![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi. You recently undid several of my contributions to the Santa Fe Institute page, but you did so without citing appropriate wikipedia policies as to why. I am going to restore much of the material, and I am adding external references as requested. Let's not start an edit war. If you'd like to talk about the changes, let's do it on the Talk page. Paresnah ( talk) 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Yworo, I saw your revert of the IP on this page (on my watchlist for some reason or other), and I noticed that you also reverted a foreign language link, too. Did you mean to do that? I was going to re-add the link, assuming it was accidental, but I thought I'd check with you first (I can't read whatever language that is, so I can't judge whether it's a good link to have myself.) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 17:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Great work on Georges Yatridès Thanks Theroadislong ( talk) 20:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC) |
I would like to show special this video link: Slovenski utrinki. Doncsecz talk 14:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I prefer not to go to the limit of 3RR as you have, so I won't revert for now. If someone else does, you would do well not to carry on yourself. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. I know you and Nomoskedacity both have the best intentions regarding Swartz's ethnicity. Let's see if we can hash it out at the talk page. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yworo - please check out the last edits - It made the page a mess and was filled with opinions. I reverted and asked editors to discuss it on the talk page. Need your mentorship here. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 23:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo, I googled "Autobiography of a yogi wikipedia" and this was the third option - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yworo/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi - Shouldn't this be hidden because it isn't the page on Wikipedia but a sandbox? Red Rose 13 ( talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I added a {{ User sandbox}} template at the top. That should avoid any confusion should someone atypically perform the identical search you did. It might even tell Google not to index it. OK? Yworo ( talk) 02:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. Could you give a third opinion on Spirituality? See Talk:Spirituality#Lead, Talk:Spirituality#Conceptual background, Talk:Spirituality#Recent edits and Talk:Spirituality#Requesting third opinions on lead and definition. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
-- I am LORD Garth !! ( talk) 05:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. The subtext of my complaint is that plot summaries containing the tiniest details will always run well over the recommended maximum word limit. But I've already learned what a fool's errand it is to condense every one of these I encounter because it's just a lot of arduous jungle-clearing when there's really no shining temple awaiting me on the other side. And there's also the possibility that I'm essentially "undoing" someone else's labor of love, and that is the last reason on Earth for my continuing presence here. I derive plenty of satisfaction as it is from surgically simplifying and clarifying and more completely articulating ideas and passages within the bodies of the articles without resorting to the use of chainsaws or machetes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RODERICKMOLASAR ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo, I just wanted to make it very clear that I didn't put up the original section regarding Joel Brinkley and my edit history makes it very clear that I've been trying to maintain the neutrality of the article. I am merely serving as an advocate for the Vietnamese American community. As a result, I would really appreciate if you guys don't consider blocking me. Chrisvanlang ( talk) 02:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I've started a discussion thread
on the talk page for "Ubuntu (operating system)", as I believe that this needs further discussion on the matter of whether Dell sells Ubuntu systems. Please read the discussion before responding. Thanks! ----Thomas (
The Lord of Time) (
talk)
08:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Should this be on the spam blacklist? I've had a couple of sites full of copyvio added. Dougweller ( talk) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please explain your blank deletion action on the article talk page, as the article does not meet the definition of WP:ATP. Mhym ( talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. You've been following the discussions at Enlightenment (spiritual), haven't you? And also noticed the sockpuppet-investigations on Raul7213 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raul7213/Archive? Well, here's a new message I received from Octavious88. I don't trust it, but I can't figure out what's going on here - though maybe Octavious (or whoever) is Paul Joseph, the author of the famous article on refeeding. What do you think of this? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo, Thanks for the welcome. I am actually a college student in a class about CSCW, using Wikipedia as an example. I am interested in contributing to a Good Article promotion. Do you know how I could find an existing article being promoted? Are there any in the Seattle Wikiproject? Thank you. Tgrosinger ( talk) 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
First I appreciate your recognition of my efforts here at wikipedia on reaching 22,000 edits, Thank you. Second I have studied your points on COATRACK and that all my examples have their own wikipedia article, that clarifies some misunderstanding, however aside from one editors "mere gossip" your most recent post including: "please don't preach to me", "if you don't listen", "I am telling you", "find yourself in trouble", "prevent . . . serious mistakes" is making it difficult for agf and civil. I see you have edited it several times thou those terms remain and dilute any attempt of resolution--and yes I realize (and respect) your position that it is largely resolved. I have thought it best to address this directly. It's not my intent to waste editors time, make speeches or be--honestly feeling this way--attacked over this. I hope my efforts to be as specific and direct with your word choice can be revised and carried forward in any further discussions avoiding ad hominems. Thank you for your continued wikipedia efforts. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 21:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
(all quotations require immediately following citation, even in the lead)
You're right; my mistake. I've been removing unnecessary CN tags from article ledes based on WP:LEADCITE for years, yet never noticed that direct quotations should still have a citation even in the lede. I've added the citations. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
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. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you commented on the Isla Fisher talk page regarding WP:OPENPARA a while back. I would really appreciate it if you could please take the time to offer a third party opinion to help resolve a similar issue on this talk page so consensus could be reached. Tanbircdq ( talk) 19:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Reply from Tom3605: Regarding my prevous editing of the article on Charlize Theron, I changed the original reference to Ms. Theron being " a South African actress" to "a South African-born actress." Since she's now also an American citizen, refering to her as a "South African-born" actress is more accurate and fair than as simply " a South African actress." The fact that she was born in South Africa is well known and is stated elsewhere in the article itself, I thought no other justifications are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom3605 ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Nothing on the page is poorly sourced and the list was upheld in the BLP noticeboard. Please do not threaten me with blocks when there is no basis to do so. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas". EarwigBot operator / talk 18:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Just pointing out that you have now made the same edit (removal of material) twice at the article Very Serious People. I'm sure you are aware of the 3RR rule, but I wanted to make sure you have this particular case on your radar - in case others restore it and you are tempted to keep removing it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't call me "Buckwheat", that's a personal attack
|
Sorry that you had trouble finding the others at Allegro. If you want to talk about Seattle Wikipedia stuff I would meet you personally on Skype or by phone. I live in NYC now so I am not going to meetings anymore but I still support them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
In "Friedman Unit," part of the impact is that it gets people discussing Mr. Friedman's rhetorical tactics and slipshod thinking. I concur that my third example was trivial and did not derive naturally from Friedman unit, but the second was very much in the same vein. Statements from opinion pieces are allowed to establish the writer's statements. The term does not need to stand on its own as a neologism but it is a good example of the original term stimulating political discussion. Monado ( talk) 00:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Semi-protecting user talk pages. Thank you. — Guy Macon ( talk) 21:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted (most of) your edits to Bush Derangement Syndrome, for reasons I've explained at Talk:Bush Derangement Syndrome#March 2013. I welcome any response you might have. Best wishes, CWC 12:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Yworo! I don't anticipate becoming too much involved in the debating over at Template:Modern Dharmic writers. But in looking at your recent edits, a question/concern came to mind: are you keeping in mind WP:POINT? Perhaps you have a good argument that you are. But some of what you are doing suggests otherwise (i.e., your change-logs are offering rationales that you were arguing against very recently). Regards -- Presearch ( talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, be bold! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your referral to two pages regarding images. Nevertheless, I did not find anything that would forbid the normal publication practice of facing images into a page rather than out of it, if at all possible. Can you quote the rule or regulation, or even dictum, if you can find one. I really would like to know. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yworo, there is a editor - Tormod Kinnes - 46.9.197.230 - who seems to be with Swami Satyaswarananda or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailendra_bejoy_dasgupta (he just created this page) He is using sources that are questionable - websites that don't seem scholarly. He seems to be on an attack mode to put down SRF and promote Satyaswarananda rather than improving the page. He is spamming Satyaswarananda, on this page and on the Kriya Yoga page. Using opinionated words like "cosy sex", created sections called Regrets and Critiques from sources that no one would use on Wikipedia etc... I reverted him once asking him to bring ideas to the talk page. Then I deleted most of what he wrote and left one sentence to refer to the Articles of Incorp because he thought it was important. The page needs your expert editing. Thank you. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 12:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok trying the barnstar again -
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For reaching out to new users and helping them get started on Wikipedia and for eloquently bringing the truth in a difficult situation. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 21:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
A certain user doesn't like me either...especially when I too am trying to help them. MisterShiney ✉ 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Your revert reasoning edit summary was incorrect: the rename was discussed. See the top of Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything - it was an old discussion, revived. Lots of discussion, and even consensus, up to a point where it was templatized, where consensus stopped. -- Lexein ( talk) 06:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have warned him, but you continuing to post there after asking him not to post here is not reasonable. Please stop that. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Jose Antonio Vargas, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
User:PhilKnight (
talk)
19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hi! I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, so I'm hoping I get this right...I'm a (non-Cray) colleague of Brad Chamberlain, of the Chapel project, and he wanted me to deliver a message to you. I'm leaving off his email address to avoid spambots, but if you'd like it, it shouldn't be difficult to find (or you can email me from my user page).
I'll go ahead and update the page with a few edits, but you're welcome to check in on it too if you'd like. Go Huskies! :)
AtOMiCNebula ( talk) 04:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
While you aren't the subject of the ANI, I did raise your name here and out of courtesy, wanted to notify you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. The Cœur de pirate discography is currently at FLC. Please leave comments to help this reach Featured List status. Thanks! :) – Underneath-it-All ( talk) 01:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. I'm trying to give some people a further reason to quite this you-know-which template. I've already changed it on dosens of pages (as you've seen), which were not even included in the template. It's on so many pages, it made it clear to me that it's also useless in that respect. So I'm trying to give further opportunity to simply use a category, instead og this template. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Shall we continue this discussion solely at your page? So is there any way religius categories can provide a "jump" to another category, so from "Hinduism" to "Buddhism" etc? Or is this already thi "Writers by religion", which means users can "jump" at the bottom of the category-page? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I unbolded Robert G. Millar because it is not the subject of the article or an alternate name in the article Elohim City, Oklahoma. I also cited the MOS at: MOS:BOLDTITLE in my edit. I do not see anywhere in that article that supports your comment of "it's one of the articles redirects". If you are going to undo my good faith edit I expect a proper cite or a note on my talk page otherwise you are just starting an unsupported edit war. A little surprised to see this from an experienced editor. -- Hutcher ( talk) 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. I've created a Portal:Indian religions to satisfy our fellow-Wikipedians (don't be upset, please!), but I noticed the existence of this category: Category:Dharmic religion portals. I bet and hope that you are able to find the right place where this name can be changed to Category:Indian religions portals. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yworo - the Kriyananda page needs you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriyananda - someone added back in the word Swami, reverted the Legal Cases section into how it was in 2010 which was called Controversies. Took out two third party reference in the process. We need your expert editing here. This editor also added the legal case back in along with POV references. thank you once again Red Rose 13 ( talk) 00:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
New talk page discussion on disambiguation page for Yogananda or removing the honorific. We need your input. Talk:Paramahansa Yogananda Unsure if it needs to be done and how to do it. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 10:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi YWORO, I have a few questions on my own talk page related to remarks you wrote. I don't know whether you will see them if I leave them there, so I'm putting in this additional note. Thanks, Joesonyx ( talk) 09:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Article on David John Pearson". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you've been providing guidance about what is needed to clean-up the Georges Yatridès article, I thought I would let you know that I put a proposed deletion tag on the article. If there's a better way to go (CSD and PROD seemed extreme, but there might be a middle-ground), please let me know.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 08:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. My mistake. Thanks for the information. Jason Palpatine ( talk) 15:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks very much for your cleanup edits for First Nations style on the article Aaron Nelson-Moody. Could I impose upon you to also look over Susan Point and Jody Broomfield? Is there a manual of style I should be following for this? Cheers. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your edit to Priyanka Chopra, I do not see anything about left-sided pictures needing to be in a particular place here: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Where did you see that? BollyJeff | talk 23:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Ellison (polygamist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ellison (polygamist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Giant Snowman 15:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yworo, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zorin os, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deleted at AfD over 4 years ago. Previous deletions were all WP:G4. A second AfD would seem reasonable enough. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 ( talk) 02:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo I have joined the Wikipedia Astrology project today and am contacting you as a listed member of that project. There has been a proposal to consider the project dead and merge it with 12 other alternative subjects into a new wiki project which would oversee all aspects of fringe. I think it would be a shame to lose the astrology project on the basis that it has no active participants without contacting the members directly and exploring ideas for new ways to work together on astrology-related pages. It would be very useful if you would visit the discussion and let us know if your interest in the project is still active, or what it might take to rekindle it. Regards Tento2 ( talk) 09:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Yworo we have a problem on the Kriya and Kriya Yoga pages with a new editor who is deleting material and adding his own view point. He even changed a direct quote. I have reverted him and tried to work with him - asking him to bring desired changes to the talk page. I just reverted him a second time again asking him to bring his ideas to the talk page. Please come see. /info/en/?search=Kriya_Yoga and /info/en/?search=Kriy%C4%81 Thank you! Red Rose 13 ( talk) 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hidden information and possible consequential damages. Situation to be remedied before the situation deteriorates.
Whether or not you check my messages are now about 37 months during which my biography irrefutable have been manipulated by moderators Wikipedia. My biography appears in 06 important dictionaries, which erases the integrity of Wikipedia infancy. This leads me to decide that the behavior moderators intervened in this situation will be published in the press. Including the message of the day. Here, again, "yatrides.com" and "yatrides.org" consist only of material information, press articles etc.. scanned in "Authentic Yatrides". Movies, different country reports, TV News mid-day and evening, are neither YouTubes or FaceBook or Tweeters or any other possible advertising. However they can not afford any deviation: this type of disorder is typically technical Wikipedia.
In very first action Wikimedia France and USA are aware of my discontent and refusal to let me defamed. Moreover these maneuvers are damage to many of my collectors, they are over 300 very modest, the same should be considered the preeminent collections including stand Basil Butler British Petroleum and John Foster Dulles and many others of equal value who have acquired my works. And harm to myself.
In my 82 years that I am forced to endure such slander can not remain hidden. Considering that last word, obscure information is a very serious offense which carry heavy penalties that their prejudices may be multidimensional in different situations close consequential or not. What moderators seem to ignore. Whether to seek damages, considering my work with oil reaching record highs, it is possible that the scenery of the Yatrides / Wikipedia relationship changes.
I'm not litigious (see ArtPrice> Authentic Yatrides), but the manipulations on the events determined by my professional life, which represent my biography, must stop on Wikipedia USA including Wikipedia France where an US moderator has deleted my biography which become wrong / false.
Sincerely,
Georges Yatrides October 03, 2013 -- Yatrides ( talk) 17:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Explained it once this month already. User_talk:Andy_Dingley#MOS.3F Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit summary: not true. And whether they exist online or not is irrelevant: the relevancy is not determined by availability; your argument would apply to an External links section, which is kind of what this is, in disguise (so that WP:EL does not apply?). We're not a repository for links: not every article by a writer is worth noting, just as not every individual poem or bit part is worth noting. It's a matter of editorial argument and editors may disagree; but I note that these articles are not really found in notable journals or magazines, and they're not even referred to in the article itself. Plus, you have an article with three unreferenced paragraphs and the rest is all links (plus a quote farm), and a reference section that doesn't seem to reference a thing. The three "notes" are laughably unreliable. Typical semi-self-sourced vanity article for an unimportant person. If you want to improve the article, add some reliable sources and reviews. Drmies ( talk) 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I notice your revert on the Jody Broomfield article. I'm guessing you have much more knowledge of this area than I do. I've posted a note at Talk:Jody Broomfield#First Nations heritage to discuss. Your comments there would be very much appreciated. Regards. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed your interactions with User:MilesMoney on his talk page. My admittedly unsolicited but well-meaning suggestion is that you back away from posting there. It is unlikely that you will persuade him of anything and the interaction is just fueling hostility. I would suggest you only post there if you need to place a notice that is necessary to a specific process (e.g., a WP:3RR warning, or a notification of a discussion per WP:ANI or WP:CANVASS). Just my two cents. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
While rereading the page today a few things occurred to me:
Hi Yworo, I noticed that you removed the list of Vedanta Societies, referencing "Not a directory" and "external links". I agree that the list seems to violate the second point, of not having external links in an article. However, I don't see that any of the seven points given in "not a directory" quite pertain to the list in question. Rather, the list appears to me to be quite helpful in indicating the scope of the Vedanta Society's reach, and belongs in Wikipedia. So maybe the list can be restored, removing the external links? Devadaru ( talk) 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
your nice, rather complex, clean-up at
Felicitas Goodman and thought I’d mention my appreciation. Your edits show up on my watchlist quite a lot, always doing good things. I’ve figured you as being a northern NM person, so here is a northern NM quiz. What do these two pictures have in common?
File:Felicitas Goodman and student, ca. 1988.jpg and
File:Lisa Law & unidentified woman.jpg
Meanwhile this just showed up on my watchlist. It is probably worth a check.
Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 21:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting that; I think the others are OK. Adobe construction is an unusual category; one subcat for California and the main cat covers the rest of the world (including New Mexico) without the usual “by country” category. Hugo999 ( talk) 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked this User for a month - he's only made disruptive edits! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 12:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo Kundalini energy talk needs your input. Someone created a disambiguation page without bringing to a discussion first. Half thinks Kundalini should be one page and the other half want Kundalini Yoga to have its own page. I wrote - Kundalini is clearly the primary topic with everything else listed under it. Kundalini energy or kundalini yoga or kundalini awakening or kundalini meditation etc... would not exist without Kundalini. It makes complete logical sense that Kundalini is the primary topic. I also think the page should just be called Kundalini with kundalini energy being a subtopic. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 14:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo, it was suggested to move this page and merge with the Self-Realization Fellowship page back in 2012. I would like to do that. I have no problem moving all the info over but don't know how to delete the SRF Order page. I need your help once again. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting edits on this page lately - think it needs your expertise. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 13:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, you deleted my mention of "dram" in the Scotch whisky article for not citing a source. I readded it, uncited, for 2 reasons: first, it's common vernacular- similar to trying to find an academic article saying that most people consume Pepsi from a can. Second, and perhaps more conclusive, if you click dram the disambiguation page says, "a unit of mass and volume; as such, an informal name for a small amount of liquor, especially Scotch whisky" and if you open the article, a cited sentence says, "Dram is also used informally to mean a small amount of spirituous liquor, especially Scotch whisky." The article is here [1] It's actually the Oxford English Dictionary. This is why I am not citing it in the Scotch article, since I don't need to cite a cross reference to another wikipedia article. Take care. Thanks for your contributions on here. Coemgenv ( talk) 00:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I second. But would not do so (as far as possible) on the article talk page. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't understand why you made the comment, "Please don't attempt to dictate what 'won't work'." Seems like I was just making a normal talk page point by making a statement and giving a reason why I thought the statement was true. Here's the sentence for reference, "It looks like just adding "names" wouldn't work because we couldn't say "According to MOS:IDENTITY..." since that guideline doesn't mention "names", but rather "gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman')". -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 04:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
These kinds of remarks are not helpful content building. It's too late 3 days later after the fact to sanction you for the comments, so I'll settle for a warning: please keep clear of personal attacks in the future.--v/r - T P 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Making claims of “bias” against anyone who happens to disagree with you, as seems to be the case at least in my recent experience with you, is horribly nonconstructive. Please stop. If you have any valid claims of my bias, I would be very interested in hearing them since I’m personally unaware of having done anything “anti-trans”. If you believe this to be a lie, Wikipedia has channels for dealing with troublesome editors—if you think I need to be reported, report me, but don’t make vague, unsubstantiated claims where they don’t belong. Thank you. — Frungi ( talk) 02:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, making (and stating!) assumptions about another editor’s level of understanding of a topic is equally nonconstructive, as well as just plain rude. This is especially true when things are subjective even down to a deeply personal level, and when there are various conflicting theories and ideas and opinions about the topic. I may or may not have a different understanding of things than you do, but “different” does not mean “inferior”. — Frungi ( talk) 03:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There are many people editing this page and some of it seems questionable and promotional. Also, the disambiguation pages need your expertise as well. [4] Red Rose 13 ( talk) 15:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi. You recently undid several of my contributions to the Santa Fe Institute page, but you did so without citing appropriate wikipedia policies as to why. I am going to restore much of the material, and I am adding external references as requested. Let's not start an edit war. If you'd like to talk about the changes, let's do it on the Talk page. Paresnah ( talk) 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Yworo, I saw your revert of the IP on this page (on my watchlist for some reason or other), and I noticed that you also reverted a foreign language link, too. Did you mean to do that? I was going to re-add the link, assuming it was accidental, but I thought I'd check with you first (I can't read whatever language that is, so I can't judge whether it's a good link to have myself.) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 17:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Great work on Georges Yatridès Thanks Theroadislong ( talk) 20:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC) |
I would like to show special this video link: Slovenski utrinki. Doncsecz talk 14:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I prefer not to go to the limit of 3RR as you have, so I won't revert for now. If someone else does, you would do well not to carry on yourself. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. I know you and Nomoskedacity both have the best intentions regarding Swartz's ethnicity. Let's see if we can hash it out at the talk page. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yworo - please check out the last edits - It made the page a mess and was filled with opinions. I reverted and asked editors to discuss it on the talk page. Need your mentorship here. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 23:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo, I googled "Autobiography of a yogi wikipedia" and this was the third option - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yworo/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi - Shouldn't this be hidden because it isn't the page on Wikipedia but a sandbox? Red Rose 13 ( talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I added a {{ User sandbox}} template at the top. That should avoid any confusion should someone atypically perform the identical search you did. It might even tell Google not to index it. OK? Yworo ( talk) 02:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. Could you give a third opinion on Spirituality? See Talk:Spirituality#Lead, Talk:Spirituality#Conceptual background, Talk:Spirituality#Recent edits and Talk:Spirituality#Requesting third opinions on lead and definition. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
-- I am LORD Garth !! ( talk) 05:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. The subtext of my complaint is that plot summaries containing the tiniest details will always run well over the recommended maximum word limit. But I've already learned what a fool's errand it is to condense every one of these I encounter because it's just a lot of arduous jungle-clearing when there's really no shining temple awaiting me on the other side. And there's also the possibility that I'm essentially "undoing" someone else's labor of love, and that is the last reason on Earth for my continuing presence here. I derive plenty of satisfaction as it is from surgically simplifying and clarifying and more completely articulating ideas and passages within the bodies of the articles without resorting to the use of chainsaws or machetes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RODERICKMOLASAR ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo, I just wanted to make it very clear that I didn't put up the original section regarding Joel Brinkley and my edit history makes it very clear that I've been trying to maintain the neutrality of the article. I am merely serving as an advocate for the Vietnamese American community. As a result, I would really appreciate if you guys don't consider blocking me. Chrisvanlang ( talk) 02:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I've started a discussion thread
on the talk page for "Ubuntu (operating system)", as I believe that this needs further discussion on the matter of whether Dell sells Ubuntu systems. Please read the discussion before responding. Thanks! ----Thomas (
The Lord of Time) (
talk)
08:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Should this be on the spam blacklist? I've had a couple of sites full of copyvio added. Dougweller ( talk) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please explain your blank deletion action on the article talk page, as the article does not meet the definition of WP:ATP. Mhym ( talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. You've been following the discussions at Enlightenment (spiritual), haven't you? And also noticed the sockpuppet-investigations on Raul7213 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raul7213/Archive? Well, here's a new message I received from Octavious88. I don't trust it, but I can't figure out what's going on here - though maybe Octavious (or whoever) is Paul Joseph, the author of the famous article on refeeding. What do you think of this? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo, Thanks for the welcome. I am actually a college student in a class about CSCW, using Wikipedia as an example. I am interested in contributing to a Good Article promotion. Do you know how I could find an existing article being promoted? Are there any in the Seattle Wikiproject? Thank you. Tgrosinger ( talk) 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
First I appreciate your recognition of my efforts here at wikipedia on reaching 22,000 edits, Thank you. Second I have studied your points on COATRACK and that all my examples have their own wikipedia article, that clarifies some misunderstanding, however aside from one editors "mere gossip" your most recent post including: "please don't preach to me", "if you don't listen", "I am telling you", "find yourself in trouble", "prevent . . . serious mistakes" is making it difficult for agf and civil. I see you have edited it several times thou those terms remain and dilute any attempt of resolution--and yes I realize (and respect) your position that it is largely resolved. I have thought it best to address this directly. It's not my intent to waste editors time, make speeches or be--honestly feeling this way--attacked over this. I hope my efforts to be as specific and direct with your word choice can be revised and carried forward in any further discussions avoiding ad hominems. Thank you for your continued wikipedia efforts. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 21:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
(all quotations require immediately following citation, even in the lead)
You're right; my mistake. I've been removing unnecessary CN tags from article ledes based on WP:LEADCITE for years, yet never noticed that direct quotations should still have a citation even in the lede. I've added the citations. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
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. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you commented on the Isla Fisher talk page regarding WP:OPENPARA a while back. I would really appreciate it if you could please take the time to offer a third party opinion to help resolve a similar issue on this talk page so consensus could be reached. Tanbircdq ( talk) 19:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Reply from Tom3605: Regarding my prevous editing of the article on Charlize Theron, I changed the original reference to Ms. Theron being " a South African actress" to "a South African-born actress." Since she's now also an American citizen, refering to her as a "South African-born" actress is more accurate and fair than as simply " a South African actress." The fact that she was born in South Africa is well known and is stated elsewhere in the article itself, I thought no other justifications are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom3605 ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Nothing on the page is poorly sourced and the list was upheld in the BLP noticeboard. Please do not threaten me with blocks when there is no basis to do so. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas". EarwigBot operator / talk 18:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Just pointing out that you have now made the same edit (removal of material) twice at the article Very Serious People. I'm sure you are aware of the 3RR rule, but I wanted to make sure you have this particular case on your radar - in case others restore it and you are tempted to keep removing it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't call me "Buckwheat", that's a personal attack
|
Sorry that you had trouble finding the others at Allegro. If you want to talk about Seattle Wikipedia stuff I would meet you personally on Skype or by phone. I live in NYC now so I am not going to meetings anymore but I still support them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
In "Friedman Unit," part of the impact is that it gets people discussing Mr. Friedman's rhetorical tactics and slipshod thinking. I concur that my third example was trivial and did not derive naturally from Friedman unit, but the second was very much in the same vein. Statements from opinion pieces are allowed to establish the writer's statements. The term does not need to stand on its own as a neologism but it is a good example of the original term stimulating political discussion. Monado ( talk) 00:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Semi-protecting user talk pages. Thank you. — Guy Macon ( talk) 21:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted (most of) your edits to Bush Derangement Syndrome, for reasons I've explained at Talk:Bush Derangement Syndrome#March 2013. I welcome any response you might have. Best wishes, CWC 12:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Yworo! I don't anticipate becoming too much involved in the debating over at Template:Modern Dharmic writers. But in looking at your recent edits, a question/concern came to mind: are you keeping in mind WP:POINT? Perhaps you have a good argument that you are. But some of what you are doing suggests otherwise (i.e., your change-logs are offering rationales that you were arguing against very recently). Regards -- Presearch ( talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, be bold! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your referral to two pages regarding images. Nevertheless, I did not find anything that would forbid the normal publication practice of facing images into a page rather than out of it, if at all possible. Can you quote the rule or regulation, or even dictum, if you can find one. I really would like to know. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yworo, there is a editor - Tormod Kinnes - 46.9.197.230 - who seems to be with Swami Satyaswarananda or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailendra_bejoy_dasgupta (he just created this page) He is using sources that are questionable - websites that don't seem scholarly. He seems to be on an attack mode to put down SRF and promote Satyaswarananda rather than improving the page. He is spamming Satyaswarananda, on this page and on the Kriya Yoga page. Using opinionated words like "cosy sex", created sections called Regrets and Critiques from sources that no one would use on Wikipedia etc... I reverted him once asking him to bring ideas to the talk page. Then I deleted most of what he wrote and left one sentence to refer to the Articles of Incorp because he thought it was important. The page needs your expert editing. Thank you. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 12:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok trying the barnstar again -
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For reaching out to new users and helping them get started on Wikipedia and for eloquently bringing the truth in a difficult situation. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 21:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
A certain user doesn't like me either...especially when I too am trying to help them. MisterShiney ✉ 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Your revert reasoning edit summary was incorrect: the rename was discussed. See the top of Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything - it was an old discussion, revived. Lots of discussion, and even consensus, up to a point where it was templatized, where consensus stopped. -- Lexein ( talk) 06:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have warned him, but you continuing to post there after asking him not to post here is not reasonable. Please stop that. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Jose Antonio Vargas, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
User:PhilKnight (
talk)
19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hi! I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, so I'm hoping I get this right...I'm a (non-Cray) colleague of Brad Chamberlain, of the Chapel project, and he wanted me to deliver a message to you. I'm leaving off his email address to avoid spambots, but if you'd like it, it shouldn't be difficult to find (or you can email me from my user page).
I'll go ahead and update the page with a few edits, but you're welcome to check in on it too if you'd like. Go Huskies! :)
AtOMiCNebula ( talk) 04:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
While you aren't the subject of the ANI, I did raise your name here and out of courtesy, wanted to notify you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. The Cœur de pirate discography is currently at FLC. Please leave comments to help this reach Featured List status. Thanks! :) – Underneath-it-All ( talk) 01:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. I'm trying to give some people a further reason to quite this you-know-which template. I've already changed it on dosens of pages (as you've seen), which were not even included in the template. It's on so many pages, it made it clear to me that it's also useless in that respect. So I'm trying to give further opportunity to simply use a category, instead og this template. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Shall we continue this discussion solely at your page? So is there any way religius categories can provide a "jump" to another category, so from "Hinduism" to "Buddhism" etc? Or is this already thi "Writers by religion", which means users can "jump" at the bottom of the category-page? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I unbolded Robert G. Millar because it is not the subject of the article or an alternate name in the article Elohim City, Oklahoma. I also cited the MOS at: MOS:BOLDTITLE in my edit. I do not see anywhere in that article that supports your comment of "it's one of the articles redirects". If you are going to undo my good faith edit I expect a proper cite or a note on my talk page otherwise you are just starting an unsupported edit war. A little surprised to see this from an experienced editor. -- Hutcher ( talk) 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. I've created a Portal:Indian religions to satisfy our fellow-Wikipedians (don't be upset, please!), but I noticed the existence of this category: Category:Dharmic religion portals. I bet and hope that you are able to find the right place where this name can be changed to Category:Indian religions portals. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yworo - the Kriyananda page needs you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriyananda - someone added back in the word Swami, reverted the Legal Cases section into how it was in 2010 which was called Controversies. Took out two third party reference in the process. We need your expert editing here. This editor also added the legal case back in along with POV references. thank you once again Red Rose 13 ( talk) 00:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
New talk page discussion on disambiguation page for Yogananda or removing the honorific. We need your input. Talk:Paramahansa Yogananda Unsure if it needs to be done and how to do it. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 10:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi YWORO, I have a few questions on my own talk page related to remarks you wrote. I don't know whether you will see them if I leave them there, so I'm putting in this additional note. Thanks, Joesonyx ( talk) 09:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Article on David John Pearson". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you've been providing guidance about what is needed to clean-up the Georges Yatridès article, I thought I would let you know that I put a proposed deletion tag on the article. If there's a better way to go (CSD and PROD seemed extreme, but there might be a middle-ground), please let me know.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 08:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. My mistake. Thanks for the information. Jason Palpatine ( talk) 15:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks very much for your cleanup edits for First Nations style on the article Aaron Nelson-Moody. Could I impose upon you to also look over Susan Point and Jody Broomfield? Is there a manual of style I should be following for this? Cheers. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your edit to Priyanka Chopra, I do not see anything about left-sided pictures needing to be in a particular place here: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Where did you see that? BollyJeff | talk 23:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Ellison (polygamist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ellison (polygamist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Giant Snowman 15:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yworo, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zorin os, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deleted at AfD over 4 years ago. Previous deletions were all WP:G4. A second AfD would seem reasonable enough. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 ( talk) 02:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo I have joined the Wikipedia Astrology project today and am contacting you as a listed member of that project. There has been a proposal to consider the project dead and merge it with 12 other alternative subjects into a new wiki project which would oversee all aspects of fringe. I think it would be a shame to lose the astrology project on the basis that it has no active participants without contacting the members directly and exploring ideas for new ways to work together on astrology-related pages. It would be very useful if you would visit the discussion and let us know if your interest in the project is still active, or what it might take to rekindle it. Regards Tento2 ( talk) 09:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Yworo we have a problem on the Kriya and Kriya Yoga pages with a new editor who is deleting material and adding his own view point. He even changed a direct quote. I have reverted him and tried to work with him - asking him to bring desired changes to the talk page. I just reverted him a second time again asking him to bring his ideas to the talk page. Please come see. /info/en/?search=Kriya_Yoga and /info/en/?search=Kriy%C4%81 Thank you! Red Rose 13 ( talk) 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hidden information and possible consequential damages. Situation to be remedied before the situation deteriorates.
Whether or not you check my messages are now about 37 months during which my biography irrefutable have been manipulated by moderators Wikipedia. My biography appears in 06 important dictionaries, which erases the integrity of Wikipedia infancy. This leads me to decide that the behavior moderators intervened in this situation will be published in the press. Including the message of the day. Here, again, "yatrides.com" and "yatrides.org" consist only of material information, press articles etc.. scanned in "Authentic Yatrides". Movies, different country reports, TV News mid-day and evening, are neither YouTubes or FaceBook or Tweeters or any other possible advertising. However they can not afford any deviation: this type of disorder is typically technical Wikipedia.
In very first action Wikimedia France and USA are aware of my discontent and refusal to let me defamed. Moreover these maneuvers are damage to many of my collectors, they are over 300 very modest, the same should be considered the preeminent collections including stand Basil Butler British Petroleum and John Foster Dulles and many others of equal value who have acquired my works. And harm to myself.
In my 82 years that I am forced to endure such slander can not remain hidden. Considering that last word, obscure information is a very serious offense which carry heavy penalties that their prejudices may be multidimensional in different situations close consequential or not. What moderators seem to ignore. Whether to seek damages, considering my work with oil reaching record highs, it is possible that the scenery of the Yatrides / Wikipedia relationship changes.
I'm not litigious (see ArtPrice> Authentic Yatrides), but the manipulations on the events determined by my professional life, which represent my biography, must stop on Wikipedia USA including Wikipedia France where an US moderator has deleted my biography which become wrong / false.
Sincerely,
Georges Yatrides October 03, 2013 -- Yatrides ( talk) 17:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Explained it once this month already. User_talk:Andy_Dingley#MOS.3F Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit summary: not true. And whether they exist online or not is irrelevant: the relevancy is not determined by availability; your argument would apply to an External links section, which is kind of what this is, in disguise (so that WP:EL does not apply?). We're not a repository for links: not every article by a writer is worth noting, just as not every individual poem or bit part is worth noting. It's a matter of editorial argument and editors may disagree; but I note that these articles are not really found in notable journals or magazines, and they're not even referred to in the article itself. Plus, you have an article with three unreferenced paragraphs and the rest is all links (plus a quote farm), and a reference section that doesn't seem to reference a thing. The three "notes" are laughably unreliable. Typical semi-self-sourced vanity article for an unimportant person. If you want to improve the article, add some reliable sources and reviews. Drmies ( talk) 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I notice your revert on the Jody Broomfield article. I'm guessing you have much more knowledge of this area than I do. I've posted a note at Talk:Jody Broomfield#First Nations heritage to discuss. Your comments there would be very much appreciated. Regards. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed your interactions with User:MilesMoney on his talk page. My admittedly unsolicited but well-meaning suggestion is that you back away from posting there. It is unlikely that you will persuade him of anything and the interaction is just fueling hostility. I would suggest you only post there if you need to place a notice that is necessary to a specific process (e.g., a WP:3RR warning, or a notification of a discussion per WP:ANI or WP:CANVASS). Just my two cents. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
While rereading the page today a few things occurred to me:
Hi Yworo, I noticed that you removed the list of Vedanta Societies, referencing "Not a directory" and "external links". I agree that the list seems to violate the second point, of not having external links in an article. However, I don't see that any of the seven points given in "not a directory" quite pertain to the list in question. Rather, the list appears to me to be quite helpful in indicating the scope of the Vedanta Society's reach, and belongs in Wikipedia. So maybe the list can be restored, removing the external links? Devadaru ( talk) 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
your nice, rather complex, clean-up at
Felicitas Goodman and thought I’d mention my appreciation. Your edits show up on my watchlist quite a lot, always doing good things. I’ve figured you as being a northern NM person, so here is a northern NM quiz. What do these two pictures have in common?
File:Felicitas Goodman and student, ca. 1988.jpg and
File:Lisa Law & unidentified woman.jpg
Meanwhile this just showed up on my watchlist. It is probably worth a check.
Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 21:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting that; I think the others are OK. Adobe construction is an unusual category; one subcat for California and the main cat covers the rest of the world (including New Mexico) without the usual “by country” category. Hugo999 ( talk) 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked this User for a month - he's only made disruptive edits! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 12:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo Kundalini energy talk needs your input. Someone created a disambiguation page without bringing to a discussion first. Half thinks Kundalini should be one page and the other half want Kundalini Yoga to have its own page. I wrote - Kundalini is clearly the primary topic with everything else listed under it. Kundalini energy or kundalini yoga or kundalini awakening or kundalini meditation etc... would not exist without Kundalini. It makes complete logical sense that Kundalini is the primary topic. I also think the page should just be called Kundalini with kundalini energy being a subtopic. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 14:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo, it was suggested to move this page and merge with the Self-Realization Fellowship page back in 2012. I would like to do that. I have no problem moving all the info over but don't know how to delete the SRF Order page. I need your help once again. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting edits on this page lately - think it needs your expertise. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 13:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, you deleted my mention of "dram" in the Scotch whisky article for not citing a source. I readded it, uncited, for 2 reasons: first, it's common vernacular- similar to trying to find an academic article saying that most people consume Pepsi from a can. Second, and perhaps more conclusive, if you click dram the disambiguation page says, "a unit of mass and volume; as such, an informal name for a small amount of liquor, especially Scotch whisky" and if you open the article, a cited sentence says, "Dram is also used informally to mean a small amount of spirituous liquor, especially Scotch whisky." The article is here [1] It's actually the Oxford English Dictionary. This is why I am not citing it in the Scotch article, since I don't need to cite a cross reference to another wikipedia article. Take care. Thanks for your contributions on here. Coemgenv ( talk) 00:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I second. But would not do so (as far as possible) on the article talk page. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't understand why you made the comment, "Please don't attempt to dictate what 'won't work'." Seems like I was just making a normal talk page point by making a statement and giving a reason why I thought the statement was true. Here's the sentence for reference, "It looks like just adding "names" wouldn't work because we couldn't say "According to MOS:IDENTITY..." since that guideline doesn't mention "names", but rather "gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman')". -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 04:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
These kinds of remarks are not helpful content building. It's too late 3 days later after the fact to sanction you for the comments, so I'll settle for a warning: please keep clear of personal attacks in the future.--v/r - T P 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Making claims of “bias” against anyone who happens to disagree with you, as seems to be the case at least in my recent experience with you, is horribly nonconstructive. Please stop. If you have any valid claims of my bias, I would be very interested in hearing them since I’m personally unaware of having done anything “anti-trans”. If you believe this to be a lie, Wikipedia has channels for dealing with troublesome editors—if you think I need to be reported, report me, but don’t make vague, unsubstantiated claims where they don’t belong. Thank you. — Frungi ( talk) 02:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, making (and stating!) assumptions about another editor’s level of understanding of a topic is equally nonconstructive, as well as just plain rude. This is especially true when things are subjective even down to a deeply personal level, and when there are various conflicting theories and ideas and opinions about the topic. I may or may not have a different understanding of things than you do, but “different” does not mean “inferior”. — Frungi ( talk) 03:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There are many people editing this page and some of it seems questionable and promotional. Also, the disambiguation pages need your expertise as well. [4] Red Rose 13 ( talk) 15:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)