Talk:Gurunath/Archive 2

message: #  That Mahendranath coined the term is disputed.  lack of evidence for this, and plenty of evidence to the opposite.
:Hamsacharya dan 15:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article now says simply that Mahendranath wrote that he had coined the term. And this is  true and it is documented. What's the problem? The rest is simply a diatribe written by someone else and is in the archives and should stay there. Nobody is stopping anyone from adding cited information to the article.  —Hanuman Das 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute

message: Kindly see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#Gurunath Thank you. --Bhadani 09:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kindly see

message: The page requires a lot of fresh inputs, and updates. I shall do the same very shortly. --Bhadani 08:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Names given in the article are first names or middle names, and not family names. That shows the lack of concern for accuracy. --Bhadani 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: The section below has been removed due to lack of verifiability. Please do not return it to the article until references can be provided. Per WP:VERIFY - Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor, and The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. —Hanuman Das 03:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited assertions 

message: I am asking you once again to follow Wikipedia policy. I removed uncited material and moved it to the talk page per WP:VERIFY. You restored that material to the article without citing references. That is violation of policy number 1. You also retaliated by removing cited material that is completely in line with WP policy. That is violation #2, a violation of WP:POINT. I have had enough of your arbitrary edits, refusal to discuss, and incessant retaliation. You are disrupting Wikipedia, and if you persist, you are likely to end up permanently banned. Are you going to make a good faith effort to discuss? If not, a formal complaint about your behavior will be filed. —Hanuman Das 04:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Hanuman Das.  The International Nath Order is an organization started and run for years by the author of the cited quote in the other meanings section according to his wikipedia page Shri Gurudev Mahendranath.  The cited quote does not meet the standards of verifiability set by WP:V to be published on a page other than the page about the author.  It certainly does not merit to be half the size of the article when there are 52,000 Ghits for Gurunath, and only 2 Ghits for the quote by Shri Gurudev Mahendranath.  Hamsacharya dan 05:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I already put it up for RfC.  If you don't like it, then you should come up with a strong source rather than a weak self-reference.  Quit playing games and pushing your Guru's agenda.  Let's let the RfC decide.  For now, leave controversial material off of the page.  The admin Bhadani agrees that your reference is weak and WP:V is very clear on this issue.  You're edit warring as much as anyone else - and you can also be blocked or banned.  Hamsacharya dan 06:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BEHAVIOR Dispute 

message: Hanuman Das - why do you keep editing Yogiraj Gurunath's entry?  If you can't respect boundaries than you should not be writing me up for an RfC.  You are showing your hypocrisy here.  He was born Sidhoji Rao Shitole - the spiritual title he took is highly symbolic - each word Yogiraj, Gurunath, and Siddhanath have specific symbolic meanings.  Your edits are highly POV, and its obvious that you are doing this in order to bolster your POV that Mahendranath was the proprieter of the word Gurunath as a title.  Admin Bhadani, User Shaninath, and myself have all independently contradicted this, not to mention the fact that you are using a self-reference which doesn't belong on a page other than that of the author - namely Shri Gurudev Mahendranath.  Please stop editing Yogiraj Gurunath's entry, as you know nothing about him, and have no authority on the subject.  Why don't you stick to your own topics of knowledge and authority?  Why do you always have to interfere with the work of others who have nothing to do with you and want nothing to do with you?  Hamsacharya dan 07:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below, please assume good faith. I am attempting to do what I think best for Wikipedia. This is not always what you think is best for your Guru. The former is the goal of Wikipedia, not the latter. Nearly everything I have done I discuss on the talk page, but you simply revert without discussing. Please stop using edit comments as a way to avoid discussion. Also, please note that you are not the final arbiter of WP rules. Do not take stuff out "until conflict is resolved." Leave it in and use formal WP processes such as RfC to get additional input. Okay? The default behaviour should be to leave things in, not take them out. If you will stop simply removing stuff because you personally don't like it, you will stop annoying multiple other editors to the point that they sign onto an RfC about your offensive conduct. Discuss, don't revert. Got it? —Hanuman Das 15:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YGS name as title 

message: I have made the following two requests:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baba_Louis#Please_do_not_revert
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hanuman_Das#Gurunath
In case, I do not find improvements in the edits, and the edits fail to conform to wiki-policies, I as an administrator of wikipedia, and the attendant responsibility enjoined upon me, shall be contrained to protect the page. This should be treated as a notice to that effect. --Bhadani 08:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:VERIFY, uncited material may be removed by any editor. Forcing editors to accept your uncited material would appear to be an abuse of admin privileges and will be reported accordingly. You are welcome to restore your material after you have found references for it. —Hanuman Das 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A request - to [[User:Bhadani]]

message: Hanuman Das - please refrain from machiavellian tactics to get your way on wikipedia.  You've once again removed YGS  as a retaliatory tactic.  You've also reverted another admins contention with your weak source - which you fail to acknowledge .  This doesn't bode well for the RfC against me that you're attempting to argue.  Hamsacharya dan 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please answer the above question. It makes a difference whether Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is a name or a title. If it is a title, it should not be put in the list of names. Please answer the question so discussion can continue as to how to include it. Please assume good faith. —Hanuman Das 18:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, the RfC is not about the content dispute. It is about the way you behave, your conduct. —Hanuman Das 18:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes a difference in the form the listing should take on this article. It is not meant as a slight or an attack. The name should be listed without the title if it is a name, since this section of the article is about names. If it is a title, it should be listed in a different section of the article under other meanings with a different explanation. That is all that is going on here, is determining where the listing should go and how to phrase it. Which can't be done if you'all are going to be evasive about whether "Gurunath" is a name or a title in "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath"... —Hanuman Das 20:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Individually Yogiraj, Gurunath, and Siddhanath are all titles.  Together they constitute his spiritual name.  Do you understand clearly now?  Hamsacharya dan 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please move discussion of this individual into the Other Uses section. —Hanuman Das 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? Hamsacharya dan 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "Gurunath" is not being used as a name in "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath", but rather as a title, which is the subject of the second section. Putting him in the names section is not appropriate unless "Gurunath" is being used as a name. It's not accurate. But don't worry about it, I've moved it myself. —Hanuman Das 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't make sense to put an individual in an other meanings section. It can go in a titles section.  Technically it should go into both as: His name is Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath.  He is a Yogiraj (master of yoga, he is a Gurunath (a Nath Guru), and he is a Siddhanath (Nath Siddha). Technically he should go in both sections - one as a name and another as a title.   Also, there is no information whether the title was given to him. Hamsacharya dan 06:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't keep unilaterally moving it the way you want it, Dan. There other other editors opinions to take into account, something you regularly ignore. Have a little patience, hmm. —Hanuman Das 11:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Same to you.  I think the placement and wording of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath looks fine in your latest edit, the current version - 12:09 May 2006.  Thank you.  Hamsacharya dan 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think your change in the heading is also an improvement. —Hanuman Das 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you! I appreciate that very much.  Hamsacharya dan 17:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant removal or corruption of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath