User talk:Try-the-vibe

Welcome!

Hello, Try-the-vibe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me my talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above warning was placed by Willbeback after my very first edit. My, what a sensitive trigger finger he has. Try-the-vibe (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on International Sahaja Public School. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You have left a libellous external link description which constitutes a personal attack, please desist.--Simon D M (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sfacets wrongly deleted the above warning asking for evidence. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Sahaja_Public_School&diff=prev&oldid=172817171 --Simon D M (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is he attacking? Sfacets 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why/how was it a personal attack? I take your inability to answer my questions as evidence that there was no attack - and I will remove this bogus warning. Sfacets 13:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask TTV to explain who he/she was attacking and why? It is TTV's talk page after all. --Simon D M (talk) 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.3.120 (talk)

OK Simo, you want answers? Try being a bit objective about yourself and you might understand that it is not a personal attack. What I am doing is explaining to the other visiting editors your COI in making edits about Sahaja Yoga. If I was to add something like "what a ridiculous little man", then that could be construed as a personal attack, but I never said that. Try-the-vibe (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should explain your own COI before presuming to explain that of others. --Simon D M (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained how SDM's COI is having a negative effect on the content of the pages he edits. Evidence of this are the highly selective references taken from articles and deliberate emphasis on exclusively negative points. Before accusing me of having a COI, please demonstrate it in terms of the content of the article. Try-the-vibe (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative in terms of WP or negative in terms of SY? You seem to be intent on removing notable information that is reliably sourced which is unflattering towards SY. This may be positive in terms of SY, but it is negative in terms of WP. There lies the COI. --Simon D M (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight is what you are trying to introduce into the article. That and fairness of tone. I would recommend also reading neutrlit and verifiability or perhaps just peruse the entire [[Wikipedia policy concerning neutrality in articles. Sfacets 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Coney is the only RS we really have. The article cannot be based primarily on questionable sources such as a self-published website that is promotional in nature. --Simon D M (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is you only like to rely on sources which you can use to defame. Coney suits your purposes. Try-the-vibe (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sourced Material[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from International Sahaja Public School. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please take time to read Wikipedia's policy and show some respect to the project and other editors --Simon D M 15:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to International Sahaja Public School, without discussing edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. You are repeatedly deleting sourced material without even deigning to make an appearance on the talk page. This is bad practice. I know you can do better. --Simon D M 08:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of this has been addressed on the appropriate talk page. Try-the-vibe (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not satisfactorily. Throwing around wild accusations does not make a justification. --Simon D M (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willbeback, you keep reverting the page back to include many edits which were not reached by consensus, and you do not offer an explanation. Do you share Simon's agenda? Try-the-vibe (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the edits you made were not reached with consensus either. So I reverted back to an older version. Please discuss the edits you want to make, whether additions or substractions, so we can all agree on them. That's what you've asked othe editors to do, and I'm sure you didn't mean to exempt yourself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon DM has stated that he is free to add content without consensus. So I am free to remove them. As long as he persists, I see no need to obey his "golden rules". Try-the-vibe (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is explained on the relevant talk page, this is not a personal attack, it is a legitimate discussion about Conflict Of Interest. None of the material I have sourced is derogatory, it is historical documentation. Please be objective and read the points that I have made. Try-the-vibe (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the unsourced assertions that I am concerned about. Act towards others the way you'd like them to act towards you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Christian of you Will. Sfacets 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Rule isn't confined to Christianity. --Simon D M (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the history of Simon DM's posts. I refer to the listing of references which have been deliberately sourced to back up his own POV, taking sentences out of context from references in order to express his POV, and the use of insinuation. He likes to pile up negative references into a paragraph and link them together in order to express his anti Sahaja Yoga point. And if anyone else creates an effective paragraph which may be well referenced, I've seen him deconstruct the point by re-arranging the sentences into other parts of the article. What he does is sneaky, underhanded and absolutely un-objective. Simon DM has a personal vendetta on the movement and this should be noted for the benefit of the article. Try-the-vibe (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages[edit]

There are different types of talk pages with different purposes. Article talk pages exist solely to discuss articles. Discussion of users is off-topic on article talk pages. If you want to discuss a user or his behavior then the most appropriate place to do so is on his user talk page. Personal attacks do not belong on any talk page, so be sure to read WP:NPA. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left two questions for you on your talk page and one on the discussion page of an article. You've ignored all of them. Try-the-vibe (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP warning[edit]

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can back up all the assertions made. Try-the-vibe (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned you repeatedly but you keep adding harassing informaiton about another user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring what I am saying Willbeback. And you have not answered two of my questions in the last week on the subject. Why are you blind to Simon DM's agenda and underhanded methods? Try-the-vibe (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? " ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment explains a lot about your own bias Willbeback. I had suspected that you are a Christian fundamentalist. Nice that you attribute that quote to yourself. Again, you have ignored my questions. Try-the-vibe (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Your behaviour is disruptive and your edits serve solely to advance an agenda. Per precedent, editors who behave in the same way on the same article may be treated as one. I have blocked you. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I began editing Wikipedia to restore some balance to articles relating to Sahaja Yoga meditation and its founder. Another user: Simon DM is a well known disgruntled ex-member who is on a personal vendetta against the movement. He only adds references which are carefully selected to reflect badly on the movement. He also takes references out of context and uses insinuation. He has committed fraud in other activities against the movement.

By editing the articles I am inserting new references which reflect positively and expanding existing references so they are no longer out of context. I also consider it relevant to expose Simon DM's agenda and editing methods which are not objective and do not serve the cause of Wikipedia. Another editor: Willbeback seems intent to ignore the obvious negative slant to Simon DM's postings.

My agenda is a balanced article. Take another look Guy.

Try-the-vibe (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your agenda is no more balanced than his. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 16 December 2007 (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).

Try-the-vibe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not ever exceeded the 3 revert rule so I am technically not being disruptive. I am not a single purpose account, I am only new so my edits have been on just three articles. The restoration of balance to these articles was the reason I originally joined as an editor. I have explained above the reasons why I take offence to the edits made by a certain editor. Apart from leaving comments on the talk page I have added my own referenced edits which have been immediately taken down by the said editor without any discussion. I agree that my discussion may have strayed off topic and in future will restrict my comments to the article.

Decline reason:

Your request for unblocking has been declined due to your disruptive behaviour on this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =)
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
When are you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. — nat.utoronto 23:25, 16 December 2007 (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.