User talk:Canucklehead/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Canucklehead. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Automatic archives
If you want your talk page threads to be automatically archived by a bot, please read this. Eyesnore 00:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I already looked into automated archiving; I was planning on eventually setting up ClueBot III to archive this page. I was just too lazy to do that before I created the first archive so I used the old cut-paste method. But thanks, I appreciate the helpfulness! ProtossPylon 19:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello sir,
In my article named "Honey usage in recovering wounds" i have added many good references as notes, but all of them are in red color, means there is something wrong with it. I couldn't fix it, may you fix it please? i'm very sorry and i'm waiting for you great help. Mansoor
Talkback
Message added 20:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
PhantomTech (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi ProtossPylon
Please go ahead and take a look at Peter Wray's WP page and let me know if you think that is written from a neutral POV.Hexrei2 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I did use the talk page. However it's worthless because nobody but Peter Wray's various aliases are reading it.Hexrei2 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hexrei2, "Peter Wray's various aliases", you're not only offensive but you're also just plain wrong in every weird opinion and accusation that you make. As I said earlier, I don't know what your agenda or vendetta is, but the article has been the ongoing work of numerous people in the Wikipedia community over several years and recently you decided that you were not only psychic but also a self-appointed expert on this topic. It's clear from the logs and history of this topic that many respected contributors in the Wikipedia community have contributed to this article over a long period of time before you appeared from nowhere and are suddenly enlightened. ProtossPylon, please note that vandalism from an IP user started on this page several days ago (Hexrei2 seems to have done this before) and now it appears that the vandalism cited by other users, is suddenly converted into accusations from born-again editor. I'm asking that the page be restored to as it was for several years, comprised of edits and additions from multiple legit Wikipedia users, prior to the appearance of Hexrei2.Oliverabc (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxons is about the historic Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Saxon peoples is refers to the term used to describe English-speaking societies
As said above.--R-41 (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, my apologies. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll remove the speedy deletion tag.. ProtossPylon 05:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's ok.--R-41 (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
THANK YOU, ProtossPylon! I've been struggling for ages trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. As this is part of a university project, I truly appreciate your help. I'm so obviously a newbie! Gratefully, JMAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMAC8 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
Hi ProtossPylon. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:
|
Content
|
|
My Article
What is wrong with my article? Can you shimmer it down for me? I am confused. --Are-Colloquial (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Responded on User talk:Are-Colloquial ProtossPylon 19:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I added a reference and removed the stupid deletion tag. Good day to you sir. --Are-Colloquial (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- You said that the tags can be removed after I provided a source, also, it is not Wikipedia policy to provide only English sources. --Are-Colloquial (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I said they could be removed after you added a source confirming its validity. Blogs don't count and I have a hard time believing that there would be meaningful information about an obscure Norwegian band in a Dzongkha-written article. Lastly, you are not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags from your own articles; you have to wait for someone to confirm that you have fixed the problems and they will remove it. ProtossPylon 20:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Muktanada defamation of a dead man
Im James Arjuna; I find it difficult to have ignorant postings on Wikpedia based on scientifically impossible data.
I live in India at the ashram and I know those people who were tossed out of the ashram for not being able to follow discipline. It was strict. I was on the staff and was the engineer on the video equipment and spent a lot of time in close proximity of Muktananda.
And the timing of the accusations are ridiculous. If he was a sexual predator, he would have done it when he has some function of the penis. There would have been people in the early times who complained and there is no record of that NOR any official record of any legal or criminal proceedings ever.
He was a diabetic and had very serious heart condition. That rendered him absolutely unable to perform any sexual acts. And he taught about being bramacharia and to only have sex if you are married. To defame a dead man because some mental cases have delusions about something that might make them seem important is not the purpose of Wikepedia. I the purpose of Wikipedia is to spread hearsay about a dead man who dedicated his life to helping people, then I want nothing to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs) 00:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- You can't just go into an article and say "I saw this and this and this." If you were with a group of people that didn't know you, and you were not a famous person, but told them that you were, how many of them do you think would believe it? You need third-party references to back up what you're saying. Your statements could be true but they aren't verifiable. Only confirmed information with citations are allowed to remain. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to spread heresy?" Do you honestly think that Wikipedia exists to uphold a conspiracy around this one article? I've already explained to you what is wrong with your edits. ProtossPylon 00:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am a living witness. I was there. I am not some article in some magazine written for some profits.
- If you are not about the truth then this is a bunch of unethical nonsense.
- It would be far better to remove the who section of nonsense and just focus on what is really documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs)
- Again, if your assertions are true, please prove it by presenting what was "really documented" or a reliable claim from another witness. We can't operate off of one editor's analysis. ProtossPylon 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- You have nothing but hearsay from some magazines. That is not admissible even in a court. It is like the blogs from people who are seeking some 5 minutes of fame.
- If you DON'T have a police report or even a civil law suit then is it just nonsense and it is not admissible in Wikipedia as well, by your own standards.
- The whole section of "criticism" need to go away until you have real evidence from a court case or something besides a 2 bit magazine.
- One more time. I saw Muktananda barely able to walk, had serous medical problems and these dumb people are saying he was even interested in sex is utterly ridiculous!
- I don't have access to his medical records. Maybe you need to find some corroboration on that for yourself. Until then leave out the "criticism" section, because YOU have no corroboration other than a rag magazine on the level of the trash rags (like the "I talked to a space man" newspapers) you see at the grocery store.. This is the type of magazines they are. Check them out for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Once again: if you aren't going to read and understand our original research policy, our verifiability policy, or our reference guide, there's nothing more I can tell you. The "I talked to a space man" argument can just as well be laid against you. Other than your unverifiable witness report, you're not providing any evidence or documentation that your edits to Muktananda are justified.ProtossPylon 00:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- From the "victims" one blog "By the time he died of heart failure in October 1982"
- He was on borrowed time for 6 years after his first heart attack. Diabetes renders you incapable of sex. Heart disease is worse and renders you incapable of any sexual activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs)
- A quick google search indicates that both of those are not always true. Either way, you're still failing to present your documented evidence that supports your earlier claims. I'm not going to repeat myself any longer so if you are going to continuously dodge my requests for your proof then I'm not going to continue to debate this. ProtossPylon 00:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Babaji travelled coast to coast, and Siddha Meditation centers sprang up in Denver, Aspen, Dallas, Houston, Ann Arbor, Boston, New York, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles and Oakland. The first ashram was established in Oakland in 1975, and Siddha Yoga Foundation of America was created. A second property in upstate New York became a large country ashram. The tremendous effort of reaching thousands of people and personally transmitting shaktipat took its toll in 1975 as Baba suffered his first serious illness, a diabetic stroke."
- Do you know what Diabetes does to the sexual organs? Go look it up.
- It also destroys the arteries in the heart and the penis.
- "In 1978 during his 70th birthday celebrations in Ganeshpuri, Baba addressed thousands of well-wishers. He blessed a huge seven-day yagna that was going on and returned to his room where he suffered a massive heart attack."
- http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1170
- How many OLD men who have heart attacks and a stroke and have diabetes can have sex? Answer ZERO.
- "A quick google search indicates that both of those are not always true."
- This WAS 1978 , 35 years ago in INDIA. If you had been to India in 1978 you would know there was no advanced medical for Erectile Dysfunction. There was no reason for you to believe that he was capable of sex. The hospitals in India at that time were like the US in 1940'S. I was there, you were not.
- I suggest you keep the whole "criticism" section OFF the page.
- This is because you have no corroboration of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs)
- Let me make my myself clear. I'm not the creator of the page, nor did I know the subject even existed before your vandalism brought my attention to it. What I'm doing is upholding Wikipedia's policies. I'm working with what is verified and what isn't. The references on the page are considered reliable. Witness claims are not. The two sources you have listed both back up what the article already says but you're still applying your own original research to it.
- I also suggest you re-read the section of the article in question. It clearly states that the criticisms were reported accusations made against Muktananda. At no point in the two paragraphs does it present them as absolute fact. ProtossPylon 01:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK then so I can post the links to the article on Muktananda's Diabetic stroke and heart disease for all to see? and make comments and put links to PubMed for the facts on sexual function with those two conditions? and you won't erase it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying. You're still applying your own original research and speculation to the event so it's still not allowed, as far as I can tell. ProtossPylon 01:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- So, I can tell that you don't apply the same to the original posts, but only to mine?
- Do you have a personal grudge against me? Or you have some sort of reasoning that goes beyond scientific standards? You do know that PubMed is the largest database for medical research on earth?
- It is used by medical doctors all over the earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs)
- I'm holding no grudge, and PubMed's validity isn't relevant here. Your connection between the medical condition and the event is still speculative; as long as PubMed and your articles aren't citing each other, then your "proof" is still original research. ProtossPylon 02:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry but you stated that you think articles in hippy magazines by people who were jilted and thrown out of the ashram for improper behavior is valid. However, a living person who was there right now talking to you is not? And the references to heart disease and diabetes literally rendering a person impotent and weak and not interested in much of anything but trying to breath and stay alive isn't according to some 1594 articles just on heart disease and erectile dysfunction is not admissible as evidence that that he was not only incapable of "penetration" but it may kill him to try? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157429/
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392836/
- Keep in mind he was actually 70 years old at the time of his MASSIVE heart attack and at the same time had these accusations. A combination of heart attack and diabetes is deadly and renders a person incapable of sex and barely able to walk. He only lived for four years after that.
- It is funny that you think these other "references" from a personal blog by an obviously angry person who (I knew personally) and thought she was very important but was kicked out because she was so belligerent, and from some voodoo magazines on "spirituality" are admissible. But the Hindu Times a famous respected regular news paper is not admissible? See, It seems sort of like the theme here is to vilify as much as you can a dead man who harmed no one and at the time of these allegations was PHYSICALLY incapable.
- It is an interesting phycology you have presented me with. I think if this is the Wikipedia way, I wonder if the purpose is to edit history to fit some agenda?
- Please tell me that is not true.
- Both conditions? It is not likely!
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3589102/ Here is another. You see to have sexual desire you have to have hormones, testosterone and Muktananda was 70 years old pure vegetation.
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=Sexual+hormones+and+aging — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll say this again: it is not a matter of whether you saw it happening or not, or whether you can speculate a connection between an event and a medical problem. It is about verifiability. If you're drawing your own conclusions on the subject or presenting your own, unverified account of the event, there is no way for a third party to confirm the information. I'll ask you to read the original research policy one more time. And again, please realize that you are trying to vindicate someone over a section that is only repeating accusations that a news source has repeated. It is not presenting the criticism in question as a definite fact. The wording makes this perfectly clear.
- As long as you aren't acknowledging this, I'm ending this discussion. If you want to continue you may bring this up on Talk:Muktananda, but be advised that you will likely receive the same responses. ProtossPylon 02:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- If wiki is written then it has the writer's research on it and the pieces of data come from his research and choosing that data to publish. That is what I do in all my research papers. And I put sometimes over 1,000,000 links to reference the subject. So, there is no way for any article to be written by anyone unless they PERSONALLY research the data.
- I am sorry but it makes no sense to me. You publish hearsay from some hippy rag magazines which has no scientific validity at all and the allegations have no criminal nor civil cases NOTHING but some hysterical angry women who were jilted by the ashram, not Muktananda. The staff threw them out . And you are saying that I cannot post information first hand backed up by valid news papers and pub med? Why does wiki exist at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs)
- I'm holding no grudge, and PubMed's validity isn't relevant here. Your connection between the medical condition and the event is still speculative; as long as PubMed and your articles aren't citing each other, then your "proof" is still original research. ProtossPylon 02:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying. You're still applying your own original research and speculation to the event so it's still not allowed, as far as I can tell. ProtossPylon 01:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK then so I can post the links to the article on Muktananda's Diabetic stroke and heart disease for all to see? and make comments and put links to PubMed for the facts on sexual function with those two conditions? and you won't erase it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arjuna (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)