User talk:Cantamagda

Warning, you appear to be a single purpose editor (sockpuppet?) who has reverted the article considerably more than 3 times in a 24 hour period without adequate justification. This is your last warning. If you revert again, you will be reported. --Dseer (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism of my talk page in response to above courtesy warning has been noted. It will be included in my report. Thanks!--Dseer (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you about your repeated reversions, you are a single purpose editor. I do not need the same warning. Your harassment and further vandalism of my talk page is noted and will be reported. Thanks again. --Dseer (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not desire further explanations from you regarding why you violated 3RR. I am required to give you a warning first before reporting you, I've done that. Only contact me on that subject if you do not understand my concerns about how 3RR applies to your edits. Your counterwarning is not desired. Claims made by the controversial Gangaji are entitled to have reasonable, sourced responses if they exist, and controversies can explore both sides fairly, whether you, as a single purpose editor who wants to favorably interpret Gangaji for us, like it or not. Any original research or personal opinion from editors on whether Gangaji is genuine or not or the validity of criticism or not is irrelevant.--Dseer (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the harassment. You are not Arbcom. --Dseer (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your next reversion will be a 3RR violation and I've reported this. Additionally, your changing or removal of other editor's comments is evident misconduct and will be reported as well. If you do not choose dispute resolution rather than edit warring and misconduct, given the repeated warnings, I expect other editors will take action this time. --Dseer (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try again. WP:V says "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." And WP:BLP says, "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself," and "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages." You have violated these rules by repeatedly inserting and re-inserting such material. It does not say I have to choose dispute resolution to remove such content. What it says is that you need to stop inserting it, and that I not only may remove it but I should remove it. - Cantamagda (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

For me, your last response is brilliant, and totally in line with wiki policy. Well said, and look forward to working with you. Sethie (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A recommendation

I would file a WP:3O. Technically the dispute is not between 2 editors, but 3, however, Dseer and Iddli pretty much seem eye to eye.

From my perspective, the page needs outside views... I don't predict lots of discussion will solve it.

For the most part I think your arguments are very much in line with wiki policy. Also I see you as mostly WP:AGF and resisting WP:NPA. I would encourage you to continue to NOT focus on editors and focus on content.

My loyalties lie with wiki policies, not Gangaji, and with that said I will help on the page however I can. Warmly, Sethie (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==AfD nomination of Gangaji==

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gangaji, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangaji. Thank you. Sethie (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Do you have a "close personal or bussiness relationship" with Gangaji? Sethie (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]