User talk:1974rk

September 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Lingam. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Bgwhite (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1974rk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see constant vandalism of this page by people who quote unreliable sources .I have quoted content from scriptures and material prepared by learned gurus. 1974rk (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:RS and WP:NOTVANDAL. What you reverted clearly isn't vandalism, and those "unreliable" sources are published books, generally considered reliable. Huon (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Scriptures and material prepared by learned gurus"? Do you mean "the personal religious opinions of some people"? If so, you may have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and neutral point of view. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1974rk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here - I would like to humbly defer here. Books you are referring to are also personal opinion of writers who may have some personal bias in conveying a particular message. I am referring to Gurus like Swami Vivekananda and Swami Sivananda who are definitely considered by a vast majority of Indians to be learned and realized souls who have contributed significantly in their own ways for betterment of society they served. There had been quotes from religious text which have been deleted without any reason. Also I see that contents of the page are being decided by people who are not followers of this religion. It is like some one commenting of prophets of other religions and the followers of that religion do not have any say in deciding the content.. How fair is this ?

Decline reason:

You seem not to have realised that the block had already expired before you posted this unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1974rk (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not already done so, I suggest that you look at Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, since that is what you were blocked for, and your unblock requests do not seem to show an understanding of the reason for the block. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right.

Unfortunately, your second unblock request merely confirms that, as I suggested above, you have misunderstood (or not read) the relevant guidelines, and also shows that you have misunderstood the whole nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires that an article be written from a neutral point of view: Wikipedia does not exist for as a vehicle for followers of a religion, or the owners of a business, or the members of a club or any other kind of group to publicise their own preferred view of their religion/company/club/etc. Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources have nothing to do with being regarded as "learned and realized souls" or having "contributed significantly in their own ways for betterment of society they served" (whatever a "realized soul" may be), and the views of insiders are of very limited value, as we rely more on coverage by independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]