User talk:2601:645:8085:84C0:94FB:A179:1E59:D088

Your editing on International Day of Yoga
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your intention to improve the coverage of Yoga.

I have however so far been unable to understand your intentions for International Day of Yoga, and in your subsequent edits to other articles.

You began by removing a reliably-cited sentence, one of several which was based on the Associated Press report of 2015 which described the first International Day of Yoga. That actually did two things: it removed the truthfully-reported claim that some people in India were doubtful about the spending of money on such an event; and it left some other material uncited. I hope you'll agree that the second of these was certainly a mistake on your part.

Now, why would you object to the reporting of people's doubts about the money? It was part of a neutral coverage, both in the AP report and in the article; nobody thinks the doubts were not expressed; the matter is certainly relevant to the article. As such, your removing it could be a) a mistake; b) editing for a political opinion, e.g. partisan Hindu views WP:NPOV; or c) vandalism. If it was (b) or (c) then I should revert the edit and issue a stern formal warning that you could be blocked from editing. If it was (a) then you would have left it alone, or apologised: but you repeated the edit, so (a) is apparently excluded.

Further, your edit had the comment "Cultural appropriation of yoga", a topic which I have studied in some detail: but there is no visible connection between that topic and your edit.

Worse, your second, WP:EDITWARring edit (another thing forbidden here on Wikipedia), not only repeated the first edit, but added the edit comment "Removal of irrelevantly cited texts under deceptive-seeming and irrelevant undo comment." This has two parts: i) "irrelevantly cited texts"; and ii) the seemingly deliberate echoing of my original edit comment. I made the comment to explain that your edit and its justifying comment seemed (and still seem) to have nothing to do with each other. Your repeating my comment looks like aggression (battlefield mentality, also forbidden here on Wikipedia) and is certainly inappropriate, if not intentionally insulting. Claim (i) on the other hand is that the material was wrongly-cited (it isn't), or perhaps that the citation was correct (it is) but that the material was irrelevant to the article (it isn't). I'm therefore still at a loss to know what you find unacceptable about the claim.

As if all that wasn't enough, you have compounded the problem by making edits to several other yoga articles, all of them requiring reversion. On Utthita Parshvakonasana you removed a true statement about the pose's history commenting "Removed irrelevant and disingenuous-seeming sentence." Well, no, it was directly relevant to the article; and I'm at a loss to imagine why history would be "disingenuous": the only plausible explanation is that you edited out of anger or spite, not liking your first edit being reverted, and decided to do some damage to other yoga articles, making edit comments that parodied my original edit comment on IDoY? If that's your thinking, your editing career here will be brief indeed.

On Postural yoga in India you removed a (correct) detail from an image caption with the edit comment "Removed blatant insertion of irrelevant and deceptive-seeming self-promotion". Since the material was directly relevant to the article, and certainly not deceptive or self-promotional (I hardly think The Beatles dropped by to edit), again it looks as if you made the edit out of anger or spite, obviously inappropriate behaviour.

On Sexual abuse by yoga gurus, you added a genuine citation to The New York Times, thank you, this was evidently constructive; but unfortunately you added the names of several people who were certainly not Modern yoga gurus, defined as people who are widely acknowledged in multiple reliable sources as being "yoga gurus" (the exact phrase). Far more people have committed sexual abuse and may also practise yoga than are sexually-abusing-yoga-gurus. So, I thank you for the constructive intention but note that the edit was partly misplaced, not relevant to the article.

All in all, quite a complex picture. But for the last item, everything you've done could be construed as vandalism or edit-warring, and would rapidly lead to escalating warnings and a probable block from editing. However the last item implies you have good intentions, so perhaps you made one doubtful edit (we all do that from time to time), became overheated at being reverted, made some foolish edits, and then calmed down enough to begin editing constructively? I don't know, obviously. If that's the story, then please don't repeat it. If you want to work constructively, there is much to be done, so I'll repeat my first statement: Welcome to Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)