User talk:Hanuman Das/Archive 4

WP:NPA

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

Please do not make personal attacks as you did in the edit summary for this comment --BostonMA ^talk 15:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Kriya Yoga

Hi Hanuman Das, There's another Kriya Yoga teacher, in a very similar vein to Gurunath Siddhanath, that is wanting his two cents on the Kriya Yoga page. If you have any suggestions, based on past experience, please feel free to comment. There does need to be some sort of solution. I offer a suggestion, but would like some feedback on it. See Talk:Kriya Yoga. Also, your revert of my edit of the book link on the Babaji page was probably correct, since it only referred to the book (as opposed to quoting or talking about a specific reference from the book). Thanks, ॐ Priyanath 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Regarding this edit. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Luna Santin 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's probably in your best interest to bring your concerns to WP:AN/I for review, then. Just to make sure you get a fair hearing, I'd recommend staying away from that sort of post in the future, since people will surely take notice of it. I do get the impression there's something more going on, here, so I'd like these concerns to be heard, even if posts like that are quite inappropriate. AN/I is probably your spot. Luna Santin 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on since September August. It's been brought up on AN/I. Where can one get an advocate? I'd like somebody else to investigate Mattisse. I'd like to know why after using 18 sockpuppets to carry on harassment of pagan articles, this user is allowed to keep doing so. —Hanuman Das 06:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

Sorry, but you need to cool down.--§hanel 06:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please investigate Mattisse who has been intentionally disruptive since September August attacking the articles of pagan authors and musicians, using multiple sockpuppets in the process. —Hanuman Das 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When your block has expired you may wish to participate in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival which will hopefully resolve this in a more civil manner. --Salix alba (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Whoa!!! you seem to have gotten yourself in a spot of trouble here. You should follow the good advice of others and try to keep cool.

OTOH, I had no idea that the Mattisse+socks issue involved so many articles! This looks like a good basis for a user conduct RfC. Would you like me to start one from this data? Since you lost your cool, it might bias the case if you open it. Let me know... -999 (Talk) 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've added all those articles to my watchlist. I only had a handful of the on it already, which is why I didn't realize how big the Mattisse/Timmy12 problem was (if they're not sockpuppets, they must be meatpuppets, but most likely Mattisse is now simply using two computers. Bet their edit sessions alternate and don't overlap...) -999 (Talk) 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great if you could start an RfC. Thanks! —Hanuman Das 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have started it, here, but I am not finished. I've only gotten through Mattisse's first two tagging sprees and two sockpuppets. And that's 100s of taggings! Can you say "obsessive"?

Problem is, I edit mostly from work and probably won't be able to finish until Monday. Can you work on it over the weekend once you are unblocked? I hope so. In any case, I'll make a copy in my user space in case it gets deleted. Once listed, we have 48 hours to get at least two endorsements of the problem. That's you and me, so shouldn't be hard, and I haven't listed it yet, but not sure if they might delete it before Monday. Keeping a copy just in case... -999 (Talk) 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do, though you probably won't get the msg till then. —Hanuman Das 02:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth Grant edit

Hi Adityanath. I do admit to being a little green behind the ears here. I feel like I have a decent grasp of the core concepts tho, having read the core policies and standards--altho I could benefit from reading them over a few more times or from getting pointers from more experienced wikipedians such as yourself. The goal is verifiability, not truth--which was why I made the edits that I did, because I felt that the deleted texts didn't cite reliable sources that supported their claims, which is what I understand the verifiability policy to be. And, as an aside, the edits weren't anything close to vandalism--I hope they didn't come across that way. I'm going to put something up on the talk page tomorrow so we can hopefully come to agreement. --Jackhorkheimer 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Yes I did inform you of the mediation [1]. I would suggest that we try to resolve the underlying content dispute on the mediation case rather than persure the RfC. I've been waiting for a response from the mediator User:Geo.plrd on how to proceed with the case. --Salix alba (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Timmy12

I'm extremely peripherally involved -- I just wanted Timmy12 to stop messing with "Athanasian creed"... AnonMoos 12:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for letting me know about this RfC. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Royals on "Work With Me,Annie"

Since the Royals existed for a very short time only and never released anything (that wasn't recalled), do you think it should be a red link?

They were on the original release but Federal Records had to recall it immediately because of legal difficulties with the name. It was re-released under the Midnighters. The Royals had never previously recorded, so the name problem didn't come up before. Would there be a justification to write that up as an article? I will if you think so. Mattisse(talk) 01:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ralph Bass - cleanup tag for using R&B - could you show me where that is stated? & A&R also?

Could you show me where that is stated, since I used it because all articles do, and I did not want this one to look strange. However, I certainly don't mind changing it.

Do you think the same for A&R? Mattisse(talk) 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know Rosencomet was running all those articles and festivals until later

I was wikifying backlogs and didn't get the connection that this was an organized group of articles. And it certainly didn't occur to me that it was run by one man. Do you think that is right for him to have ownership like that? I know I've had my own difficulties with ownership and just had to get over it.

As far as your tagging my articles, I'm glad to get the attention! I get alot of possitive feed back over articles on India, but on nothing else. Perhaps an occasional ethnic peoples, like the Kets get happy.

The blues music people feel I have no business touching their articles, when I know alot about the blues. When I worked on John Lee Hooker and (gentlely) fixed a few errors and added footnotes (tactfully and writing on the talk page nicely) they got very huffy. I worked with one person on Amos Milburn and we had a good time doing it -- but otherwise, they seem to want their articles to languish untouched and uncorrected. Pop stamdards are different. A goup of us finally did Autumn Leave(song) very harmoniously. So thanks! Mattisse(talk) 02:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't? (A&R)

Isn't that why links are clickable? If I wrote out A&R (which I have never seen done in any book) no one would know what I was talking about. Really! Mattisse(talk) 02:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Several replies . . .

The Midnighters are already a redirect to Hank Ballard, and now the Royals too? I hate that (my own personal peeve) because the Midnighters are not Hank Ballard.

Regarding Rosencomet, I am truly offended by the articles. The man himself is fictional. And I believe you know the articles are bad, because I have seen how you edit other articles and you don't put up with that kind of thing anywhere else. Besides, people have tried over and over to reason with the fictional him. And all that reverting to put spam and search engine links in! I don't have words for how I feel about it.

Except for that one spree in August (when I didn't know there was a connection between the articles until it was too late) and then really freaking out (using the sockpuppet -- but part of that was my grandkids doing -- but I was at fault I know for not supervising them better and for being upset so about Wikipedia that they could see I was) -- aside from that, I have not done anything again except recently remove a few obviously spam links. (I think it was eight and you said over a dozen - not true!) Besides, there have been days when you screwed with as many as 39 of the article I wrote. I didn't do anything to you, complain or anything because I don't want to get into thinking that way.

If you look at edit histories of all the articles (not just the ones you chose) there is a good portion of them than all four of you edited. I bet I could put a case together that there are sockpuppets there, using your logic on the RFC. I don't want to spend my time doing that. I like to write artices, not get involved in ugly disputes.

I don't care what happens with the RFC. I'd like to make peace with you. I don't care about the yakety yak person, and 999 just appears to do your bidding. But I can't deal with Rosencomet(fictional). I'm not the one doing anything on those articles for one thing. The second reason is that he just doesn't get it, even when people like Salix aba (or whatever his name is) really met him more than half way.

Are you saying that a personal apology from me would change his behavior? If that is the case, I would consider it. If he(fictional) is persisting in this because of something about me (hard to fanthom) I will apoligize if he will allow his articles to become professional. Mattisse(talk) 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still getting over your location

Texas! Humm. I never would have guessed. So you probably travel up to Ohio and are not exactly dispassionate about Starwood.

Well, since this is an encyclopedia I don't have to understand about paganism or neo-paganism. (I ran across a real one, Carolyonwode or something, who 999 drove off Wikipedia.) Aren't encycopedia articles supposed to be dispassionate and neutral? (Let me check your user page and see if I can get a clue before I proceed.) Humm. I think I thought you were a mathametician in London. I guess I got it all wrong. Well, I already suspected that 999 is from those parts somewhere. So you guys (I'm assuming pretty confidently you both are guys) probably know eachother. And perhaps the fictional Rosencomet too.

Why not bow out and let him take care of himself? Let others less invested clean up his pages. You guys are enabling him and it will harm him in the end at Wikipedia. Why is he persisting in this when in the real world his business seems to be doing fine? I don't understand. Mattisse(talk) 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Independently of me?

Well, actually I never thought of that but I seriously doubt it. They were visiting me, they didn't really like Wikipedia. My grandson, the only one who is technically inclined, was bored with my computer because it couldn't do the things he wants. It's hard for me to believe he has the attention span, even if he had the interest. It never occurred to me. But it would mean he sent me phony emails etc. Seems like I would recognize something. I'm tired. I can hardly think. Do you think if I apologized to Rosencomet(fictional) he would stop "improving" his articles and let the Wikipedia process work? Mattisse(talk) 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

what about 999

Do you know him? Mattisse(talk) 04:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question?

What provoked your asshole message to me that got you blocked? (I was looking at my watchlist just now and remembered.) What put you over the edge? (Not trying to be intrusive, just curious if you don't mind telling me -- I'm still not really understanding this whole thing.) Mattisse(talk) 04:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Explain more. I don't remember that -- unless you are still talking last August. Maybe then. Mattisse(talk) 14:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. 999? Do you know him? Mattisse(talk) 14:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean when I copied yakety yak's edit summary? I only did that a couple of times. Then someone told me her edit summary was incorrect, I believe. (I'm getting mixed up.} And one of them wasn't on a Starwood article. The person emailed me, then 999 invaded his/her talk page, she emailed me back a thankyou and ended up endorsing the RFC unexpectedly. Mattisse(talk) 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just checking them and they weren't all external links. And some of the removals were for links to Amazon.com or other sales or promotion sites. One was for a press release. Do you think you could attempt to look at the whole experience from my perspective? I have be shocked and overwhelmed by all of this. Mattisse(talk) 15:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tagging

You might be right. But consider this:

1. Out of all the tagging I have done, I have had only a handful of bad responses (I can think of only three or four and admins stood behind me on those.) This excludes the Starwood episode, of course.
2. Many admins and editors have said they do the same thing -- they follow a certain chain of articles because one leads to another and end up tagging them all. Mattisse(talk) 15:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The bad responses were all individual cases (except when you guys got involved). I don't think most people know if I've tagged other articles or not. They are only concerned about their own. It's only through you that I have learned that you can follow people around by looking at their contributions, for example. I had never paid attention to all those links on the left -- and I still don't get what useful comes from "Related changes". Mattisse(talk) 16:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tantra Gentlemen's Club

First of all, I am new of Wikipedia.

Second, I have removed external links to the Heading.

Third, I apologise for deleting what I did not know I cannot delete (which I will stop doing). My post is a genuine contribution regardless of your opinion, I HAVE removed what I feel may be construed as advertising. You can edit the external links if you wish. THese clubs are famous clubs.

Tantra Gentlemen's Club

What do you mean there are no articles on strip clubs, I added to existing material found in wikipedia's existing material on strip clubs. I think maybe I agree that the link to External Links on Tantra Gentlemen's Club may be remove but still users should not be deprived of the posted facts? I don't think any of us "owns" this website and I should be allowed some fair comment posting as well. I have re-amended some earlier contributions removing any external links and limiting my contributions to local knowledge of articles. What more do you want?

Stop Picking on me - Hanuman Das. Ref: Tantra Gentlemen's Club

Please reference the below link since you say strip club info are not allowed, it is not true as you said. Stop interfering with the post of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Venus

You are picking on me!

My post on Roppongi highlighting several known famous establishments was deleted. Why? That was factual and not advertising in nature with no reference to external links.

My post in the same highlighting the fact that several of such joints are owned by Asians and Africanns saw amendment AGAIN deleting "Asian and", it is a fact, which obviously YOU are NOT AWARE OF. What give you the academic privillege to delete this?

My re-contribution highlighting Japan's gentlemen's club industry was also deleted by you. It was not advertising in nature at all.

Please stop you unfair interference. This place does not belong to you or me and we are both equally entitled to contribute.

how come?

On List of number-one rhythm and blues hits (United States), how come you let the article get away with DJ (not spelled out) in the beginning? Seems inconsistent to me. (Just trying to hassle you!!*) Mattisse(talk) 18:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

hope you don't mind

I put footnotes on the poor guy's "Mons Venus" article - and then I removed the tag. Hope that's O.K. Mattisse(talk) 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not true!

As that yakety yak person would say, "just Google it". The guy is notable, not just because of the Supreme Court. Really! Celebrities do hang around him -- well, NFL players and an occasional other-type celebrity. If Florida State University made a film about him, he must be notable! And I don't think they did it because of anything to do with the Supreme Court. He has "other" characteristics. Mattisse(talk) 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tantra Kriya and two others

Hi Hanuman Das, I'm not familiar any more with the different deletion tags and reasons. Here are two more that sound an awful lot like Tantra Kriya. What's the appropriate afd tag for Microcosmic orbit and Circulation of Light Meditation ? Thanks, ॐ Priyanath 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't realize they were a legitimate/published technique. Both articles are the same, and should at least be merged with each other. Which is the more accuarte name? Thanks. ॐ Priyanath 17:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignore, as I merged the two to the far more common (Googled) version, Microcosmic orbit. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath 20:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mattisse/Timmy12

Hanuman Das, I can understand your frustration, but I can't sign on to that on either side. I have come to doubt that Timmy12 is actually a sock. Now, if you open an RfC on Timmy12, I'll sign on in an instant. I can't see that that user has made any contibutions to WP. Only tagging and harassment. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the RfC. I hate to admit it, but Ekajati may be right. Mattisse clearly has many allies b/c she has made actual contributions to WP. Though I find the fact that the two have never been on at the same time quite convincing wrt sockpuppetry, clearly others don't get the point. They are signing the outside view simply about the removal of citation links, which is not what it is about at all. Oh, well. -999 (Talk) 17:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Rosencomet

I truly appreciate your defense of my work, and especially your attempts at discussing the issue with Matisse and others. I was interested in your analysis of the name "Rosencomet" (though you missed the Rosey Cross/Rosecrucian pun; anyway, by Robert Anton Wilson's rules, the number of hidden meanings in anything is directly proportional to the cleverness of the reader). Part of the mythos is that the ascending rose represents life (the chaotic/Erisian/disordered, the organic, the anti-entropic, the living universe) rising to meet the descending comet representing the heavens/space (the causal/Anerisian/ordered, the inorganic, the entropic, the clockwork universe), or more accurately, the balance between the two (just as the Discordian Sacred Chao represents the balance between Chaos and Order with its Apple and Pentagram). But it's just a cute symbol, not the focus of a religious group or anything.

As for Matisse, I don't require an apology. I just want to stop having to re-post my work. I truly added the external links because of tags asking for citations, and was assured by several people that that was (as you have said) not only proper but REQUIRED. I only linked to the search engines on the ACE site because I was being criticised for multiple listings to the same page, and I thought that would be an improvement, not open up a whole new criticism. I'd be willing to get rid of a lot of the external links that are simply there to verify that the subject did, indeed, speak or perform at the event in question if I was sure that that fact would not be deleted. The internal link is enough. (By the way, why does he have this big thing about me being "fictional"? Are Salix Aba and 999 really their names? Has he never heard of a pen name? And fictional characters can change the world: Sherlock Holmes, Ulysses, Scrooge, and Captain Kirk did, as well as hundreds of religious deities. What did Samuel Clemmons ever do to match the accomplishments of Mark Twain? Let's not be predjudice against the unreal; some of my best friends...)

I've looked at the various rules that have been quoted, and I can't see any limit on internal links. I also can't find anything on Salix Aba's "third party source" as a requirement, or that I demonstrate a "strong connection to the Neo-Pagan community" just to cite an appearance at Starwood (which features much more than just Pagan speakers & entertainers, anyway), or that an appearance is not notable if the person only did it once. Both Olatunji and Terence McKenna only appeared once, because they passed away shortly after; how does that affect the notability of the appearance? (Both were booked for additional appearances, by the way.)

Anyway, I don't expect you to baby-sit this issue forever. I'd just like to keep the reference to an appearance at these events, since I believe it to be a very real credit worthy of the subjects' articles, and the internal link so the reader can find out what the reference is talking about. If we can find some way to make sure they won't be taken down as uncited (or some other excuse that doesn't seem to apply to other articles), I'd be willing to delete many of the external links. On the other hand, if they ARE required, I'd certainly like to stop having to constantly replace them after Matisse, BostonMA, MaxReg, and Calton delete them. And at least they just delete the external link; Salix Aba deletes the mention entirely!

I'm not trying to direct people to the ACE website, except for the articles on Starwood, WinterStar, and ACE itself (where IMO it's appropriate), but I'd like to keep the links to other related pages of interest within Wikipedia (which I also think is appropriate). And I hope to continue improving the articles with bibliographies, discographies, and whatever else I have time to include that is generally considered to be a real contribution to their encyclopedic value.

Thanks again for all your help. Ad Astra, Rosencomet 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I Don't Think You or your Editor-In-Team knows what a Revert is

That or you are trying to bully a newcomer. I may be new, but I've looked the definition of revert up on Wikipedia. I made some, but I didn't have 4. Regular edits aren't reverts. Quit trying to intimidate me from making posts and you and your editor-in-team should quit reverting and circumventing the 3RR.Rottentomatoe 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Neem Karoli Baba

Prabhu,

Regarding Neem Karoli page .. you are consitently deleting my contributions and in the first paragraph commiting a very noticable grammerical error that I am trying to ammend. You cannot say his early life is not known and then follow it by saying in the next sentence that when he was 11 years old he left home after an arranged marriage .. please leave my corrections. Ram Ram.

Prabhu, I understand your point, however if this is the case then it needs to be clear what is meant by 'early years'. For a man some claimed lived for hundreds of years, age 11 would fall into this category. I'll leave the correction up to you as you are obviously the expert. Please accept by best wishes. Ram, Ram.

you & 999 ganging up on another person

I can see it happening. Wish you wouldn't do that. Mattisse(talk) 03:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

re: gang effort

I did check the history before I sent the message. I saw 999 riding in at the end when he had not been involved before. Looking through those Rosencomet article histories, I learned a lot about how this works. It's unpleasant to watch and now I have to watch because I know about it now. I'm sorry. Mattisse(talk) 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean about posting an article RFC. But editors dropping out I saw on the Rosencomet suite whether it was from fatigue, bulling, harassment, or being blocked I don't know. For me it was the bullying, ugliness and name calling (and a block). I have never seen 999 try to stop a revert war, only aggravate and accelerate them. It did sure help me when othee people showed up and took a look, so that part I understand. Mattisse(talk) 04:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the article RFC link but didn't see the article listed there. I noticed you put on his talk page "Reverting to any previous version of the article is a revert." Yet Rosencomet was advised to do a fourth revert to avoid the 3RR rule. Just because someone is new, you jump on them. As Salix alba said, "Hunting sockpuppets is a horible buissness, its a failure of WP:AGF and destabilises the community." You must have a gentler, kinder side if you are helping your daughter write an article. Mattisse(talk) 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's true that I do not have a lawyer's mentality, if that is what you mean. Mattisse(talk) 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And I see the tradition carries on with Ekajati. Whenever an edit summary starts out with the superior "hmmm" I recognize the method in play. Mattisse(talk) 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Microcosmic orbit

Hare Om Hanuman Das, Thanks for the help with the microcosmic Orbit article. God bless Jzkramer 11:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

personal attack removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzkramer (talk • contribs)

Only humour monsieur, nothing personal.Jzkramer 11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K but can you clarify the necessary changes because your last missive about numbering in footnotes was incomprehensible (to me). thanksJzkramer 11:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ...that is, I didn't enter the numbering in the footnotes.

calvery

Must be nice to be able to call in the calvery for whatever reason, laziness included. I would archive my talk page but I have fogotten how, and being lazy and having no calvery ... well, maybe I'll figure it out later. I have been thinking I should do it. Mattisse(talk) 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. Rottentomatoe 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

UTC

I noticed one of your comments that was mentioned in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse. Specifically this one. Just wanted to mention that London Time is not the same thing as GMT or UTC. In fact GMT and UTC aren't technically the same thing either but that's largely irrelevant. British time aka Western European Time has DST and therefore during summer months, they are UTC+1 (see British Summer Time). Nil Einne 06:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

lost virginity

Congratulations on your first userpage vandalism! Herostratus 00:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also here are your current WP:SERVICE awards, if you want them:

This editor is a Yeoman, and is entitled to display this Yeoman Editor Badge

This editor is a Most Excellent Grognard, and is entitled to display this Wikipedia Vest Pocket Book

• Wow, you've gotten busy. At this rate you'll be Tutnun in a few months. Herostratus 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Magickal terms

At last, someone that can help me on this topic! Thanks! FK0071a 14:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am always right and I appreciate you helping me out on tha tmatter. But, also you sugesting they gfo in alphbetical order and removing the duplicate list entries. Just wanted to say thank you. FK0071a 14:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's hope!

[2] Is it possible that you are secretly a good guy and just got wrought up? (By the way, I am making those changes you suggested -- rhythm and blues before R&B, etc. Mattisse(talk) 14:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf / Steiner

Don't know if you're interested - but Arbitration has been requested. Pete K 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Strip_club Proposal

I replied to your proposal Talk:Strip_club#External_links. Please check it out at your convenience. Thank you. Monkeybreath 07:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes on Wikipedia

OK. I was aiming for consistency -- by using brackets, I assumed it would be clear that something had been added.--Stephen Hodge 14:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute NOT vandalism

How can you even say that what the other users are doing is not vandalism? This the truth what I am putting up. Whatever we are discussing, these people keep reverting. First I posted my thought of the Gautama page, but material kept getting deleted and they poster counter arguments to what I had written. Then I thought to create my own page but even that is being vandalized.

interpretation of original sources

You suggest on the Rudolf Steiner talk page that we should not interpret original sources. To say that Steiner condemned "extreme forms of anti-Semitism" is to do just this; his wording explicitly condemns anti-Semitism in the most general terms. It can only be an editor's interpretation that reads into this a limited condemnation of extreme forms. This is WP:Original Research and POV-pushing.Hgilbert 12:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)