User talk:John974

Your "repeated sentences" were the ones that I had moved to the criticisms area. Attacks on Eckankar by Akatha members are unseemly and belong under Criticisms. Please allow readers to see the facts about Eckankar beliefs and to read the criticisms as criticisms. I will be moving the Akatha stuff back where it belongs. --Sarunfeldt (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Eckankar, not Akatha. Akatha criticisms belong in the section on criticisms not in the sections on Eckankar beliefs. People come to this page looking for information on what Eckists believe and that content should be presented as is.

Why don't you create an Akatha Wikipedia page and put all of your Eckankar attacks there? In the meantime, I have put all of your attacks on Eckankar under the appropriate Criticisms section. --Sarunfeldt (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia
I notice that you are a comparatively new editor. There are a few basic rules of conduct and content around here which have been summarized by others, generally better at that sort of thing than me, in the following template:

Hello, John974, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I believe it would very likely be in your own best interests to review the material in the template, and the links (in blue) to some of our guidelines here. New religious movements in general tend to be among the more controversial material we have around here, and material regarding which emotions can override logic and reason. From what I've seen, there has been a rather contentious dispute regarding content in the Eckankar article. I am one of the old hands around here (and have the greying hair to prove it) and I would be more than willing to help resolve disputes regarding content and other matters regarding this and related articles. I think it would be in the best interests of everyone if instead of making changes in the article itself, those involved in the dispute started talking to each other on the talk page and indicating what changes they would like to make. That sort of activity is most likely to also bring in input from others, who might be a bit more knowledgable about policies and guidelines, and might help prevent the dispute from escalating to a point few if any involved would like it to rise to.

If you have any questions, including maybe requests for any information on this or other topics that you might not be able to get ahold of yourself, you can always e-mail me by going to my user page and opening the "Toolbox" on the left side of the page (generally) and using the "e-mail this user" function. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Eckankar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edits at Eckankar
You are not only removing "contentious" edits (which are still following policy anyway), but are wasting my time by removing edits in which I'm simply cleaning up footnote formatting and other general housekeeping. First off, you should be more discriminate in your edits than just reflexively reverting everything. Secondly, the material I'm removing is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If this "Akantha" group and its dispute with Eckankar are Notable, then add proper sourcing verifying that, like mention in media or academics. If nobody outside Akantha has bothered to document Akantha's objection, then Wiki should not be the first place to take interest in it. The article had far too many links to claimed offshoot groups, of zero proven Notability.

Frankly, the article should only have things uninvolved readers would care about and which can be documented to reliable sources. The material I've removed is thus far not proven to be either. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of blocking you, I will add the following. Take heed.
 * Reliable sources and Verifiability require that we use reliable and verifiable sources independent of the subject. That is not the case with the material you kept trying to restore.
 * Read and comprehend Bold, revert, discuss cycle or WP:BRD for short. It isn't a policy, but it is a widely recognized best practice. If someone reverts you, take it to the talk page.
 * Now that you know about WP:BRD, bear in mind that you don't need to exceed three reverts in a 24 hour period to be blocked for Edit warring.
 * Since you are relatively new and unaware of how we do things on Wikipedia, I will close the 3RR case opened against you for now, and leave you to read the links I mentioned above. Consider yourself warned. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)