| Revision as of 11:30, 18 December 2006 editSrikeit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,211 edits Temporary Injunction← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:00, 19 March 2007 edit undoBksimonb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,067 edits ==Please tone down==Next edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| For the Arbitration Committee --] 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | For the Arbitration Committee --] 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Please tone down== | |||
| I would like you to consider the following statements you made on ]. | |||
| "...was brahma baba too emotional or not good enough for you appledell ?" | |||
| "...ok; that is the inside view that is being covered up by all this Wikilawyering.Simon knows it ,Mauren knows it ,Jayanti used to read it out of the murlies in the morning for years.. .....by 'wikilawyering' I quote what the BKs have been doing here to control the article;..." | |||
| "...but I think that is is clear enough to put back the bits the Bks took out.." | |||
| "...tell me , why is it OK for you as a Bk to put in a quote..........and one from another Bk............when it is not OK for for a non-BK to put in a quotation from a respected professional journalist?" | |||
| Also, this comment is a personal attack against ]. | |||
| "....according to your agenda as a bk..." | |||
| With your experience as having lived in a centre we appreciate your experienced input into the article but I would really like you to reconsider the approach you appear to be taking. We are all guests here on Misplaced Pages and the house rules are ], ] and to ]. Please read these policies carefully. | |||
| From what I am seeing, you also you appear to be forcing your edits into the page in defiance of any kind of consensus with other editors, as if to prove a point. Edits made in this way are unlikely to stick. Revert wars are tiring, frustrating and unnecessary. If you haven't already, please read the Arbcom ruling on the article in particular pay attention to the following statements, | |||
| "Users with a deep personal involvement with a subject who edit in a disruptive, aggressive biased manner may be banned from editing the affected article or articles, per ]." | |||
| "Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy, ], nor is it a battleground for struggle, ]." | |||
| I once read a complementary comment you made about me on the BKI forums. Well I really appreciated that. Now let's build on that good faith and move on. | |||
| Thanks and regards ] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:00, 19 March 2007
Welcome
Hi,
Green108 I look forward to the discussion on the Brahma Kumaris page. Thank you for your comments.TalkAbout 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Temporary Injunction
A temporary injunction has been passed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Please tone down
I would like you to consider the following statements you made on Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University.
"...was brahma baba too emotional or not good enough for you appledell ?"
"...ok; that is the inside view that is being covered up by all this Wikilawyering.Simon knows it ,Mauren knows it ,Jayanti used to read it out of the murlies in the morning for years.. .....by 'wikilawyering' I quote what the BKs have been doing here to control the article;..."
"...but I think that is is clear enough to put back the bits the Bks took out.."
"...tell me , why is it OK for you as a Bk to put in a quote..........and one from another Bk............when it is not OK for for a non-BK to put in a quotation from a respected professional journalist?"
Also, this comment is a personal attack against User:Appledell:Appledell.
"....according to your agenda as a bk..."
With your experience as having lived in a centre we appreciate your experienced input into the article but I would really like you to reconsider the approach you appear to be taking. We are all guests here on Misplaced Pages and the house rules are Civility, no personal attacks and to assume good faith. Please read these policies carefully.
From what I am seeing, you also you appear to be forcing your edits into the page in defiance of any kind of consensus with other editors, as if to prove a point. Edits made in this way are unlikely to stick. Revert wars are tiring, frustrating and unnecessary. If you haven't already, please read the Arbcom ruling on the article in particular pay attention to the following statements,
"Users with a deep personal involvement with a subject who edit in a disruptive, aggressive biased manner may be banned from editing the affected article or articles, per Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest."
"Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy, Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, nor is it a battleground for struggle, Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground."
I once read a complementary comment you made about me on the BKI forums. Well I really appreciated that. Now let's build on that good faith and move on.
Thanks and regards Bksimonb 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)