User talk:Anuttamadasi

Welcome!

Hi Anuttamadasi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Please actually read the rules of Wikipedia before contributing to controversial or otherwise Vaishnava related articles. Wikidās ॐ 12:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Jayapataka Swami. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Adding unreliable sources and websites is spamming. The biographies of living persons can not use blogs or similar sites for contentious materials and sources. Best wishes. Wikidās ॐ 17:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Direction of Management

A tag has been placed on Direction of Management requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. KurtRaschke (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Direction of Management appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Direction of Management

You removed copyrighted material from the above article. But the history of article still contains it that can create a potential problem of copyviolation. Wikidās ॐ 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Direction of Management

I have nominated Direction of Management, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direction of Management. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikidās ॐ 20:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at ISKCON shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wikidās ॐ 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I asked you not to be disruptive. I warned you formally, refereed to 3RR, you went ahead and kept being disruptive and adding some blogs as reliable sources. What do you expect. You would not even stop with me and kept reverting YOUR OWN version that I restored. How far you can go with this vandalism. The first thing I asked you is to read rules. Wikidās ॐ 03:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on International Society for Krishna Consciousness. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 03:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where you went wrong.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNVERIFIABLE MATERIAL

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:

Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.^[1]
Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MYSPACE

Wikipedia is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR OPINIONS

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

DO NOT DISRUPT

Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, original research, or self-promotion. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view.

Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity.

It is essential to recognize patterns of disruptive editing. Our 3RR policy already acknowledges that one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts that constitute a pattern does violate policy. Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one 24 hour period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act. Nevertheless, a series of edits over time may form a pattern of that seriously disrupts the project.

Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the administrators' noticeboard and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either through the arbitration committee or by a consensus.

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{fact}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
Does not engage in consensus building:

- repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
- repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

This is official policy of Wikipedia. You must stop you disruptive edits. The source you were quoting are not reliable and can not be used. Restrict yourself to official publication as per WP:RS.

Wikidās ॐ 11:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anuttamadasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, Wikidas has claimed that Roupa Manjari is a sock puppet. As a vaisnava, I swear to Krishna that I have no control over Roupa Manjari's edits. I have met her and she is a member of a forum that I participate in, but her contributions are her own. I have sent her an e-mail suggesting that if she wants to edit wikipedia, then she needs to keep wording neutral and back up statements with references. Wikidas has allowed the ISKCON article to be untruthful in several instances: he refers to ISKCON as being Hindu, although the founder repeatedly said it was not (I'll be putting in numerous references to that); he said that the eleven "closest disciples" were appointed gurus, and I intend to cite references to the letter that appointed the eleven as "ritviks" rather than gurus; and although he cites the authority of the GBC as coming from a "letter", he refuses to allow a link to the legal document, (not a letter) that gives the GBC its authority. In addition there was a huge amount of research done into the question as to whether the founder of ISKCON was poisoned. The evidence includes transcriptions of conversations with the founder, audio clips of the same, forensically enhanced audio clips that are incriminating, hair samples that confirm poisoning, etc. In fact there are several books written on this matter. Please unblock my account and I'll be good, I promise. I'll discuss every change and do them gradually, starting with getting rid of the untruthful Hindu references. These changes will be backed up with loads of references from reliable sources, particularly writings from the founder. Thanks!

Decline reason:

If you've contacted other people in other forums (e.g., the one you're referencing) and encouraged them to come here to support your edits, it is still treated as a violation of our sockpuppetry policy, as those editors are considered meatpuppets. slakr^\ talk / 23:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Statement of intent for truthful, substantiated edits

Personal accusations by Roupa Manjari devi dasi/Annutamadasi

According to the above explanation the user's single purpose is the 'truth' and she disregards the fundamental principle of Wikipedia of reliance on secondary sources. The above is a guarantee that she intend to continue with disruptive edits, because she does not care for a neutral point of view. I trust that the above is the proof that the user and the sock are determined to continue POV pushing and do not intend to respect other editors assuming good faith. None of them have added a single good source and claim that their interpretation of primary or blog sources is the 'truth'. Unblocking such disruptive users could create a very unstable situation and should not be allowed. Wikidās ॐ 20:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I fully intend to respect other editors. My prior mistakes were due to being new to Wikipedia and being amazed that the current article about ISKCON was so biased. My intention is to have really great sources which are primarily the actual texts of the documents in question. For instance I'll be quoting from the Science of Self Realization by Srila Prabhupada (the founder-acarya of ISKCON) where he says that he is not a Hindu. It is a crime that the current article says that he is a Hindu, without having any references substantiating it (probably because it isn't true.) In addition where the article currently says that the GBC was formed due to a letter, I'll point to the actual document (not a letter as is said in the current article) that forms the GBC. This document is in the public domain, being available from at least a dozen sources, including photocopies of the original. If I do decide to include the poisoning issue (a matter that should be discussed amongst people who care), it will have references to forensic studies and links to actual audio clips where a listener can hear Srila Prabhupada express concern that he is being poisoned. There is a wealth of real information on this subject from extremely credible sources. It is wonderful that Wikipedia has such a powerful procedures that makes final articles be something that a reader can accept to be written by authority. I am looking forward to being a part of it. Anuttamadasi (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. I'm not Roupa Manjari:) she is a 22 year old girl living in California. I was initiated in 1977 and live in Washington state. I intend to be a super-exemplary Wikipedian.[reply]