User talk:Sfacets/a3

Adi Da Rfc
Please have a look. thanks in advance! -Comesincolors 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You left the comment "where" and reverted, 2nd time you have done this ,perhaps you should take a bit more time to "look" --202.63.42.221 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I came, I saw... nothing. Perhaps if is the second time I reverted you could take the time to show me... S facets 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your perceptive and helpful contributions during this RfC. Still a lot of work to do, but it's moving in a better direction.  BTW, User 202.63.42.221 explained his block deletions (with which I agreed) here.  Comesincolors 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

notability - ISKCON articles
Hi Sfacets. Can you please clarify what you want with the ISKCON articles in regards to notability. "Notability?" doesn't give me much idea exactly what needs to be improved. Thanks Chopper Dave 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Demonoid
The reason I removed the section is due to the citing of unreliable sources, you say there are sources, I say they are unreliable sources. Also the section is messy and pure speculation, could you please, if you are going to repost the section, rewrite it as it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for an article. Its a very messy section and very difficult to follow ScorpO 01:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for editing. ScorpO 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mother teresa
Hi - My edit of mother Teresa’s article was not an experiment. I just felt that the mention about her exorcism was a insignificant and un-encyclopedic detail and was very much against the ideas conveyed by that section.

In re: demonoid
The Supreme Court of Canada (the highest court in the land) has ruled that peer to peer exchanges are legal under current Canadian law. Please leave that in. This Demonoid thing is still working it's way out. CRIA did not send a letter. They did not hire a lawyer to send a letter to Demonoid. There has been no case put before a court of law. This whole thing appears to be the figment of Deimos' imagination. He will not produce the alleged letter. As a result there is a lot of speculation as to what is going on. By the way, I am a Canadian citizen and as a result probably know more about Canadian law than you, sir. That was not meant as a slam at you. Please don't take it that way. While I am not a lawyer, I am an advocate, working with the poor and as a result the law is of vital interest to me, in my chosen path. If you want to know the exact case number and date of the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling, please give me a few days to research this. I read it some time ago and cannot bring it immediately to mind. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.131.28 (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

in re:Demonoid
The Judge in this case, in the Federal Court of Canada, was Judge Konrad von Finckenstein His ruling came down in March, 2004. I believe it was the 31st. Peer to peer exchanges are legal in Canada. Deimos appears to be pulling a funny. Either that or he is the victim of a very bad joke. If he released his alleged letter it might clear a few things up. But at this late date any letter that is released should be viewed with suspicion. Anything can be created these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.131.28 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Isps gate.jpg
Please see the question for you at Image talk:Isps gate.jpg. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please respect the 3RR rule. If you don't undo your last revert you may be blocked for a violation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Charismatic religious leaders
Hi. Why are you adding this category to articles on political or social leaders? The sourcing you're providing is only valid for items under the subsection In religions and new religious movements. None of the figures from the 'in politics' list belong in this category. -- Vary | Talk 04:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The category is called "Charismatic religious leaders." The list you're referring to includes both religious and political figures.  Only the religious leaders belong in that category.  -- Vary | Talk 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That would only be true if they were under the religious leaders section of that list.  Okay, let's try this:  we have a source for Clinton et al being charismatic.  Please discuss and provide a source to justify moving them to the 'religious leaders' section of the list before re-adding the category.  -- Vary | Talk 04:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no problem. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 04:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_charismatic_leaders_as_defined_by_Max_Weber%27s_classification_of_authority
Please reply there. Andries 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007
The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You Blocked me
I understand that I added too many link on Malkit Singh Page but they were accurate links, all my other edits included external links and biographies please fix that, There was no spam in links I added.

Image:Isps gate.jpg
No way. I'm with Will on this one, and I'm tempted to block you for remorselessly BS'ing the community. It's situations like this that make it difficult to assume good faith. Fortunately, others are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. -- But | seriously | folks   07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is a simple matter, but when people do things like what you have done, it complicates it. You claim you made a mistake, but your story is just not believable.  You uploaded the image almost two years ago.  Less than four weeks ago, you were still insisting that it was yours.  Suddenly, after your attempt to revoke the license was rejected, you come up with the story that it isn't your photo.  I suppose it is remotely possible that you have an IQ low enough that you do not know your photographs from someone else's, but I think it's more likely you are trying to deceive the community so you can take your ball and go home.  AGF does not require us accept another editor's position when it doesn't pass the smell test, and this positively reeks.  If you want, I will list the image for deletion and you can comment on it there, but if I were you, I would let it go instead of bringing it to more people's attention.  It's not making you look particularly trustworthy. --  But | seriously | folks   07:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Thanks. S facets 07:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left more information on the history of image license problems on Image talk:Isps gate.jpg. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Isps_gate.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Isps_gate.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  But | seriously | folks   08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You have marked the contents as advertising
Sfacets, Can you clarify which of the facts are advertising?

Looks like this is just a cheapskate attempt by you to bring down an organization, especially because you seem to be affiliated with a different organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narenms (talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please help!!
-I will provide references to all the courses etc, which are not from art of living. However,90% of the criticism section is not factual. I dont waant non factual rants in that section.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narenms (talk • contribs) 05:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have added MSNBC and Fox News links to Courses page
Can you please now remove the advertising tag. This is now a factual page (of other than the criticism rants, which are unwarranted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narenms (talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the advertising tag
Thanks for the other feedback. Most of the information is neutral now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narenms (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I have removed the advertising tag as all of the contents have been made neutral now. Thanks again for pointing out the errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narenms (talk • contribs) 06:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nirmala1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nirmala1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonestown
This was not a vandalism revert. Please do not misuse the term vandalism in your edit summaries. This is a content dispute, it happens all the time, and it can best be addressed by civil discussion on the article's talk page. Please do this in future; calling another good-faith editor a vandal will never help the situation and will almost always make it worse. --John 20:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was Vandalism, the user his continuing in his/her pattern of editing (large edits) and not discussing. He had previously been warned two times. S facets 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, actually it was not vandalism but a content dispute. See the policy: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism." As I said, please do not misuse the term vandalism or vandalism warnings when involved in a content dispute. Instead take it to talk and discuss civilly there, please. --John 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am constanly disussing changes on discussion pages. Someone you will not find discussing changes is Lonewolf BC, despite multiple requests to do so on other articles (no heed taken). Because the edits he makes are not minor ones, it highly inconveniences other editors who have been discussing the issue at length on article discussion pages. This is highly disruptive behaviour, and the warning (perhaps a bit harsh) was intended to notify the user to this issue, since apparently simple requests mean nothing. S facets 20:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is only a content dispute if both parties dispute - so far I dispute, LoneWolf makes changes without having the civility to discuss his edits. Disruptive edits are vandalism. Making edits withut discussing them is disruptive.

Perhaps I should follow policy and deal with it differently though. S facets  07:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice about abuse of warnings, and a 3RR warning
Please bear in mind that a) Vandalism does not apply to content disputes. b) Giving illegitimate vandalism warnings is uncivil. Please cease with and desist from doing that. c) Abuse of Twinkle (e.g. using it to issue illegitimate warnings) is cause for blocking. Also, you are on the brink of breaking the 3-revert rule on "Destructive Cults". I've given my reasons for the edits you dispute, there, by edit-summary. They are quite straightforward, not needing explanation at length on the talk-page.  If you have a rationale for including the tag, or those 3 words, please use the talk-page to explain it.  As far as I can see the one is just clutter and the other is either mere verbosity or else verbosity meant to imply doubt (i.e. "weaseling"). -- Lonewolf BC 07:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm "watching" this page, temporarily, so you can reply here if you've anything to say in answer. -- Lonewolf BC 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike you, I will be civil, and not remove your warning. in fact I will thank you for it. As far as I can tell, the warnings I gave were valid, and also reverting vandalism edits doesn't count towards the three reverts. If there is a content dispute between editors (as in between Will Beback and I) then it s only common courtesy for a third editor to acknowledge the arguments and join the discussion with new arguments.

Of course I mean to imply doubt! The "clutter" is not "weaseling" (≠imply doubt) but insuring that neutrality is preserved. Can you provide a source backing up what you are writing down as factual information?

I would once again request that you participate in discussions, since disruptive editing (see note above) is very uncivil. S facets 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the warnings you gave were not valid, as has been explained to you by two people now (one of them being me). For your own sake, take our word for it.  I always erase such nonsense from my talkpage, and make no apology for it.  Doing so is not uncivil.  Posting such abusive material on someone's talk-page is uncivil. -- Lonewolf BC 08:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you explain removing the other content?  S facets  08:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What other content do you mean? -- Lonewolf BC 08:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * , ::::. Were these to "abusive" for you? Please see them as a mark of my frustration after days and countless requests for you to enter discussions, which you steadfastly ignored.  S facets  08:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted them because they're nonsense. (And yes, bothering me further about my erasing an illegitimate "warning", after the illegitimacy of such "warnings" had already been explained to you, is an abuse of the talkpage.) -- Lonewolf BC 08:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image licenses
Based on your assertion of incorrectly licensing Image:Isps gate.jpg, and on previous questions concerning Image:Womanconference1995.jpg, Image:PetrovskyAward.jpg, and Image:Nirmala1.jpg, I am removing the licenses that claim self-creation.The affected images are: If you can provide positive proof that you created the images, such as drafts of drawings, significantly higher resolution versions, other photos from the same photo session, etc, that have never been posted on the Internet or in SY publications, then we can restore the licenses. Otherwise the images will be deleted per normal procedures. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Vishwango.jpg
 * Image:Vndlogo.gif
 * Image:Subtlesys.gif
 * Image:Nbhkti.jpg
 * Image:Headchakras.gif
 * Image:Headchakras.jpg
 * Image:Isps1.jpg
 * Image:Isps2.jpg
 * Image:Isps3.jpg
 * Image:Kuchipudi diwali.jpg
 * Image:Narasim.jpg
 * Image:Chakras hand.gif

Don't you think you have COI in this? S facets 21:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the doubt you might have regarding media found on other pages of the net - fine, but for others - you are going to have to prove that I didn't create them. Can you find any copies on the web? Can you ascertain that they are not created by me? S facets 23:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof rests with whoever is making the positive assertion. You assert that you created these images. You've also asserted that you haev made mistakes in licensing. Therefore proof is required that you didn't make the same mistakes in these images. I've asked you repeatedly what year you made the photograph Image:Nirmala1.jpg. When did you make the photos Image:Womanconference1995.jpg abd Image:PetrovskyAward.jpg? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about those images? No. If I know I made a mistake-then it makes sense that I know which license to use. I need to show you no evidence that I created the images, especially those which have not been copied and used on other websites. S facets 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you unable to answer basic questions about images you've uploaded? Some of these images are indeed used on other websites and publicatoins, which is why I'm requesting you to establish that you are the correct owner. Also, regarding Image:Vndlogo.gif please see the text of the "fair-use:logo".
 * This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded.
 * You haven't povided a source or a rationale. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have selective reading? I have already said that some of the images are found elsewhere. S facets 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did you find the logo or other images? You must provide a source, copyright info, and a rationale for fair use images. Regarding the rest, are you still unable to answer basic questions about images you claim to have created? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are discussing images already previously discussed. The discussion regarding those images is over. S facets 02:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What was your final decision on Image:Womanconference1995.jpg, Image:PetrovskyAward.jpg, and Image:Nirmala1.jpg? Did you take those pictures or are they additional examples of mistaken licenses? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to flog a dead horse? Those images no longer exist on the servers. S facets 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, you repeatedly insisted that you had created those images personally. I found that implausible then and I still find it unbelievable. You have a history of uploading images with dubious claims of ownership, and of giving conflicting answers about them. If you wonder why your current claims are not trusted then the "dead horse" lying around are the reason. Can you please give a straight answer about whether or not you created Image:Womanconference1995.jpg, Image:PetrovskyAward.jpg, and Image:Nirmala1.jpg and whether the licenses you applied to them are correct? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is over. S facets 22:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will you particiapte in a disucsison on IfD if I start one there? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you discuss?  S facets  23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The deletion of images that have licenses claiming they were created by user:Sfacets. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, go for it. S facets 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here. I am still looking for other images. S facets 04:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism tools
It is a violation of policy to use vandalism fixing tools to revert good faith edits. Vandalism is defined in WP:VANDAL. If you keep using such tools in edit conflicts I'll ask that your access to the tools be restricted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't know the context in which I used the warnings - I have justified them above. S facets 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The text of WP:VANDAL says:
 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. 
 * There is no way that the edit in question counts as vandalism. See also Avoid the word "vandal". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As usual you poke your nose where it doesn't belong, and long after it matters. S facets 07:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Images
Hi, I tagged several of your images for review as possibly unfree. If you need a list, all the notice tags are in this page's history. (I removed them so as not to clutter up your talk page.) --  But | seriously | folks   20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see http://www.sfacets.com/SY/images/ (I had already posted this link above for Will Beback) - the link contains images I want to see retained, don't really mind about the others. S facets 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete the tags - Make your case at []. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

COI Issue
I'd like to take you up on your offer to assist in COI issues. I have a bias in the subject, so I don't know if that disqualifies me as an "uninterested party". I believe you made a small edit on the Fellowship of Friends page, and you also tried to have it deleted from the list of cults article. Anyway, if you are interested and have the time, would you take a look at COIN and let me know what you think. The article is blocked and one editor has created a draft (I think it's the third or fourth) and we are about to enter out third mediation. This is separate from the COI issues. Your comments on COI or the article would be welcome. Thank you. --Moon Rising 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi - I was wondering if you have not responded because you are too busy to take a look at this, or if you have decided not to get involved. Or do you just work on COI issues regarding Sahaja Yoga? Many thanks. --Moon Rising 01:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Moonrising, perhaps a Request for comment would be pertinent, and bring in a range of opinions from outside editors, as well as setting up a good discussion space. Like JoshuaZ above, I am not sure what the exact situation here is - and am not familiar enough with the group to comment at this point, however should an RFC be started I will follow the proceedings and weigh in if you'd like.  S facets  09:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

3rr reminder
You've broken the 3-revert rule on List of groups referred to as cults. Please self-revert. Otherwise, your violation will be reported, and you may be blocked from editing as a consequence. -- Lonewolf BC 07:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted my edit - please comment on the discussion page.  S facets  07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please just read the passage in context.  The auther is not saying that Christianity is a cult.  He's not even saying that early Christianity was a cult, back in the day (though neither is he saying that it wasn't).  He's saying that back in Roman times, early Christianity was seen as a cult, and falsely accused of sundry abominations. -- Lonewolf BC 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, however the article is "list of groups referred to as cults" - clearly here Chrisitanity is referred to as a cult: "That's the cult we know today as the Christian church". S facets 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

New cat

 * Category:Christian countercult movement - A good idea, more categorization and organization is almost always a good thing. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
 * I think that Sfacets misunderstands the concepts and labels too many writers as Christian Countercultists. Putting J. Gordon Melton in the category is, I think, misguided. Andries 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Melton opposes Christian counter cult writings. Talk:J._Gordon_MeltonAndries 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What I think is typical of Christian countercult writings is highlichting doctrinal differences with mainstream Christianity. Neither Jan van der Lans nor J. Gordon Melton show much of this in their writings if they show this at all. Andries 12:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not,, but couldn't Melton still be relevant enough to appear as "part" of the so-called "Christian counter-cult" movement (by being against what he sees as a "counter-cult movement"), even if he is relevant moreso to the Cult apologist view/methodology than the Opposition to cults and new religious movements school of thought? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Okay, I'm done here, I'll save further convo for the related pages themselves., respect and understand your feelings and motivations behind some of what you are doing related to classifying certain terminologies and the like, but at times others may feel this gets to be a bit much.  Good luck to all of you.  Later, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

The Joy of Sect
You requested a quote for which cults the episode is based on, but it's really not possible because they are all mentioned in seperate parts of the commentary. Certain things are based on certain cults, ie. the way Homer is "brainwashed" is based on the Moonies methods and so on and so forth. -- Scorpion0422 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories
Please decide whether the article "Cult" or the category that it belongs to, "category:Cults", belongs in "category:Pejoratives". But both the article and the category don't need to be in the same category. Also, you should be aware that there is no source in ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editing articles to prove a point - this is disruptive. There is nothing to say that they cannot be in the same category. Also see recently added refs. S facets 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You and Sahaja Yoga
This talk page is for discussing edits. Please insure it stays that way. S facets 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Message from Will Beback

 * You've been reverting a lot today. I suggest you check your edits and undo any that would put you over the 3RR limit. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see where i would have gone over, if you can point it out I will revert. S facets 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start assembling these into a 3RR submission. If they've all been undone before it's posted then there won;t be a problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168243830&oldid=168242599
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168342306&oldid=168341772
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168343793&oldid=168343626
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168348799&oldid=168347210
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168349820&oldid=168349558
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168352127&oldid=168351507
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168353022&oldid=168352607
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168425880&oldid=168368783
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168434670&oldid=168431779
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=168435167&oldid=168435023

Ok, I will revert temporarily - meanwhile I would appreciate it if Simon would discuss his edits on the discussion page. S facets 04:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you gave me a lot of time to revert. Let me know if in my haste I missed anything. Cheers. S facets 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can explain it on the 3RR page. Also, you are complaining about Simon not discussing edits on the talk page, but you've deleted material repeatedly without discussion. Please follow your own advice. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne Meetup
Hello! The Melburnians are having another meet-up! Please consult this page if you are interested to participate in the discussion! Thanks! Phgao 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A plea
Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. I would like to point out to you that in the future, if you list an article up for AFD or CSD, please inform the editor who created the respective article. For example, the Mrinalini Mata article was created by me way back in January 2006 and I am surprised that you did not inform me that you are putting this article in AFD. Next time, I hope that you will inform the respective editor about this. I hope you understand and thank you for your kind attention on this matter. (And by the way. I disagree with your statement that this subject is not notable). -- S iva1979 Talk to me 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reply in my talkpage. Thanks! -- S iva1979 Talk to me 09:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You appear to be reverting more than allowed again. I suggest you re-read the relevant policy, WP:3RR. I further suggest you practice 1RR for a while. Edit warring is not helpful. Don't expect more warnings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted nonconstructive edits which I consider vandalism. Could you point out where I went over three reverts? I agree with you, edit warring isn't helpful - which is why I was requesting that Simon use the discussion page to sort things out. If you point out where I went over I will self-rvert and wait for Simon's input and 24h. S facets 11:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't need me to point them out to you. None of the edits to SY are vandalism. WP:VANDAL.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see where I reverted more than 3 times. Simon the "inserted nonsense into articles" - Vandalism - I consider this vandalism, since he is clearly editing to prove his pint, and is not discussing his edits on the discussion page, as invited to do. He has now re-inserted the material. S facets 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
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. I was not warned where I over-reverted by the reporting editor (see above - it isn't a requirement, however I genuinely could not see how my edits could be perceived as reverts). The reporting editor User:Will Beback is actively involved in opposing my edits to the article, and has COI in this matter. Please not that some of the reverts made were done to content posted on previous days, so were not reverts, just edits. , - in the second instance the text had been in the article for months, all I was doing is changing it, not reverting any work by editors. I would ask to to reconsider my block - I can stick to 1RR on the article for a while until things can be sorted out.

Thank you, and I will. S facets 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What is my conflict of interest in that article? I have no interest in anything to do with SY. Also, I was more than fair in warning you that you'd been revert warring again, but you seemed to think it was my responsibility to show you exactly where you'd done it, as if you were unaware of the meaning of a revert. You're a very experienced user who's been blocked several times before for 3RR, so you already know. Further, you do not seem to understand the definition of vandalism. Please re-read WP:VANDAL before accusing another editor of vandalism. I suggest you chill out and edit the Sahaja Yoga articles in a less confrontational manner. Your commitment to follow 1RR is welcome. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You COI appears to be with my edits - It wasn't your responsibility to show me where the reverts happened (and I challenge some of the edits you call "reverts") - as I mention above, I genuinely could not see where I had crossed the third revert. I did read WP:VANDAL and explained above why I think Simon's last few edits are vandalism. Adding chunks of text with an edit summary such as "maybe there are 2 Guido Lanzas :-O should he be named too???" is ridiculous, and if it isn't vandalism, then it is certainly disruptive, since not only is he not discussing his edits, he is actively and consistently adding unsourced and POV material to the article. But yes, I will stick to 1RR for a while, I would request that you use the same level of scrutiny you have for my edits on Simon's.  S facets  00:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That 1RR commitment didn't last long. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything. A reversion occurs when an editor removes content just posted. I haven't done so. Also removing OR material can be done at any time. S facets 03:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MissTibet2005.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MissTibet2005.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends
I noticed you wanted to help with the COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. The article has been stubbed and protected and I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)