User talk:Mindgladiator

Welcome!

Hello, Mindgladiator, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:J. Z. Knight[edit]

Please note I only moved your comments to the bottom of the page where they belong (we post from top to bottom on talk pages). The posts I removed were ones that did not have anything to do with improving the article but were personal comments about Ms. Knight, etc. Please carefully check (scroll all the way down) the page diffs to see what I mean. I spent some time studying Yelm but other than that I have no agenda except to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding JZ Knight article[edit]

Hi,

It seems you keep undo-ing my edits on J. Z. Knight's article, without providing further justification. I believe to have shown the justification you already provided is inadequate for the reverts of the edits you have been constantly pursuing, and you have not addressed my reply to the issue.

As a result, I have mention the case here Administrators' noticeboard - Edit Warring.

Please refrain from editing the article any further until the dispute has been solved there. Thanks.

-Jujimufu (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on J. Z. Knight. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at J. Z. Knight are being discussed at the edit-warring noticeboard[edit]

Hello Mindgladiator. Please see WP:AN3#User:Jujimufu reported by User:Mindgladiator. You may add your own response there if you wish. It looks as though you may be rather inexperienced with Wikipedia. But even new editors are expected to obey our rules against WP:Edit warring. If you join the above discussion it may help avoid the possibility that you will be blocked from editing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have checked the edit history over the past two weeks, and I see you constantly adding material which is favorable to J. Z. Knight, and removing material (and references) which could cast any doubt on her claims. I'm sure you are aware that our articles are expected to be neutral. You should consider accepting a voluntary restriction from editing this article. For instance, you could agree to refrain from editing it for 30 days. If you do so, an admin may close the 3RR complaint against you without any sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. You seem to misunderstand our neutrality policy. We need to find *outside* opinion on J. Z. Knight's teachings from WP:Reliable sources. Neutrality is not achieved by finding one good thing from one place, then balancing it with one bad thing from another place. Neutrality is reached by finding outsiders who have written in published sources and then quoting what they say, regardless of whether it is pro or con. If you won't voluntarily restrict yourself from the article for a period of time, I am planning to impose an admin sanction. As an alternative, you could agree not to change the article any more unless (a) you first propose your change on talk, (b) at least one person on the talk page supports your change. I await your response. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have again edited the J. Z. Knight article at 14:12 UTC since receiving my note (above). I am still waiting to hear from you. Can I remind you that time is running out if you are hoping to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston.. I am happy to go ahead with this editing method but you have to warn Jijimufu to stop making the article so biased. He is assuming an authoritive and administrative role without so much as a word to the contrary and this is going to make me keep editing his posts or find other users who will continue to make sure this article is balanced if I am blocked. I do not want to see this escalate any further, I will stop editing if you ask Jijimufu to remove some of his poorly sourced bias information and links to irrelevant videos of disgruntled ex employees!!! I am also going to start sourcing more links to relevant information. Please tell me why the External link to Ramtha's School of Enlightenment has not been removed? the article is about Ramtha, is it not a valid link???

You say.. "Neutrality is reached by finding outsiders who have written in published sources and then quoting what they say, regardless of whether it is pro or con." Every time I have done this I have had it removed and the only bits left in the article are bias against JZ Knight. I notice no sanction on jijimufu? please explain?

Mindgladiator (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify if you are agreeing not to edit the article for 30 days. If not, what are you agreeing to? EdJohnston (talk)

EdJohnston.. You have not mentioned anything in response to my questions? Yes I will not edit the article for 30 days if you address my concerns about the bias issues that are being perpetuated by Jijimufu's posts to the article? and I am also agreeing to not add to the article unless the info has been discussed first..

Mindgladiator (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. I agree to not edit any of the article for the next 30 days. Thank you for your time and I look foward to seeing how the article will grow whilst I am away.

OK, you are accepting a voluntary restriction from editing the article. The restriction will expire at 18:23 UTC on 20 December, 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. please don't remove other editors' comments from the Talk page. Per the above deal I expect that you will observe other Wikipedia policies during the 30 days. If not, the original sanctions will be imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hi,

In regards to your edit on J. Z. Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Z._Knight&oldid=326928949), I feel obliged to let you know that you have gone over the edge with the article in question and your assumed authority to make any changes as you see fit.

After all the discussions (in the article's talk page, the editor assistance page and the edit warring pages, and after you have been warned by Jezhotwells with a 3RR warning, I am hereby warning you that if you do not refrain from exhibiting behaviour of vandalistic character, you will be reported to the wikipedia administration for perpetually vandalising the integrity of the article. -Jujimufu (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello..

Best you dont communicate with me until we have reached some agreement through EdJohnson, you are still making the article biased and currently getting away with it. Hopfully that will not last for long, but in the meantime continue destroying the integrity of Wikipedia and this article at your own will.

If my actions and edits are vandalism then why did my request for full article protection get turned down??

Mindgladiator (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:J. Z. Knight, you will be blocked from editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jez.. Really.. did you need to post this after I have already said I wont edit for 30 days. Article is still biased so my suggestion would be stop wasting your time with this sort of post and help Jijimufu to make the article un biased...

I am beginning to see how wikipedia runs and I am not surprised it is getting bad press for its articles.

Mindgladiator (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently said that you wouldn't edit anymore at 18:54 (although you forgot to sign that promise), yet at 18:57 you were still removing material form the talk page! I suggest you spend the next thirty days reading all the policies that you have been pointed at. It is pretty obvious that you have a conflict of interest here and have no understanding of WP:RS and WP:Verifiability. Until you get a grip on these you will not progress in editing Wikipedia. See if you can find reliable sources for your assertions. Ask about them here or on my talk page if you like. As to bad press, it gets those for articles with uncited false information such as that to which you seem to be wedded. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells.. The edit to the talk page was edited before I agreed to the 30 days.. I did that on purpose so I would not break my own agreement. Yes I will read up on how to do things with out breaking rules. Thanks for you efforts and please remember that there is still a link on the article to a video of a disgruntled ex-employee, I am sure that is not a reliable source for information.

Mindgladiator (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]