Hinduism project, where we have a lot of pages that need quality edits by editors like you. HeBhagawan 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
Just wanted to know. edit
Just wanted to know your views of my edits being POV and not a matter of general knowledge (at least of Hindus?Swadhyayee 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I am waiting for your reply. edit
I am waiting for your reply to revert my edit claiming to be POV. Being a Hindu, I think it is a matter of general knowledge which I hope you will agree.
Swadhyayee 03:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay; general knowledge edits are not enough, since many readers and contributors are not knowledgeable of Hindu traditions and beliefs. For this reason (and to avoid any editing conflicts) it is important to back assertions with reliable sources. Sfacets 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You may have your views but things of general knowledge does not need backing by reliable source. Jesus was crucified or Bible is holy book of christains do not need backing even as per Wikipedia policy.
Swadhyayee 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you think spending some more time while editing would have done me and the article some justice? edit
Isn't God beyond perception? and this is a significant experience of sages. Shashtras say that there are 3 stages of any existence, 1) Birth (Janma) 2) Decay (Jara) and 3) Death (Mrutyu).
Why God is beyond perception a POV?
According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One: beyond form, infinite, and eternal. God is changeless and is the very source of consciousness. God is beyond time, space, and causation and yet permeates everything and every being. God is beyond gender.
I am not understanding the need to write "God is, in the highest sense, One: beyond form, infinite, and eternal". The para of 7 lines had use of God six times and quiet more sentences beginned with the word "God", so I felt it to make a compound sentence to reduce frequent use of the word "God".
Which is proper, "God is beyond gender" or "God is genderless"?
The belief that God provides and cares for me tends human to project human's similar relations - mother and/or father upon God.
Does the current edit provide rational for projecting fatherhood and motherhood upon God? Without stating rational, will it not be seen as idiotic or superstitious who attack Hindus for having crores of Devatas?
Hindus worship these personal forms of God for a practical reason: it is easier to cultivate devotion to a personal being than to an abstract principle.
Where is the rational? What was wrong in, human mind needs an object to concentrate and so it is easy to cultivate devotion to The God in human form than to an abstract entity. Worshiping God in human form help in seeing the possibility of sublimating an individual to The God's state - imbibe sublimated virtues of God within one's self.?
Do you think spending some more time while editing would have done me some justice?
Swadhyayee 03:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriate reverts edit
Sfacets, this type of edit is not helpful. You reverted an hour's worth of work, because you didn't like the word "Hindu". [1] This is not good faith editing. In the future, take the time to actually change a section or supply a different source, rather than just arbitrarily deleting the hard work of other editors. --NovaSTL 05:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well it became obvious that you didn't actually know what you were writing about and had apparently copied whole sections from an article with questionable validity. Sfacets 09:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block edit
Regarding reversions[2] made on November 4 2006 to Sahaja Yoga edit
Re your mail: please read the rules carefully William M. Connolley 12:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not "back up" copyright violating material from article space to user space. Copyright infringement is the same regardless of where you move the text to. Kavadi carrier 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, removing that section from backup ASA block expires... Sfacets 12:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I put togather a version which I thought would address the presumably legitimate grievances of this User. He seems to bent on attaching "Factual disputes" tags on very well referenced facts provided in this version . Kindly address this problem. This user seems bent on violently mutilating anything that attempts to establish as much as a trace of harmonious connection between Hinduism and Buddhism. Best Regards. Freedom skies 15:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- User:Green23, User:Saavak123 and User:216.254.121.169 are sockpuppets of the same person. They have the same patterns (see here and here) and what's worse is that they have started voting in AfD debates (You'll notice that the only two delete votes are given by Green23 and Savak123 here). This is in addition to them having the number 23 common in their ID and the same contribution patterns.
- I've worked hard and even mentioned their excessive quotes on another page altogather and linked it up, aside from mentioning every aspect of the earlier work. My good faith has met with arguments such as "read all edits...tagging until I add edits. Go to discussion page to get facts straight."
- Please take appropriate action and ensure the sanctity of the article.
- Freedom skies 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:RishiRich.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading Image:RishiRich.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok ☠ 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Adding a link to the University of Virginia's "Religious Movements Homepage Project"[3], as a reference at the article on Sahaja Yoga, is not vandalism.[4] Please do not abuse warning templates. --NovaSTL 02:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a warning or a template... What are you on about? Sfacets 02:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of Copyvio edit
There is no copyright violation at International Sahaja Public School. Again, you are being disruptive and misusing Wikipedia process. Please stop. --NovaSTL 03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
...says the person who recently attempted to use the administrator intervention process in an attempt to resolve content dispute. I have stated on the ISPS talk page why there is copyvio. Sfacets 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
wikEd edit
Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.
wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more.
Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Usually it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.
Cacycle 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikiproject India edit
Hi, and welcome to the India WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Please participate in any of our descendant workgroups that might interest you.
- The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every India article in Wikipedia.
- Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
done edit
See User:Sfacets/Yuvashakti. --W.marsh 14:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume 1, Issue 2 - November 2006
edit
|
|
Hi! You just beat me to the edit; I was about to change it myself, with this edit summary:
- Revert change from BCE -> BC. The convention for this article is already established; it uses CE/BCE. Please note that both notation standards are considered to be correct on Wikipedia.
Instead, I'll send that note to the editor who made the change. :-) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Unreliable source? edit
Please return to Talk:International Sahaja Public School to explain why a paper that was recognized as the top national newspaper in the U.K. in 2004 is an unreliable source. -Will Beback · † · 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
THe Wedge (TV show) = edit
I was just wondering why you added an 'and criticism' on the Reaction part of the article. You are encouraged to discuss this if you want to change it. Shaggy9872004 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes you are right but the word 'Criticism' is not neutral enough. 'Reaction on the other hand is so therefore if we want a more balanced article it should be left alone before it was changed by. Thanks!Shaggy9872004 01:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Semiprotection. You think its a good idea?Bakaman Bakatalk 05:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Questions in headlines edit
Hi, Sfacets. Could you please point me to the style guideline that applies to the changes you made to the subheads in the article on Transcendental Meditation? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! TimidGuy 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think your removal of "distinguishing" was a good point. Thanks. I questioned your addition to the summary and made a suggestion in my Edit Summary. See what you think of my suggestion. I guess we should maybe discuss this on the Talk page. I had already been thinking of making the change to the lead that I suggest. TimidGuy 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the AMA! edit
Hello Sfacets, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}}. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel which reports new cases to us, and also new alerts. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out WP:AMARQ, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocates talk page, including our coordinator, Steve Caruso. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Reverts to Parkour and Talk:Parkour edit
Hi Sfacets,
I see you've reverted a couple of edits of mine at Parkour and Talk:Parkour with the comment "rvt - vandalism?". I've re-reverted them, since they're definitely not vandalism, but want to explain why... My Parkour edit was a removal of links that are being repeatedly added to that article by spammers. I probably should have included an edit description, but neglected to, given how many times I've reverted that content! My Talk:Parkour edit may have appeared as a blanking because I moved someone else's comment (from the top to the bottom of the page) before replying to it, but I did not actually remove any content, only moved it. I hope you'll agree that these aren't vandalism. Thanks.
(BTW, I have to ask since you're from Melbourne and editing the parkour article, are you practising or interested in parkour? Or were you just randomly reading the article?) -- David Scarlett(Talk) 05:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for posting spammer warning edit
Hi, Sfacets. Thanks for catching the spam in the Maharishi article and for posting a warning on the guy's Talk page. Appreciate your vigilance.TimidGuy 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Images edit
You are uploading a number of photos with the claim that you took them yourself. Some of these photos are rather old, and yet you are say that you are an undergraduate student. Another image is on a website that is copyrighted. Are these licenses correct? -Will Beback · † · 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Sfacets 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- So you were at the Womens conference in 1995, when you were just a little boy? -Will Beback · † · 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- And in St. Petersburg in 1993? -Will Beback · † · 09:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Did I mention anything about my age? Sfacets 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- You have elsewhere. It appears that you're taking copyrighted photos from SY and SY-related websites and claiming to have created them yourself. -Will Beback · † · 09:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can you prove this? Where elsewhere? Sfacets 10:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your flickr account. If it's correct then you'd have been just a boy in 1993. Can you prove that you were in St. Petersburg in 1993 at an awards ceremony? Or at a Womens Conference in 1995? Or that you made a formal portrait of a Swiss music group? Or that you took a beautiful and widely-copied portrait of Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, obviously decades ago, but you can't say which year? I think there's a mistake with these image licenses and we just need to clear that up. -Will Beback · † · 10:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- If we can't resolve these licensing issues I'll start removing the disputed licenses from the images. -Will Beback · † · 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to remove the licenses from the images which appear to have been downloaded from SY sites. I'll leave a list here. -Will Beback · † · 06:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Vndlogo.gif
- Image:Nirmala1.jpg
- Image:Subtlesys.gif
- Image:Riaabad.gif
- Image:Britney-rishirich.jpg
- Image:PetrovskyAward.jpg
- Image:Womanconference1995.jpg
- Image:BullehShah.jpg
- Image:Nbhkti.jpg
There are also a couple of non-SY images that appear to have had incorrect licenses applied. -Will Beback · † · 06:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Swaminarayan page edit
Why did u delete the: Swaminarayan Temple -Kenton Link?????????????????????? ?????????????????
Images on the Bharatanatyam article edit
All the images on the article are from the same source (and almost all (maybe all?) feature the same person). This is spamming. Please see wikipedia:spam. They do not add anything more to the article either unless you explain each of the postures. I don't mind having one or two pictures from that source but don't bring them all back. I have already spoken with an admin regarding this. Cribananda 07:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT edit
This is a reminder that we have a policy that prohibits disrupting the project in order to illustrate a point. WP:POINT. This edit, sourced to a blog, appears only intended to make a point about the list. -Will Beback · † · 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a)Disruptive b)A blog or c)Intended to illustrate a point. Sfacets 01:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're the same person who woldn't allow The Independent simply because they hired freelance journalists. So how is an "any may submit an article" website supposed to be a reliable source? And also. if you have time to add this aI'd appreciate it if you'd repy to the several outstanding issues, including on this page. Otherwise I'll take your silence as intentional. -Will Beback · † · 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- According to the criteria of inclusion specified in the article, it only has to be mentioned in a media source. Sorry about the delay in answers, I'll try and get back to you ASAP... Sfacets 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- The same requirements for reliable sources exists in that article as in every other article in Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This website this image is taken from has its content licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0. Unfortunately this can't be included because Wikipedia's content needs to be allowed for commercial purposes as well. Personally I wouldn't care but unless you can get the image under an allowed license or claim fair-use, this will probably be deleted. Thanks, --WikiSlasher 09:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please reply whenever. --WikiSlasher 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Bhangra edit
hey, i'm just replying to my entery for bhangra fm for Bhangra genre
Your linking to DVDs, and editing content to that respect. Thats more spaming because your encouraging them (ultimately) to buy it.. I've added that entry so people can actually freely LISTEN to the sounds. I don't think thats spaming.
I'm a registered member here (userid samrik).(not sure if i'm logged in but there was a message for my ip address and I thought i reply back quickly as i'm busy with other stuff in life too).
Talk to you later
Ownership issues edit
FYI; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sfacets.2C_Sahajhist.2C_ownership_issues. I've asked for other admin input. The next step, pending your return, will be mediation. It'd be best if we could find resolution without further bother. If it's any consolation let me say that while it may seem counter-intuitive, I've noticed that articles only- or over-edited by followers tend to be less complete and interesting than more collaboratively-edited articles. It may seem scary, but there's nothing to be afraid of. -Will Beback · † · 09:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Let me know when you're back. I think that mediation would be helpful. -Will Beback · † · 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you back from your break? -Will Beback · † · 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, I'm not back yet... Sfacets 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you seem to be active. I'd like to seek mediation over the SY issues. If you're involved in editing the article I'd hope you could spend some time resolving problems. To continue editng the article while refusing mediation isn't helpful. -Will Beback · † · 09:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just reverting isn't constructive. -Will Beback · † · 09:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have been active today, and as you can see am spending time resolving problems. Am I or have I ever refused mediation? No, just reverting isn't constructive. Reverting unconstructive edits while leaving an edit summary why is. Sfacets 10:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well if you're present enough to respond within a week I'll go ahead and start the ball rolling. -Will Beback · † · 11:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thing is I don't think I will be present enough, Today is an exception. I will only be fully back enough to actively participate in discussions in about two weeks time. Sfacets 11:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- You appear to be just as active now as you were before you went on Wikibreak. Since the mediation would also involve Sahajhist, and since you seem to be fully engaged in editing the article, I think it's appropriate to move forward. -Will Beback · † · 21:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? A few minor edits and comments on the talk page is hardly active. Sfacets 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Mediation shouldn't take too much time, and will probably take a while to get started. I'm sure you want to see this resolved as much as I do. -Will Beback · † · 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please give your input here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga. -Will Beback · † · 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
TM, here we go again.... edit
Would you be willing to take a peak by the TM page? There is conflict about whether the Skeptic's Dictionary is a reliable source? thanks Sethie 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
stop deleting edits! edit
please don't delete edits unless you evaluate it first to see if the link is legitimate before removing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cooljankey (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006 edit
The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Swaminarayan Dispute edit
Dear Sfacets,
Is it possible to create a separate article devoted solely to the Uddhav Sampraday (Original Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday)? Our friend Haribhagat has toned down his rhetoric but continues to insist that the article on Bhagwan Swaminarayan should be devoted solely to the Uddhav Sampraday. My suggestion was to devote the article on Bhagwan Swaminarayan solely on his life and have links to the separate groups within the Swaminarayan faith (e.g. BAPS, Uddhav Sampraday).
Again, let me know what you think. I am currently tied down but will get to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article soon.
---
Sincerely,
Moksha88 05:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sfacets,
I have a break, so I will be able to work on this article I bit in the upcoming week.
One question - how can I create a new article for the Uddhav Sampraday (Original Sampraday)? Currently, all of its information is put on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page. If we wish to make it generic, we will need to separate it into another article.
---
Sincerely,
Moksha88 03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Buddhism and Hinduism edit
I think you may have made an editing mistake here [5]. You deleted the bottom half of the article. -Will Beback · † · 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Melbourne meetup edit
Greetings, person who is listed as being interested in future meetups in Melbourne. The fourth meetup will be held on 18 December, at Lower House in Fed Square (in the Alfred Deaking building, Flinders Street end near the Atrium: map), starting from 7pm. We don't currently have a separate location for discussion beforehand, but there'll be plenty of time to talk wiki over dinner. --bainer (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal edit
Hello, I am the mediator for your case. Please remember to keep things civil, and I thank you for choosing voluntary mediation for your dispute resolution. Please respond on the case page within 96 hours with what you would like to see come from this mediation. Somitho 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't have time to participate in mediation then can you agree to not edit the article until mediation is complete? Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga#Discussion. -Will Beback · † · 17:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
About India edit
Sfacets, since I was 7, I thought that India was a Middle Eastern country. Now, I'm 13 yrs. old, and I have found that people disagree with me when I say so. Mewtwowimmer 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but lol wow - oh well I regret to inform you that you have been living a lie ;) and that India is in fact part of South Asia. But that's alright... I remember when I was taught that India was the "breadbasket of the world" (I completed part of my studies there) and have since come to realize that there are at least 20 countries all claiming the same thing. Just goes to show how biased educational systems are in each country... Sfacets 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, help needed! edit
Heya Sfacets- things are getting sticky at the TM page- do you have any time to check things out?Sethie 17:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Ayyavazhi edit
Will you please discuss befor edits. I was waiting after my discussion for more than 96 hrs after citing with University papers. No one is there. Now when I proceed as per citations one user reverted twice and other user once. You edited woith out discussing. And if I edit once more I will be marked as violating 3RR. What is going on here? - Paul 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry very much. There were a long series debate in the India article, where I cite with university papers they (one or two people collectively) use to revert without discussion. And like wise I was blocked twice as violating 3RR. And I think so now, and hence my wrong approach. Sorry once again for my short-sided activity. Thanks - Paul 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sfacets, I have no problem with your revert. However, just an FYI, this topic has been discussed extensively at Talk:India/Ayyavazhi, as well as numerous other places. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- While the discussion is going on see another user reverted without discussions. Please help - Paul 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sfacets, perhaps you did not see my comment above. There exists a special page for discussion of this topic and it has been discussed extensively. Please do not revert on the plea that the topic has not been discussed. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Your RVs and Comments edit
Sfacets, let me say once again it is not personal, and I again recommend you look at the totality of Wikipedia citations and not just the ones you employ, and particularly at WP:COI. I am assuming good faith in principle, but with the caveat that editors with COI may be sincere, but blinded by their zeal to what NPOV is in a particular topic, i.e., Sahaja Yoga, and in some cases, it takes a lot to get that editor's attention. Your history of contributions and approach to the contributions and comments of other editors not in synch with your views on Sahaja Yoga is a matter of record and speaks for itself regarding anything to do with articles referencing Sahaja Yoga. I reviewed all your comments and contributions before making any edits to material regarding Sahaja Yoga so I clearly understood the parties positions on articles that badly need to be more NPOV, not anti-Sahaja, just NPOV. At least three editors before me, have recently advised in essence that your advocacy for and involvement with that Sect involves COI issues and requires great caution, and have gently tried to steer you to understand Wikipedia's position on WP:COI. Your documented confrontational reactions to that have now resulted in mediation, and good faith requires now that I spell it out for you directly, where there is no doubt you have read it. Let me once again refer you to the relevant portions that it is submitted are applicable to you, so there is no misunderstanding about what applies:
"A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the concerns or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article...In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organisational conflicts of interest...(There is a reference here to the fact that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not makes it clear that Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy)...
...If you have a conflict of interest, you should: avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors...avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors...If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles, despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia..."
...As Wikipedians and encyclopedists, our job is to put the interests of the encyclopedia first. Anyone who prioritizes outside interests over the interests of the encyclopedia may be subject to a conflict of interest. Material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, family members, or associates may place the author in a conflict of interest...
...There is no list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest. In most cases, the intention of the writer can be deduced from the tone and content of the article...
...Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.
...There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies...As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you in that direction. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article...If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest..."
Now, lets look at our interactions. As I said, this is not coming in a vaccuum, not everyone contributes to an article they are interested right away. I edit a variety of articles to ensure NPOV on religious issues and sects. When I got around to the Sahaja articles, I reviewed the edit history and interactions with other editors first, noted your dismissal of repetitive concerns by editors about a COI editing pattern, looked at various places where Sahaja Yoga was mentioned, and realize the category Sahaja Yoga was placed in was not the most applicable one, so I moved it. You reverted my first edit without discussion, while the edit I made was justified. I rebutted your assertions as to why it was reverted with documentation to back it up, and you then accused me of deleting reference to Sahaja Yoga, which was false. You made variuos assertions about a claimed "lengthy lineage" based on NRM dogma, and the "cool breeze" you say is found in all traditions, but have not provided evidence other than restating the NRM's position to back up these controversial, disputed and exceptional religious claims. And I must point out you have not yet even directly apologized for the false charges of deletion against me, despite several opporitunties to do so. And, you then take it upon yourself, as a party to mediation initiated by someone else, to revert my appropriate comments on the situation when I had already stated my intention to pursue mediation, falsely assuming that you have the authority to do so arbitrarily and that there is no precedent for such action on an editors part in mediations where there are shared concerns and prior experience with clarifying these kinds of disputes. Of course I have addressed your authority to do so with others. But what this shows once again is that, in basic terms, there is sufficient evidence to show that your approach on the Sahaja Yoga related contributions is not as collaborative as you assume, but what seems to be a pattern of COI influenced confrontational and dismissive approach to the concerns of other editors, and too often, your edits and reversions erroneously assume as fact what others may well consider "misinterpretations or technicalities of policy", and you take these actions without collaborative consultation with editors not having such apparent COI issues.
Closing this by referring back to the section on COI, the essence of what is being asked of you is to consider good faith application of the following principle: "Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing...If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles, despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia...". I remind you the perceived COI and lack of collaboration has already been asserted in good faith by responsible editors a number of times, and is why you are in mediation. --Dseer 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Discussions Desired. I appreciate that you moved my comments on SSB arbitration because you said I was "not involved" without even notifying me, instead of just deleting them. However, I had made comments before, which is why I was specifically invited to provide evidence, and if you notice the statement page it says: "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full." Quite an assumption on your part given that you are not involved in presuming for me I did not want to become a participant since the resolution clearly affects my edits, and that if I had time I wasn't going to submit some evidence. Also, on Adi Da, you could have simply discussed where you thought cites were necessary first. Anyone more familiar with Adi Da and his works would have known where to find the cites. More discussions next time before such editing would be a real courtesy and IMO real plus. More discussions before such editing would be a real plus. --Dseer 05:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
We are moving irrelevant discussion WT:HNB, pl. do not place it back to Hinduism talk pg. edit
Sfacets,
As some editors have opined that discussion related to improvement of article should only have a place on talk page of Hinduism, we are moving other discussions to WT:HNB. Pl. don't revert thinking it is vandal. swadhyayee 12:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006 edit
The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Execution of Saddam Hussein, administrator attention needed... edit
I do not check wiki often, and if i do, only arguments and so on, reversals, etc...
But... you recently reverted and had my version, I am glad you agree.
There is Uber user problem
Warning this guy keeps on inventing his rules and gives his own definitions,reverting lots of links, clearly has his own agenda, many users like this use some wikified excuse but that is empty.. The execution should not be here (the link to video), the death of the kid, clearly he watched the video, he asked father what happend, he was angry at something... Saddam's last words and the other link clearly links and explans execution, so current version should stay. It is clear that this guy keeps on screwign around this particular site 100 times per day. Not only that, but keeps on reverting time of death and official time saddam died 6:05. http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/saddam_has_been.html
Let me know, watch over this page, this uber guy should be banned, now claims some wiki policy which exists, true enough, but not to such a degree he is explaining.
I replaced wished to indicated, now uber has no point.
More problems edit
Are you replying, now this guy uber keeps on reverting the deaths of 3000 americans, saying not important, honestly are you going to do something about that vandal who makes up his own truth? YO ARE YOU DOING ANYTHING, HE KEEPS ON PLAYING THE GAME... http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/01/01/wld02.asp
Keep up good job, but reply here a little bit.
Uber wrote...
Time and place of execution Saddam was executed at approximately 06:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on December 30, 2006. Ok, if he wrote some time after, that is different, there are 100;s of sources that say it was after 6, what uber is inputting, is information that was correct only first day or in the first hours after execution, again are you challenging the official death by iraqi (puppet) government, it is legal and binding. Wiki is open place AND I DISAGREE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SHOW SOMEBODY'S DEATH, HOW WOULD YOU FEAL? Anybody can go on google video and find that, but when you are doing a research on saddam, why should you watch something ugly and horrific, what good does that bring, i mentioned many times in the past and i honestly am wating time here... wiki can not be uncivil, meaning spreading hate thru ugly hanging videos, where are people's morals?
Well, at least 15 kids died, so, simply adding word grisly, we could have saved some lifes, may be, who knows, because of link on wiki those kids died, hope you all proud?!
Discuss rather than reverting edit
So are you going to just revert and not respond to the question? —Centrx→talk • 07:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If you refer to the talk page, you will notice that I have started a whole new thread under the heading "Portmanteau Category". See you there. Sfacets 07:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Saddam execution, the links we agreed on uber keeps on reverting (and i dont meyesterday see that it stays like that. an just execution page)and his people helping him, you did good job , you need to watch more over it.
Appendix ordering edit
You are wrong. External links is always last. Look at any of the Wikipedia policy pages. See also is always before Notes and/or References. A Ramachandran 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the guide to layout? I'm not making this up, I am following Wikipedia guidelines. Sfacets 15:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did look at it: you are confused. They are clearly numbered. You are confusing the "See also" of the Guide to Layout thinking it has something to do with the ordering. You will see there are two sections titled See also in that guide. The second one is not part of the section on ordering. A Ramachandran 15:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
7 Standard appendices * 7.1 Quotations * 7.2 See also -> this is the position of See also in standard appendices * 7.3 Notes * 7.4 References * 7.5 Further reading * 7.6 External links 8 See also -> this is the see also section of the Guide to Layout article
Oh my gosh, you are right, all my apologies... I should get some sleep ;) Sfacets 15:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I see your edits all the time and you are on my list of people I don't need to double check. I was quite surprised at your response, but all is well now: apology accepted. :-) A Ramachandran 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Note by anon from Madras edit
Leave the henna articles as such. No external links please. Even after this request you are repeated spamming using a website might be related to you. Please stop spamming with links.
Read the talk page. Sfacets 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I repeat, read the talk page. And Sign in. Sfacets 21:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Uber problems edit
Well, what can I say, i tried to make that execution site civil, but some people do not want it, also, uber keeps on reverting good links, but when I ask to show me where they are under references, nothing... he must have some personal agenda here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.68 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
WARNING!!! Don't SPAM (AKA bogus warning from anonymous Madras vandal) edit
It seems you are spamming again and again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.57.87 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
Are you blind? READ THE TALK PAGE on this issue. Sfacets 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is there in Talk Page related to the issue. No links means No links... else place all the links again....
Have you read the talk page? Under External link cleanup. Please comment there if you want to add your views, and stop arbitrarily removing valid links. Sfacets 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Your recent request for checkuser edit
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.
- "I'm Not sure which code to assign, there doesn't appear to be an option per se that fits this situation... I'm guessing maybe 'F' is closest. Thanks, Sfacets 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)"
- No, F is not appropriate. Please read m:Checkuser policy, WP:SOCK, and WP:CSD, and then re-evaluate the merits of your check. If you still believe the check is warranted, then prove that one of the code letters listed at WP:RFCU is applicable (using diffs, if required). If you can't, it means your check probably doesn't meet the above three policies/guidelines. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
External Links edit
Good to know you are watching over execution of saddam page, but remember, we agreed to these links...
+ + *Boy Hangs himself 12/31/06 - Copying Saddam's Execution + *Saddam's last hours
And they are all gone, uber as usual argues they are in references but I do not see and they ought to be under external links, so they are more visibile, since they are more important, you need to watch more over them. And they do not break wiki policy in any way and they are not spam. Do you agree the above should be under external links only? I'm not sure I do, I'll have a look in detail later though... Sfacets 21:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Try, they were there before, ubers used the fact that i edited something, just so he can remove other links like saddam's last hours, the above 3 should be there... and you are right on his behavior, pathetic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UBeR#No_Personal_attacks speaks a lot, i rest my case. He simply uses some links to some civility and wiki link policy, but in reality it does not apply to anything. Keep up the good job!Also, can you add under videos, grisly, not warning, that is certainly no pov!U have no idea how people are mean here, at least, it's good to talk to you in a civilized manner, so many administrators do not belong here, hopefully some day you will be?!
I agree with your revert edit
Just thanking you for correctly reverting my edit of the Template:War on Terrorism page, regarding the Israel-Lebanon conflict! Perhaps the Israel-Lebanon page deserves an edit, but I'm not up to it :-) --ScottMorrison 08:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Semorrison, the article deserves an edit, and way too many references. As far as Saddam goes, word grisly is by no means pov and if you have email post it here, will tell you why.
Meddling with Dementation's user page. edit
Could you explain your reasoning behind this revert of User:Dementation? The page was blanked by Dementation himself; it would seem to me that if he wanted to blank his own user page that we shouldn't treat it as vandalism. I have the same question for the reverts of Dementation blanking his own talk page. I appreciate that Dementation shown himself to be hostile to Wikipedia, but reverting blanking of his own pages seems like a bad idea. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Upon further thought, the discussion on this probably belongs over on User talk:Dementation (ironically enough) as there are other people reverting Dementation's blanking. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism Project edit
Could you add BAPS under the Hinduism project? It is a major group within the Swaminarayan sect. Moksha88 17:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Wikipedia on IPhone.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia on IPhone.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Roguegeek (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)