User talk:Kaliage

Nomination of Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies 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/Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kaliage - Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a soapbox to right great wrongs. The original article is too long, difficult to read, and your post to my talk page is too long, difficult to read. Try making the case for retention of the article in the deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a link to that deletion discussion please?DarkAges 20:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 20:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies, per the link in the second paragraph above. — Jeff G. ツ 14:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments to those who want my article to be deleted or reduced to minimum

I'm deferring to WP:CRITS which says to avoid articles or sections just on controversies. It can be kept balanced, but in this case this info can be dramatically condensed and merged. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Timtempleton: That very Wikipedia page says: "WP:BALASPS: "the weight a Wikipedia article gives to criticism of its subject should be proportionate to the overall weight of such criticisms in reliable sources on the subject of the article." This is what Jeff G. wrote and I agree. Anyone who goes through the large amount of sources in my article, must see that there are proportionally much more reliable sources about Bomjon's controversial deeds, than articles showing him as a holy man. "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), ..." - Ram Bomjon is a founder of a new religion called Maitri Dharma and/or Bodhi Shrawan Dharma Sangha. He is not a private person when he acts in the name of his new religion. The controversies concern his public activity as a religion-founder, not of a private person. "Philosophy, religion, or politics: For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies ... or religion – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."Exactly that was the reason I did not integrate my article with the main article. It is not a biographical material so much as a narrow topic dealing with how the media informed about Ram Bomjon's controversial deeds, when and why had it stopped to do so, and explaining the influenceing of the media by the leader and his cult. And this:"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material."My article's case. "Controversy" article: use the term "controversy" in an article title only when this is part of the common name of the topic of that article, and the controversy is notable in its own right (as opposed to being part of a larger topic)" Bomjon is a controversial figure. That means that there is a powerful camp of his followers and supporters in Nepal and abroad, who are covering up long time his too evident criminal deeds, which, on the other hand, are regularly covered by the pragmatic media. This very situation is the controversy itself, and it is notable in its own right, because due to the efforts of his cult his deeds are avoiding police and court cases, and after 2012 also being selectively deleted from media sites, while new articles about his continuing criminal deeds do not appear in mainstream media anymore. The controversy is exactly in this status quo situation, when it is well-known that he is often attacking and abducting people, but in the same time he is still celebrated as a New Buddha of Nepal. If he was punished or widely condemned by everyone for his criminal deeds, that would be no controversy anymore. But exactly because this is not the case, and exactly because even when knowing about his attacks, his followers consider him a god who has right to do anything, and as the Himalayan Times wrote, Bomjon is "above the law" in Nepal, that is a controversy in its own right. But I can understand that at first sight you just see a bunch of negative link and cannot recognize which are the 20+ propagandist ones I added, and you just think it is my personal opinion. You should study the material which you wish to criticize, condemn or delete.DarkAges 16:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 16:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment to South Nashua It would be more constructive to give reasons, South Nashua. Articles solely focusing on controversies are many on Wikipedia. If there can be published controversies about Mrs. Clinton or Buddhism openly, or about totally unknown figures like Bulssy Jaybyeon (have anyone heard about him?) why not about a Nepalese religious leader with organization branches in the US, Japan and Europe? Any scientific reasons for such selectiveness...?Thanks.DarkAges 15:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 15:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Comment @Kaliage:Sure, happy to elaborate. There are few links in there that meet RS on a few of the controversies in the main article that can't hurt to be added (i.e. - the incident with the Slovakian). Also, a courteous tip, it's common practice on Wikipedia to use four tildes after each comment in non-article space and you also might want to use the ping template if you're talking directly to another person in a discussion. South Nashua (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @South Nashua: As Jeff G. ツ pointed out, and also this Wikipedia page, the proportion of what is more in reliable sources (not on Google or cult-based sources), "admiration" or criticism, should be mirrored in the article. The main article has not kept faithful to that proportion. It deals with romantic mystifications, while the mainstream Nepalese media (which that author forgot to mention at all) had been describing over more than ten years a series of rather criminal deeds. So if you just add a few links from my article to the main one, without changing its whole structure, you will not mirror the true picture. Moreoever, don't know if you really read these things, but actually the link about the Slovakian had already been there, in the main article (in one sentence). So I am confident that there is also a need to show that his controversial actions are not just occassional "mistakes" but a regular pattern on a nearly yearly basis(a few lines down I show you why), and if you count, those victims are more than a dozen. Can you just satisfy a ten years long media coverage of his criminal deeds (totally ignored in the main article!) with adding a few other media links to the main article? Which is actually a very irrational evangelium and not a factual biography at all. Bomjon started his public activity in 2005. Now we have 2017, 12 years. From these, the biography covers only his famous "Buddha Boy" years till around 2008. And then a gap, and jumps to two controversies, one in 2010, two years gap, and one abduction in 2012. Why? Because it was most probabaly written by someone who wished to hide the controversial pattern (or was painfully uninformed), which is not just occasional, but regular: 1, attack with sword on shepherd boy in 2007, 2, abducting a Spanish tourist 2007, 3, attack on 17 Madeshis in 2010, 4, attack on an Australian in 2011, 5, abducting two women, one Slovak one Nepali 2012, 6, attack on mother and 4 siblings, holding them hostage 2012, 7, violent demonstrationof his followers against villagers (24 injured) 2012, 8, attack on 13 young boys in Sarlahi with sword by his attendants 2013, 9, attack on 5 villagers, three escape, two beaten to blood all night with sticks 2014, 10, attack on his own sister (who dies of the consequence in coma in 2016) in 2015, 11, an US psychologist dies in his premises in 2016... I did not mention in my article the Spanish and Australian case, the Spanish because although I did research in Nepal, and it was confirmed to me from many sources that she was abducted and TV showed it in 2007, I don't know her name, and did not find the TV news archive yet (I continue to research). The Australian gave me an online interview, but he refuses to be mentioned anywhere, and I must respect his wish. The American I mention but it is not covered in the media. I have the obituary print issued by the US Embassy, but I have not requested permission from his family to publish it. But just to show you that after facing so many such cases, it is unavoidable not to see Bomjon as strongly controversial, and more strongly so than holy: and this disbalance should be reflected on Wikipedia about him. But even if you leave out the Spanish and the Australian, I think you have quite a clear yearly series of regular brutality. So please have a look at them, and then think it over, if it is OK to only use a few "dry links" of my article to stick to the mythology of the main article. And anyway, which would you pick up from all these? Is any of them less important than the other? Is the abduction of 5 Nepalese men less important than the hostage taking of the Slovakian? I do use tildes when signing, but for some reason I always get scolded - can it not work? I am using it here now again, let's see if it appears: DarkAges 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:POV, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Even if this was not so close to bollocks because of how badly it's written, I would still delete it as . Bearian (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is badly written, it can be improved, isn't it? Try to rewrite it, but why do you want to throw away a precise work in a good intention to provide a balanced picture? First look at the main article, and if that you find well written, impartial, neutral and well sourced, fair enough. Yet then cult propaganda and irrational statements with no other proofs than their own blogs will be regarded as Wikipedia standard, and serious works based on multiple mainstream media sources as "badly written". Also, the main article's biography stops somewhere in 2010, with a jump to 2012 mentioning one controversy in a single sentence. I disagree with you Bearian, as I am not pushing any opinion, I do not need to push anything, it is pushing itself to your eyes if you read those sources, check out the photos and news links, for example the Image TV channel showing his bloodied victims. One photo to an article in the Prateek Daily shows his own mother at the local police station reporting her son for keeping her and other 4 siblings hostage for five days, beating them and kidnapping the youngest daughter: do I need to push anything about this one? I only collected the sources, and put them on display alongside the "positive image" ones (more than 20 of these), if you care to read and distinguish them from each other. I could have just listed the links and not add descriptive text, yes, but then those unfamiliar with how things were evolving over the years, would not understand how it is that there were (seemingly) no (searchable) news for ten years, or why we find the controversies only in archives now: so I added the descriptive first part to explain the reason for uneven media coverage. That is also not my opinion, those are conclusions derived from the information anyone gets when making thorough research, and I give enough reference links to check out which sources did I base my conclusion on. Do you have anything to oppose these conclusions, other than cult-based sources and blogs? Come up with it, please and post them there! Compare my article with this one: there is an email controversy, but the author does not use mere citations but also conclusions based on the sources. It is a normal way to write articles. Similarly like the article about Clinton's email controversy, I also draw out a conclusion from sources on both sides, but logically, having in mind their quality, reliability and proportion! However, the main article intentionally left out the most drastic controversies and mentioned only three, and only in two lines, and had not been updated by the latest interview where the follower actually admits Bomjon had hands in the death of his sister (Setopati). Can you put on a balance the two things? What is more important about a celebrated religious leader? Information (from mainstream media) about people being kidnapped, beaten to blood and (apparently) even killed, or a holy legend about the length of his hair and whiteness of his robe, and claims of inedia without any proof? As Jeff pointed out above, proportion should be kept. Thanks for thinking twice.DarkAges 22:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 22:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Kaliage, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Ram Bahadur Bomjon have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I am a new user and had been accused when I tried to publosh the Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies, of POV fork and pushing my opinion etc. THIS was the reason that this time I tried to avoid the accusations of expressing ideas which could seem to the editors as unbased in sources! And now you accuse me of the opposite! It is just unfair! I took the warnings of Robert McLenon and Baerin senior editors to my heart, and when editing the Ram Bahadfur Bomjon article, I wished to show that none of my adits are my own opinions, but all sourceable back to mainstream media! I am shocked that now you push me to the corner in such a brutal way and accuse me of exactly the opposite! Tell me then WHY could the original article of Ram Bahdur Bomjon stay there years, when there were even false data (numbers of days changed deliberately, differing from source!). That article was so painfully outdated, and lacking important events and sources! I added them. So if it is copyright violation to use to many quotations, sorry for that, I did not know, and surely I did not mean it. Can it be just not understood as a situation caused by my fear that again senior editors woudl accuse me of POV fork and pushing my own opinions without any media base? How can you just destroy so many days of work of other editors, without even giving a chance to fix and repair the mistakes, done by a newcomer? The usual procedure woudl have been to give a warning to remove the ocpyright issue, but not immediately delete the whole thing. Please give me contacts for those where I can complain about this shocking behavior.I do NOT agree with you, and please read teh article before condemning it. I have absolutely no problem to rewrite it to fit to the copyright rules, but I did not know about them. There are just too many rules in Wikipedia that a newcomer is owerwhelmed with, and no assistance and good-will.DarkAges 15:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 15:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that what you called "copyright problem" was actually just the removing all other than propaganda materials from the edited article. So are you positively biased towards Ram Bahadur Bomjon? Again, I have no problem to rewrite the article to comply with copyright rules, but to delete such a detailed painstacking work is nothing else than absolute disrespect towards others. Please also read teh accusations aagainst my Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon controversies article, where I dared to boldly make conclusions based on multiple media sources without using quotations. And that was the main problem for some other senior editors. I wished to comply with what they warned me against, and THIS TIME I avoided even a single conclusion from my side, and wished to show that all is based on mainstream media, often international. So be so kind and do not bite newcomers, return my edits and advise CONCRETELY where and what shoudl I fix, and then I would do it. But as Jeff G. had written, an article shoudl mirror the reality concerning the balance between positive and negative sources and text. The current state of the article is NOT doing this. It only hijacks Wikipedia for a one-sided proparagnada of a cult, which attacks and tortures abducted people. To leave it like that is unfair towards the public. There might have been mistakes on my side as a beginner, but why you have to rush and delete my work without warning? And if yes, why don't you delete also those edits of mine which actually helped his "positive image"? I think to be biased, to any direction, is not a Wikipedia policy. Entirely shocked and disappointed. You have so many rules on Wikipedia one cannot even manage to read all. You cannot expect that a beginner will know about all bits and pieces right away. You shoudl give a chanceto repair.DarkAges 15:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 15:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Kaliage, I came here after seeing a post you left on Veriditas' talk page. Notwithstanding the fact that Veriditas has not edited at all for a very long time whereas you have only been editing for a few days, you appear to have a predilection for writing huge screeds of text for your messages. Nobody will read these. If you need issues looking into, consider keeping your messages to a maximum of four or five lines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. The more I am trying to explain my reasons, the less are senior editors interested to read it. The bigger problem is that they do not read even the articles themselves, see the deletion stamp was sticked to it in less than 10 minutes after publishing that long article with many links. I would never dare to delete one's work before thoroughly read and check all links. I was naive when i expected such a correctness here in Wikipedia. What can i do now, please advise.DarkAges 16:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 16:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong recommendation

You need to find another topic to edit, now.

As it is, you've been adding unsourced or poorly-sourced potentially-libellous accusations. That goes against our biographies of living persons policy, which you've quoted cherry-picked portions to try to defend your previous WP:COPYVIO mistakes enough that you can't claim ignorance of that policy.

If you don't drop the Bomjon page and go find something else to do, you're almost guaranteed to end up blocked. WP:BITE is not a shield when a user is solely here to crusade for their own beliefs, especially when they refuse to take advice from others, think that this place is about winning arguments, and refuse to even consider the possibility that maybe other users are trying to help.

And if you end up blocked, any material added to the article in the future is liable to be removed out of suspicion that it was added by you. All Bonjom's cultists would need to do is say "Oh, that anonymous edit was just a sockpuppet of Kaliage, we can revert it forever." No one here wants that. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits have been zealously focused on promoting a POV that includes unsourced accusations about a living person. You were given repeated warnings and plenty of advice, which you either ignored or argued against. And then you went and posted material that was deleted because of copyright violations all over again.

Like I said, I'm suspicious of charismatic religious leaders who claim any sort of divinity. We have similar views on Ram Bahadur Bomjon. Were I biased in favor of Bomjon, I would have just blocked you for this edit instead of giving you a redundant warning and trying to direct you in the right way. All of my actions in the Bomjon article were to clean up your mess. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock | reason=your reason here DarkAges 12:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)}

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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here DarkAges 12:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You made two unblock requests. Please only make a single request at a time. Additionally, you appear to expect volunteer admins to read an essay that is more than 2000 words long. That's not going to happen. You should read WP:GAB before requesting another unblock. Your request must talk about yourself, not about others. And it should be somewhere around 1/10th the length or perhaps 1/100th the length. Yamla (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2017 (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.

{Yamla} I clicked again to send the ublock template because for some technical failure I got a read letter message that it was not uploaded. I did not mean anything wrong with it. Maybe the system is not working properly, but don't blame me of it, OK? If you want a short form of complaint, then here it is: ian.thomson rude, uses words liek "fuck" and insults about my allehed mental health problems due to writng bold. Bullies (see Talk page). McClenon reads long article less than ten minutes after publishing, then stamps AfD. Ian.thomson pours out unbased general accusations, cannot prove them, deletes my explanation on Talk page. General, unproved and extremely negative accusations like plagiarism, lazy, paranoic, POV etc. Main article full of factual errors, refuses to respond veen if I give concrete proofs (manipulated number 48 to 96, name is not sanskrit but Nepali, preaching not in ratanpuri but Halkhoriya etc). ian.thomson deletes my edits but just the negative ones about Bomjon. Bias, unethical accusations, lack of good faith, unpolitenss.

I say again, "Your request must talk about yourself, not about others." You are welcome to make another unblock request, but should read WP:GAB before doing so. --Yamla (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the extreme bully of ian.thomson against me, and the lack of goo dfaith in my goo dintention to update a topic on Wikipedia. He is accusing me practically of all the Wikipedia breaches, and without even checking if he had any reason for that. He uses extreme language of offending like accusation of mental illnes because of my using of bold formating, calling me paranoic, lazy, plagiator and by a long list of very unpolite and hateful words. This makes me shocked, as I had teh best intention, and I was ready to learn and correct my mistakes, but ian.thmson was two days ago just playing with me a very manipulative bully game, when deleting my edits he was then accusing me of not adding the source links to those sentences (which he deleted a few seconds before). When I answered that I was searching for th elinks, he accused me that I was serahcing for them on the Internet! No, I was searching for them in my Media on Ram bahadur bomjon's Controversies article, which was but jsut during thsi discussion also deleted, so I was forced to search in my Word copy.

But ian.thomson hot-headedly rushes into conclusions with a huge burden of blackest accusations, while I am just a naive beginner who ws trying to learn and edit a very biased and cult-propagadna looking article, with incoorect data, using blogs and Youtube as sources gfor mor ethan ten years on Wikipedia's pages (Ram bahadur Bomjon article).

I am in total shock from the primitive accusations and suspicions, of ian.thomson, which show, as you read his lines in our concersation, that he was not assuming any good faith in me. His discussion behavior is entirely unethical, unpolished and bullying. He was pushing me into the corner, leading an Edit War againts me while I was in goo dfaith that truth and neutrality are crucial, adding my edits and corection to the main article. Yet woudl you be able to read his rude and arrogants words and my arguments? Maybe not. As even during our discussion he was repeatedly deleting my answers, to show teh whol ein a different picture than it was. I was reacting on his "points" and offered solutions, but he deleted my reactions on the discussion.

I suppose ian.thomson has access to that part of Wkipedia where he can dele even discussions with editors. A big part of my VALID arguments and giving links had been deleted. Maybe he also deleted his I DON'T GIVE A FUCK about Bomjon sentence, which shocked even another editor by its rudeneness.

Is this the way Wikipedi atreats all newcomers? I have collected a big amount of positive and negative material about Ram Bomjon and showed them, in majority mainstrea reliable sources, on my former article (stamped AfD by Robert McClenon) as well as in my edit attempts of the outdated main article. But while Robert had accused me of POV because I used my own wording (all based on teh sources, of course), I wanted to avoid this accusation when I set to update the main Ram bahadur Bomjon article: and so I used a lot of direct quotations.

I was really not awar that it is not allowed. Moreover, I saw in the main sraticle that the original author did nkit use citation marks when quoting from media, just a refernece note to the source. So I thought that this is the proper Wikipedi aformat, and I did teh same!

When I apologized to ian.thomson that this was my mistake, instead of keeping good faith and assistingme to repair my mistakes, he started a crusade against me om the Talk page, accusing me of teh worst things you can just imagine, from plagiarism, theft, mental illness, laziness, etc. etc. I had all the good faith that I am allowed to edit as anyone else, when I have mainstream media sources and reliable data, and I also know a lot about the case and person, I know Nepalese and know the realities etc. Ian.thomson is not an expert in this area.

How can Wikipedia editors behave like this? I did a huge amount of research, not eating and sleeping properly, just to share with teh public all what had been hidden and repeatedly deleted by the cult's followers over the years (just find that part where they convince Wikipedia that Nepal's No 1 REnglish newspaper, The Himalayan Times is a BLOG (!) and then Wikipedia beleived, did not check, and deleted the sources!

I am shocked by the pesronal attacks and extremely evil wording that ian/thomson is using. Just have a look please at the sticker he stamped my Usrr account with: I see a a shocking hatred and "revenge" from it, fro what, for God's sake? I am just a good-willing new editor, who worked hard to share the balanced infromation about Bomjon, I archived all teh media which aws not archived, no one before me took the effort, and I provided this all to be faithful to the full truth! Why thsi to me unknown ian.thomson started to write so intensively, bully me two days ago and play a manipulative game while deleting my edits and ridiculing me in the discussions that I did not still end the source link to the sentenecs (which were not teher in a few seconds anymore)... It is shocking, and I request Wikipedia editors to investigate his unprecedented UNPOLITE AND RUDE, ARROGANT AND UNETHICAL writing against me.

I accept that I did mistake. i am sure that everyone new here does mistakes! But my will and intention was good and I was ready to repair and correct my mistakes. But I saw only fanatic enmity, evilness and irony on the side on ian.thomson, which I am stil unable to believe that thsi could happen on the pages of Wikipedia.

Also, please review the Deletion nomination by RobertMcClenon. He stamped my Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies with AfD only about 10 minutes after I published it! Without even reading it! It is a long article and had dozens of links t mainstream sources. No one can decide about its deletion just in ten minutes!

He saw it as too negativistic and POV! But I have seen many articles and categories on Wikipedia focusin solely on the CONTROVERSIES concerning publicly known persons. I do not feel I did some sin! You have a balance in the main article Ram Bahadur bomjon already, which is assessed by many on the Talk page as HAGIOGRAPHY and intentionally leaving out the overwhelming amount of controversie, listing only 2, while romanticizing Bomjon's hair and robe... It is outdated, was written when Bomjon was not publicly know to attack people, aroudn 2006. Now is 2017!

So I did not want to vandalize that main article, let it stay porpahandist, exactly I wante dto avoid Edit Wars with people like ian.thomson. That's why I made a separate article Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, focusing mainly on his negative deeds, but also showing many sources and claims of the cult members, to balance.

Yet Robert McClenon coudl not see and distinguish these sources and claims in ten minutes, not being familiar with the case! I protest against being labeled to deletion in a mere ten minutes!

I accepted there were formal mistakes in the article, but those could have been corected by the help of helpful senior editors, and a few like Loopy, Jeff G. even started to help me make it better. So why did have McClenon use brute force. together with ian/thomson?

I also found in another converstaion of McClenon on Wikipedia, that actually this is a kidn of manipulative game that senior editors are doing to us, newcomers: instead of deleting immediately, they send it to discussion, but already at teh very first momment they decide it is going to be deleted, just that the discussion process woudl keep it in the History. This is all McClenon wanted.

This behavior is immoral and unethical, to have such a prejudiced and manipulative game with newcomers. If someone wants to delete my article, let it be someone who AT LEAST READ IT, but McClenon did not, in thos eten minutes! After others decided that it is valuable colection of reliable sources, it coudl be merged with the main article, I was relieved. Yet then I did not get any notice from anyone, what should be the next step? Who will do the merging? Is there anyone who, like me, is an expert on this topic and knows its history overt 12 years, from Nepal and through Nepalese language? Ian.thomson or McClenon are hardly the ones, neither Bearian, who all rejected my article...

So I took the liberty and started to edit the main article, to update and correct it to reality, so that I could consequently, with teh advice and assistance of good-willing editors, partially merge it later. I updated the names, geog. places, links about Bomjon's organization, preachings, places and dates where and when he stayed... I did a lot of work which was entirely "pro-cultist", as even those data are incorrect. He is not Sanskrit, he is Nepali and hsi name is Nepali, for example. For ten years no one cared to correct thi son Wikipedia. Or I found that the source Nepalnews had shown 48 hours during which he had to be watche dby Gunjaman lama meditating, but the previosu editor manipulated the number to 96 hours, to show Bomjo as more miraculous! I corrected all thes efalse data and then added piece by piece the controversies themselves, well-documented from reliable media.

After one day ian/thomson arrived and (I don't know even why did I get a notion about this from some Dianneee) deleted all my edits : actually NOT ALL: HE LEFT ONLY TEH EDITS WHICH WERE TO SHOW BOMJON IN A GODO PICTURE (first part of article) BUT DELETED ONLY TEH EDITS ABOUT HSI CONTROVERSIES. Thsi is bias and unethical! I protested.

And then it came: an unprecedented, intensive wave of sweeping accuations, by probably all of the abbreviatiosn you ever created on Wikipedia! POV, and plagiarism (can the two exist together in the same sentenec? For ian.thomson yes!), acusations and insults, personal attacks and calling names, I would never ever imagine this happening on an academic webiste, teh writing style of ian/thomson is rather that of facebook or Youtube comments!

Please tak ethe time sand effort, someone up there, in your management or senior editors' club, because thsi behaviro makes shame to all of you, not speaking about your disrespect towards the work of other people! I repeat, i was ready to learn, change and adjust my text, put citation marks where needed, paraphrase when needed, just i wanted to share that very dark truth which is revealed to tose who have access to media about Ram Bomjon!I wanted also to make that article updated, even the positive, cultis opinions, to be simply proffessional and helpful to readers. In its current form it is a fairy tale, not having any connection to his real life, actions!

And don't forget one thing: this all is not about me. I don't care about ian.thomsons's problems to deal with people. This you might solve intrnaly if you wish. But I wish that the public have a complex picture, not just a propaganda, about a dangerous cult leader who is soon arriving to Western countries to enlargen his cult. Everyone will ask: why did Wikipedia not warn us who this person really is? Why did Wikipedia give a false vague picture,and leave out the reliable mainstream media sources about his controversies?

So I wrequets you to make ian.thomson stop to touch this article and stop to communicate with me, and to endorse a senior experienced, helpful editor with knowledge of Buddhism, Hindusim, Nepal and cults, to assist me in creating a professional, encyclopedic but balanced article about Bomjon, using my long list of mainstream media sources!

If you are so extremely afraid (becuse ian/thomson might have created such a paranoia in you all) that I am a vandal, POV Forker and plagiator, you can even keep me blocked, I don't take it personally. But please do not block the truth, the ful truth, and do not betray neutrality and ethics!

Thank you,

Kaliage

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Please have a look at the rude and unethical bully perpetrated b ian.thomson on the Talk page to the Ram Bahadur Bomjon artcile. I wrote a lot of explanations about the problem, and no one reads it, so I am losing good faith in Wikipedia. If I write it down too shortly, than aagin, you are going to not understand what actually is the problem. Ian.thomson uses rude insults and rude words like I don't give a fuck (check in on the article's Talk page) and extreme accusations which have no base in anything concrete (plagiarism, POV, you are lazy, you are mentally ill, you are this or that). He ignores my humble attempts to explain and prove that his accusatiosn wer ebased on simply nit reading the srticle and not checking the sources, and especially on teh fact he deleted my edits, and thus cut away the sources and text from each-other: then he was bullying me and ridiculing taht i was consequently not able to add the links to the text (which he had just deleted)... He ignored my repeated alerts that the main srtaicle is full of factual errors, manipulated numbers of days *to lok it longer, please see its Talk page wheer I alert that number 48 as in source was changed by author and left on Wikipedia for abt ten years as 96 days!), and also outdated very much (stops somweher in 2006, whiel Bomjon was very active teh last ten years, but unfortunately, active mainly in violence, police stations and courts!). Also, Bomjon's name is not a Sanskrit name, it is in Nepali. His 2008 preaching was not in Ratanpuri but in Halkhoriya. And teher is a more than dozen case list of extreme controversies, abductions, hostage holding, tortures, rape, beatings (including one admitting of killing his sister by hsi follower in mainstream media). This just cannot be left out, especially because as I listed in my Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies article, they are outweighing his positive elements, and these controversies are sourced by me from multiple mainstream media. In teh same time, ian.thomson and all other condemners of my meticulous honest work, had failed to give answer why had been in the main artcile (and still stay to be) tolerated for aroudn ten years the unreliable sources of the authors/editors there: blods, personal Youtube links, cult-based propaganda sites. I repeatedly pointed out these errors, but they did not fix them and instead Ian.thomson, Dianee, Bearian and McClenon started against me a something like a Wikipedia crusade.

When I wrote the media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, I did it i a good faith, and summazrized the overwhelming negative news about him. i di dnot find any reliable source with positive news from 2007. So I had to balance the reliable sources (negative) with unreliable cult-based sources (positive). I was accused by McClenon of POV (too negativistic artcile). Because he did not read the article, he stamped it AfD in 10 minutes after I published it on Wikipedia! No one can check the dozens of sources in such a short time!

To avoid the same mistake, after it was decide dto merge with the main article (Ram Bahadur Bomjon) I used lots of direct quotes, to prove Clenon that I was not pushing any personal opinion, but sumazrizing media texts! Then suddenly, when I was correcting the many errors of the main article, polishing it wityh edits, ian.thomson deleted my edits, accusing me of Copyright violation and plagiarism!!! I just wanted to avoid the mistake of being accused of POV by editors who are not reading the article but just have a swift look, like McClenon in less then ten minutes.... I though that using quotes, they woudl not accuse me of POv anymore.

Instead, they accused me of the opposite. This is outrageous. ian.thomson did not allow me to explain this, he was deleting repeatedly my answers and explanation on the Talk page about this, and pushing me to correct my (deleted by him!) edits again! This is teh worst type of bully one can imagine. I was begging him for giving me time, as I did not eat and sleep that day because of how he destroyed my whole work, and I had to start from zero. In between he was ridiculing me taht I am unable to add the links.

In between he looked after that my AfD article Media on Ram bahadur Bomjon's Controversies had been just deleted without any warning. So I suddenly di dnot have the sources and link to add to the main article! Ian.thomson was waiting for this situation it seemed, as he victoriously announced that I have no sources because I ma a POV and plagiators and a looong list of Wikipedia negative abbreviatiosn he poured out on me, also calling me mentally ill for using bold formatting, lazy, paranoic, and using rufe and arrogant words like I don't give a fcuk about Bomjon.

I am shocked and am considering a court case together with the mor ethan dozen victims, because they all had been victimzied believeing in the positive picture that Wikipedia provides about this dangerous cult already ten years. I don't have any problem to show his holy miraculous parts and hagiography too, but the truth should be shown full, also with the harms he did and does year by year to many people. Wikipedia in thsi case failed to follow neutrality, impartiality, ethics (ian.thomson).

Please allow me or another qualified editor (ian.thomson has no idea bout the topic) to make additons about the controversies and correct the manipulated and outdated data.

Thank you and don's accuse automatically every newcomer just because of formal mistakes they do.

Kaliage

How to be unblocked

Promise to assume good faith from other users and pay attention to their advice. This seems to be the root of all your other problems.
Promise to quit fighting tooth-and-nail to shift the blame for your own admitted mistakes.
Promise to quit posting long screeds and instead get to the point. Everyone is going to ignore whatever you have to say if you do not stop posting pages of rambling text.
Promise to never copy-and-paste copyrighted material anywhere on the site ever again. This should be obvious by now.
Promise to only add material to biographies of living persons that immediately cites at least two professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.
Promise to stop editing the Bomjon article. While I happen to agree with your perspective on him and I will try to go back to expand material on him, you've proven that your intentions with the article are not neutrally summarizing sources that reveal who he is much as as it is attacking by any means necessary. You'd still be free to link to sources on the article's talk page.

I guarantee that unless you agree to those promises (in your own words, not just posting "yes, OK"), with no excuses or exceptions or arguing... all the other admins are going to do what Yamla is going now. They're only going to say "make your posts shorter if you expect people to read them, don't try to blame others." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]