EvanTPeoples

[unblock]folks also use Wikipedia to assess the desireability of taking up residence in a locale ..a fact that eludes the minds of bird-brain a who deign to block my valued contributions]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Nirvana do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana

Hello. Wikipedia policy simply discourages "links to [...] personal web pages [...] except those written by a recognized authority". It also discourages self-promotion - you should not be linking to your own website. --McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID says that "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." - the "very limited" clause means that the "authority" exception should only be used in limited situations, not that Rule #11 can be mostly ignored.

You appear to be linking to a personal essay that you wrote yourself, on the subject of nirvana. It's a "personal web site" in the sense that you created the page yourself, to host material of a personal nature (ie. your own personal experiences of nirvana). From the rest of your site, you do not appear to be a "recognized authority" in the field of spirituality. From this, your link fails WP:LINKSTOAVOID.

I'd recommend taking this up on Talk:Nirvana, rather than going to arbitration, if you feel I'm missing something; I'd welcome the opinions of other editors. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My replies of record to McGeddon were as follows

About that silly Nirvana definition

If you're devout as I've been and followed the 10 commandments pretty well without ceding authority to any spook or any mysticism, then you'll get your big break later in life and attain Nirvana legally. Nirvana is wrought with discomfort and it is precisely as I've described it at http://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs/nirvana/nirvana.html.

I don't think that pontificating droids should be the ones to tell youth what Nirvana is, because then they'll never know. Nirvana is a free gift of God and not exclusive to high muckity-mucks! Realize that. Think on that good and hard, mister. God is about Law and everything shining in the Sun; the Devil is about the Moon, lunacy, darkness, ignorance and debauchery and sorcery and cowardice and ... well you get the idea: stuff that isn't decent enough to surface and stand scrutiny in the Sun and in the light of the Law.

No, my piece is in no way "opinion", for I am there, ascended to The Father ...until death only, and not an inch further. For God doesn't employ sorcery; He doesn't need to; He employs plain temperate legal means to gift those who heed His call and provide the fully-legal means of egress. It's the existing Wikipedia piece on Nirvana that constitutes OPINION and likely outright FRAUD. What you all have described in that article is just another bubble, like oh-so-many bubbles that will eventually burst. Like the Taliban bubble; like the bubble of Heidi Fleiss before it came crashing down; like the bubble of Manuel Noriega, or Ferdinand Marcos or a trillion others. No suffering?? Hah!! That pathetic article only describes a life of selling out, of finding a niche where one is buffered by mystics, priests, admirers, and the like-minded. NO, that isn't the goal. NO, that isn't the attainment! Achieve the attainment and you'll find out in a freakin' heartbeat what it IS about. ETP 15:50, 26 June 2009

Addendum

Try these steps toward realization:

Q: Do you know God? A: Yes, He created you, so you literally know Him like the back of your hand.

Q: Then why am I not happy and successful yet? A: Because you know what He knows, which is the fact that you haven't yet completed your mission in life for Him, the gist of which is blatantly OBVIOUS: you are to demonstrate and prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, PUBLICLY, that there is sweet reward for those who keep His commandments, and dire punishment for those who don't.

Q: When I complete my mission, then will I have attained Nirvana? A: YES, and your absolution will be just that, ABSOLUTE. But whoa! ..you'll be a sitting duck for any sorceries that the Devil can whip up and believe you me, that's a MOUNTAIN of pain. The Devil will try to convince you, through magical charade, that you have fallen SHORT of the Glory That Is God (yeah, and so what? who hasn't?). The Devil will try to WAYLAY you from the steady course, away from goodness and knowledge and openness and righteousness. But hey, you don't ask for much anymore anyway, because you've achieved the TOP goal, ABSOLUTION. You won't be back for any return visit; God is DONE with you; He has abandoned you (yeah and so what? you only existed to serve that one mission and now you are filled with glee at its completion; and it can't be undone; it is consummate, as is your absolution). But the Devil will continue for years, nay decades, to use sorcery on your body and mind to waylay you from Truth, trick you into disbelieving that your mission WAS INDEED COMPLETED, PERFECTED AND CONSUMMATE. Don't buy the charade, for the arena, though sublimely compelling, and all its players, though costumed in holier-than-thou regalia, are an outright and total FAKE! The Devil is trying to recall you to its lunacy and filthiness, to be Evil's tool for eternity, through witchcraft and reincarnation (which serves his evil designs, to confound and manipulate).

Q: What should I do to fight this horrible parasite, these sorceries? A: Do nothing to fight them, for there is NO causation associated with those lifeless artificial charades! Just live as you care to live, love and sometimes hate, build and sometimes demolish, eat and sometimes fast. Smoke 'em if y'got 'em. It's just PLAIN LIFE after the attainment. Transgress and it's the local constabulary that will mete out any punishment. You aren't to DIGNIFY the charade presented you!! But since it is sublimely compelling at times, you'll have to swallow your pride and tolerate some wavering/weakness; but KNOW that it doesn't count against you, for you are HOME free and clear. Absolution is ABSOLUTE. Never forget that! Your mission was a SMASHING SUCCESS! It didn't make even a paragraph in the newspaper, but we all (the ecosphere) JUST LOVED IT !!!!!!!!! Many earnest THANKS !!!

ETP 18:19, 26 June 2009

---

Where did YOU go to Law school!? Wikipedia policy says no such thing!

I read the cited/linked policy texts and my external link http://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs/nirvana/nirvana.html passes ALL their tests. As for number 11, it clearly states that "this exception is meant to be very limited". Mine is no "personal web site" and it contains exactly ZERO personal information, only gospel truth about the subject matter. It's content-rich and precisely on point. No, fool; I'm forging ahead. If arbitration looms, then so be it!

ETP 02:50, 27 June 2009

• • • End of Replies of Record ***

[Note: about a week after that terse interchange, I acceded to McGeddon's suggestion and placed key content on the Talk:Nirvana page]

Adding somewhat, in re the above passage, "...this horrible parasite, these sorceries? A: Do nothing to fight them, for there is NO causation associated with those lifeless artificial charades". ... Clearly, it's the function of the Fourth_estate to dispel mystery and phantasma, but they're such pathetic dullards and lackeys anymore, arghh! worthless! ... Start your own leafletting if necessary.ETP (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Amherst, Massachusetts, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Squeakachu (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Amherst, Massachusetts, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Articles should not include sites outside the political boundaries of the topic. Skyerise (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FFM784 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Amherst, Massachusetts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – bradv 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. The text you wrote at Amherst, Massachusetts would be more appropriate for a brochure or travel blog than an encyclopedia. When your block expires, do not readd it. Thank you. – bradv 21:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Amherst, Massachusetts, you may be blocked from editing. Skyerise (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – bradv 00:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)