User talk:NoToFrauds

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See the block log.

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Well, I will give YGS the benefit of the doubt...for now. I do hope Hamsacharya dan or someone starts a properly objective NPOV page about him. I am doing some research. I think I may have found a classmate of his so I can add his birth name to any new article. (Do you know it?) I too would like to see the question of who YGS's living Nath Guru was and did he explicitly receive parampara? When and where was he initiated? How can he claim to be of the Adi-Nath Sampradaya when that sub-sect was a sannyasin sub-sect? Was he at one time a sannyasin and later renounce those vows? If so, he could be a Nath, but not an Adi Nath, but only if he has a valid lineage. If there are no answers to these questions, there will certainly be a disputed assertions section added to his biography. I personally do not want to do so because I don't want it to look like sectarian infighting, but somebody will have to do it, and do it correctly and without malice or rancor. Of course, all this is separate from the issue of Wikipedia not allowing cut & paste from copyrighted sites. Just because HD is a member and teacher doesn't mean he is the copyright agent. I doubt the real copyright agent will release the text under the GFDL if he know what that means. In any case, the current page was not NPOV and so was inappropriate for Wikiepdia. –Adityanath 01:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brother

I will have to leave this mess in your capable hands. Do what you will, I've removed the warning and will clear from admin messageboard. I will be on vacation for a week starting tomorrow. You must eat this message :-) You should be aware that Mercury is retrograde until March 25th. It will be hard to control the speech of rascals. Please keep an eye on Nath and Adi-Nath for me. I will disappear until Mercury goes direct again then clean up any remaining mess. Remember, eat this message. —Adityanath 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes brother, I will also ask for the help of other people. God bless!

No To Frauds 23:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am back from my vacation. Thanks for you vigilance. You do tend to go too far, imo, but in some cases that may be better than not going far enough... Adityanath 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Defense

These two paragraphs will be your best defense. The last one shows that YGS's views of flat earth proportions in popularity. Do a similar comparison between "Adi Nath" and "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" as well as "Goraknath" and the same if need be. It'll prove almost nobody believes or even cares about YGS's theories. :-) —Adityanath 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the minority view, that's easy. Yogananda's book came out in 1946 and has been continuously in print since then. YGS's first book appears to have come out in 2001. On Amazon.com, there are multiple editions of Autobiography of a Yogi, and the top selling one is ranked #5,110 on Amazon's list of top sellers. YGS's top seller is Wings of Freedom and is ranked at #439,408. It's an objective fact that Yogananda is more than 85 times more popular than YGS. So logically YGS should get about 1/85th (1.2%) of the space in this article. We're being generous. —Adityanath 19:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another indicator of how minority a view it is: there are a total of 52 web pages according to Google containing the term "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" compared with 16,200 pages containing the phrase "Mahavatar Babaji." WP does take these sorts of things into account if they have to arbitrate a dispute. This result says that only 0.3% of all pages on Mahavatar Babaji mention Shiv-Goraksha Babaji. That's flat earth territory. —Adityanath 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandal problems

I've added the pages you mentioned on my talk page to my watch list. I'm on recent changes patrol, and will review all changes made to those pages. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to watch. JDoorj a m Talk 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, JDoorjam, in behalf of all those who are being affected by Hamsacharya Dan's relentless vandalism.

No To Frauds 01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

Greetings. After looking over things as you asked, I have posted a proposal at Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (that is where the most recent talk page activity was when I was ready to reply to your request, no other reason) for a way to negotiate out of the current impasse. Please have a look and let me know what you think. Regards, --Fire Star 21:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reverted your reversion. Several editors have been discussing the subject for the last few days, and you hadn't really participated in the consensus. We have a version that both a pro and anti YGS editor agreed on, without a quote. If you really want to have it removed from the article, you'll have to make a convincing case on the talk page. --Fire Star 13:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what you're saying is not true. I have been participating with the discussions every single day without fail, and I never saw any general consensus approving your version. Actually, there is a voting going on and some people don't even want Mr. Shitole's name there. It is you who sin't participating with the voting. I have reverted your reversion on the grounds that no general consensus has been formed approving your version. Shitole's words weren't there before and the article was already fine. Nobody complained about it. It is you who should make a convincing case why Shitole's words should be there in the first place. So what if he claims to have met Babaji? What does the mention of Shitole's name and book actually add to the article? Actually, it only turns the article into an advertisement for Shitole.

No To Frauds 17:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsacharya dan

I've added the pages you mentioned to my watchlist, and Hamsacharya Dan to my blacklist, and I will keep my eyes open for any edits this user makes to these pages. Have you listed him under WP:RFI? If you can prove what you claim, there should be no problem getting this user blocked. I'll do what I can. AmiDaniel (Talk) 12:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In looking ove his user contribs, I've seen several cases of obvious vandalism. Every time you catch such vandalism, you should warn him on his talk page (using {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, etc.) such that admins reviewing this user will have more incentive to block him or to otherwise intervene. AmiDaniel (Talk) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. No To Frauds 12:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

OK, I've looked into the background of this a little bit further and I guess you are in some dispute with the other user, irrespective such attacks are unacceptable. If you feel you need to take a dispute further then please look to dispute resolution for some advice. --pgk^(talk) 21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, --Rory096 21:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add to this. This edit is totally unacceptable, do not repeat. --pgk^(talk) 21:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page and/or replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Rory096 21:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning redux

Do not remove administrator warnings

This is your last warning. The next time you make a personal attack against anyone, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You used a deceitful edit summary at 12:10 GMT on 19 March to replace your personal attacks that had been removed once before from Talk:Mahavatar Babaji. --Fire Star 21:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up 2

Generally removing properly placed warnings is seen as vandalism, if subsequent warnings are issued it "hides" your recent history from admins. I suggest you leave warnings in place and just archive your page periodically. That's what most people do, I've posts on my talk page I'm not greatly fond of since I believe the person doing so was just trolling, but unless it's out and out vandalism I don't remove them. On the dispute resolution page I pointed out you can always file an RFC regarding those who you are having problems with, though this requires that civil attempts have been made to resolve the dispute by yourself and someone else. This allows for a broader community input into if the behaviour is acceptable or not, but of course may not give you the answer you want. --pgk^(talk) 21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temp block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for calling another editor a "vindictive nut" in an edit summary. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. Fire Star 21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

"I will personally see to it that you get what you deserve and Cyberspace isn't the only place for it."

One more like that and you will be blocked permanently. --Fire Star 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another 24 hours

I have extended your block because you continue in your behaviour. --Fire Star 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected page

One more removal of notices and I will lock this page as well. --Fire Star 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increased block

Your latest round of threats has earned you a month. Once more and the block is permanent. --Fire Star 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinately blocked for using 201.252.215.190 to get around your block. Good day.Gator (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]