Doughnutgirl

Welcome

Hello, Doughnutgirl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Akerans (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

You have received these suggestions because we are currently running a study to see if SuggestBot is helpful for newly registered Wikipedia editors. Normally SuggestBot only makes suggestions for users who ask for them explicitly on the SuggestBot request page. We will not post suggestions on your talk page again unless you ask for them. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find a complete consent form with contact information on the SuggestBot Study page.

Stubs Melam Pichavaram Tiruchirapalli Central Prison Ram Jethmalani Dalmiapuram Youth Leagues Tiruchirapalli taluk Edward Harper Pangayarselvi Rockfort Express Shri Angalamman College of Engineering and Technology Kiribath Nautanki Chloroxylon Swami Prabhavananda Regional autonomy Member state Prasanna Vithanage Materialization (paranormal)

Cleanup Initiatives to prevent sexual violence Life imprisonment (Sweden) Kayalpatnam Merge Viparita Karani Southern Railway Zone (India) Malnutrition in India Add Sources Estimates of sexual violence Swami Ashokananda Ramco Systems Wikify Malvoy False accusation of rape Deccan thorn scrub forests Expand Index of India-related articles Scott Williams (serial killer) Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

SuggestBot picks the articles you might be interested in based on the articles you've edited and using a number of different techniques: following links from them to other articles, matching articles based on their content, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedia users. It tries to recommend only articles that others have marked as needing work, such as stub articles that need to be made longer, clean-up articles that need writing help, and so on. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you choose to participate we encourage you to leave feedback on these suggestions, which you can most easily do here by editing your user talk page. We'll stop by later to read them.

Regards, Nettrom (talk), project researcher and SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilson J Wall (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wilson J Wall and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Doughnutgirl, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 13:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Swami Premananda (guru)  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You are being discussed on a noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding some of your edits that have been considered disruptive. The thread is Whitewashing of Swami Premananda (guru) article.The discussion is about the topic Swami Premananda (guru). Thank you. Kenfyre (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Doughnutgirl. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Every one of your edits to date has been about Swami Premananda (guru). I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Doughnutgirl. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Swami Premananda, his ashram, or any of its affiliates? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

copying note left on my talk page here, to keep the thread together Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. Thank you for your comments and queries. You have noted that thus far I have been solely interested in editing the page on Swami Premananda.I'd just like to say that I intend to branch out and have a go at editing some other topics soon. You ask whether I have any connection with Swami Premananda.Before I answer that question,I would like to discuss some issues concerning the neutrality of other editors of the page in question.I am just as concerned as you are in seeking to uphold objectivity in Wikipedia.To my mind, truth is of paramount importance and must be upheld whether or not we ourselves like that truth or not. Wikipedia should be a platform on which to spread facts,not distortions, half-truths and overt lies. I feel that other editors of this page (Kenfyre,for example) have a strong bias which prevents them from accepting or tolerating objective, factual statements on the Swami Premananda page.I would therefore like to formally request that if these individuals do have any affiliations with the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations and/or any of its sub-divisions or affilated organisations, that they declare their position truthfully. What's sauce for the goose must also be sauce for the gander,as they say.Doughnutgirl (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies; we can talk about other editors at another time as this is a discussion about your relationships. Would you please answer the question? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I met Swamiji in UK in 1984 and in India in 2010, and arrived at his ashram at the very time of his death under highly suspicious circumstances in 2011.Doughnutgirl (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on point. Do you actually work in the ashram (said simply, does it provide your room and board and spending money)? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, not at all. Sorry,I should have made a clearer statement.I was just visiting the ashram in 2011.I don't live there or work there. Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. So you are a follower, then? Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes.Doughnutgirl (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, so this is a little complicated. Generally speaking, we draw distinctions in Wikipedia between "conflict of interest" (working on an article about your employer, or being a freelancer and editing Wikipedia articles for pay, for example), and what we call "advocacy" (say someone is is a vegetarian and believes that eating meat is evil and comes to Wikipedia to write about how great vegetarianism is, and all the ways eating meat is really, really bad). COI is a subset of advocacy; all advocates, whether they have a COI or not, tend to violate the WP:PROMO and NPOV policies because of some strong commitment they have to something in the real world. Sometimes this is on purpose, but most often it is not so much on purpose, but just the way the person sees the world. Where does being a follower of a swami fit in, within the field of advocacy? Pretty darn close I think to being a clearly definable external "interest" that creates a conflict with the obligation to following community policies and guidelines, here in Wikipedia. Do you understand what I'm talking about here, and see what I mean? In my view, we (including you) should maybe consider that you have a COI. What that would mean, is that we would ask you not to understand that you bring a very strong belief with you into Wikipedia, and that instead of editing content about Swami Premananda directly, you would offer up content on the Talk page of the relevant article for others to "peer review". Would you be willing to do that? Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from,Jytdog, and I understand that within the context of Wikipedia,what you are suggesting sounds rational.However,please take into consideration these ideas:I have refrained from removing quite a bit of content which I personally disagree with. I have attempted to use sources which are not connected with the ashram as much as possible. Share International has no formal connection with the Premananda ashram - I'm not a follower of Share, but it seemed to me to be reasonable to use their material because of the lack of affiliation. As far as bringing strong beliefs into Wikipedia goes, this is exactly the bone of contention I have -if one could call it contention - with the rationalists in sheep's clothing who keep editing out stuff that is demonstrably true, such as the bits about Wilson J Wall, a genetics expert of over 30 years standing, whose job is to be an expert witness in various court cases! It does nothing to further the upholding of neutrality if people who - I assert- appear be members of fanatical and violent rationalist groups are allowed to run amok,deleting demonstrable facts from the Swami Premananda page because it does not suit their particular mind-set to be told that the Indian DNA tests were erroneous and that the Swami was therefore innocent of rape. The thing is,I feel that if I am relegated to the sidelines on this page, they will just make mincemeat of me.What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughnutgirl (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Please indent and sign. Please. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You are trying to draw me into content, and I am very unwilling to get into the content dispute while I am working on these COI/advocacy issues. Things get incredibly messy if I do that. The key thing is that all the relevant players each agree to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you will take some time to understand how this place actually works (and I can provide you an overview), you will find that you if you base your arguments solidly on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - if you let our mission, policies, and guidelines guide what you do while you are here editing -- which includes really listening to what other people say, and what all the reliable sources say - you can be pretty effective on the Talk page. So will you agree to follow the COI guideline? If you don't think that is reasonable, then we can take this to the community at COIN, or perhaps better at the open ANI. It is a pretty interesting question. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

btw, if you happen to know the editor "Rishi Mano" in the real world, would you please ask them to come to join the discussion? It would be good to deal with all this together. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I will think about it, Jytdog.

I don't know who Rishi Mano is.Doughnutgirl (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! We can wait til you are done thinking - no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog,can you tell me what prompted you to contact me about potential COI in the first place?Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The ANI that was filed. That led me to look at the editing history of the three parties involved. Your editing has been focused on one article and your edits have all been focused on removing negative information and adding positive information. This is a common behavior of advocates; advocates often have a COI. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)