User talk:Asrwiki

Do you have ANY idea how Wikipedia works? Do you know the difference between an opinion and fact? Do you know that you call libel should not be an opinion forced on others? No one cares what you or I or anyone else believes. This is about facts, such as what people did or said, not about if they were telling the truth or not. If you have facts that satisfy your axe to grind, put up references or shut up.Venus Copernicus (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now your swami-worship and denial that other people have a right to know the existence of information you don't happen to like or accept is nothing more than vandalism. STOP IT for the love of all that is fair and holy on WP!

"No need to demonstrate anger or frustration. Meditate and see the reactions of your actions." - this is a cult mentality, blaming others for pointing out faults or being frustrated with someone else's errors. Your pillow is clearly waiting, not mine, as I have made a logical point (even if frustrated you can't see it), you have made an insult veiled in condescending 'spirituality'.

I am trying desperately to EDCUCATE YOU. For example, titling a section of a biographical page "The Power of Spiritual Leaders and people around them" - Why would any of this sort of thing belong in a Wikipedia article? What does any of this have to do with FACTS about a man's life? Wikipedia is NOT for EXPLAINING a person;'s life, only giving the facts and leading people to credible VERIFIABLE, REFERENCED, ACCEPTED sources.

Do you understand ANYTHING I am saying, or are you going to assume something is wrong with me to hide from actually listening? Seriously, do you get it?

Not angry, just frustrated, from without not within, thank you very much, Venus Copernicus (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are the only one using WP, and profiles yourself as a super WP-guru, aggressive and indeed carrying lots of frustration. This is very bad for factual reporting, and your objectivity and motives to operate like this are unfair and libelous to the WP community. This WP is not a hindu temple that needs to be defended by a fanatic and non-scientific attitude that you demonstrate, perhaps a bit religious? But welcome on WP. Please do understand, that WP promotes an open forum where WP is enabling all carriers of knowledge to share their collective "explicit and tacit" knowledge, and not limit oneself to simply unknown references or so called empty facts. So, please do some readings about social networks, wisdom of crowds, open space, world cafe and many other innovative ways to determine the 'true knowledge' (Plato) in a world so dynamic and with people like your self. Let us indeed allow a 'collective truth' to emerge about Swami Rama and many other leaders around the world. WP is such an incredible tool. --Asrwiki (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but none of what you are saying makes any sense, and you have yet to argue any single point of why your edits are blatantly inapproproiate. This isn't a social network and you have no understanding of what a fact versus opion is, and refuse to accept WP guidelines. Your insults and my frustration at you aside, it's time for moderation and possible warning/banning/article freezing.

All Wikipedia editors are expected to resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute. So why would you move into the threatening mode? Why don't we develop some consensus on the life of Swami Rama as it will emerge from collective knowledge of WP editors/users? By the way, my sincere apologies if my thoughness may have caused pain to you. --Asrwiki (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - we agree, though I came off as threatening and I am sorry. I just want this fixed. This is not a matter of concensus of who is right or wrong on the subject matter. It's about what doesn't belong to keep it objective according to official guidelines. Seriously, the whole "If you are his ..." - I'd love to read about all that somewhere else, and if it was a credible source, it coukld be mentioned in the article. But why do you think that explaining people's motives and your opinion of the American legal system means anything on WP? WHY would you think such a thing is acceptable? Do you not see this as opinion, while facts that may or may not be wrong are unacceptable (to you)? I cannot stress this enough: Editorializing is forbidden. Documented and noteworthy opposing views are welcome - not as an argument by an editor, but as a reporting that a credible source said something or asserts something.

If you have facts and references, PLEASE ADD THEM. But this is not what you have been doing, and if you don't agree, you are disagreeing with WP, not me. I will show you. I have already invited a respected editor to check in, and I welcome you to ask for any arbitration you think might help. I will do the same. Again, sorry if I come on too strong. It's just my personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On facts and opinions. Being a scientist myself, I must say that "opinions" do become facts in the world we live in. Hope you have had some international exposure in the world of scientists. WP to me means 'collective knowledge' not one man defense or one single opinion. So, I am willing to help constructing this article, as a collective. Please stop imposing your own opinion on science and what facts are or are not. Great to have respected editors on this platform to allow collective knowledge to emerge. Please note that recognition of 'tacit knowledge' in the world of scientists (see Nonaka & Takeuchi)and knowledge managers has totally destroyed what science used to call 'facts'. Please do explore such things, and you will see how it benefits the collective wisdom (an accepted objectivity in thinktanks). --Asrwiki (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the interesting things I may learn from your suggestions, but this is much simpler than you are making it. There is no need to be a scientist or journalist (both of which I have experience with) to understand methods and how to apply them.

Facts and opinions are not metaphysical or malleable as you suggest and this is not my opinion of what is opinion - that is just running around in circles so the discussion goes nowhere. Opinions are what one thinks should be or could be - they are a viewpoint or perspective or a personal judgment that may or may not be founded in the facts available. WP is about making facts available, and accepted schools of thought, not what the general public thinks about a subject - that is irrelevant.

Facts are what are observed, can be measured, and are repeatable. This is basic scientific method, which you know. On WP, facts are what you can find documented by a credible source as determined by guidelines, not what an editor or group of people may think or "know" is or is not credible. That's just plain good journalism. That is being objective. What someone says may not be fact, but it is fact they said it. Facts can be wrong, but they are honest. Opinions don't belong in Wikipedia, except when reported as having been said by a famous person, journalist, author, etc. Can you agree on this?

I'm going to ask you in all seriousness - Do you know what NPOV is? Do you know what Original Research is and why it is not allowed here? I am not belittling you, but these are not a rhetorical questions. You need to know these and how to follow them to be an editor. that would have avoided this whole situation.

Right now, I am trying to help by incorporating as much of your changes as I can into the article so they belong and can stay, though NPOV is so terrible in some parts it's hard to keep much of it. I will do my best. If you want to discuss adding more stuff and how to do it neutrally, I am open to it.

And we should still have other people take a look, so this wont seem like me pushing some agenda or trying to be some WP-Goddess, which I admit I am not. Venus Copernicus (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up Article - Swami Rama Controversy Rebuttals

Sir:

Here's how you can clean up the section you insist on adding, most of which you will have to delete if you cannot fix:

1. Get rid of language that judges people and their intentions, including assumptions - that is for the reader to decide based on fact, not for you to tell them

2. Get rid of assertions that are referenced by hearsay, ie. "according to people who knew him" - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources Those references you do this are not acceptable EVER on Wikipedia, and will be removed the moment an editor catches them.

3. Get rid of explanations about how people in general act or are motivated to do various things. It does not have to do with the subject, just people arguing over a point of the subject. The article isn't about opinions of American culture or the psychology of how people treat heroes, etc.. I got slammed with this when I first started editing and learned not to do it.

HOWEVER, if all this stuff is some one's assertion (not yours, as that is a WP:OR violation), such as a Swami who knew him, or an official proclamation by the Institute, then the best way is to put quotes from it in the section, or at least summarize it, and then reference the article, affidavit, whatever. THAT is acceptable (See WP:ASF), but unless you can do that, it's just some guy giving his opinion in a well-constructed essay. Remember, you are an EDITOR of the article, not an author.

I hope this helps. Venus Copernicus (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JNW (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JNW (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]