User talk:Aarvotucker

April 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John de Ruiter. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You were undone the first time you removed this sourced material. Per WP:BRD you should raise the issue on the talk page before attempting to remove it again. This is clearly not a minor edit, as you claimed the first time, and your suggestion that this is not in the correct place in the article is a reason to move it, not to delete it. Take this to the article's talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

I do not see the edit as disruptive - the edits were to eliminate irrelevant exposition that was clearly motivated by a negative attitude, and not on neutral description. In the `teachings' section, over half of the content was given over to a sociological analysis that was not directly related to the teachings of John de Ruiter. Looking at the wikipedia pages of other spiritual teachers, the focus is on their life and teachings - not on a sociological analysis. Some examples for reference are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Long, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._W._L._Poonja, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooji.

As well, I have not seen any claim by John de Ruiter to be within the nondualist tradition, which was another edit by, I believe, the same editor, Richard Gooi. --Aarvotucker (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Read my posting above. Your deletion of this sourced material was already undone once. Removing it again with the edit summary "The paragraph did not belong under the heading 'Teachings' " is not appropriate. If you think it should be removed then discuss it on the talk page and try to get consensus. If you think it is in the wrong place then move it. Removing it with a misleading edit summary just makes it look like you are trying to sneak in a deletion that has already been contested. Meters (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)