Mauna22

Hello, Mauna22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.   Introduction  5   The five pillars of Wikipedia   How to edit a page   Help   Tips   How to write a great article   Manual of Style   Be Bold   Assume Good faith   Get adopted

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC. You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

October 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Ramana Maharshi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the 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. Despite the ongoing discussion on this topic, you've removed again info from this article. Please respect Wikipedia-policies, and try to find WP:CONCENSUS for your edits, instead of simply pushing your POV. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Bishonen | talk 18:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Nazis are legion and have little real biographical or contextual knowledge but have taken charge of the Ramana Maharshi article and nothing really can be done. I've seen this before. They have no interest In discussion it is just a chess game to them and they are already working together to build a case to justify ignoring and shutting you out. The best you can do is try and keep biographical information accurate. They are determined to distort Hinduism much as Wendy Doniger has successfully done. It works because all these peacock editors want to do is puff up their egos and exert power. Don't assume good faith there is none. Dseer (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, something smells like rotten here, I must admit. It is impossible to deal with tenured editors. The have the time and the will to engage in endless discussions and shield themselves behind WP policies, pretending they try to to fair when -like in the case of JJ- they are only trying to push his POV. Is really a difficult situation. Fortunately people really interested in subject related with religion or politicks are well aware of the fact that WP is not a good source, and anything but “academic”. Funniest thing is I have the slightest interest in this or that particular religion...

Appreciate your words.

Cheers mate! Mauna22 (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Just be aware JJ openly states on his page he totally dismisses the basis of hinduism. RM is a target of his because were he genuine and enlightenment real his beliefs would be refuted. His problem is he lacks the academic sources needed to totally discredit so he comes up with obscure thesis. But make no mistake he is one of the snakes who pretend to talk only until they get their way.There is a cabal of regular editors who communicate as use wikipedia to impose their views; in this case western bases anti-religious views. You can't beat them because they are experts at disruption and and they already threatenes you today. Although those with real expertise find this frustrating it is why experts get drowned out by peacock editors. Just realize it is their nature just as it is for a snake to bite. 72.220.97.195 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: we've got a nice collection of WP:NOTHERE here... Terms like "Wikipedia Nazis" seem totally inappropriate to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you find is something wrong with the expression Iddli used you should warn him is his talk page. You are getting way too personal here, Mauna22 (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Be warned. Retribution is ongoing and the editors are serious about getting those who disagree with the POV pushing agenda banned in open retribution for the complaint by any means possible. I've seen this before with other victims. I would have advised not to waste time going up against career editors but you kind of got entrapped so I weighed in as I have little to lose. Which is why many experts have lost interest in editing here. Expertise means nothing. Dseer (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, do you really think personal attacks couched in such heavy dose of sarcasm become any less of personal attacks? They are still never permitted on Wikipedia. WP:NPA. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Not only personal attaks, but a total disregard of what Wikipedia is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban warning

This kind of ignorant sarcasm, which displays your cluelessness wrt Wikipedia's sourcing policies as well as your lack of respect for other editors, is disruptive and simply wastes the time of constructive editors. If you keep it up you will be topic banned from Ramana Maharshi and its talkpage. Bishonen | talk 17:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Just to let you know as I quit using my account that I have had enough of this recent harassment personally after 10 years and have retired my account. I know you tried but you see now what you are up against. Which is why I quit editing these articles a while ago. These are not experts they have an agenda. Good luck mate. Dseer (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your ANI

You are failing to understand that you didn't present a case for any conduct issues. Your case presents a content dispute. These happen all the time all over Wikipedia. Consensus is the major deciding factor in what gets into an article.If you can not get a consensus then you attempt some means of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Read the link. If there is something that you would like to see in Ramana Maharshi then use the dispute resolution to get a consensus. You could use a WP:RFC for instance. It really works.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also have to note that you seem like a new user and abit lost. You mention [1] as an example of WP:PEACOCK. That is not an example of peacock. The Manual of style applies to article content and not talk page pages or noticeboards. I'm worried that stuff like this is eventually going to lead to your block. I would like you to go to WP:ADOPT and read about it. This is our adopt a user program. The put an experienced volunteer with an inexperienced user such as yourself for mentoring to help navigate you thru the world of wikipedia and get you more accustomed to how everything works.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)