Talk:Sharon Janis/Archive 2

message: This article has in my opinion omitted large quantities of detail on spurious grounds of citation and verifiability. The author of the current version may have personal reasons for his activities regarding this article that concern both his and the subject's faith in Siddha Yoga. An alternative version of the article can be read on my talk page.
Headshaker 08:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing neutralty -  Alternative version 

message: A look through the archives shows that the editor who requested that this article be deleted and who has been active in questioning credentials and adding new restrictions on this article is part of a spiritual group that has apparently been working against or harassing the subject of this article (I posit this based on info in her memoir and a look through Ringess's contributions).  Ringess seems to have a personal obsession with her, in spite of suggestions by other editors that he focus on topics that he can be objective about.  Ringess has gone through Wikipedia deleting links to the subject's educational, non-commercial pages, regardless of their appropriate placement on those pages.  Here is a discussion about this from a previous DRV.  Striked text was crossed out by Ringess after writing it. Ganesham 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CommentAs long as I add neutral, verifiable material that is not original research as per wikipedia's guidelines to original research, Wikipedia's guielines to verifiability and Wikipedia's guidelines to neutrality, then I can edit any article.  Of course, anyone can revert my material if it doesn't meet those criteria.  Also, I would also add, that as long as I treat fellow editors with respect, I can continue editing.  Perhaps, my initial nomination used language that was not entirely respectful, but I did apologize and everything seems copascetic.  To prevent me from editing for any other reason, as I see it, would be censorship, which seems to violate the basic premise that Wikipedia is founded on.  My vote is Keep and cleanup to provide dates and categories for the awards and references from sites that list the individual awards.  Also, if a fellow editor feels that I am vandalizing articles or in violation of the 3 revert rule then an administrator can block me from editing.  If you truly feel that I vandalized this or any other article, then we can sit down and have a cup of tea and discuss it, or if you feel that something stronger is called for you can request arbitration or report me to an admin.  Whichever you choose, there are many avenues for resolving conflict.TheRingess 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment 'can' doesn't mean 'should'; no-one is saying you aren't 'permitted' to (your claims of potential censorship isn't necessary, as no-one has a 'right' to edit Wikipedia Wikipedia:Free speech), just that it may not be the wisest decision. I get the impression that Jaime234 is noting that you may be a bit too close to the subject to see it objectively - I can't comment on that, as I don't know anything about you or the subject of the article, but this is the reason judges recuse themselves, and it's worth considering whether this is worth doing here or not. Ziggurat 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Once again, my own language seems to fail me.  Jaime seems to have legitimate questions regarding policy.  I was trying to point out that there are guidelines for when an editor might or might not be blocked.  I also provided links to material that might aid in answering those questions.  I am also attempting to point out that as with any other editor, my contributions are judged on their own merit.  I am fully aware that editing Wikipedia is not a right.  I did not "claim potential censorship".  To be clear, I was making no claim that I was censored or will be. Speaking generally, not specifically and certainly not about my edits or my contributions, it seems to me that blocking any editor who has violated none of Wikipedia's guidelines, is similar if not the same as censorship.  This is not the same as claiming that I am being censored, or that I am accusing a fellow editor of potential censorship.  I wished to provide a fellow editor, with legitimate concerns, links to material that might help address those concerns. As long as my edits and contributions conform to the guidelines, they will speak for themselves.TheRingess 03:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be talking policy, but I'm talking pragmatics. As I said, thinking about what is best and not just what is 'allowed', as just because you can do something within the rules doesn't mean that you should do it. Anyway, I didn't notice anyone even suggesting a block, so I'm not sure why you bring that up. Ziggurat 03:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps no one did, however, I interpreted the sentence "I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles a situation like this, but I don't think it is appropriate for TheRingess..." as both a request for information on how to prevent me from editing the article (a block), and as an accusation that I have or will edit the article inappropriately.  Perhaps, if the person pointed out in what ways I was inappropriate and why they feel I will be, then I might understand better their concerns.  In which case, if both they and I agree that the potential exists for me to make inappropriate edits in the future, I can agree that I should be recused.  Right now, I do not think that I have done anything inappropriate.  My edits should speak to that.  If I am too close, then specific examples would also help me to see that.  I hope that someone can point out the inappropriateness of my edits.TheRingess 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps you should take this off topic discussion to your own talk pages. --Ezeu 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, you're quite right. Just over-explicating again... :) Ziggurat 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My apologies.  I have certainly digressed from the subject of this discussion.TheRingess 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My point as a fan of this author's works is that it disturbs me to see someone using their role as a Wikipedia editor for what appears -- clearly to me after researching the matter -- to be some kind of personal vendetta.  Ringess's response to my concerns was to open a mediation cabal Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Guru Gita on one of the links that he inappropriately removed, which he then replaced, after admitting that its removal was inappropriate.  My point is that someone with a record of at the very least questionable actions and motives toward a subject should be revealed as such so that further actions by him toward the subject can be carefully scrutinized by others, since I don't spend much time on Wikipedia and will likely not be able to check them all.  My hope is that the editor would, as Ziggurat suggests in the DRV excerpt above, recuse himself from a topic for which he seems to have a personal bias.  Ganesham 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no personal vendetta here (WP:AGF and WP:EL).  TheRingess has not removed any links since your mediation case was opened.  In fact, your mediation case is still open.  You might want to make your communications about TheRingess there.  This page is for talk about the Sharon Janis article, not TheRingess.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I assure you, Ganesham, that I'll do my best to assure this article follows WP:EL and all relevant policies.  If links are removed from this page, it will be because the community reading this talk page agree that the links fail WP:EL.  I suggest, however, that you don't make accusations against TheRingess.  Comment on the content, not the contributor.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate editing by Ringess