:Chai Walla - how are you my "old friend"? I don't even know you. You came onto wikipedia very recently with Baba Louis in order to accelerate Adityanath's attempts to undermine my contributions to wikipedia (all using the same computer - for which you were all confirmed for sockpuppeting), because my contributions were impeding on your "Nath" territory that you hold so dear. Let's be civil, but let's also be truthful and honest, let's call a spade a spade and not pretend to be friends. Apparently your territoriality is taking place off of wikipedia also, according to [http://nathsociety.org]. The only way adityanath has taught me about wp policy is by his constant abuse of it, and my desire to prove that abuse by researching wikipedia policy and citing him. [[User:Hamsacharya dan|Hamsacharya dan]] 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
:Chai Walla - how are you my "old friend"? I don't even know you. You came onto wikipedia very recently with Baba Louis in order to accelerate Adityanath's attempts to undermine my contributions to wikipedia (all using the same computer - for which you were all confirmed for sockpuppeting), because my contributions were impeding on your "Nath" territory that you hold so dear. Let's be civil, but let's also be truthful and honest, let's call a spade a spade and not pretend to be friends. Apparently your territoriality is taking place off of wikipedia also, according to [http://nathsociety.org]. The only way adityanath has taught me about wp policy is by his constant abuse of it, and my desire to prove that abuse by researching wikipedia policy and citing him. [[User:Hamsacharya dan|Hamsacharya dan]] 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Mama! Mama! He's ''cheating!''
== Civility ==
== Civility ==
Revision as of 20:04, 30 March 2006
Howdy
Hamsacharya Dan, my comments to your "contributions" have been very terse and generally negative. I'm a busy man as many are and I haven't felt the inclination to get into a time consuming discussion which may prove to be of biblical proportions. Having thought carefully about matters however, a few words..
While I have known Adityanath for some time, I am not he, nor am I Baba Louis. This is a fact.
My exact identity is of little importance. I will say however that I have a great deal of personal knowledge and experience in a number of areas. Topical to our work here; I can state as a point of fact to be a looong time initiate of the Nath Sampradaya. I have also met many qualified Nath Gurus, Mahapurushas, Mahants and sincere initiates in many parts of India and the Americas. I have also met your Guru, Yogaraj Gurunath Siddhanath.
Your devotion to him is touching and your own affair. At the same time, the issue before us relates to the entry of information into the WP.
On a personal note, let me confess my view that I believe Yogaraj Gurunath Siddhanath to be be a sincere Yogi with a valid and generally positive message. Some people like him and benefit from his work. Calming the mind is always a good thing. I hope you think so also.
In the same breath let me state clearly, many of his claims are beyond highly irregular. I believe that if you had more experience in these matters that you would understand that many people find a number of his assertions, and by extension your own writing echoing his views to be outlandish and out of place in the WP.
It is the opinion of a number of us that outlandish claims should not be entered into WP without some burden of proof supporting their validity. Wild claims might best be, on the other hand, entered as claims made by a distinct individual. This of course opens the valid possibility of counter claims as fair rebuttal to general information for a wider public.
In my view, these are the issue here.
I am sorry the opposition to your views has made you unhappy and perhaps inspired some paranoia regarding a conspiracy. I take responsibility for playing a part in this, but I continue to think you are over reacting.
Hamsacharya Dan, please awaken and the smell the roses. You may think YGS is the end all and be all and whatever he says is the "truth". Other people have different experiences and opinions. This is a debate and not a conspiracy.
Hi Chai Walla! Actually, the only person guilty of sock puppeting here is Hamsacharya Dan himself. Check this out EVIDENCE OF SOCK PUPPETING. So, if there is anyone here who should be permanently vanished from Wikipedia...
I hadn't noticed this message Chai - there has been a lot of activity and I normally go directly to the bottom, as that is where I usually find new messages. Anyway...please read this message as written in a spirit of civility and towards resolution: I'll be happy to discuss the "outlandish" claims with you, and the possibility of removing them. In that respect, we can remove both the outlandish claims as well as the conflicting views meant to balance them, which I also don't feel should be there. Does that sound like a plan? As I don't have a clear idea what you consider outlandish versus reasonable, when you have a chance, please help me by listing the outlandish claims in the talk page, so that we can discuss them. Hamsacharya dan07:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.
---Baba Louis06:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BABA LOUIS - please cite references when making "warnings". Are you a sysop?
Baba louis, why don't you look at the original post and take a look at who vandalized it. I wrote the original text, and the vandals changed it to what it is now. Hamsacharya dan06:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no original text. Only an ellipsis. And the history doesn't bear you out, looks like User:Adityanath started the article. Anyway, if you don't like the text, don't take it out: replace it with something better. If you don't have anything better to say, you should leave it be. If you know it's wrong, you have to know what's right, don't you? ---Baba Louis06:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the text into Wikipedia - originally I put it in the Mahavatar Babaji page. Adityanath then moved it into the page you are looking at. Please see the history of Mahavatar Babaji page to see who first added the text. Hamsacharya dan06:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too much work. If you don't have anything to replace it with, leave it alone. If you do, fix it. If you remove text again, I'll revert it as vandalism. If you put it back four times, this is what happens: WP:3RR ---Baba Louis06:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome!
Hello, Relax ull be ok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Kf4bdy08:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for your note. I'll respond to the copyright info first. You might want to read the page GFDL. While you can give limited permission for an image, you can't for text. All text on WP is automatically released under the GFDL, which basicly means that anyone can use, reuse, edit or otherwise do whatever they want with it, including print it, change it to say the opposite of what it originally said, etc. etc. as long as they also license the result under the GFDL. WP policy is that the author or copyright agent responsible for the work has to explicitly release the material under GFDL. Thus when I move stuff I wrote from nathorder.org to here I put a comment that says that I wrote it and that I GFDL it. I suspect that if the HYS copyright agent understands these implications that they will not want to release under GFDL. I may be wrong though. If they agree, simply go to the entry on the WP:CV page and put a note under it which states who is the copyright agent and that they gave permission to release under the GFDL and probably give some means of contact so the admins can verify this directly.
I'll respond to the rest of your message later as I've only had time to scan it quickly this AM. One thing that stands out, though, is the idea of being a Siddha by birth. Do you mean a member of the Siddha lineage, or do you simply mean that he had siddhis at birth. The former is not possible as far as I know. I suspect that many misunderstandings may simply be wording. Another possible misunderstanding is the use of the term "Adi Nath Sampradaya" - I think YGS uses it as a synonym for "Nath Sampradaya" - unforunately it was also the name of a small subsect of the Naths which came to an end with the death of Shri Gurudev Mahendranath. I'm sure we can come up with wording which will allow this distinction to be made explicit in the Adi Nath article.
I'm not sure that I quite understand what you are talking about. I can't see where I left you any comments other than this one. Could you show me where I made the comment and also where NoToFrauds has defaced your edits, etc. It would make it a lot easier. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)21:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CambridgeBayWeather,
Evidence 1: I want to submit for your records the following message on the talk page of NoToFrauds:
Brother
I will have to leave this mess in your capable hands. Do what you will, I've removed the warning and will clear from admin messageboard. I will be on vacation for a week starting tomorrow. You must eat this message :-) You should be aware that Mercury is retrograde until March 25th. It will be hard to control the speech of rascals. Please keep an eye on Nath and Adi-Nath for me. I will disappear until Mercury goes direct again then clean up any remaining mess. Remember, eat this message. —Adityanath 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Eating a message as far as I understand means that they are trying to hide something - namely their bias. I am the only one that has been making edits to Nath page to add information about Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath - it is clear that he is referring to me. Adityanath is apparently in cahoots with NoToFrauds to vandalize my edits. How many other talk edits have been masked by "eating messages" I have no idea. But I'm sure there have been several.
Evidence 2: Please see the history of the "Mahavatar Babaji" page - and note the incessant vandalism of edits, and the attempts by moderators to revert those edits from NoToFrauds on March 8th. Please further note the subsequent barrage of edits from both Adityanath and NoToFrauds. Please also see the Talk page comment by "NoToFrauds"
Evidence 3: Please see the history of the "Kriya Yoga" page - and note the recent barrage of that have extinguished mine and other recent editors attempts to include supplementary information, in an effort to keep only the information that they want seen. Please note on the Talk page the comment by "NoToNuts" whom I believe to be the same person as NoToFrauds.
Evidence 4: Please see the history of the flagged page "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath", which I had written, and which had been flagged for possible copyright restrictions - this was my mistake in not knowing the correct channels to include references to copyright author permission of reprint. However, please note in the history the edits made by NoToFrauds which show blatant vandalism of this page. Please note that the IP address for the vandal is 80.176.161.205 - I have not verified whether this is the same IP as used by NoToFrauds, but my suspicion is that it is. This same IP address has also vandalized my edits and others' edits on the aforementioned pages. Please definitely note the comments by NoToFrauds on the Talk page, there are two and they are near the bottom.
Evidence 5: Please see the history of the "Nath" page, and note the editing of my posts by Adityanath, who has been guarding this page from any outside edits. Please note my attempts to open up for discussion and attempts to be rational and unbiased in the discussion page, and also note the responses by Adityanath.
Counterevidence 1: Please note my rational and friendly discussion with Priyanath on the Talk page of Kriya Yoga, and our ability to come to a concensus, rather than end in an edit war or vandalism of each others' edits.
Please bear in mind that these editors (Adityanath and NoToFrauds) have made claims that their edits are superior based on some criteria they claim to be Wikipedia policy. Please also note the edits and vandalism of the "Shiv Goraksha Babaji" page and the Talk page in which No To Frauds continues to make baseless POV comments without citing any evidence. I feel like they are bullying me with their edits and slandering remarks, but I don't know by what authority they are acting. My suspicion is that they have absolutely not authority and are masking vandalism with their circumlocutive talk.
I found the warning at User talk:128.195.111.122. I left a warning about spam links. Several days later NoToFrauds made up the warning to look like an offical warning. Neither NoToFrauds or Adityanath are able to "hide" anyones edits. The only way to do that is to delete the whole page. Edits can be removed but they can just as easily be restored. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)06:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the edit warring continues, you'll all end up being blocked as disruptive and violating WP:3RR. Then nobody wins: not the editors who are blocked, and certainly not Wikipedia, which loses editors and has articles being neglected. I want to help you reach resolutions with the other editors you're currently warring with. To do that, I need to know what, specifically, you're fighting about. I'll take a look at all the articles you've mentioned, but it would be good to hear specifically what you disagree about. Let me be very clear: I am far less interested in accusations about vandalism tan I am in finding out why you are disagreeing in the first place. So please tell me, at the root of these issues, where you do not see eye-to-eye with NoToFraud and others. JDoorjamTalk07:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jdoor, Here's the issue: Generally, I'm adding in edits in the articles I mentioned above with information from and about the spiritual personage named Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. These edits are being deleted or edited with incorrect information by various editors for various reasons. I'd like to include this information because it pertains directly to the articles, and I consider it to be a valuable source of information. Among the other editors, NoToFrauds has been the most extreme in taking measures to try and interrupt these posts - why I don't know...it's very difficult for me to speculate on that. My bottom line is that I would like representation of Yogiraj and his writings in these posts, and I'd like them to be representative of his POV and not misinformed. I have been taking measures to adhere to that bottom line including talk page entries, "edit warring", and contacting administrators such as yourself (did I get the terminology right this time?? sorry..) If you need more detail on any aspect of this issue let me know. Hamsacharya dan08:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Kogan, you are ...personal attack removed..., but I'm not surprised. We have already established a pattern here. The truth is that you are an ordained teacher of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's cult, your name and photograph is even included in his website, and you are vandalizing articles that are already complete and solid (even without the inclusion of your extreme minority POV) to further your personal interest. The reason why we are reverting your edits is because you are not contributing anything new to the article but turning it instead into a shameless propaganda for Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. The words that you are adding are immaterial and irrelevant to the subject and has no other purpose but to promote Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, his book, and his cult. Please see the Talk Pages of the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath,Mahavatar Babaji, and Kriya yoga articles and patiently read thru them to find out what's really going on.
Greetings. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I will look in on the talk page later tonight. I took a quick look, and I appreciate how level headed everyone is being, esp. compared to a few days ago! Regards, --Fire Star21:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baba Louis, I do appreciate that you are attempting to inform me on this issue. Is this format of voting something that is recognized by wikipedia as a policy? Honestly, Baba Louis, I have only ever seen destructive and derogatory edits written by NoToFrauds, so I really am trying to not get involved in discussions that he creates, as he always finds a way to incite personal attacks and spin things derogatorily. Please see discussion with Priyanath user talk:priyanath. FireStar (Sysop) is mediating the discussion on Mahavatar Babaji page at the bottom of the page, which you are certainly welcome to join. My bottom line is to make sure UNfactual information and derogatory remarks are not included in wikipedia descriptions of Gurunath.
Also, I was wondering why you decided to remove Gurunath's quotes on Babaji on the Yogiraj Gurunath page, but have left intact his quote on Sundernath? Babaji is an integral part of Gurunath's writings: please see this webpage and scroll down for full information. He has written much more on Babaji than he has on Raja Sundernath. Perhaps you'd prefer that information under the section on Beliefs? Hamsacharya dan00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created that vote, not User:NoToFrauds and yes, if you would bother to read the dispute resolution page, you will find that conducting a survey is part of the official WP process for resolving disputes when discussion has failed to resolve them. As for the YGS quotes about Babaji, shouldn't they be on the Shiv-Goraksha Babaji page? I don't have to explain everything I do to you. I improve articles as I see fit. That's how WP works. Take it from there without reverting, and you will get along fine... ---Baba Louis17:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they should be on both pages. Gurunath's modus operandi is based on inspiration by Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, and thus it should be on his page. Gurunath's spiritual experiences of Babaji belong primarily on Gurunath's page, but can be added to Babaji's page as well, if there is a need to flesh out his character. Thus, I'm going to put his quotes back into the YGS page, as they are definitely topical. At least as topical as the quotes about Sundernath. Hamsacharya dan23:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following letter was sent originally to user talk:Jondel. I'm sending it to you as well because you were involved in the blocking of the individual in the subject headline. I'm just going to bring it to the attention of the sysops that have been acquainted with the behavior of this individual in the past. Sorry for the lengthy post.
Hi Pseudo,
Sorry to bother you with this matter, but the invidivual in the header line here has been creating headaches for editors and sysops alike. I'm coming specifically to you with this note because he has already been blocked once before under the handle-less IP 82.15.17.152 (looks like he erased any trace of that on his discussion page). He has further posed as a sysop, and claimed that his 'partners in crime' are sysops in order to dissuade new editors like myself from making additions. I'm surprised other Sysops haven't proceeded to block his other handles. He has only been destructive on here, and has yet to offer a single constructive edit. Sysop Fire Star has been mediating a discussion on the talk:mahavatar babaji page, which this individual has continued to sabotage. He has also written a note here: user talk:TroyVaughn - basically a note to himself - his other handle, illustrating his future intentions as destructive to the spirit of wikipedia. The other sysops that were involved at different times are: CambridgeBayWeather, and Djoorjam.
The result of this behavior is that my colleagues who originally asked me to make the contributions that I have been making since I started with Wikipedia, have told me that it is not worth it to bother with this and waste my time, as this individual will never stop trying to malign us. I am coming to you as a final plea for help before I leave the forum here - what should I do? Is there anything I can do? Or do I just have to take it or leave it? Your suggestions would be appreciated.
My proposal, which you may or may not deem as plausible, is to block all the associated IPs, after doing a review of them to check evidence of them being from the same individual, in order to make it as hard for this person as possible to continue this action. Of course, I understand that I am not an unbiased observer...but that's what I feel to be the most productive course of action. Hamsacharya dan04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I want to thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of others.
The first thing you should do is make sure you are very familiar with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, to help with a grasp on how sitations such as these are resolved; in response to the dispute of content on the affected pages, I'd suggest continuing with the mediation with User:Fire Star.
I can, however, give you more specific advice regarding the part I'm personally more familiar with, dealing with the alleged sockpuppetry. Look over WP:SOCK; the first violation I see offhand is building false consensus at Talk:Mahavatar Babaji. Although there is a rather intense backlog, I'd suggest you should file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser, where a user with CheckUser privileges can affirm for you that the editors in question have indeed been editing from the same IP address.
Offhand, I notice these users having similar edit histories; I'd suggest you include them in the request:
Hi Pseudo - thank you very much for looking into this. Fire Star didn't want to initiate this sort of action because he didn't want to give the impression of being a biased mediator. see user talk:CambridgeBayWeather. Also, to see the NoToNuts/NoToNutss persons comments, please see talk:kriya yoga - it's 3/4 of the way down.
Based on my limited experiences on here, I doubt that Priyanath is part of this - he is the only person that, despite his alternative POV, has been amenable to discussion.
I would also check Adityanath with Baba Louis and Chai Walla - as possibly interconnected. They may or may not be sockpuppets, but some kind of conspiring seems to be going on, since they just happened to appear at the exact same time on wikipedia. Here's a message that was on NoToFrauds talk page, which was apparently "eaten"...whatever that means...
Brother
I will have to leave this mess in your capable hands. Do what you will, I've removed the warning and will clear from admin messageboard. I will be on vacation for a week starting tomorrow. You must eat this message :-) You should be aware that Mercury is retrograde until March 25th. It will be hard to control the speech of rascals. Please keep an eye on Nath and Adi-Nath for me. I will disappear until Mercury goes direct again then clean up any remaining mess. Remember, eat this message. —Adityanath 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Did a bit of cleaning on the CheckUser submission, adding some info (I'm not a sysop by the way, just a regular user as yourself). It should be attended to in due time. ~ PseudoSudo22:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, in my interactions with them I'm sure Priyanath, Baba Louis and Adityanath are unique individuals, separate from the other editors mentoned in expression and behaviour. --Fire Star06:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see Fire Star.... You might be right about these 3. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page is already being edit with unverifiable claims. Discussion features new personal attacks. Suddenly Baba Louis and Chai Walla are there at the exact same time, acting co-laterally. AM I in the wrong here by raising this issue? Hamsacharya dan07:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
users that are sockpuppeting
Hiya Stifle,
I've been trying to make contributions to wikipedia, which have been constantly monitored, distorted, deleted and or vandalized by user NoToFrauds, and user Chai Walla. I think that there's a whole lot of sockpuppeting going on, which I've reported for investigation. But in the meantime, Chai Walla (aka Baba Louis aka Adityanath, I think) is guarding certain pages from constructive, verifiable edits, while simultaneously creating unverifiable edits on a page that I created. I'm sick of their interference, and their personal attacks - I'd like to see if we can make the sockpuppeting allegation investigation speedy - because they seem to be making false concensus on several talk pages, and bullying editors with their incessant destructive editing. If you want further details, let me know. But my user talk page is a start.
I've tried to be very level-headed and forgiving about this, but their consistent actions are what is giving wikipedia a bad name. I made mistakes early on, but learned from them and am taking the proper actions now, by contacting admins like you to attempt to resolve disputes. Thanks. Hamsacharya dan10:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that there's a part of me in it. However, I've learned from my mistakes after the 1st time, and I haven't repeated them. Since then, I have still been harrassed. I'll check your recommended references Dan20:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block [1] is 24 hours. Please note that your deliberately deceptive edit comments, e.g. [2] didn't help you William M. Connolley20:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)ľ[reply]
These were not deceptive edits, sir. I have explained my rationale very clearly in discussion. If someone like Baba Louis (aka Chai Walla aka Adityanath? - which he is now trying to cover up with deceptive talk edits. see user talk:Chai Walla) wants to add "conflicting views" then they should adhere to wikipedia policy: 1. No original research 2. verifiability. These clearly violated that policy. Also, these edits may be classified as un-obvious vandalism, as the editor that was including them has been harrassing me continuously. He may be sockpuppeting, has been making personal attacks talk:nath and talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, and has been removing verifiable, sourced information from the Nath page - for which he is liable for 3RR. Hamsacharya dan20:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The change from maharajas to ancestral was not masking anything - I spoke with Yogiraj's son who informed me that it was not maharajas in fact, but aristocratic dynasties that go back to the solar dynasty. That was a legitimate edit. Hamsacharya dan20:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You have temporarily blocked me based on a 3RR rule. I would like to write 2 reasons why this should not have been done.
1. The edits that were included by the person in question broke the Wikipedia policy of being
a. [UN]Verifiable
b. Original Research
c. un-obvious vandalism - he has been hounding me for a week because I have attempted to make edits to the NATH page, which he is "guarding"
If you look at the discussion board for Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, you will see that I attempted to discuss with him, but he made false claims.
2. This person has broken every rule in the wikipedia book, and may be under grounds for lengthy blocking or banning
a. Alleged sockpuppeting, for which he has been reported, as well as his alter-egos "Adityanath" and "Chai Walla" and "Baba Louis"
b. Vandalism, by removing verifiable, sourced research information from the NATH page (for which he should also be blocked under the 3RR)
c. personal attacks, which can be seen on both the talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath as well as talk:Nath
In short, this was an unfair block - this person needs to be controlled. I have only made verifiable, pertinent contributions to this website, from day one. This person has been and continues to be destructive for the above reasons. This person as well as one other (who is currently being punished with his 2nd temporary block, and investigated for the above transgressions as well User talk:82.15.17.152 aka NoToFrauds) are causing people like me to get into trouble from not tolerating their behavior. Please do some investigation on this and you will see that I'm being completely straight-forward. Hamsacharya dan21:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being completely straight-forward. You have reverted with the edit comment "restore poem and other minor changes". Come along. And you still don't appear to appreciate why you've blocked - for breaking WP:3RR. Please read and understand it William M. Connolley22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was at least the 3rd time that that content had been deleted - which I was restoring. It was deleted by the same guys that told me to start that article in the first place in order to consolidate information about the Yogiraj in one place. Furthermore - what is one supposed to do when content is added which goes against wikipedia policy repeatedly? These are un-verifiable, POV, original research that reflects either an extreme minority or nobody whatsoever. They are not experts on the subject - they keep writing misinformation, and they have never read any of the works of or about this personage. THEY ARE SIMPLY THERE TO CREATE A DISRUPTION. If you don't like it William, why don't you offer to mediate the discussion? Why punish one side of the argument? That may be in line with wikipedia policy, but it doesn't create any lasting resolution. Hamsacharya dan18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what is one supposed to do when content is added which goes against wikipedia policy repeatedly - a good question. The answer is not "repeatedly re-insert it". The answer is: discuss it on the talk page; post a page RFC; and so on within WP:DRWilliam M. Connolley19:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeatedly re-insert it" is exactly what the other person did with his edits - and I did start a discussion. In fact I've started discussions for all of my edits that have been challenged. The mistake I made was to indulge in the edit war, rather than post the problem on admin boards. For that, I've learned my lesson. This root of this issue, and the reason that I'm being singled out by these 2 editors (who use multiple accounts), is that it's their way of trying to punish me for making edits to the articles that they are trying to guard and protect - namely Nath, Kriya Yoga, and Mahavatar Babaji. Even a cursory look will reveal this blatant fact. The difference is that the edits that I've made generally add useful content, and theirs distort or delete useful content. I'm ALL FOR dispute resolution - but they are for promulgating disputes. If you look at my contribution history and to theirs, you'll see that. Hamsacharya dan20:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realise that I can (and will) unblock you, if you promise not to break 3RR in future? You say you've learned not to edit war, so thats good. However, for me to do this, I need to believe that you know that you did break 3RR - ie, that the edits you made did count; because if you don't understand the rule you can't promise to abide by it. William M. Connolley21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha - yes, and I have no problem with that - very happy to comply. I have just made repeated queries for mediation and assistance from sysops...and they are usually slow or only willing to get cursorily involved. I've always been amenable to unbiased POVs, even when the resolution is not totally in my favor (see talk:Mahavatar Babaji)- but it's tough when the other parties involved are using every trick in the book to get their way, and they're getting away with it! Maybe I'm not going through the proper channels... Hamsacharya dan21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've unblocked you, though I suspect that was a nullity because your 24h had run their course. Try editing; it should work. If it *doesnt* its the autoblocker; leavea note here William M. Connolley22:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm honestly afraid to start editing my articles of expertise, again - the named editors usually pounce on these edits like hyenas. I'm thinking about petitioning for arbitration - your thoughts? Hamsacharya dan22:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather early for arbitration; you need to check the other steps as listed at WP:DR first (well, and therefore hopefully not need arbcomm). If you're finding this stressful, a bit of peaceful editing elsewhere could well be a good idea - there is always a lot to be done. William M. Connolley22:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a question for you: What do you do when someone has altered an edit that was agreed upon via mediation - then they make several other edits to unrelated sections of the article in order to make a reversion difficult, since you would also be reverting to the older content in the unrelated sections. If that's hard to follow just look at the latest edits in Mahavatar Babaji history. Hamsacharya dan23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading comments
Please do not use misleading comments. You said "cleaned up Yogiraj section to changes approved by Mediator Sysop Fire Star" when in actuality you added another sentence which was not in the mediated solution. You also made changes to another paragraph. [3] —Adityanath00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me changing it? You're the one that's changing it. I put a proposed change on the talk page as I should and as you should, waited for a response and, as there were no objections from you, implemented it. It's a fairly minor change that simply make clear the unique name by which YGS refers to his "being" so not as to confuse people about what he is claiming. You keep putting the name Mahavatar Babaji up front as if YGS invented this name rather than Shiv-Goraksha Babaji. It seems it is your intent to confuse. Please discuss changes on talk page first. If you don't respond to others' attempts at discussion or to the vote, why should we bother to take your views into consideration? You keep rudely making arbitrary changes without discussion.
Thanks for offering your help. I am planning on requesting an administrative review and am confused by what the reviewers are looking for specifically. I would like to know what specifc types of evidence constitute a compelling case for requesting that certain users be banned from wikipedia. Current types of evidence include confirmed sockpuppeting, and major abuse of sockpuppets (e.g. vote/consensus stacking), history of personal attacks, vandalism - obvious and complex, 3RR violations, displaying personal/private information about "rival" editors in talk pages, posing as a sysop, deleting user talk page entries/resetting user IDs to hide blocks/warnings/inflammatory remarks, making threats, polluting articles with unverifiable claims/original research, deleting legitimate edits that contrdict the editors POV. That's all I can think of at the moment. The list of evidence is monumental, and would be quite a task to compile. What specific information should I include and how should I write it to make a compelling case? Thanks! Hamsacharya dan23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, I've noticed that you mark most of your edits as minor, even edits which add or remove text. This should not be done. In general, minor should only be used for things such as correcting spelling errors, correcting or improving grammar, etc. Moving text may in some cases be considered minor, but it is probably better if in doubt to not mark text movement as minor. Edits which add text of a sentence or more or remove a sentence or more should never be marked minor. It is not fair to the other editors who are trying to keep track of changes, and may be viewed as intentionally deceptive if a pattern of marking non-minor changes as minor develops.
Ok, Thank you for the input. I didn't know that. I've noticed editors who are reverting editions of an article mark it as a minor change, and was following in this process. Hamsacharya dan18:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins may use a different method to revert simple vandalism which marks the change as minor. A revert which puts back content deleted in clear simple vandalism is sometimes marked minor in emulation of this. Better not to mark anything minor going the other way (i.e. taking out content regardless of reason). HTH. —Adityanath18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting editors banned
Any administrator can ban sockpuppets that are used for policy violations. If you want the original account blocked, you have to go to WP:RFAR and make a case for it. Jayjg (talk)19:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ---Baba Louis23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I've been watching these guys for a while and I'm not convinced that they are the same person. Their explanation for the shared IP leaves a reasonable doubt. User:NoToFrauds has a distinct style that I haven't seen reproduced by any of the others, especially. Of course, this is just my opinion. --Fire Star02:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Fire Star. I wasn't saying that NoToFrauds is the same as Adityanath. I believe that each of these specific 2 users has his distinct socks - confirmed by the CheckUser. I hope that clarifies my position. Hamsacharya dan02:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The thing to do now is to wait. There have been clarification requests made. I have asked User:Sam Spade to take my place in the mediation (he still hasn't decided). Good luck! --Fire Star03:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Worries Fire Star. I'm truly interested in resolution. I do regret my early incivilities, which your involvement helped me straighten out. Now that I've got a stronger handle on how WP works, I'm very intent on going through the appropriate channels. Hamsacharya dan03:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove?
Why did you remove my message from W. Connolly's page?
It's your own damn fault, HD. You refuse to discuss anything on talk pages, and even when you do, you don't listen to others, you just insist on being right. Talk to me on my own damn talk page, not another user's, and don't bother to talk to me at all until you withdraw the bogus complaint you've put on the Admin notice board. This is a fake, play-acting request to work together intended to deceive the admin on whose talk page you put it. If it weren't, you'd have put it on my page and waited for a response before opening a complaint. If you want a response, withdraw the complaint and discuss with me on my talk page. Sheesh. —Adityanath14:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adityanath - I was 3/4 of the way done with that complaint when I saw your note, and decided to respond to you. I will withdraw it (your portion), if you stop bullying me and work together with me so that we can come to a mutual agreement. I'm very sincere about what I wrote. I don't want to be at war - and I agree with you, it was my "own damn fault", but don't forget that I'm pretty new to Wikipedia- I've never blamed anybody for my personal situation in life. But it takes two to come to an agreement. That means start over - literally. Drop the ego and start from the beginning. Start on a basis of trust rather than mistrust. Just send me a note that shows me you want this, and I'll withdraw your section of the complaint. That will be my demonstration that you can trust my word. Hamsacharya dan17:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Dan. All along I've been trying to help you but you have refused to take my advice. Like the advice to start a new article on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, which I had to do myself because you wouldn't. Similarly, I had to start Shiv-Goraksha Babaji, which you simply should have started yourself. Same with Hamsa yoga. One that still needs to be created is Hamsa Yoga Sangh.
In any case, I am happy to discuss my edits and reasoning. Please discuss any problems you have with User:Baba Louis and User:Chai Walla directly with them. I can tell you that they are not sockpuppets and that they are both Naths.
Ok then. It's done. Now can you do something for me? Call off the BabaLouis/ChaiWalla and work one on one with me on the Yogiraj Gurunath and Nath pages. For now at least - if you aren't happy with the progress, then we can reneg. I haven't called in my friends and dragged them into this - we both know that this is what happened. It is intimidating when it feels like it's 3 against 1. Hamsacharya dan18:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm asking you to show me that I can trust you. I'm happy to work peacefully with you, but I'm not going to be a chump. If you "3" are not the same person, then you were all using the same IP to stack your POV. You should admit to that - it's obvious - the 2 usernames joined wikipedia on the same day within minutes of each other, right in the middle of our conflict. Otherwise, if you have no affiliation with them, then why do you care if I put those 2 usernames on the incidents board separately without yours? The way to be trustworthy is to be real. Let's start there. Since you got "them" involved, you can ask "them" to step aside for some time to allow us to work together in a friendly environment. Hamsacharya dan18:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Talk to them yourself. I'm assuming good faith on your part. You have to do the same or I won't work with you. As I said, let's restrict the current discussion to Nath. If they interfere, then I'll discuss it with them. I don't know Baba Louis email address at his new job and Chai Walla is usually not available during the day. So if I did email them, I wouldn't get a response until evening. Why delay when we can start discussion on Nath now? As I said, if they interfere while we are working on it I will ask them to desist. If they don't, what does it matter? I'm not going to focus on more than one article at a time anyway. Currently, I'm offering to focus on the Nath article. Take it or leave it. —Adityanath19:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you want to be treated as completely independent and separate from them. I will work directly with you on the Nath page. I will resubmit my notice for Chai Wall and Baba Louis only, leaving you out of it completely. As far as the Nath page - I'll start our discussion there. And I wont have much time to work on it until evening anyway, since I have a lot of work to do, and the server is very slow right now. Hamsacharya dan19:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fine. Though I would suggest that that is not the best way to get them to cooperate with you. I can tell you that Chai Walla went out of his way to attempt to communicate with you after I had advised him that it would be futile. I can also tell you CW is actually more knowledgable about the Nath Sampradaya than I am, so I'd suggest that you might find it fruitful to try a little harder to communicate with him. And yes, it is slow from here too. —Adityanath20:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HD, please take a look at the article on Yogi Bhajan, founder of 3HO and promoter/teacher of kundalini yoga. This is an excellent example of how a spiritual teacher's biography should be done. Yogi Bhajan was certainly a contentious figure in some circles and not everyone believed his claims. You'll note that since no real claims are made in the article (just the facts, ma'am), no one has disputed them. The article links to an off-site biography which I assume contains things which, if they were published on WP, might be contested. You will also note, that Yogi Bhajan's name does not appear at all in the kundalini yoga article, even as a see also. Many teachers names appear in articles about what they taught simply in a list of names without any elaboration or explanation. I hope this give you some perspective about how your approach differs from a typical Wikipedian appoach. —Adityanath22:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HD, Adityanath warned me that writing you a personal message was likely a waste of time. It appears he was correct. No matter, the gesture was made without reciprocation or any discussion of points raised. I will continue to log into WP from the same IP address to help calm your fevered brow and blow any merit to your your sockpuppet squeel.
As it now stands, the YGS page looks pretty good in my eyes, though I speak only for myself. If it is of any help, I think it worth mentioning that I believe that Adityanath is actually trying to help you. You might consider listening for a change... Chai Walla03:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HD, here is more information on Pilot Baba which you were once using as source to support some of your claims under YGS.
"In 1992, Sanal Edamaruku exposed the godman Pilot Baba who claimed that he survived in meditation under water for five days without breathing. Pilot Baba's under-water feat attracted national and international attention. He constructed a huge swimming pool in a Delhi public park, climbed down in front of a crowd of 4000, ordered water to be pumped in and stayed there underwater for four days. That was at least the claim."
"But Edamaruku and his assistants exposed him. They found out that there was a special secret pipeline connection. Though water was pumped in, the tarpaulin-covered pool did not get wet inside, and the Baba had a comfortable time on its dry ground. Four years later, in 1996, he tried it again. This time he claimed to stay for four days buried under the earth. Edamaruku exposed him again in front of television cameras. This time he was sitting comfortably in an underground dug-up room."
Well, it's a good thing Chai Walla is really an independent person like I said, HD. Because I would not tend to accept Pilot Baba as a reliable reference. But if Chai Walla says he is, then I won't argue with it. Just be aware that other editors might not accept this judgment.. I'll reply to your reply in Nath tomorrow. It's been a long day... —Adityanath05:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the claims against Pilot Baba - to me they're laughable. Every legitimate spiritual teacher will have some "NoToFrauds" pointing fingers behind him. Pilot Baba is legit. He's not my Guru, and I have no reason to have a bias for or against him. I spent a few days at his ashram at Gethia - he wasn't there, but I was fortunate enough to spend a small period of time with his paramguru, whom I believe to be an Avatar from the experiences that my close friends have had with him, and my own experiences. If you have your doubts, I think Pilot Baba is in America right now - check him out. Hamsacharya dan06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean to say that I have any doubts about him as a spiritual teacher. I have no opinion either way. I meant that like many modern spiritual teachers, he may very well use myth and allegory and other stories in his teaching without saying so. This means that he could not be used as an historical reference in the same class as an academic book from a University press. By way of example, when I tried to Google the relationship you mention from Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath between the Naths and the Hamsas, the only references I find are from YGS or derived from his teachings or writings. When I Google "the Hamsas," I get references to Indian fairy tales. Thus this may be myth or allegory which can't be verified in an academic source and can't really be presented as fact but rather as a claim or belief. Some sites did mention ancient references to the Hamsas, but none gave any indication that they were still in existence. Might be a story, might be verifiable in some Indian source, but might be better to leave it out and refer people to YGS's books for the details of his particular lila. —Adityanath14:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paramahansa Yogananda - aka Param Hamsa Yogananda - meaning Supreme Swan. The name given to him by his Guru - Priya Nath Karar, aka Sri Yukteswar. Hamsa and Hansa and Hongsa are the same thing. I know the Nath connection here is thin, since Nath is often a given name, so I'm just presenting it as a coincidence. Yogananda also spoke about the Hongsa breath that means "I Am He" and is a mantra. The Bengali pronunciation is slightly different. There's more out there than you might think...you have to be creative about finding it sometimes. Also, the original writings are in sanskrit - like many other languages, they may not have full representation in english, or in english internet. Gurunath is also original in many ways, just as Yogananda was also often quite original - I haven't discounted that this many be his "take" on things. That's why I've been pointing to ancient texts as point of reference. Hamsacharya dan18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that sort of reasoning, while perhaps useful in one context, would constitute original research here and discussing it is mostly a waste of electrons. I'm curious to see your reply to User:Chai Walla's latest. I know that The Alchemical Body does mention a current householder Nath who is the head of his sect or panth or something, but don't have that book here to look for the reference... —Adityanath19:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK Adityanath - and how about you replace the Yogiraj Gurunath paragraph on the NATH page that, by your own definition was vandalism when you removed it? Are you trying to tell me that I should put it back and send your a test2b for removing it as well? This is utterly unbelievable... Hamsacharya dan02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, that was deleted because you admitted that there was no factual basis for it.
Not true - I deliberately restructured it to make it factual, whereas before it was not because you fellas had been altering my original wording. Hamsacharya dan23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am eagerly awaiting clear hard facts about Gurunath's Nath initiator and parampara, at which point a paragraph about him will belong in the article.
Shaktipat diksha is diksha, my friend. In fact, it's one of the highest forms of diksha. Have you read your tantras lately? Or do you get all your information out of thin air?? Hamsacharya dan23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you go intentionally confusing things again. Dikshas are distinct. Diksha into the Nath Sampradaya is different in intent and form from shaktipat, regardless of whether your assertion that shaktipat is "higher." That's like saying that having been initiated into the Odd Fellows entitles you to attend a Masonic Lodge. Try being a little more discriminating. Have you even read any books on the subjects at hand besides Gurunaths? —Adityanath00:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have in fact. One of them is called the Kularnava Tantra - try it, you'll like it. You also might learn something about what the definition of a SatGuru is and what the meaning of shaktipaat is, in case you've never experienced it yourself. It was written before Dadaji was born. Did you know he was also a Kaula and was intent on reuniting it with the nath tradition in the modern age? Hamsacharya dan07:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, I don't care what the definition of a satguru is as I don't contest your claim that Gurunath is a satguru. Stop confusing two separate issues. And of course I know what shaktipat is, as shaktipat is part of being initiated as a Nath. However, receiving shaktipat alone or receiving it from someone who is not a Nath does not make one a Nath. To become a Nath, one must receive initiation from a living Nath specifically into a Nath panth or sub-sect and be given a Nath name. To be a Guru, one must succeed the sect Guru at the time of his death, preferably by appointment. Gurunath may well be a Nath and a Guru, but not a Nath Guru. That's entirely within the realm of possibility. But you've got to provide the name of his Nath diksha-guru and evidence of succession to prove he is a Nath guru. Again, I invite you to explain if you interpret the word succession differently and can cite a source which explains another way that a Nath can become guru of his sect. —Adityanath18:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you gotta stop pushing this. Now I have proof that Gurunath is not a Sat Guru either. A Sat Guru has to be a sannyasin and Gurunath is a householder. See:
"satguru (sadguru): "True weighty one." A spiritual preceptor of the highest attainment and authority -- one who has realized the ultimate Truth, Parashiva, through nirvikalpa samadhi -- a jivanmukta able to lead others securely along the spiritual path. He is always a sannyasin, an unmarried renunciate. All Hindu denominations teach that the grace and guidance of a living satguru is a necessity for Self Realization. He is recognized and revered as the embodiment of God, Sadashiva, the source of grace and of liberation. See: guru bhakti, guru, guru-shishya system. [4]
No you didn't. Quote that part the defines parampara or succession within the Nath tradition. You can't, because the Kularnava Tantra is not a Nath text. It is a Kaula text. Whatever it does say about Guru succession applies to the Kaula, not the Naths. Sheesh, be a bit more discriminating and only use texts which are actaully applicable to the sect you are talking about!!! My reference is to two articles on WP, namely sampradaya and parampara, which both specify that guru status is transmitted by succession. You have not in any way countered that or indicated that the you understand the meaning of the word succession. Do you know what it means? Do you care? Or can you only argue you point by ignoring the usual meaning of the word succession. —Adityanath18:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one online source which discusses succession, just as I have described it:
"A Guru may have many disciples in his own lifetime. But he needs to choose a worthy successor from his many disciples to keep the flow of spiritual wisdom flowing from generation to generation. He therefore identifies as his potential successor the one disciple who is highly evolved and willing to surrender himself completely to the Guru to do his biding. The Guru then guides and grooms the chosen disciple for this eventual succession. Just before he departs this world, the Guru transmits all his Yogic powers to the chosen disciple through ‘Shaktipat’. The powers so vested become active in a disciple the day his Guru departs this world, thus turning the disciple into a Guru!" [5]
Note that this final shaktipat is a specific guru-making shaktipat and not the same as initiation into the sampradaya. In other traditions, it would be called baraka. Do I need to find more references? —Adityanath21:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is such nonsense and you know it. Mahendranath, your Guru, made it one of his life goals to reunite the Kaulas and the Naths. I would think you'd know that Kaulas ARE naths and originate from the same place. B the way, why don't you try citing a primary reference for a change, rather than somebody's glossary. Hamsacharya dan21:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, they have been separate traditions with their own formal processes for centuries. The Kaula are not Naths and have a separate tradition, with a different initiation process and a different naming convention. Of course I know this as I am also a Kaula as was my Guru. Why would Mahendranath want to reunite them if they were not different in the first place? Duh.
And Dan, that glossary is simply an online version of a very highly respected book in the Saivite community by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniya. You do know who he is, don't you? He is a real Satguru. —Adityanath22:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph like yours, with only an "alleged" Nath intiation and a "purported" Guru status, does not belong in an encyclopedia article. It is in everybody's best interests, including your own, to not put that paragraph in until it can be made completely factual. Even if Gurunath is legitmately a Nath, he doesn't belong in the article unless he is a Guru of a definable sub-sect. No Naths who are not Gurus are mentioned in the article, and until there is certainty about this, he should not have a paragraph. I give him the benefit of the doubt and have left the reference in see also as well as a link to the HYS page about the Nath Sampradaya. Non-verifiable information does not belong in WP. Your rewrite of the paragraph was simply promotion without facts. Not gonna fly. —Adityanath02:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion? Look who's talking.. The whole Nath article reads like a brochure from your International Nath Order founded by Sri Gurudev Mahendranath. Hamsacharya dan23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not promoting Shri Mahendranath in that article. There are two short quotes which are topical and actually about the Naths rather than about himself. Get some perspective, dude. Oh, and by the way, Baba Louis emailed me that the record shows that Mahant Sundernath was Mahant in 1924 but his death is also recorded, so you can't use him as YGS's initiator at all. Back to the drawing board for you, Dan. —Adityanath23:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well guess what, his life past the 1960's is also recorded by two different books which include personal accounts. Looks like that trumps 1 historian. Hamsacharya dan07:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adityanath - are you a sannyasin or do you need a girlfriend? Your incessant attempts at undermining me are working, unfortunately. For now. Hamsacharya dan06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HD, your old friend Chai Walla here. Actually, Adityanath has a beautiful wife and a lovely daughter I am very fond of. I don't believe Adityanath is undermining you in any way. He has done more to teach you about the WP than anyone. I think it more the case that your personal goals may not be in line with the guidelines, purpose and policies of the WP. This is not intended as an insult, but a comment and POV. I think you may be catching on. The Ahimsa link is an excellent guideline for postive contributions.-Chai Walla08:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chai Walla - how are you my "old friend"? I don't even know you. You came onto wikipedia very recently with Baba Louis in order to accelerate Adityanath's attempts to undermine my contributions to wikipedia (all using the same computer - for which you were all confirmed for sockpuppeting), because my contributions were impeding on your "Nath" territory that you hold so dear. Let's be civil, but let's also be truthful and honest, let's call a spade a spade and not pretend to be friends. Apparently your territoriality is taking place off of wikipedia also, according to [6]. The only way adityanath has taught me about wp policy is by his constant abuse of it, and my desire to prove that abuse by researching wikipedia policy and citing him. Hamsacharya dan18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mama! Mama! He's cheating!
Civility
Please try and keep a cool head, despite comments people may make against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments will only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try and be civil. Thanks! (CJ) Computerjoe's talk16:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.
---Baba Louis 06:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
