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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
I'm so sorry Wikidas. But I'm new to this and quite passionate about the errors in the current article that put Srila Prabhupada in a bad light. I'm sure we'll be able to work out a version that is truthful by referencing only reliable sources such as the original documents and Srila Prabhupada's own writing. Our main points of contention will be whether to include the poison issue, but I'm sure that you will accept reliable sources with actual audio clips of Srila Prabhupada expressing concern that he is being poisoned. This is quite important history and shouldn't be neglected by Wikipedia. Anuttamadasi (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
Anuttamadasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Oh! I hadn't realized that only people who already edit on Wikipedia are considered qualified to give support for an article. I can respect that. My intention is to improve the ISKCON article by providing references to the information that is already there. For instance, in the section about "Influential Leaders since 1977" it needs a reference to the letter (July 9, 1977) that appointed the eleven chosen disciples. And it needs to stop referring to ISKCON as being Hindu, because that isn't true. I can explain and give references in the talk section that substantiate that ISKCON is not, or at least was not intended by the founder to be Hindu. The current article is subtly biased and does not support a neutral position. The claim of Hinduism is used for fund-raising with the Hindus, while the statements in Srila Prabhupada's books such as Science of Self Realization contradict the claim in the ISKCON article. Thanks. Oh, and I'm not and have never been Roupa Manjari.
Decline reason:
This doesn't really address your block reason. You know RoupaManjari outside of Wikipedia; if she is a different person but effectively was editing on your behalf, that makes her a meatpuppet, which we don't distinguish from sockpuppetry. If you want to be unblocked, you'll have to address that behavior, as well as the edit warring that led to your earlier block and which RoupaManjari continued. Mangojuicetalk 12:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
Anuttamadasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Asking other people outside of Wikipedia help me make changes to the ISKCON was obviously a mistake and backfired in a big way: there are so many experienced editors within Wikipedia who are much more qualified and experienced. So I was bad, but I'll be good now and you won't see new wiki members doing the necessary changes, but rather the proper neutral, mature editing assisted by veteran editors whom I hope will help me. Please unblock me so that I can share information that will make the ISKCON article truly neutral and scholarly. I won't make any changes without finding a wiki mentor, whom I hope you can recommend. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Asking other people outside of Wikipedia help me make changes to the ISKCON was obviously a mistake and backfired in a big way: there are so many experienced editors within Wikipedia who are much more qualified and experienced. So I was bad, but I'll be good now and you won't see new wiki members doing the necessary changes, but rather the proper neutral, mature editing assisted by veteran editors whom I hope will help me. Please unblock me so that I can share information that will make the ISKCON article truly neutral and scholarly. I won't make any changes without finding a wiki mentor, whom I hope you can recommend. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Asking other people outside of Wikipedia help me make changes to the ISKCON was obviously a mistake and backfired in a big way: there are so many experienced editors within Wikipedia who are much more qualified and experienced. So I was bad, but I'll be good now and you won't see new wiki members doing the necessary changes, but rather the proper neutral, mature editing assisted by veteran editors whom I hope will help me. Please unblock me so that I can share information that will make the ISKCON article truly neutral and scholarly. I won't make any changes without finding a wiki mentor, whom I hope you can recommend. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Examples? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In the current ISKCON article, under the heading "Influential Leaders since 1977" is says "Before his death, Prabhupada "deputed"[40] or appointed following eleven of "his closest disciples to serve as gurus"[41][42] or to continue to direct the organization:[43]". The actual reference for that statement is the July 9th letter [1] The current major editors on this article, Wikidasi and Gauri79 have removed any reference I tried to put to this important July 9th letter. There is a huge difference between what is written on the current article and what really happened. As a result of the GBC hiding the July 9th letter for years, the eleven appointed as ritvik representatives managed to obtain an unprecedented control of the properties and money of the International Society for Krsna Consciousness. With the help of a mentor, I hope to be able to introduce the July 9 letter and clean up the wording on that particular sentence. Anuttamadasi (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
July 9th letter: [[1]]
- I'm going to leave the unblock decision up to others, but it is a good idea to seek mentoring if you're interested. See WP:ADOPT for the procedures, if/when the block is lifted. Mangojuicetalk 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think this user and her puppet (that remained 'silent' and only pressed undo button???) can not understand what is WIKI and how her primary sources should not normally be used if they are not discussed by reliable secondary sources. She keeps presenting links to unreliable attack sites as a basis of what she calls 'neutral' and 'truthful' view. User can not understand that it is not about truth but about verifiable sources. A guarantee of a constant edit war is in her above method where she presents a letter by Tamala Krishna Goswami as some important document to her, however no independent sources quoted verbatim support this as something notable or even mentioned. A complete disregard to all the policies of wikipedia, including consensus as she is not even considering asking for consesus on inclusion of this material, it is 'given'. Apparent complete lack of desire to follow the pillars of Wikipedia -- No neutrality; No reliable sources and not even a desire to look at the good academic sources that are already at the article; just an intent to spam using an attack site. This site should be blacklisted on Wiki. Wikidās ॐ 21:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidasi, while the July 9th letter was written by Tamala Krsna, it was signed by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: [[2]] (You can see the original in the link), and was pursuant to a conversation which took place on May, 28, 1977 as follows:
"Our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiations would be conducted."
Srila Prabhupada answered: "Yes; I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acharyas."
Tamal K.G.: "Is that called ritvik-acharya?"
Srila Prabhupada replied: "Ritvik yes."
Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...
Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.
Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.
Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru haia. Be actually guru, but by my order.
Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.
Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider whose?
Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these ritvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?
Prabhupada: They're his disciple.
Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple.
Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is grand disciple.
Satsvarupa: Yes.
Tamala Krsna: That's clear.
Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer...
Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it.
I just need a mentor so that I can get this information presented in a neutral, wikipediaistic manner. I'm sure you must have been unaware of this conversation and the July 9th letter, otherwise why would you object to having references to them as they are what gives validity to the continuity of ISKCON? Perhaps you'd like to be my mentor? Best wishes, Anuttamadasi (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you think that every conversation or any conversation should be mentioned in the Wikipedia you should not be here. You keep making confirmations to the style of disruptive editing that you aim to produce -- you are being tendentious to a point, and you fail to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; you do not cite sources (the selfpublished sources are not acceptable see 'WP:SPS) and keep citing unencyclopedic sources, ignore reliable sources and insist on your own manufactured original research. I do not think anyone wants to be a mentor to an editor who is by purpose is a disruptive editor. As far as i know I could have been present during this conversation but that will be completely irrelevant to the Wikipedia. Inclusion of the conversation or reference to it will be only considered if academic/reliable sources confirm it being notable and critical to an article. So far it is just distruptive editing proposal. How do you expect such edits should even remain on Wikipedia.
- Based on the above I suggest write protection of this talk page. Wikidās ॐ 01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidasi, you must have misunderstood what I intend to do. First of all, a reference to the July 9th letter should not take up too much space. A simple link will do. The letter is in public domain and available on a zillion sites. Secondly, the sentences just need to be slightly reworded to reflect what was actually written in the letter that gave instruction about how initiations would occur in the future. The word in the July 9th letter was "ritvik" not "guru" as in the current version. I'm just trying to be concise, although the words are similar:) In the current version it is a little nebulous about how and to what the eleven disciples were appointed, and this should fix it. See, it is easy to work this out between us. Just change a word or two and add a link, and I'm happy. As far as finding a mentor, I take your comment to mean that you don't want to adopt me:(. Maybe you'll reconsider as you see how easy I am to work with.
- Anuttamadasi, I think you misunderstand. The point is, as I understand it from briefly skimming the situation, that the letter discussed in the article is mentioned in many reliable secondary sources, whereas the July 9th letter is not. It is not appropriate for inclusion at all if other established authors have not thought so, because on Wikipedia, we present the state of knowledge as represented in reliable sources, and we do not go beyond that. You are not going to find a mentor to help you push these edits into the article; at best you can find a mentor who will help you understand Wikipedia's policies better. Right now you aren't showing an openness to the idea that you need to do some adapting. Mangojuicetalk 14:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Mangojuice, in the ISKCON article, under "Influential Leaders since 1977", it is stated,"Before his death, Prabhupada "deputed"[40] or appointed following eleven of "his closest disciples to serve as gurus". There is only one existing document that names those eleven disciples, the July 9th letter. So it is the primary source that could give validity to the above statement. But in fact the statement is incorrect because that letter does not appoint the disciples to serve as gurus. If you go to the secondary sources, they cite the July 9th letter as being the source of the appointment as gurus, equating the term guru with ritvik. I just want to change the word guru to ritvik to be as accurate as possible. Wikidasi should produce a written document signed by Srila Prabhupada that names those eleven as gurus. Citing a book available on Amazon doesn't help Wikipedia readers because they'd have to buy the book to verify the information. I'm sure they'd like to see the actual document that gave control of millions of dollars and influence over thousands of people. Not having that reference would be like having an article about the United States but not allowing any link to the text of the Constitution, only links that analyze the Constitution. In the meantime, I'll e-mail the authors of the books and have them verify their source, but I already know that it is the July 9th letter.
BTW, ISKCON recently lost a multi-million lawsuit against the Bangalore ISKCON temple that follows the July 9th letter and the Direction of Management. The case was won in large part because of the evidence of these two documents. The Bangalore (Ritvik) temple serves over a million lunches per day and is a source of enlivenment for the loyal followers of Srila Prabhupada. Oh, another item that needs to be in the ISKCON article is the bankruptcy due to the Turley lawsuit that requires each temple to pay a huge tax every month. People who donate to ISKCON need to know where their money is going.
This account appears to be a special case. Where it ignores what is already in the article, for example Issues within the society third paragraph (ref 66 [3]) Ignores the fact [4] is
on the page already. I find it very worrying. Not reading the article and not responding to any arguments is that same special case. Can you reason with it? Wikidās ॐ 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)