User talk:195.82.106.244

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • THIS PAGE IS WORK IN PROGRESS, FOLLOWING OTHER USERS COMMENT I AM IN THE PROCESS OF REBUILDING WITH THE ENTIRE HISTORY PLEASE ALLOW ME TIME TO DO SO



Contents

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and BK Followers

[edit] Message for admins.

There is a BK Follower Riveros11, using various IP in the Tampa Flordia 72.xx.xx.xx range, that is trying any trick in the Wiki book to block any other contributor outside of the BKWSU to the above page.

For the record, I have tried to engage in Discussion, formal Mediation and Arbitration and he has refused to co-join despite being informed. I have also put in a RfC for use of self-published material within the set limitation according to policy. Two admins have agreed that this is inline with policy already.

Rather than engage in discussion, Riveros appears to me to just be intimidating folk off with endless and often erroneous Vandalism accusations, including newcomers. I am going to remove those to give the newcomers an easier ride. I have no fear that I am doing the right think. Help .. don't bite.

195.82.106.244 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Time to rebuild

It sounds like you are going to restore the whole page- if so, I applaud your choice to do say. It raises your credibility in my eyes and probably others as well. I will peak back in a couple of days. Sethie 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I looked over a bit of your request for arbitration. There are many ways to avoid this lengthy, time consuming (on the part of both yourselves and arbitors), process that can sometimes get very ugly.

I'm a member of two (or maybe even three) Seperate WikiProjects that have could perhaps provide assistance. In any case, I'm willing to provide you with assitance.

As a member of a fairly new religious movement myself, I can sympathise with your passion in this matter. I could tell you TONS of stories, but I would rather assist you both in creating the best article you can.

Please leave a message on my talk page, and I can give you both more information about how I can be of assistance.

You're certainly free to do whatever you want, but take it from me - it's much better to perhaps see things in a different light and work towards a common goal than go to arbitration. Sincerely, NinaEliza 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: With the current neutrality tag on it, I suggest that few readers are going to give much weight to anything written there, and everyone loses - including the readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NinaEliza (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Whoops! Sorry, forgot to sign.NinaEliza 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well heavens, I guess I should have read the talk page before I made my offer. In any case, it still stands. If I can be of service, please let me know.NinaEliza 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

I am writing to let you know that I unfortunately need to rescind my offer of personal assistance. Currently, there are great demands on my time - both here and in real life. I encourage you to contact the Mediation Cabal, make a Request for Comment to the general community, or simply seek a Third Opinion. You may also consider posting a message on the noticeboards for various WikiProjects that are appropriate to the topic.

I will reiterate, it is simply best to try to reach consensus with your fellow editors based on the common goal of writing a fair and well-written article. As long as you can at least share this small patch of common ground, there is hope.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brahma_Kumaris_Info

Jossi,

that really is not the place for further discussion on this matter Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brahma_Kumaris_Info. What the likelihood of it succeeding without further contention? Why does the same principle not apply to pages on the other major "new religious movements"" Why not go engage them?

I am asking honest questions, not a rhetoric questions here.

If you want to discuss this from a spiritual perspective and ask where I am personally coming from on this matter, I am happy to do so.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to other major "new religious movements" have been described widely in scholarly books and articles. If as you say there is documented material about opposition to Brahma Kumari since 1930, then find it and add it to the main article. Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have references, the question remains, what are the likelihood of being able to post them? 195.82.106.244 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have references, then present these at the talk page. Me or other experienced Wikipedians will assist you there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please let the ArbCom clerk do his duties. You can use the talk page to raise concerns, and edit the section in which you provide your evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I replied to you on my talk page

Feel free to drop on by and discuss if you want.Sethie 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why screw around with the ToC?

"Why screw around with the ToC?"

Because if one does one does not get that big, stupid, useless blank big right eating up half the page in the middle of one's browser when the page loads.

Is is some new Wiki law not to? Why else was the template made? If it is used at the top then it clashes with the other tags. Placed where it is text flows nicely about it. Simple.

195.82.106.244 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't fit in line with all the other articles, and doesn't follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It's there to allow for specialization, such as on the Main Page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, I had not seen it before and it interests me. I was finding my way in the dark. However, I don't see any direct link to content table but agree that neither style nor intelligence necessarily rules wiki articles ...
I still that think big empty spaces in prime view spots is dumb and ought to be fixed/changed. May be they need to rethink the look placement of content menu ... a scroll down from the top menu would work. 195.82.106.244 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The point is to give a brief overview of the contents of the article before readers are smashed with the content of the article. Placing the ToC and the article content side by side makes readers lose focus. I strongly feel the ToC should be placed as it is placed per default, judging by every other article that's community consensus. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary Injunction

A temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment regarding post to Srikeit

195.82.106.244, I think both sides share the same concern about editors sympathetic to each other's POV. There are some editors roaming around who give me the creeps too! I am strongly denying that there is a co-ordinated team of BK editors. The same sort of accustation could be made regarding your website forum members. Please do not persist in stating such accusations as if they were a fact. We're all in this together and I suggest we learn to live with the current injunction. And that's coming from someone who only made precisly one edit to the article ever and is now currently banned from it ;-) Regards Bksimonb 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Dear .244, Just a brief note to wish you the best in these holidays and the upcoming new year. As always, best wishes; avyakt7 15:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Falling a bit behind on responses

Hi 195.82.106.244, First of all happy new year to you!

I realise I have a few posts outstanding and fully intend to respond as soon as I can. It's a bit busy for me this week. Hope to get back to you within the next week.

Cheers Bksimonb 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user [1]. 195.82.106.244 is placed on Probation. He may be banned from editing any article which he disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing, especially that relying on inadequately sourced original research. Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is placed on article probation. The principals in this matter are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Should any user violate a ban imposed under the terms of this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/195.82.106.244 (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Bksimonb 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/9/5/User_talk%7E195.82.106.244.html"