User talk:Lwachowski

Thanks for the explanation re the images. --Renee 03:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Technically wrong
Please discuss the article on the article talk page, not on my talk page, so all the editors can be aware of any issues. Thanks. IPSOS (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Atman Foundation
A template has been added to the article Atman Foundation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. ColdmachineTalk 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ownership issues on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, first warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. IPSOS (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. IPSOS (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

3 revert rule warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. IPSOS (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation
You've just made your 4th revert in 24 hours. You may be able to avoid being blocked by self-reverting. A report will be filed otherwise. Typically, an editor is blocked 24 hr for the 1st violation, 48 for the 2nd etc. I suggest you work to achieve consensus for your changes on the talk page. IPSOS (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Posting on my talk page
I've asked you to communicate on the article talk page. I will not respond to any posts on my talk page, I will simply revert them. IPSOS (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. ugen64 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

History of the Brahma Kumaris movement
A template has been added to the article History of the Brahma Kumaris movement, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. IPSOS (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions
You said, "As I read it, you are yourself a member of a minority religion". I don't know where you pulled that from. Even if it were true it would be immaterial. Please refrain from making assumptions and getting personal. And please stop trying to cut other editors out of the loop by trying to discuss on my talk page. I will not discuss the article on my talk page or your talk page, but only on the article talk page. I'm afraid I must ask you not to post on my talk page again. Thank you. IPSOS (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: History of the Brahma Kumaris movement
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that History of the Brahma Kumaris movement meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/History of the Brahma Kumaris movement. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IPSOS (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

when I am wrong
Boy am I wrong.

You placed a big ol' fat link right at the top of the page and I throuhly jumped to false conclusions.

Mea culpa. Sethie 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NPA
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Your comment, "As Bksimonb correctly discloses of himself, Riveros11 is also a BK follower. Their intention appears to be block the development any of these topic beyond the limitations of the current BKWSU own publicity material." is considered a personal attack since it is, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme", and also, "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor."

Please refrain from making these type of comments. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 07:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.


 * Your comment on my talk page, "It is good to see that the Brahma Kumari followers all work so closely and you take care of their interests. I must flag up the disingenuous use of policy in an attempt to suppress, discredit and intimidate other editors here.", is yet more of the same. Kindly stop it immediately. Regards Bksimonb 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is your last warning. 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.


 * Your comment on the BKWSU article talk page, "What ever turns you on, Simon, the world is watching you.", is a taunt and is considered to be a more serious example of incivility.


 * You also continue to discredit editors based on their affiliation, "...the BKWSU editors who could actually provide references have instead progressed their own POV by placing citation requests or just plainly removing material altogether.


 * This is your final warning. Regards Bksimonb 11:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

STOP POSTING ON MY TALK PAGE
I've asked you repeatedly not to post about the article on my talk page but rather on the article talk page. It seems you intentionally want to leave all the other editors out of the loop.

I am now asking you not to post on my talk page at all. I will consider any further posts on my talk page to be harassment and will report them as such. IPSOS (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion and suggestions
You seem to be a bit confused about how Wikipedia works. I don't have to study the materials to help referee a content dispute. If another editor objects to what you've written, they may request that you provide a quote. That quote must support what you've written. If it doesn't, then you either need to provide a better quote, or rephrase what you've written so that it is supported by the reference.

For a better idea of these processes, please read about verifiability (and note that any editor may remove unverifiable material at any time), reliable sources, original research, and consensus. You might also want to read about Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. In fact, I'd suggest that you begin to pursue some form of formal mediation, where a mediator can make sure that the concerns of both sides of the dispute are addressed. GlassFET 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I've read the talk page. The concerns of the other editors seem to me to be legitimate, and you do not appear to have addressed them in any substantive way. My suggestion would be to take one of your changes and open a discussion about it. Simply asserting that you are right and the other editors are wrong does not qualify as "discussion" in my book. GlassFET 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop Vandalism and Work on Consensus
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked. Editing with consensus is welcome and encouraged. It seems unreasonable to suddenly go back more than two months and want to revert to a version way back then when numerous edits have been made since then. Please work with other editors to make changes. I think people will be more responsive if you suggest changes in small chunks (it's easier to understand). Thank you. Renee 12:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule reminder
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Unless you have patience, and discuss your proposed changes one at a time on the talk page and obtain consensus for the change, you aren't going to get very far on Wikipedia. It's quite possible that some of your change have merit, but unless you use the correct process, they are lost among the massive amount of changes you are making all at once. IPSOS (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked
This account has been blocked for being a violation of our user name policies, and is inactive as the user currently uses another account anyway. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 12:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)