User talk:141.217.233.69

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being warned on your talk page and through edit-summaries, your contentious edits were removed by 3 different editors. Not only did you choose to retain your edits but even failed to initiate a dialogue on the talk page. Also be aware of WP:3RR. This kind of editing will only result in making it harder for other editors to work with you. Don't be impatient to publish your edits. I am warning you a second time. Please adhere to the policies that guide the Wikipedia community and don't be bent on pushing your agenda for whatever reasons. I urge you to please go over the policies again. Thanks!!

There is a whole section of discussion going on the article's talk page about the content you added. I REPEAT, PLEASE CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION THAT IS TAKING PLACE OVER THERE BEFORE ADDING YOUR SUBSTANTIAL EDITS. Your efforts will be highly appreciated.

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you.

Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Okay, I appreciate your input. I have already familiarized myself with the topics I discussed. But you it seems you are biased member because all my edits have factual links. Seems like you do not like the factual information being posted. There are many people who would like to sweep any criticism under the table specially for a large cult whose followers constantly covers up any factual criticisms directed towards them.

Just remember what goethean said earlier. "Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations ...These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki."

I have gotten into two close edit wars baps activity because those cult members do not like showing both sides of the coin. Just because I am pointing out facts that are overlooked by research and covered up by baps/gadi members. Most people do not know that baps has changed multiple scriptures and there is documented evidence and it will be updated with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.233.69 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be aware with what intentions you may be editing the articles. But, what I would like from you is that you work with the editors in a polite and professional manner. Don't insult and engage in disruptive editing. Do not ever engage in personal/ad hominem attacks to anyone. Don't ever say "The editors are biased..." If you disagree just say, "I disagree..." and provide substantiated reasons. Civility is absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia. Your edits seem to me atleast as if you are attacking a specific group. Clearly, it does not convince me that you are working under good faith WP:AGF. I may be wrong.

As an editor, you also have the responsibility to discuss controversial issues on the talk page post first and engage with other editors. Wikipedia is not about you, it is about us. Please feel free to continue the discussion that is taking place on the article's talk page. Thanks!

Also, abide by the policies that govern Wikipedia. I posted in my edit summary that you look at the on-going talk page posts and engage in the discussion that is going over there. Would you please go over them and initiate dialogue over there.

Also, I advise you to register an account. And most importantly have fun not flames!! Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your comment. Let me know what is wrong with the edits and I can fix it. I have informed two moderators to watch this article to make sure that the changes do not get reverted with out merit. I am glad to have your support in weeding out people who vandalize articles by removing facts because they are a part of the organization. Those kinds of scum are the last kind people we need on Wikipedia tarnishing it's reputation.

141.217.233.69 (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you. Do not attack any group.

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked any group. I have posted nothing but relevant information pertaining to the articles. You seem to have the only problem with it.

Very interesting! You can't see your attacks? Let me point out to you: "But you it seems you are biased member because..." "specially for a large cult..." "...because those cult members do not" "Those kinds of scum are the last kind people" I repeat - don't attack the editors or any group WP:PERSONAL. And you seem to think that you are aware of the policies that govern Wikipedia. I have also seen your attacks on multiple editors on BAPS talk page. And yet, you state, "I have not attacked any group".Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of calling in other editors who have received similar attacks from you, if you continue this behavior. Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop being impolite. This is not a battle WP:BATTLEGROUND.Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kapil.xerox. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cult

The word scum is the nicest possible way to describe people who vandalize articles and change this public resource because of their biased intentions. I strongly dislike people who tamper with facts and that is something that your team has done. Example Anastomoses refused, absolutely refused to let the Jay Sadguru Swami article point out the fact that BAPS had a different version of the aarti than the original sect. He even did a sock puppet investigation and failed. Why is it that hell had to break loose in order to point out that words are different by a breakoff sect than the original cult?

I use the work cult to describe this group based on the definition this source: http://books.google.com/books?id=tlKkZoNPi0oC&pg=PA190&dq=cult+swaminarayan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SqK6UYHBLoTYqQHPkoAo&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cult%20swaminarayan&f=false It is not my problem you have issue with facts. The Growth of Religious Diversity: Traditions is a well authored book that states that the Swaminarayan Cult is qualified non-dualism."

Maybe you are not clear what biased means: 1.Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly. You do like seeing FACUTAL criticism of this topic put up. Every statement has a verified link. Please get moderators involved because they will see that you are pushing your own agenda of promoting Swaminarayan and related topics in only a positive view and you do not want to show any other side of the story.

Remember what was said earlier "Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations ...These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki."

It seem though you are more interested in blocking me, than actually discussing the criticism or whatever you have issue with.

I am going to address each of your concerns one by one. First off, let's start with cult:

The general population understands cult in a strongly negative way. That is how Wikipedia states it. See Cult. If you think the definition provided there is not factual/derogatory - then go ahead and edit that page with a properly cited definition that portrays it in a positive or maybe neutral way.

However, there is also a second definition of cult, but less used - used to refer a religiuous practice. See Cult (religious practice). It is perhaps this definition you are pointing to. Further, you saw it being used here: "The Growth of Religious Diversity: Traditions". If that is what you are referring to then I am supposing you are inclined towards the second definition of cult. However, from a reader's perspective it won't really be clear as to what definition you are implying. Also, the word has Christian/Greek origins and should not be applied to Eastern faiths.

You should use "sampradaya". Since there is no one scholar who has studied Swaminarayan Hinduism that much than has Professor Raymond Brady Williams. He uses "sampradaya" as well. See: An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism By Raymond Brady Williams p3 where he states: The Indian word is sampradaya which is difficult to translate. ...it is defintely not a cult in the modern American sense. A sampradaya is a tradition which has been handed down from a founder through successive religious teachers and which shapes the followers into a distinct fellowship with institutional forms.

Thanks

Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BAPS and the original sampraday is a cult in the first way. No doubt about that. But if you feel like you are doing your religious duties for a dying old man, I can only feel sorry for you.

141.217.233.69 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) [reply]

Vandalism

Hello, I see that you have been changing my edits. I edited incorrect statements and corrected them when I could as stated, so I am not "scum" or "vandal." You should stop making edits and stretching facts to express your biases.

Provide Complete References

Please make use of full citations for any references you use - including the page number(s) referred. To get help with citation; see See WP:CITE. Do not just post a URL link. Now go ahead and correct your incomplete references - so that editors can lookup the sources for themselves. Otherwise, such referenced text will be removed. Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Please make use of full citations for any references you use - including the page number(s) referred. To get help with citation; see See WP:CITE. Do not just post a URL link. Now go ahead and correct your incomplete references - so that editors can lookup the sources for themselves. Otherwise, such referenced text will be removed. Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)" Help me out. Show me the right way. I will read up on it but it would be a nice effort to lead the way. How was the Shibbir in Atlanta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.233.69 (talk)

Take a look at how within featured articles - references are being used by looking at the source directly. Understand how different elements of the citation provide valuable information that are much needed in a work such as Wikipedia, primarily the author, the title, the publisher, dates of publication, isbn and so forth. Here is a proper citation example that I have used (view it as a source): Williams, Raymond (2001). Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-65422-7. Find out how different kind of references such as journals, books, and websites are cited. Go and now promptly change all your incomplete references as soon as you can before they are taken down by some editor. Thanks! Kapil.xerox (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out. I am learning let's push for civility and you take the lead on complete reference since you have so much time. I will read all the links you provided and try updating them. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter

Multiple images belonging to the same category do not violate Wikipedia policies as long as they are serving their purpose. Go read Wikipedia policies on image use from the Manual of Style. Also, Wikipedia recommends adding an image for its media value if it serves an encyclopedic purpose. Further, the infobox is used to provide a general overview about the article and most users won't even go beyond an infobox - so don't count the infobox. Also, in mobile space, the infobox is not even shown. So an image in an infobox belongs to a different image space. If the image was not in the infobox, I would agree that it might be cluttering the article. However, these are completely different images. Thus, there is no clutter or image congestion. At this point, the article hardly has that many images to bring in this issue. Also, the image is significant as it adds value to the topic where it is being placed, namely: "Notable projects and achievements". I am reverting your changes. If you have questions, continue below.

Thanks, Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still the same image. We can have an admin take a look at that. Your opinion is tainted on this matter. Two pictures of the same thing? I don't think so.

Also, didn't a swami that holds pramukhs wheelchair and blue book where he writes his words down leave the sect and do malicious things with a photo copier? I came across this online. I am forwarding it to India express and Times India because this needs to be updated. Do you have any information on this?

141.217.233.69 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sadguru Swami

Addressing your Second concern after cult issue is the "Jay Sadguru Swami" article issue. There are two parts to the statement you have put:

[1] "...and is different from the aarti sung in mandirs of the Swaminarayan Sampraday." It looks like you desire to drive a point that there exists differences in how the aarti is sung by different Swaminarayan sampradayas based on your visual comparisons of the sampradaya's websites. If you think this is noteworthy of mention then you should be able to find a scholarly source that examines this. Editors will likely remove anything contentious if it lacks proper citation. As such, Anastomoses had valid reason to remove those changes. If you want to keep anything, finding scholarly sources is your best bet. Meanwhile, I will remove your observation which construes original research (See WP:NOR) and violates core Wikipedia policy.

[2] You state that "The arti sung in BAPS Swaminarayan mandirs is claimed to be an original manuscript" Why don't you think it is not original? Do you have a copy of the original manuscript? Is there a source that you can point to that states it is not original? If you cannot find a source, that states this then it is regarded as original research WP:NOR and will be contested by other editors. So for now, I am going to also remove this part as well. I encourage you to continue your search for scholarly sources to back your contentious statements/facts as you would like to call.

Also by engaging in repeated reversions on the "Jay Sadguru Swami" and other articles, you have accrued considerable tendentious editing. See WP:TE. I strongly request you to carefully read WP:TE. So, it is in your best interest to stay away from such behavior. Be wary of such editing. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. Go ahead and familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia is governed.

Continue the discussion below if you have further questions. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your Tendentious Editing

Also by engaging in repeated reversions on the "Jay Sadguru Swami" and other articles, you have accrued considerable tendentious editing. See WP:TE. I strongly request you to carefully read WP:TE. So, it is in your best interest to stay away from such behavior. Be wary of such editing. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. Go ahead and familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia is governed.

Continue the discussion below if you have further questions. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you before of your tendentious editing. Your repetitive inserts and deletes with a desire to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussion have made it difficult for the editors to work with you. You also deleted all the warnings that was posted on your talk page. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions. Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

→

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You stop falsely promoting this cult and stop reverting factual edits. You are not helping anyone.

141.217.233.69 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add defamatory content, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. as you did here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo and it was changed within a minute so your cherry picking is pointless. You seem more concerned in blocking me than improving articles. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked you to add complete references. I also suggested you with appropriate directions. Yet, you say I should add the references. This is another characteristic of tendentitious editing. See Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_demands_that_others_find_sources_for_his.2Fher_own_statements Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to find my sources. You didn't even read what you posted. All my posts are factual. All I said was I may not know the format for my sources so in the mean time before pramukh dies can you correct the links since you are so concerned for that.

141.217.233.69 (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked by User:Bbb23 (on the following section Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#Anastomoses_.28talk.29) to stop adding content that does not support the assertions you make. And you have been continuing with this behavior in many places. I can enlist all such edits in a later post. However, this is another trait of tendentiious editing. See WP:Tendentious_editing#One_whose_citations_are_inadequate.2C_ambiguous_or_not_sufficiently_explicit Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By this time you could have updated the Gopalanand Swami article and created Chino Hills temple page. You do not care about articles just portraying baps in a positive light. Anastomoses is was a proven biased user who could not handle any critical facts.

141.217.233.69 (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to make a list? Your quality of life must be very low if you have this much time for this. I hope your bathing daily.

141.217.233.69 (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As you did on the Jay Sadguru Swami by synthesizing two sources (The arti sung in BAPS Swaminarayan mandirs is claimed to be an original manuscript of the composition by Muktanand Swami and is different from the aarti sung in mandirs of the Swaminarayan Sampraday.^[1]). You violated : WP:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. And you have been doing this in many places. I will add a later post for all such edits in violation of this policy. I warn you one last time: stop adding content that violates WP:NOR. And respect policies that govern Wikipedia if you are so concerned about improving the online encyclopaedia. Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make a correct version on your sandbox and I can take a look at it. Why does is the aarti been changed by baps? Why does having this fact on Wikipedia bother you so much? 141.217.233.69 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Swaminarayan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

It has been sourced. Check the siting. How is it NPOV if it has multiple sources that state the facts?141.217.233.69 (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"vicious", "similar hypocrisy", etc - all non neutral. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious is directly from the source http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4379024.pdf?acceptTC=true.

Why are you targeting me without premise? I have edited dozens of articles with solid contribution. You did not even discuss this on the talk page. The other word has been corrected 141.217.233.69 (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use those terms in "Wikipedia's voice". Wikipedia cannot call something "vicious". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure. This is a direct quote from the source. How should I word it then?141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you've gone over WP:3RR you should probably revert yourself before you are reported and perhaps blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring but when I ask you for help, you seem you are more interested in blocking me, than helping me out. I fixed exactly what you said "Wikipedia cannot call something "vicious"." I put the authors name in. What's your problem? 141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Six reverts by you today but you're "not edit warring". Uh-huh. When you're reverted that many times by different editors, stop adding the same material and use the talk page to gain support for your material or a version thereof. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The removal was without merit. What there a discussion on the talk page to remove it? I reverted it many times because there are so many vandals that want to portray certain topics in only positive light and refuse to allow any other equally important information. Uh-huh. Didn't a regular vandal just get blocked today for making legal threats? You are a hypocrite to the fullest. Do as I say, not as I do. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was the one who reported the other editor. And I was the one who restored a neutrally-worded criticism section, free of the obvious problems you kept restoring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it and show me the correct way. You can see the pushback I am getting for posting any facts about these sects. Have you seen the BAPS article? That has exploded into a massive fluff article that truly does not do anything but deter users from reading the page? My goodness. What is wrong with the criticism now? It is worded poorly? If so how? What do I need to change? I have cited it all. Other religions have their own protected page on criticism. What is the matter with you?141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Clear legal threats. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Swaminarayan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thank you for you help. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:141.217.233.69 reported by User:PantherLeapord (Result: ). Thank you. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please include yourself as well. Follow your own advice. Discuss BEFORE deleting cited information141.217.233.69 (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an appeal through the link. I fixed everything you asked but that's not what you want to see. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as done at Swaminarayan. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Dpmuk (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an appeal. Edit warring may have occurred but if someone tells you to discuss the article first, deletes all your cited work and then when you revert it and tell them you do the first since you want to delete it, what is a person to do?141.217.233.69 (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how you submit an appeal. Please read the note above carefully on how to submit one. As to your question, if multiple editors are deleting your work, simply stop and take it to the talk page. There's no urgent need to add the material right away. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor needs to be blocked for multiple violations - not only edit warring. See the kind of things he writes on the Talk Pages ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=567345456&oldid=567345416 ). He does not respect the policies that govern Wikipedia. See User_talk:141.217.233.69#Stop_your_Tendentious_Editing. I am working on creating a stock of all his violations. I hope through this block, he reflects on his/her tenditious editing. Or else find something better to use his energies and skills instead of disrupting Wikipedia. Kapil.xerox (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that it was a typo and it was changed within a minute Again, you seem more concerned in blocking me than improving articles.

141.217.233.69 (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had warned you several times - not to attack editors or make defamatory remarks. Your disruptive editing has made it harder for other editors to work with you. See Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#Anonymous_Edits - 6 pages long discussion just to handle these editor(s) disruptive editing/violating multiple policies - it describes all the issues that other editors including Administrators have while working with the Anon-detroit area user(s) which includes you and User_talk: Swamifraud. And then you talk about improving articles - trying to be nice when their behavior shows otherwise. When your only motives for editing is to push a non-neutral view. Kapil.xerox (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only want to portray your sect in a certain way. All the so-called editors that attacked me are apart of a group to only show the positive articles to improve their sect's pages. I asked them so many times about related topics and lets improve the Chino hills swaminarayan temple and Gopalanand Swami article but this person rather threaten me which is against his sect's policies. He has no interest in reading that my sources are from Economic and Political Weekly, a book from Cambridge University Press, a manuscript in the Bodleian Library, and a book from the University of Pennsylvania Press. You attack me and user 141.217.233.69.

Swamifraud (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one year for sock puppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. See the block list for more blocks. Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Request for unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I would like to apologize for any edit-warring. I am passionate about religious studies and when I see incorrect information, I used to see it as any means necessary to make it right. There are multiple people living in this building and in the room that are editors on Wikipedia. I do not have multiple accounts. Please do let me know what I should do next. I have reviewed many policies and rules of Wikipedia so that this does not happen again. I agree to remain civil and make sure to encourage any other users as well. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Administrator use only:

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=I believe I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I would like to apologize for any edit-warring. I am passionate about religious studies and when I see incorrect information, I used to see it as any means necessary to make it right. There are multiple people living in this building and in the room that are editors on Wikipedia. I do not have multiple accounts. Please do let me know what I should do next. I have reviewed many policies and rules of Wikipedia so that this does not happen again. I agree to remain civil and make sure to encourage any other users as well. [[Special:Contributions/141.217.233.69|141.217.233.69]] ([[User talk:141.217.233.69#top|talk]]) 15:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |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=I believe I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I would like to apologize for any edit-warring. I am passionate about religious studies and when I see incorrect information, I used to see it as any means necessary to make it right. There are multiple people living in this building and in the room that are editors on Wikipedia. I do not have multiple accounts. Please do let me know what I should do next. I have reviewed many policies and rules of Wikipedia so that this does not happen again. I agree to remain civil and make sure to encourage any other users as well. [[Special:Contributions/141.217.233.69|141.217.233.69]] ([[User talk:141.217.233.69#top|talk]]) 15:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |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=I believe I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I would like to apologize for any edit-warring. I am passionate about religious studies and when I see incorrect information, I used to see it as any means necessary to make it right. There are multiple people living in this building and in the room that are editors on Wikipedia. I do not have multiple accounts. Please do let me know what I should do next. I have reviewed many policies and rules of Wikipedia so that this does not happen again. I agree to remain civil and make sure to encourage any other users as well. [[Special:Contributions/141.217.233.69|141.217.233.69]] ([[User talk:141.217.233.69#top|talk]]) 15:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

^ "Swaminarayan Arti". Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, London. Retrieved 24 April 2013.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.

[1] "Swaminarayan Arti". Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, London. Retrieved 24 April 2013.

[1]