User talk:Fatehji

replay --> Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Dispute resolution needed, editor non compromising...Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 14:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha.. simple mistake. Hit save before adding in the Tildes. Thanks.Fatehji (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kundalini yoga. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NJA (t/c) 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NJA, thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate the warning. Actually, I have submitted the user [AtmaPuri] to the Admin boards for edit warring. His edit reverts in the war go back to the exact same posting over a week ago on jan 18th. I have tried to reach consensus in talk pages. Unfruitful. reported to admin and asked for dispute resolution, with little response (case deemed hopeless by one editor's view). Finally I have reported him for edit warring. I have tried my best to edit and shape the page, but he simply doesn't get the spirit of Wikipedia nor the rules of and suggestions for compromise and reaching consensus. Thank you.--Fatehji (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your report. I've protected the page. Please see the comments I made found at the end of your report, as they may be helpful to you. Good luck. NJA (t/c) 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, go through WP:DR to get help. For example, maybe post a notice or find editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness to assist you. Also, consider asking for help at the most relevant noticeboard. If others have had issues with the editor, you could consider opening a case at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Good luck, NJA (t/c) 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini Yoga warning

Kundalini yoga comes form millenums old Hindu tradition. It was not born 500 years ago, like Sikhism or 50 years ago like the 3HO sekt. You are trying to steal the contents on the article about Kundalini Yoga and put forward the beliefs of 3HO and delete conflicting statements with Hinduism, twist the meaning of references etc. The true knowledge of Kundalini yoga is protected by Shiva in Hindu Sanathan Dharma. Long time ago there lived a deamon named Tarkasur. He was so powerfull that he conquered all the three worlds; the heaven, hell and earth and by the boon of Brahma, he could only be killed by the son of Shiva. Shiva was a brahmacharija and so Tarkasur belived that he is immortal. When Shiva announced his marriage, Tarkasur realized, that his end is comming near and wanted to stop the marriage. However, his Guru strongly advised him against the interference. The consequences of his interference would be so severe after his death, that his death alone would seem like nothing. Tarkasur listened and did not confront Shiva. When Rama was confronting Ravana, even before the final battle, he offered Ravana peace to end the hostilities. The patiences of God is very grand. Fateh, we have met many times before and always you were up to no good. Anybodies edits on the page of Kundalini Yoga, which are not in line with the will of God, lead directly to hell. Whoever feels confident enough to know what that is, is free to make them. For you however, is this THE LAST WARNING! If you think you can not be cursed in the grain of sand on the beach of an ocean in your next life, you are mistaken. HARA HARA MAHADEV! JAYA SHIV SHANKAR! Atmapuri (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the funniest personal attack I've ever seen on wikipedia. It should be in a hall of fame or something for downright stupid ways to go about affecting change in the wikizone. Simonm223 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absoulte comedy gold. Please retract your request at WP:AN/I so we can see if any more hilarity can be squeezed out of Atmapuri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat_made_by_user — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of talk comments

You removed some comments by Atmapuri here. Please restore these comments, since there is no sign that you have consensus to remove them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that were moved and/or deleted were not pertinent to page improvements. They were an ongoing debate of the subject of the article. The very first bullet at the top of ALL Talkback pages clearly state: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I will restore what was pertinent, and anything that I did remove that was pertinent I did by error, and only as was my wish to help clean up the page from one user rattling on and on about the topic, to the detriment of finding ways to improve the page. --Fatehji (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gatoclass (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatehji, unless you promise to change your behavior, you will most likely be topic banned per the ANI discussion. Even your edit summaries look like you are engaged in a WP:BATTLE to push your version of the truth regarding Kundalini yoga. We expect that our articles will be calm and objective, and we expect editors to patiently work with others on the Talk page. A large percentage of your edits, even now, seem to be reverts of changes by other editors. Perhaps this should serve as a hint to you that your changes do not have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions in restoring WP:COATRACK material at Kundalini yoga represent edit warring, and may violate our policy on conflict of interest. If you don't remove these changes until such time as you obtain formal consensus for them at Talk:Kundalini yoga, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited these changes and made my defense on the Incidents boards, which incidentally was an unfair escalation after I had prefviously requested 3rd party opinions.--Fatehji (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for Disruptive editing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Per your recent edit, which removes a well-sourced section (per WP:MEDRS) about possible hazards of Kundalini yoga. You have been warring to push your point of view about Yogi Bhajan's importance to the field of Kundalini yoga, and to minimize the existence of Kundalini syndrome. Please read and follow our policies and guidelines at WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. This case was previously discussed at WP:ANI and you've had plenty of warnings. Nobody on the article Talk page has supported your changes, and many of your edits have been reverted, so you clearly don't have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for a neutral review of this matter.

This is simply a poorly reasoned block with incorrect and misleading claims. The 2 main claims that 1) "nobody" on the talk pages supported my claim or 2) that the relationship of Kundalini Yoga to Kundalini syndrome it is "well sourced" is flat out wrong and irresponsible. Additionally the claim that I am attempting to "minimize the existence of Kundalini syndrome" in misleading. I am only interested in clarifying the incorrect assumption that a spiritually blind culture-bound syndrome (promoted only in very small psychiatric circles) is directly related to this specific form of yoga over any other. Additionally claims that I am "pushing a POV" about Yogi Bhajan is made at the blatant neglect of 1) his vast relevance and contributions to Kundalini Yoga and 2) of the structure of other pages relating to specific forms of yoga, which prominently and clearly mention founding and leading teachers [[1]]. Finally, on the ANI board, I was defended against a block: "I would like to see if the current discussion has any positive results before enacting a topic ban. — CactusWriter". Clearly, this user has rushed to judgment on this block.

Please clearly read the talk pages or see the below excerpts of the following 5 different opinions supporting my view. Additionally please see my arguments and reasoning on [most recent talk page additions] and [demonstration of relevance for inclusion], all of which were all quite clear and easy to find and read before enacting a block.

This quote really sums up the case of mistaken identity: The point being that while "Kundalini+syndrome", may be relative to discussion of "kundalini+energy" as an ENERGY form, it is not relevant, nor verifiable sourced to "Kundalini+Yoga" as a YOGA form. The added confusion arises in that raising "kundalini ENERGY" is the goal of ALL SPIRITUAL PRACTICES, so any such warning to one specific style of yoga is giving WP:UNDUE weighing of "dangers" to the Kundalini+Yoga form over another form of spiritual practice, or spontaneous arising of energy.

I find nothing in the viewable part of that article which asserts that the "improper use" of kundalini yoga can cause Kundalini Syndrome, and a Google Books search of that book (which can be done from that same link) fails to turn up any reference to "Kundalini Syndrome" except in the references at the end of the book. Indeed, in the conclusion of the article on page 269, Scotton says, "Kundalini may occur as a result of meditation, breath control, or shaktipat, or it may occur spontaneously, but it is not reducible to any psychopathology." In light of that statement, it seems to me very unlikely that Scotton would have said anything earlier in the article about the "improper use" of kundalini yoga. —TRANSPORTERMAN 21:09, 2 February 2010

Hello, atmapari. I have observed all the edits you have made ... It seems like you have had some bad experiences (or more correctly have 'heard' some bad experiences). Please note that this article is about the 'yogic' inclinations of the kundalini power and not more into the history & geography of Kundalini. You seem to be a bit skeptical and negated towards this Kundalini stuff. For this I would like to refer you this article by SwamiJ:

Periodically we get asked if the practice of Kundalini yoga is dangerous. First, many of the people who advance this opinion are not talking about Kundalini Yoga. When you hear an opinion about KY investigate if the person has actually practiced the ancient technology of Kundalini Yoga. They often have not and are talking about spontaneous Kundalini awakenings of someone who has never practiced KY. Second, spreading fear and negativity perpetuates the current paradigm and system... —Guru Rattana, Ph.D

So, you are requested to contribute and make edits in verifiable resources and assume good faith.
To have a simple understanding: Electrocution shall not be included in Power plant OR Electricity !! -Bhuto 07:12, 3 February 2010

... the statement made in quotations is actually misleading. There are many practices ranging from Yoga / Tantra / Dance / Football, which cannot be learned from books and has to be taught by a Master. Yet, this isn't exclusive. Many people do learn yoga & dance by their own self, and same goes for Kundalini too. You are just blowing out the 'syndrome' stuff - out of proportion. It is like - while editing the article about dancing, you are gossiping more about falling down and bruising oneself. So please focus on the article itself, rather than some other related topic.
And by the way, why aren't you improving the citations for the Kundalini Syndrome article. I am unable to check the authenticity of your claims made in the articles. Please, it might get deleted someday for lack of proper references and citations. Bhuto 10:06, 3 February 2010

See the format and constituents of Hatha Yoga, Siddha Yoga, Raja Yoga, Karma Yoga, etc. Just look at the contents of these articles - and then compare them with the contents of this article. Editors have put in informations that do relate to Kundalini Yoga, but are far away from the central theme of this type of Yoga. I believe the whole article has to freshen up and re-written to match the standards of other Yoga articles. -- Debnathsandeep 04:18, 4 February 2010

And regarding Yogi Bhajan:

I think this article should make reference to Bhajan as a main popularizer of one form of Kundalini Yoga in the west with a link to Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan. This can be presented in a one or two sentences. Anything more is unnecessary since the other articles on that topic already exist. — CactusWriter needles 21:47, 10 February 2010

I am suggesting a section titled something like Modern Methods or Western Interest -- which could mention briefly (one or two sentences) Bhajan's promotion of Kundalini Yoga in the United States as an incorporated part of the 3HO new religious movement. It should also mention the many other influential teachers according to valid reliable sources... I invite you to create a neutrally-worded sentence or two below about Bhajan for a Western Influence section. — CactusWriter needles 00:45, 13 February 201

I have been in good faith trying to improve this article based on the structure of other yoga pages. 1) None of these other pages include "warnings" on Kundalini syndrome. Not only is subject of "[Kundalini syndrome]" not related, it is clearly irrelevant to one particular style of yoga, and additionally, the article page is NOT well-sourced or accurately cited. Placing it on this page [Kundalini yoga] is a clear example of content forking. 2) The majority of other yoga pages include references to their founding teachers and practitioners [[2]]. I don't believe I have done anything but try to follow fair and neutral suggestions (as from the opinions above) and [iprove this article]. Additionally, when needed I have tried to gain 3rd party opinion on the matter. In fact, I was just about to submit a new 3rd party request for this section just as I was blocked. Please remove the block so the improvement of this article can continue.

Decline reason:

TLDR. Looks like a solid block. More discussion at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (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.

--Fatehji (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll physically fall off my chair laughing if an admin tags this 'tl;dr'... HalfShadow 19:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna hit you... HalfShadow 20:08, 14 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a poorly reasoned block with incorrect and misleading claims. The 2 main claims that 1) "nobody" on the talk pages supported my claim is incorrect, and 2) that the relationship of Kundalini Yoga to Kundalini syndrome it is "well sourced" is flat out wrong.

I find nothing in the viewable part of that article which asserts that the "improper use" of kundalini yoga can cause Kundalini Syndrome, and a Google Books search of that book (which can be done from that same link) fails to turn up any reference to "Kundalini Syndrome" except in the references at the end of the book. Indeed, in the conclusion of the article on page 269, Scotton says, "Kundalini may occur as a result of meditation, breath control, or shaktipat, or it may occur spontaneously, but it is not reducible to any psychopathology." In light of that statement, it seems to me very unlikely that Scotton would have said anything earlier in the article about the "improper use" of kundalini yoga. —TRANSPORTERMAN 21:09, 2 February 2010

I think this article should make reference to Bhajan as a main popularizer of one form of Kundalini Yoga in the west with a link to Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan. This can be presented in a one or two sentences. — CactusWriter needles 21:47, 10 February 2010

I have been in good faith trying to improve this article based on the structure of other yoga pages (i.e. Hatha Yoga, Kriya Yoga, Ashtanga Yoga): 1) None of these other pages include warnings on Kundalini syndrome. The article on "Kundalini syndrome" has no direct relationship to Kundalini+Yoga, and the article page is not well-sourced or accurately cited. Placing it on this page Kundalini yoga is a clear example of content forking. 2) The majority of other yoga pages include references to their founding teachers and practitioners [See examples]. I am making an effort to follow fair and neutral suggestions (based on the 3rd party opinions above) and improve this article. Additionally, when needed I have tried to gain 3rd party opinion on the matter and I was just about to submit a new 3rd party opinion request for this section just as I was blocked. --Fatehji (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are clearly edit warring and editing tendentiously at the article in question, and you have been warned about this before. I see nothing in the above request that indicates you intend to alter your behavior with regards to editing articles, so I see no reason to lift the block before it expires on its own. When it does automatically expire at the end of its three-day limit, I highly recommend that you confine yourself to using the article talk pages instead of the main article space, and work on communicating why you intend to make changes to articles and convince others that they need to be changed. Removing cited material without just cause, which is the most recent problem, but it should be noted not the only problem in your considerable history of problematic editing, is generally a bad idea. Jayron32 02:58, 15 February 2010 (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.

Thanks Jayron. I have tried to use the talk pages, but the other tendentiously editing editors have ignored my comments, or have not responded to objective reasoning with new source material. I believe you are 100% correct that I have been guilty of a loss of patience for making changes. However, in my defense, I have shown 4 sources of 3rd opinion that side with me -- which outweighs the 2 editors who have taken a stand against me. What separates someone who is editing to rectify a wrong and someone who perpetuates it? It seems to me in this instance it depends on who levels the accusations first. I also believe I have cited all my reasoning and given proper verifiable sources, while the editors who are changing my edits and blocking me have not cited any reasoning that refutes my examples with new data or sources. That is my opinion - I am simply trying to be objective, neutral, fair in creating an equal and informative page that reflects the information and structure of other yoga pages.--Fatehji (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3O Templates at Kundalini Yoga

Fatehji, I notice that you reposted the {{3O}} tags at Kundalini Yoga with the edit summary, "PLEASE DONT DELETE 3O REQUESTS UNTIL MORE OPINIONS ARE GATHERED." You need to understand that posting the tags without also listing the dispute at the Third Opinion project does absolutely nothing. (If you read the text of the template, it says that.) If you want a Third Opinion, you must also list the dispute at the Third Opinion project; the template is really just a notice to the other editors in the dispute that someone has asked for a Third Opinion. Asking for a Third Opinion via the Third Opinion project is different than just trying to get additional editors involved in the discussion. A Third Opinion cannot be counted towards consensus or used as a tiebreaker. If you're just trying to get additional editors involved in the dispute, whose input can count towards consensus, then neither the Third Opinion project nor the {{3O}} tag will do it. What you probably need to do is to make a request for comments, probably by posting the {{rfctag|reli}} philosophy–and–religion tag (but you may like one of the other subject–area tags listed at the request for comments page better; it's your choice). If you do that, however, you may not get a response if you also have the {{3O}} tags posted, since people may think that you are forum shopping. There are other ways to get other editors involved, too, such as (but not only) posting on the talk page of an appropriate subject–matter project like those listed at the top of the Kundalini Yoga talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (Corrected typo. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Nomination of Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Wikid ^as© 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]