Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Sfacets 09:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell which accounts/IPs are which, but it appears that you may be using the 'revert button' too much. Just because another user is revert-happy doesn't give anyone else the allowance to match their bad behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to
User_talk:Sfacets, you will be
blocked from editing. Persistant vandalism
Sfacets
14:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Simon D M, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
TheRingess ( talk) 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the account under the IP address 163.119.105.27 has been identified as an alternate account of this one. Continued editing from that account may lead to your account being suspended. Sfacets 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a policy of users only having one user account to make edits to the same articles. Here the editor is actually using two. There are too many edits made not logged in to justify forgetting to do so. Sfacets 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
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. Sfacets 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read the discussion page before editing (as I requested you do), you would see that many of your edits are being discussed/have previously been discussed. The warning was just that - a warning. If you'd like I can forgo the warning and report you right away -would that be better? Sfacets 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you serously using a Google search to prove your point? Also please do not reveal editor's identities, real or imagined. Sfacets 13:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
...because Google indexes all the information in the world, right? Sfacets 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately any deity (or Google for that matter) isn't considered a reliable source without a secondary source. Sfacets 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Jolly good old sport. Now you can contribute using reliable secondary sources instead of relying on your Original research. Sfacets 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you've had a chance to review Wikipedia's basic policies, but if you haven't I suggest you do so right away. A simple set is at WP:SIMPLE. Two key ones to highlight are Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That boils down to "comment on the edits, not the editors". A second important one is Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Despite its name, it actually covers any mention of a living person, even outside of biographies. The policy sets the highest standard for referencing and neutrality regarding assertions about living people. The website you've been using as a reference for some assertions about living people is not sufficiently reliable and neutral. I removed some of the material here: [2]. Please don't restore it without better sourcing. Lastly, a bit of advice: Wikipedia is a long term project. We don't need to get things right today, tomorrow, or even this year. We're working to improve the encyclopedia all of the time. Be patient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Simon D M,
You revert what I have editing by saying
that is not correcting a quotation, that is changing a quotation
I meant by "correct quote" the "exact qotations" youcannot add quotations of someone to give a wrong sens, a confusioning sens or even the sens yo wish. Either you put the full quotations without cutting anything, either you just add the ref and let the people read the full quotation. Thank you for your concern. -- Agenor 77 12:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
the following are a copy of a discussion held on the [ talk page of Sahaja Yoga] We can slowly slowly understand through it the impartiality an motivation of Simon D M to spoil topics on Sahaja Yoga.-- Agenor 77 08:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Simon D M 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A good number of sources aren't (see discussion). Also the relevance of your edits (like including information about a random russian leader who resigned) leaves a lot to be desired. Sfacets 11:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at Sahaja Yoga. In the future, when in content disputes, please discuss your edits on the talk page and seek consensus. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Should you wish to contest your block, you may add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Simon D M ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The person whose edits I was 'reverting' does not participate in the Talk page of Sahaja Yoga and their only interaction on their own Talk page is to remove content with flippant and misleading edit summaries. The person in question was extensively removing sourced material and replacing npov wording with pov wording, with misleading edit summaries, and no discussion on the talk page. Yes, I could have opened a discussion on the Talk page with somebody who never visits on whether sourced material should be removed and whether it is OK to replace NPOV with POV, but I don't have the time to dance like an idiot. Incidentally, I am involved in a lot of more real discussions on the talk page.
Decline reason:
We strongly discourage edit warring. See WP:3RR. — Yamla ( talk) 15:51, 19 November 2007 (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.
Thanks for for your consideration, although a more thoughtful response would have been appreciated. -- Simon D M ( talk) 17:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see it. I'm a vandal patrolling (with WP:LAVT) and I get in about 300 commits in an hour reverting vandals, spam, and test edits so I sometimes miss fire. It probably appeared to be spam links at first glance. Sorry! ZacBowling talk 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am also acquainted with this editor Simon? And he was spot on with the spam link observation. Sfacets 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a " soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Sfacets 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL! -- Simon D M ( talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, as Teamantime appears to be a member of your group, could you and/or SahajHist have a word with him/her about how to behave. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Group? I'm not going to even dignify that with an answer. Sfacets 11:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
...And this matters to me because..? Sfacets 12:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the user's edits have been reverted. I also note that this is a new user, and so may not be knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy. Sfacets 12:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you would need me to do this - why don't you give it a shot? You have been editing for a while, you know the basics of Wikipedia editing. Sfacets 20:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
He/she has already given me the flip, it's up to you and SahajHist. More Sahaja Yogis seem to be showing up, leaving libellous edit summaries etc. If you guys don't get your house in order it's just going to bring further shame on you. -- Simon D M ( talk) 10:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you also have a word with Try-the-vibe, 121.210.52.44 and 203.49.171.174. These are clearly all Sahaja Yogis, the latter two are from Australia, the same country as you and SahajHist. It seems that as soon as Wikipedia has a few bits of sourced info on what Sahaja Yogis get up to, a lot of Sahaja Yogis come out of the woodwork in an attempt to suppress it. Are you going to spend your whole lives hiding? -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Do I look like a janitor? Sfacets 13:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It was a bogus warning, the user's edits were not vandalism. Sfacets 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
He used a vandalism warning template. It's ok - I see you have more than made up for the removal of said template. Sfacets 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Legitimate like say this for example? Sfacets 06:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps [4]? Sfacets 06:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, I'm not surprised you thought better of it and removed this from your talk page, it doesn't reflect well.-- Simon D M ( talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't really care less, more for me to draw on when I start an RFC on your editing habits and Personal attacks. Sfacets 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Sfacets 09:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell which accounts/IPs are which, but it appears that you may be using the 'revert button' too much. Just because another user is revert-happy doesn't give anyone else the allowance to match their bad behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to
User_talk:Sfacets, you will be
blocked from editing. Persistant vandalism
Sfacets
14:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Simon D M, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
TheRingess ( talk) 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the account under the IP address 163.119.105.27 has been identified as an alternate account of this one. Continued editing from that account may lead to your account being suspended. Sfacets 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a policy of users only having one user account to make edits to the same articles. Here the editor is actually using two. There are too many edits made not logged in to justify forgetting to do so. Sfacets 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
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. Sfacets 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read the discussion page before editing (as I requested you do), you would see that many of your edits are being discussed/have previously been discussed. The warning was just that - a warning. If you'd like I can forgo the warning and report you right away -would that be better? Sfacets 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you serously using a Google search to prove your point? Also please do not reveal editor's identities, real or imagined. Sfacets 13:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
...because Google indexes all the information in the world, right? Sfacets 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately any deity (or Google for that matter) isn't considered a reliable source without a secondary source. Sfacets 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Jolly good old sport. Now you can contribute using reliable secondary sources instead of relying on your Original research. Sfacets 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you've had a chance to review Wikipedia's basic policies, but if you haven't I suggest you do so right away. A simple set is at WP:SIMPLE. Two key ones to highlight are Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That boils down to "comment on the edits, not the editors". A second important one is Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Despite its name, it actually covers any mention of a living person, even outside of biographies. The policy sets the highest standard for referencing and neutrality regarding assertions about living people. The website you've been using as a reference for some assertions about living people is not sufficiently reliable and neutral. I removed some of the material here: [2]. Please don't restore it without better sourcing. Lastly, a bit of advice: Wikipedia is a long term project. We don't need to get things right today, tomorrow, or even this year. We're working to improve the encyclopedia all of the time. Be patient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Simon D M,
You revert what I have editing by saying
that is not correcting a quotation, that is changing a quotation
I meant by "correct quote" the "exact qotations" youcannot add quotations of someone to give a wrong sens, a confusioning sens or even the sens yo wish. Either you put the full quotations without cutting anything, either you just add the ref and let the people read the full quotation. Thank you for your concern. -- Agenor 77 12:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
the following are a copy of a discussion held on the [ talk page of Sahaja Yoga] We can slowly slowly understand through it the impartiality an motivation of Simon D M to spoil topics on Sahaja Yoga.-- Agenor 77 08:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Simon D M 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A good number of sources aren't (see discussion). Also the relevance of your edits (like including information about a random russian leader who resigned) leaves a lot to be desired. Sfacets 11:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at Sahaja Yoga. In the future, when in content disputes, please discuss your edits on the talk page and seek consensus. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Should you wish to contest your block, you may add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Simon D M ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The person whose edits I was 'reverting' does not participate in the Talk page of Sahaja Yoga and their only interaction on their own Talk page is to remove content with flippant and misleading edit summaries. The person in question was extensively removing sourced material and replacing npov wording with pov wording, with misleading edit summaries, and no discussion on the talk page. Yes, I could have opened a discussion on the Talk page with somebody who never visits on whether sourced material should be removed and whether it is OK to replace NPOV with POV, but I don't have the time to dance like an idiot. Incidentally, I am involved in a lot of more real discussions on the talk page.
Decline reason:
We strongly discourage edit warring. See WP:3RR. — Yamla ( talk) 15:51, 19 November 2007 (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.
Thanks for for your consideration, although a more thoughtful response would have been appreciated. -- Simon D M ( talk) 17:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see it. I'm a vandal patrolling (with WP:LAVT) and I get in about 300 commits in an hour reverting vandals, spam, and test edits so I sometimes miss fire. It probably appeared to be spam links at first glance. Sorry! ZacBowling talk 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am also acquainted with this editor Simon? And he was spot on with the spam link observation. Sfacets 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a " soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Sfacets 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL! -- Simon D M ( talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, as Teamantime appears to be a member of your group, could you and/or SahajHist have a word with him/her about how to behave. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Group? I'm not going to even dignify that with an answer. Sfacets 11:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
...And this matters to me because..? Sfacets 12:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the user's edits have been reverted. I also note that this is a new user, and so may not be knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy. Sfacets 12:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you would need me to do this - why don't you give it a shot? You have been editing for a while, you know the basics of Wikipedia editing. Sfacets 20:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
He/she has already given me the flip, it's up to you and SahajHist. More Sahaja Yogis seem to be showing up, leaving libellous edit summaries etc. If you guys don't get your house in order it's just going to bring further shame on you. -- Simon D M ( talk) 10:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you also have a word with Try-the-vibe, 121.210.52.44 and 203.49.171.174. These are clearly all Sahaja Yogis, the latter two are from Australia, the same country as you and SahajHist. It seems that as soon as Wikipedia has a few bits of sourced info on what Sahaja Yogis get up to, a lot of Sahaja Yogis come out of the woodwork in an attempt to suppress it. Are you going to spend your whole lives hiding? -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Do I look like a janitor? Sfacets 13:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It was a bogus warning, the user's edits were not vandalism. Sfacets 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
He used a vandalism warning template. It's ok - I see you have more than made up for the removal of said template. Sfacets 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Legitimate like say this for example? Sfacets 06:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps [4]? Sfacets 06:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, I'm not surprised you thought better of it and removed this from your talk page, it doesn't reflect well.-- Simon D M ( talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't really care less, more for me to draw on when I start an RFC on your editing habits and Personal attacks. Sfacets 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)