User talk:Skyerise/Archive 2012

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. After extensive checking of edit histories, I can't see any evidence that this is the same person. Can you give more specific information? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ISP is the same, location is the same, and first article edited (11/22/63) is one edited by at least two of the previous IP addresses. [1] User nearly always starts using new IPs by using random article and adding tags. He picked the first article on my list of regularly edited articles to attract my attention and is now trying to fake us out. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. After spending some more time looking at this, I agree that there are too many coincidences to be chance, so I have blocked the IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Le Vell

I see you decided to remove material while it is the subject of an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Le_Vell which you are participating in. In future, please wait for a consensus to emerge and give an edit summary that refers to the discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In a WP:BLP issue, we are supposed to take it out until a consensus is reached, not leave it in while discussing. Yworo (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That only applies to material that is contrary to policy, and you still need to link to the discussions. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I don't believe your opinion is correct. Neither do some other editors, otherwise, there wouldn't be a dispute. You are simply saying that your opinion is right because your opinion that your interpretation is right is right. That's no argument. Yworo (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Tantrums

Can I ask you to take a look here/here? (He reminded me of our mutual friend, the Mysticism IP...) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 02:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe a square of Mercury with Mars has been in effect. Yworo (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wha? Is that astrology?

Hokay, I think I'll leave it as it is since he promised to leave anyway, and there's probably nothing I can say that would make him feel better. Though I'll have to consider later restoring some material he deleted from articles... — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, astrology. It's been an interesting New Years. I was looking into restoring anything cited myself. No reason to provoke him into another rant. Seems like the same person to me... Yworo (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the aspect is prone to arguments and accidents. Poor impulse control. Yworo (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. He sent me an abusive e-mail, with some bonus content in addition to what he said on the talk page. Apparently I'm to blame for everything that's wrong with the Internet. All that for deleting that one section, I don't think I've ever seen him before.

I also don't think they're the same person as the IP nor that I can blame Mercury or Mars for anything, they're just poor little planets, so instead I'll just wonder here if people are going crazy or if I just suddenly began to have this effect on others without even trying. 2012 is reportedly a ~*majickal year anyways. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevant: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Rtrammel. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Kalpna Singh Chitnis

Hey, Thanks a lot. When I created the article I din't know the severity of Copyvio issue. Thank You. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. There are so many policies and guidelines, it's impossible to know them when first starting to edit. Copyright is a big one though and I am glad you do know about that now. Yworo (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

External links and bold text

Thanks for correcting the unwanted external links and bold text on the page College of Engineering, Pune. I would like you to please either suggest me a page or advice yourself whether external links can be added in the middle of a text or they are necessarily in the "External links" section. And whether bold text is not allowed anywhere in the text(except for the repetitive title that appears at the lead section of the article). Would be grateful for the same.Jobin (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism or gf?

Hi Yworo - I see you reverted an edit to Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas‎ made by an anonymous user (IP 82.35.202.156), and marked your edit summary as "rv vandalism". Looking at the differences between the two versions, the user's contributions superficially looked to me to be in good faith. Or maybe I've missed something? Best, MistyMorn (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking again, I see a paragraph was blanked, perhaps to remove content about Mongolian peoples? Since the anonymous user didn't provide any edit summaries, I guess it's difficult, at least at first glance, to understand whether the edits were gf or not. Perhaps you know more? MistyMorn (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Yworo (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes... It seems to be a 'cryptic' form of vandalism/bf. In which case, the user should be blocked, imo. MistyMorn (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:North American Indigenous visual artists

Yes, and it's really apples and oranges. Does that mean she's infallible? No. It means she can write a good essay. I'm also going to go out on a limb and assume that she is a fellow because she's female and made contributions in an area where people think there aren't any females, rather than for the fact that she created a template and stopped editing it eight months beforehand. Heck, I've got six days to get my own application in if I want, and it still wouldn't mean anything in the context of the encyclopedia or this discussion were I to get it. No matter how good-intentioned something may be, others are still entitled to think that is it is incorrect, and titles and honors don't affect that. MSJapan (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No doubt there is a solution that doesn't involve deleting the template. I'm sure you'll object to that too. Yworo (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of links to social networking sites

I note your recent large scale removal of links to social networking sites with the rationale of Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites. However, Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL#Official links states that "These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided", so please refrain from doing this in future. memphisto 12:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You are misreading that. Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL#Official links does not apply to all official sites. It applies to the subject's primary official site. Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites is clear that if the subject has a primary official site, we do not also link to the social networking site. I hope you have that clearly now. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL#Official links applies to "all" sites. As explained in the guideline, there are instances where it is appropriate to link to additional official sites. I hope you now understand why I asked you to refrain from your "large scale removal of links". memphisto 16:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You will note that Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites doesn't say to include the social networking link if that social networking link is official. It say to include them only when the subject does not have any other web presence. There's a significant difference and an explicit reason given for inclusion. That is, there wouldn't be any official link except by including them. Yworo (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites is merely a project page (not a guideline). And where does it say "only when the subject does not have any other web presence"? memphisto 16:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a subpage of WP:EL, an explanation of how to apply the guidelines. Right next to the As external links with the red X's, you will see statements like " Generally no. Exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other internet presence" for Twitter and "Generally no. Regular websites are strongly preferred, but exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other internet presence." for Facebook and Myspace. Yworo (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites is a subpage of WP:EL does not confer it guideline status. Again, I will ask you to stop the "large scale" removal of links to additional official sites. memphisto 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only will I not stop it, I intend to write a bot, once I figure out how to do so. As far as I can tell, you are not an admin and as a single editor, you have no special say on the matter. Yworo (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that WP:EL is quite specific about this in the WP:OFFICIAL section: "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites." Therefore, WP:OFFICIAL does not really differ from the guidance at WP:ELPEREN and your interpretation of it fails to convince for this reason. Yworo (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Yworo. GFHandel asked me to look at this situation. Having read the various discussions, I can say that I completely understand your position and also his, and that I am completely neutral on the subject you are in dispute over. I am glad to see that you have taken the dispute to a central location to achieve wider consensus on whether the template is useful or not. I would only suggest that you both abide by the outcome of the TfD discussion, and that pending this, you both refrain from adding or removing the template from articles. Does this sound fair? --John (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, creating the template is one thing, implementing it on multiple articles without prior discussion is another. Besides, it will give me time to write a bot to do the work once the outcome becomes clear. At the very least, for living people with an official website, we should let the living person decide whether or how they want to advertise their social network presence. Yworo (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, no we shouldn't. WP:EL is very clear. Just somebody is a living person is no license to add a metric shitload of social networking links in addition to their official website. Just like corporations, etc., the subject of an article gets one count them one official link to their own site in which they can spin and pose and brag and... whatever. The very narrow exception for Facebook, etc. is for situations where the social networking site is the subject's sole official site. It is no permission to add twitters and everything else. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that by only linking the subject's official site, they control how they advertise their social network presence via their official site. I did not mean we should let them choose what should appear on their Wikipedia article. Yworo (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so dessu. I misunderstood you, indeed! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow the link-inclusionists never stop to think that a living person might not want their social networking links advertised on Wikipedia. This might be something that needs to be covered in WP:BLP's presumption of privacy. Yworo (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) Hello Yworo - GFHandel has formally requested that you refrain from editing his user talk page. To avoid the appearance of harassment can I suggest that limit your interaction to the TFD page for the time being. Thanks.  7  00:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I stopped posting there 18 hours ago. Of course then he complains about me taking the issue to the appropriate public venues. Sometimes you can't win. Yworo (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry about the talkback. I saw something red after I hit save page, but by then it was too late. :-( Yworo (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - he made his help request at the same time as your last post, but it took an admin that long to act on it.  7  00:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I was aware he'd left it there despite that fact that I moved the discussion elsewhere. Yworo (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Henrieta Nagyová

I noticed on the Google+ deletion discussion they mention Henrieta Nagyová doesn't have an official website. After a search it appears that she does have an official website. Her official website links to twitter and facebook but does not link to google+. Since her website does not connect to google+, I wonder if google+ has her permission to have an article on her. The google+ article is identical to the article on her website. Without her permission to use the information, it looks like google+ is in the middle of a copyvio.Msruzicka (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm finding it really difficult to find your concern genuine. It's debatable whether we should link to it from Wikipedia, but to assume that it's a "copyvio" on Google's part is really far-fetched next to the possibility that it's a real account of hers and she didn't bother to write a new text for it. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 04:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I'm behind doing updates to some of my own sites that I know I need to do. It's neverending. Yworo (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I notice they changed the example to Sergey Brin, and after a quick search I notice Sergey has a Website at this address http://infolab.stanford.edu/~sergey/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msruzicka (talk • contribs)

Oh dear, it looks like it's from the last century. XD — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 05:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I think that's my brother. He never did advance beyond basic HTML. But he like totally held out on me on that Stanford and Google thing. Yworo (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You made a big mistake...

...and now it is time to apologize. Wait ten minutes, drink a cup of tea, then head over to ONIH's talkpage and apologize. Trust me, it is the best thing you can do at this point. In the future, if you want to accuse anyone of anything, triplecheck your facts, and ask for second opinions. After you have apologized, please avoid editing Nicole Kidman for at least 48 hours and continue removing those annoying links to social networks. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to delete my messages on your talkpage if you want. Von Restorff (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sergey Brin

I tried to put this link http://infolab.stanford.edu/~sergey/ on the Sergey Brin article and someone removed it.Msruzicka (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 05:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Exit on Brooklyn GA review

Hi. I'm not sure if you noticed or not, but I conducted the GA review on Last Exit on Brooklyn. I put the review on hold pending response to my comments. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic slur?

Uh, what I wrote was not a reference to Poles (as in the people) but the meta page on polls. I have just realised however that there are pages on m:Poles are evil and m:Polls are evil (thought they were the same thing.) Apparently not. But no racial slur intended. Just FYI. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your request

I did my best to add your stalker to the list of banned users. I just followed the same idea that was used in the past for another IP editor, basically just came up with a descriptive name and listed it with links to the ban discussion and your evidence subpage. Night Ranger (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Skelos Religion

Interesting point of view, quite sensible too. In THIS case, I doubt that Skelos had published something untrue in the NEW YORK RED BOOK. You know what that is? It is the official guide printed by the government and handed out to the legislators to know what to do in the Legislature. It is not some "third party" statement. It states what the legislators said about themselves, ergo it is a source acceptable under your guideline. What I'm not sure about, is, whether his religious beliefs are "relevant to his notability". I know that many politicians have their church membership added to their bios, for whatever reason. I've written hundreds of bios, and have mostly avoided to mention the subject altogether. So, I'll forget about Skelos too. Kraxler (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lahiri Mahasaya edits

Hello Yworo - This is RedRose13 and I did set up an account. (1) In regards to edits I made to the Book Bhagavad Gita, I have the book right in front of me and corrected the title... what the person originally wrote down is incorrect. Typing while looking at the actual 2 volume book "God Talks with Arjuna, The Bhadavad Gita, Royal Science of God-Realization" (2) There was no page mentioned and I thought it was more important to have (3) the hard cover book published in 1995 as prominent because it actually showed when the original book was published, the paper back was published later. Please see it on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/God-Talks-Arjuna-Bhagavad-Gita/dp/0876120303 (4) I italisized the title which is proper English

In reference to taking out another reference, I thought there were too many references. How many references can there be?

In regards to the area at the bottom of the page in purple - it is sending you to a limited number of organizations & individuals which shows favoritism or partiality so I changed it to refer to the Kriya Yoga page in Wikipedia which doesn't seem to favor a particular organization(s). The organizations are a very partial list which will block readers from the truth .... perhaps we should either add them all or not have any?

Your thoughts? Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Red Rose 13

Correcting the title is ok. Changing the edition is not.

There can never be too many references. Some articles have only one reference per paragraph, some have a citation for nearly every sentence. There is nothing excessive here and therefore no need to remove anything.

The "area at the bottom of the page in purple" is called a navigation template. In this case, it is the "Kriya Yoga" navigation template which is added to every article related to Kriya Yoga. It should not be removed but the template itself can be edited like an article. Wikipedia has no mission to direct readers to "the Truth". The reason the list of organizations is partial is because navigation templates typically only link to existing Wikipedia articles... if an organization does not meet Wikipedia notability requirements it will not have an article and will not be listed. Notable organizations will be added to the navigation template when an article is created. Wikipedia is not complete, and having a navigation template that is in your opinion incomplete is not a valid reason to remove it.

The external links section is never used to link to Wikipedia articles. Related Wikipedia articles are listed in the "See also" section, but only if they are not already linked in the article itself. Yworo (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day

File:Valentine's Ducks.jpg	Rubber duckies for you
	Happy Valentine's Yworo, and I hope you are enjoying your Wikibreak (but come back soon!)! May this year bring you lots of #WikiLove, as you deserve it! SarahStierch (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Mach Maintenance tags.

You said on my talk page, "Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jeff Mach, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)"

However the original tag said the following: "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However, please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced."

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear in the edit summary -- but as I was pointing out, these 'issues' had already been discussed on the talk page. If you disagree with comments that have already been made, then bring them up as issues there in response. As the tag says, if the template is removed it should not be replaced, which you did. Centerone (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hiawatha

Regarding your message on my page, 'You undid all my recent changes with your edits to The Song of Hiawatha, please don't copy articles and edit them offline. Thanks.' Yworo (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)...My apologies, I'd been editing for a few hours and when I came to save got a 'loss of session data' message, so had to copy and paste to save my edits. I'd no idea you were at work too. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. FYI, you can usually recover from 'loss of session data' by hitting the back button and hitting "Save page" again. That's never failed for me. Yworo (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx...there's always something new to learn on here! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you have a Teamwork Barnstar, so I guess I should ask to share in the presentation. You came along just as I was sorting our the Cultural Response sections of the article and making them more like an encyclopedic article than a random list. Some of my refs were lazily entered and your hard work has taught me to be more careful. But it's to help improve the article in other ways that I'd like to enter into dialogue with you. We have both been awarded Socratic Barnstars so it ought to be possible. I have a few points to make to do with placing procedural absolutism before the intention of an encyclopedia to inform.

1. The first is to do with not allowing links to blogs - or is it only certain types of these? There are some excellent art blogs out there maintained by enthusiasts and often giving access to information not easily come by otherwise. To exclude links to such information, especially when the blogsters have set up their sites precisely so as to spread knowledge, seems to be a blind decision. Surely discretion should be exercized in interpreting the guidelines? I'm particularly concerned in this case to lose access to "Minnehaha feeding birds", which is key to the point made in that para. I've looked elsewhere, but the blog seems to be the only place where it can be found. The only other solution would be to download it to Commons, but I'd rather not. Kitsch is kitsch, even if it calls itself something else!
2. Another point is not allowing You Tube refs where there is a suspicion that copyright permission has not been sought. I must ask how you can tell? In one case that you disallowed it was clear that the holder himself had uploaded. But in any case, it is not up to us on WP to police You Tube. That's their job. I agree that when such material does go down, the link doesn't work, but it has been my experience that much of the material (even under copyright) is allowed to stand. I can cite certain favorite cartoons which I return to regularly. In any case, these things have a tendency to be uploaded again, so anyone interested can go and look for themselves if they're informed that they have been on You Tube at one time.
3. I'd make the same plea over the musical items where you've asked for citations. Surely the whole point is that a musical item is not easily otherwise documented? I boiled down the popular musical items (Oldfield, Anderson, etc) from an ungainly list. But in searching out items on You Tube, I noticed that they were cited as excerpts. I have an idea that such items are allowed on the site, judging by past behavior there. In any case, I make the same point that it's not up to us to act as policeman for other sites. A link is not a copyright violation.
4. Finally, on resizing pictures: the idea seems to be that default size is 250px, but in practice the actual size on the screen varies enormously. A couple of the illustrations come out as too small for detail to be made out. It seems to me, again arguing from what the function of an encyclopedia should be, that some discretion should be allowed. I'd therefore like to ask for your help, as a team member on this article, in fulfilling this aim.

Thanks in advance. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to this local event!

Since you have a history of editing Seattle articles I thought you might live in Seattle.

I would like to invite you to attend a Wikipedia meetup described on Wikipedia:Meetup/seattlewp. This meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 6 March 2012 at 7pm in Café Allegro. Thank you for your attention and I hope to see you there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ohio Wing of Civil Air Patrol Page

I have noted repeated edits to the webpage for the Ohio Wing of the Civil Air Patrol. The person who created and edited the page is myself, the wing historian for Ohio. The constant removal of information from the page for the "lack of citations" I am finding a bit bothersome. The wiki guidelines I am aware of. In the cases of removal, the information is being given by the wing staff responsible for the area of concern; for the recent edit, the information comes via the cadet programs staff. I can cite things broadly speaking. My personal concern is the constant, persnickety editing of my page, whereas other pages are left in situ without any commentary despite the lack of citations or sources. At least give me the time to add in the sources before ripping the page apart.OHWGhistorian (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Sorry, but this is getting out of hand. Yworo has every right to make these edits: they know the guidelines, and you do not own this page. Moreover, it is clear now that you have a conflict of interest (as evidenced already by the non-neutral edits you made to the article) which is in fact reflected in your username, and I have no choice but to block you. This continued at your own talk page. Yworo, pardon the intrusion. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BITE

I think that was a bit bitey. The lack of edit summaries were slightly annoying, but the IP was basically doing a good job. —Ruud 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if any editor, IP or registered, refuses to respond to other editors, they simply aren't in the spirit of the project. Having been stalked and harassed by an IP-hopping editor, I am not really clear on why we let unregistered users edit. Anything that could be contributed from China or some other repressive regime would be anecdotal and unreferenced, so what's the point? Their countries don't provide them with media to cite on the only topics that could possibly justify lettings IPs edit. Yworo (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanksfor your contributions

Yworo,

Thanks for your contributions to the article Creativity (religion). It still has a long way to go, and your work is appreciated :) --Scochran4 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I was going to chat with you on your talk page, but do you know your talk page redirects? Is that intentional, or did you just not fix it after being renamed? Yworo (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that and have no idea how to fix it. Any ideas? --Scochran4 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Under the title where it says "Redirected from" click on the link. Then edit the page and remove the redirect, which looks like

#REDIRECT [[User:OtherUserName]]

Replace it with anything or nothing. If you want to have your talk page automatically archived see User:Miszabot for a template that will set that up. Yworo (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for your help. --Scochran4 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes in talk:Donna Eden

Thanks for your feedback on my proposed change. I've edited the proposed alternative version and would greatly appreciate your review. I'm particularly interested in whether I've correctly incorporated your advice regarding NPOV & tone. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for opinion: International Steampunk City

In our conversations about the Jeff Mach article, I've learned alot. I'm wondering if you would be willing to offer an opinion on the discussion Centerone and I are having about the Talk:International Steampunk City page and how successor pages should develop. Thanks. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Malleus

He no longer requires our support?
I have a gap on my user page where this delightfully cheeky userbox used to be.
If we take the cheeky out of WP, what's left?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The non-cheeky? Yworo (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one might say the non-cheeky is dry, parched, sterile, astringent, and encyclopedic.

Yours in dryness, Varlaam (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Skyerise. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

John William Horn

You PRODded this, and I deleted it. Mr. Horn, as user Usfarm (talk · contribs), asked about it on my talk page at User talk:JohnCD#John William Horn; I took this as a request for undeletion, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and given him advice at User talk:Usfarm#John William Horn. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

An uncivil user you've dealt with before....

I am leaving you this message because I am involved in a rather contentious edit war with a rather rude user that you've dealt with in the past and I'm admittedly worn out and beginning to sound a bit rude myself. The dispute is over the reliability of a little known fanzine over blabbermouth.net. If you could join the discussion and contribute to a resolution, that would be great. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I told Williamsburgland numerous times that Slayer is not just “a little known fanzine”, which they ignored as every other statement of mine except those that might be uncivil. And they aren’t just “beginning” to become “a bit” rude. --217/83 01:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I told Williamsburgland numerous times that Slayer is not just “a little known fanzine”, which they ignored as every other statement of mine except those that might be uncivil. And they aren’t just “beginning” to become “a bit” rude. --217/83 02:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Both editors have been blocked for edit warring, and Williamsburgland has been warned about forum shopping. (He posted the above message to at least nine talk pages.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I undid your edit

at Dorothy Brett. The lead has as much American content as British and I doubt thqt she would have made eikipedia had she not moved to New Mexico. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OPENPARA. The question is, what was her citizenship at the time she became notable. She didn't become an American citizen until 1938, but is notable for achievements before that date. Therefore she is described as British in the lead sentence. I've added that she became an American citizen in the lead paragraph, which is the usual way this problem is resolved in other articles. Yworo (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay then. I'm a "rules are made to be broken" kind of a guy, but this is your call. Carptrash (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We tend to favor the country of birth where the rules support it. Otherwise (on more popular subjects) there end up being endless edit wars, especially back from American to British. Where a person clearly moved and changed their citizenship before becoming notable, I strongly support using the new citizenship. For most others, using the original nationality leads to less edit warring. Where there are problems, I move the newer nationality closer and closer to the lead sentence. It's hard to justify the need to move the beginning of the second sentence into first. :-) If you'd like to rewrite to start the second sentence with something about the notability of her work done in the American Southwest, I'd not object. Yworo (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I just found this reply and am fine leaving it as is. Your thought process seems fine. i was having a bad hair day or something back then. Carptrash (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a few of those myself. :-) Yworo (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Creativity (religion)

Hi Yworo,

Please keep an eye on Creativity (religion). I just reverted back to your version after more whitewashing by a anti-semetic vandal-ip. Arcandam (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the semi-protection will need to be restored. I am keeping an eye on it, but I've not had as much time for Wikipedia recently as I've had in the past. Yworo (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi seems like a good idea. I will request it now, and post a link to this conversation. Thanks, Arcandam (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This guy seems pretty persistent and edits from multiple IP addresses from what I've seen. We may need indefinite semi, or at least longer than the last round of protection. Yworo (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please post a comment here, I don't know much about the history of this article. Arcandam (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline

Paragraph 3 in box at top: "it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing". Yawn, if you are going to try to bully other editors into following what you wish were rules, it'd behoove you to read from the top before making false claims. Yworo (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

MIss you

Yworo, I will miss you. Hope that you decide to unretire sometime! -SusanLesch (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Alanis Morissette

Hello Yworo.

I understand you have some authoritative power on Wikipedia and I am positive that you like many others here have rightfully achieved this status. Further, I am sure you stand towards what it is right and are humble enough to admit when you make mistakes afterall you are also a human. However, I do believe in your authority and for that I would like you to explain to me what part exactly I seemed to have violated from WP:OPENPARA when editing Alanis Morissette. Also, I'd like you to introduce me to the specific differences between the article and say, Jim Carrey or Michael J. Fox.

I also understand that you are a mature individual and know what you are doing and for that I would like to understand why placing comment tags on pages is preferred over using the talk pages. You have certainly been editing here for a lot longer than I have and probably understands the founding principles of Wikipedia very thoroughly and you, like me, are unwilling to let wikipedia be disrupted by personal conflicts and/or people who understand values the way is more convenient to them. Please fulfill my quest for enlightenment or, if by any minuscule measure you believe you have not acted accordingly don't feel embarrassed to fix the problem. I for one trust your authority and would like to keep respecting it. --Loukinho (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC).

Ethernal beings

The article is back again, since there was no consensus to redirect it, that out of process, and is now at AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings I'm contacting everyone who participated in the discussion previously, who hasn't been told yet. Dream Focus 13:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your message to me

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is My edits and additions to an article keep getting reverted by a under accusing me of being banned. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yogananda

Hi Yworo thank you for your helpful edits and comments however the link is not leaving Wikipedia and I am completly aware of keeping Wikipedia neutral and not using promotional links - I actually spent hours uploading the Articles of Incorporation onto Wikisource. Here is the link. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/SRF_Articles_of_Incorporation_1935 I thought it was important to let the reader know if they clicked on the link they could actually read the ArticlesRed Rose 13 (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi

Hello Yworo I looked carefully over your edits and there are many errors according to my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines 1) used 1st party reference to Ananda 2) A link to a commercial site even though it says free - http://www.ananda.org/inspiration/books/ay/ if you go to the page you can see many links to opportunity to buy products. 3) The P is capitalized on the Weil sentence because that is the name of his program - Program of .... 4) Not only is this sentence incorrect but again it is a 1st party reference - These have been edited by the Self-Realization Fellowship from the original edition. 5) I am surprised that you would edit this page in such a way just before our mediation.

Please correct these errors or explain Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

1. There is no prohibition on using Ananda to cite its own beliefs. The comparisons of editions are accurate, and that's all that matters here.
2. The Ananda web version is indeed free. The fact that one may also purchase print editions does not make the link prohibited.
3. If it is a quote, then it can be capitalized. Wikipedia does not follow the incorrect capitalization of others, we follow our own Manual of Style.
4. The sentence is not incorrect, even the SRF admits that they have edited the Autobiography. When there is a dispute between sects, Wikipedia presents both sides. You may of course use a reliable source to add a dissenting opinion.
5. I am not a party to the mediation, which looks misguided to me.

Yworo (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Another question - I noticed in other articles you removed duplicate citations but in this instance you added duplicate citations. I don't understand. Please let me know what I am missing hereRed Rose 13 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't done yet. No duplicates now. Yworo (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing thatRed Rose 13 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI...Regarding sects: SRF was begun in the United States and is nonsectarian. When a person leaves an organization and then starts their own organization, that is a sect and is even stated in Wikipedia. The other two sects begun by direct disciples Roy Eugene Davis and Norman Paulsen (now deceased) of Sunburst (community) seem to be and have been able to work in harmony as they spread their teachings. Also I know some Ananda folks that are members of SRF and feel warmly welcomed. Ananda, Sunburst Farms & Center for Spiritual Awareness are all sects of SRF. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether a source is a sect or not. We do not exclude sources simply because someone considers them a sect. Yworo (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please know that I never undid any of his edits because I thought he was from a sect. That is his accusatory opinion but he never asked me. I thought I was following Wikipedia rules and that he was violating those and in hindsight, I now know that perhaps some of his edits were not violating Wikipedia rules. In some of his edits he was...he actually reverted back to three years!! And he did that twice. He was blocked by some other editor not involved with our site. One of the editors involved actually gave him many warnings. We have been trying to work with him but he kept running around forum shopping and not willing to compromise. Also, I have only been editing since about last November and still have a lot more to learn. Glad that you are with us and hoping that we can create a neutral site that only exhibits facts and not books or websites that blur or hide the truth. Please note that Ananda only gives a partial explanation of the results of the lawsuit on their webpage. I have read it. I have uploaded onto Wikisource the 2002 Jury's findings http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:US_District_Court_Jury_Verdict_SRF_v_Ananda_2002.pdf , which concluded the 12 year long lawsuit, that for some reason has not be uploaded yet. These findings clearly indicate what Yogananda's intentions are with the works involved in the lawsuit and the jury found that Yogananda intended to give all of his these works to SRF. It needs to be said that the Autobiography of a Yogi has never been specifically adjudicated but Ananda mistakenly says that the 2000 judgement included the Autobiography. No need to add to the page, I will do it soon.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg would not include it if they did not believe it to be in the public domain. That, and many other neutral sites, state that it is in the public domain. I do suspect that you provoked a reaction by trying to promote the current edition, though I understand that you did not know about our book guidelines when you did that. Yworo (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please know that my intention when I brought in the current edition was to update the page and not cause a controversy. Thanks for your understanding. In regards to the Autobiography being in public domain, that is a subject for later on.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would we want to defer discussion of such an important status? Yworo (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yworo, Would like to add these to the list of AY publishers. However please note that all of the publisher except for SRF are only publishing the 1946 edition. Here are other sources that published the 1946 AY free online - I will add these now:

free online post http://www.healingspiral.com/Yogananda-Autobiography.pdf

Free online post http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Autobiography-of-a-Yogi-by-Paramahansa-Yogananda.pdf

Here are other publishers that I have discovered and hadn't posted yet:

Aeterna Publisher ISBN 978-1444437737 [2]

BiblioBazaar ISBN 978-1426424151 [3]

Floating Press ISBN 9781775411451[4]

Harmony Publishers in the UK – ISBN 9780955241277 [5]

JAICO ISBN 978-8172246600 [6]

Kessinger Publishing ISBN 978-1419108433[7]

Snowball Publishing ISBN 978-1607962892 [8]

We don't typically list works published through non-traditional publishers as ebooks or print on demand or other self-publishing services. Please verify that these additions are in either the US Library of Congress catalog or in WorldCat before adding. That's a pretty standard requirement for listing books in bibliographies on Wikipedia. I was pretty thorough in checking both of those sources yesterday, but I may have missed some. Yworo (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the two that are actually in Worldcat. Yworo (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ok thank you... Questions: all the editions are all together on the site now so how are people going to be able to differentiate between the 1st edition reprints from the current one? I do think however it is important to have a history of the AY on this page. This book is highly acclaimed no matter what edition is read. would be glad to provide a very long list of acclamations if you think it is necessary. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

SRF did not forge his signature (forge as defined by [9] = the act of reproducing something for a deceitful or fraudulent purpose) from my understanding the SRF added the a to Paramahansa for a couple of reasons (1)The process of transliteration from one language to another involves the sounds the letters make in each language. Firstly, the Bengali syllable “ma” is pronounced as “muh” and not as “m,” without the vowel sound. For instance, see the “Consonants” section for “ma” in this Bengali alphabet page that also lists the proper pronunciation in the International Phonetic Alphabet in parenthesis: [10] secondly, the Bengali pronunciation of “ma” tallies with the Sanskrit pronunciation. The following page clearly points out in its “Consonants” section that the consonants are pronounced with an “inherent a-Vowel”: [11] (2) The definition of Param vs Parama. “Param” means, among other things, “higher” and “beyond,” i.e., it is in the comparative case. “Parama,” meanwhile, is in the superlative case, and it means “supreme,” “highest” or “greatest.” [12] and [redacted] page 9. I have researched much more about the name and only added a little here. Hope it helps. Would be happy to provide more research if and when necessary.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please spare me the contorted explanations. As a linguist and a student of Sanskrit, I understand the different transliteration systems and also that the letter 'a' frequently is dropped in many words in colloquial Hindi and probably in colloquial Bengali as well (haven't studied that). On the other hand, a signature is a fluid gesture, and copy/pasting one 'a' into a different position destroys the inherent fluidity which is an expression of the personality of the signer. Any handwriting analysis professional could tell you that, and could readily spot an altered signature as "forged", even if it has exactly the same meaning and is considered more "proper" Sanskrit. Those who pick at nits can't be doing much meditation, they should undergo a good delousing so they can meditate undisturbed. :-) Yworo (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I object to your rude response - no need to belittle others - especially when we are all trying to do our best to bring clarity here. The fact that the a was added is not hidden from anyone as you can see from the 1995 letter. Btw, I have a jpg of the 1st edition if that would be helpful. Not sure how to get it to you except by uploading? Let me know if it is needed.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't addressing anyone in particular with that last comment, but if the shoe fits... If you can't understand the magic inherent in the smooth gesture of a signature, or a golf swing, or a brush stoke in art or calligraphy, or a mantra, well... that's your loss, I guess. Should we use digital editing to add syllables to mantras? Funny how Tibetan and Chinese mispronunciations of Sanskrit mantras actually work for the Tibetans and the Chinese, but if you have a mission to "correct" them, you've got your life's work ahead of you, I guess. Yworo (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and no the shoe does not fit... :) I personally did not make the addition to the name but I do understand why. I am just relating what has been done and the reasons that have been stated before. Like I mentioned before, I am a volunteer editor on a number of pages and I have a life outside of Wikipedia or at least I try to. I am devoted to bringing the truth/neutrality to the pages I work on without emotion or judgment and try to as often as possible to bring in neutral third party references. Above was an example of that - I guess you noticed I am a very detailed person probably more than necessary at times.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Would like to post my research and discoveries regarding the subject of public domain. Are you open to reading it?Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that it would really do much good. We can't use original research. We use reliable sources. Gutenberg says it is in the public domain, and that's good enough for me as they are generally reliable for this specific kind of fact (I only wish that one could link directly to the tab on GB that states it). Now, if you have a simple clear reliable source that makes an explicit statement that it is not in the public domain, that might be of interest. But it can't be a court document, it must be a secondary source.

It does appear, however, that the SRF is not contesting that it is in the public domain or filing suits against the many sites which host copies nor do they seem to have any intent to - this also supports that work is in the public domain. I've see the various lawsuits and also seen that SRF attempted to renew various copyrights which the courts have ruled that they did not own in the first place, something that invalidates the renewal. Even if the Autobiography were not specifically covered in the court case that determined that, it falls into the same class of renewals that were deemed invalid.

I'm sure that the real reason SRF doesn't take further legal action is that it actually might result in their clearly losing any rights to the later editions as well. After all, one of the results of a work being in the public domain is that any derivative works may also be deemed to have the same status, as anyone can modify a public domain work, but unless that modification is deemed "creative" rather than simply "editorial", they cannot copyright the derived work. Only original works may be copyrighted. If I were SRF, I'd be holding my breath hoping nobody filed a suit to prove that the edited versions aren't actually protected by copyright either, except for any additional creative original content such as introductions, appendices, etc. Yworo (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your conclusions above are speculation and are not based on facts regarding the legal issues. I am sure that Wikipedia does not want to start interpreting legal documents for the public. Here are details to bring clarity in this process:

• There has never been any court ruling declaring that Autobiography of a Yogi is in public domain. Anyone who questions this is welcome to research the court records for themselves.
• All claims that the Autobiography of a Yogi is in the public domain are not statements of fact, but mere assumptions and speculations of interested parties.
• The Autobiography of a Yogi was not a part of the Court Case that was filed in 2000 Self-Realization v Ananda [13] which ended with a jury verdict in 2002 US District Court Jury Verdict SRF v Ananda 2002 [14]. This court case was about other publications, and did not include the Autobiography of a Yogi.
• If someone were to look at all the court documents, they would not see any records of either one of the parties (SRF or Ananda), or the court, or the jury addressing the rights in the Autobiography of a Yogi in anyway.

Also, for these reasons, Mr. Parson’s book does not belong on this page, because it does not represent the actual facts, but just the opinions and contentions of an advocate of one of the parties. Including this book would give the impression that Wikipedia is being partial and taking sides about a legal matter, which it is not qualified to address. Neither do the court documents belong on this page because the lawsuit had nothing to do with the Autobiography of a Yogi, so it would be misleading to the public for Wikipedia to include these documents as they are irrelevant to the status of the Autobiography of a Yogi. Nor do the words “The first edition of Autobiography of a Yogi is in the public domain” belong on this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the Wikipedia guidelines, we rely on verifiability, not "truth". In any case, I have no affiliation with any of the parties in this matter, and don't know who is affiliated with whom. I only used that source because I couldn't link directly to the "Bibrec" tab at Project Gutenberg, and a published book seemed a better source than any of the possibly non-neutral websites. I have changed the article to qualify the claim, and to use a neutral, reliable source. You are welcome to add an opposing opinion, just as long as it is also based on a neutral, reliable source that makes an explicit statement on the matter. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you to be complaining about using Falk's book as a reference for the public domain status and changed the reference to use Gutenberg. With regard to Parson's book, you may not exclude it from being listed under Further reading or from being used as a source for Parson's opinions. That would be a clear violation of our neutral point of view policy. All major opinions in a dispute must be represented in an article. It doesn't matter who thinks the opinions are right or wrong. All that is required is to use language such as "According to so-and-so ...", or, "So-and-so says in his book such-and-such that ..." We let the reader decide who to believe. That's well established policy for any controversies or disputes. You may not exclude sources simply because you disagree with them or think they are wrong. You may insist that points of view are described using language that indicates that they are points of view and in a neutral tone that does not suggest that Wikipedia has an an opinion on the matter one way or the other. No well written article should make it seem that Wikipedia is taking sides. On the other hand, articles should draw on sources from all sides of a dispute, and should also have balanced representation of sources representing all sides in a dispute under the Further reading and External links sections of the article. Yworo (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the citation for "public domain" to at least a credible source. I am sure you agree that it is not for us, as editors, to conclude that the Autobiography is in public domain legally. The fact is, since the Autobiography was not included in the lawsuit between the two organizations SRF & Ananda, it has never been legally adjudicated. The ending of the lawsuit in 2002, the jury verdict stated clearly that Yogananda intended his works that were involved in the lawsuit to be given to SRF. The works in the lawsuit, were the Second Coming of Christ and the Bhagavad Gita and a few magazine articles. [US District Court Jury Verdict SRF v Ananda 2002]

Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Yogananda, during his lifetime, assigned to Self Realization Fellowship (“SRF") any of his United States common law copyrights in his writings or sound, recordings at issue in this case?

YES: __X__ No: ____

To bring the lawsuit issue to this page serves no purpose, causes confusion and most likely conflict on the page. This conflict which would be missplaced, takes away from the fact the page is about the BOOK.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, if Parson's mentions the Autobiography in his book, what he says can be brought to the article. From the point of view of Wikipedia, we ignore the legal cases, unless they are discussed in reliable secondary sources. Please stop wasting my time asking me to look at legal details in legal cases. It doesn't matter whether Autobiography has been legally adjudicated or not. We can't know that either way without doing original research. You bring up specific cases, but there may be other cases neither of us are aware of. You can never prove a negative, you can only cite what reliable sources say. If SRF doesn't have a rebuttal for what Parson's says in his book (which may be nothing AFAIK, I haven't read it), then what he says will have to go undisputed. Yworo (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What does AFAIK mean?Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"as far as I know" Yworo (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wasn't it ok to put in a sentence break under the editions section? I thought it was important to have the note lined up on one line so it was clearer for the reader?Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography editions: I am doing research on all the editions and plan to post it all here before adding to the page. Also, I found it much easier to deal with them by putting them in publisher sections as it is overwhelming otherwise. In the meantime as I was researching with the USBN# I noticed that there are two ISBN# that are exactly only one number apart and I can't find the Autobiography of a Yogi as published currently by Philosophical Library in New York - perhaps it is an error that needs to be reported to Philosophical Library and taken off Wikipedia? Any thoughts?

• Autobiography of a Yogi. New York: Philosophical Library. 1994 [1946]. ISBN 978-1565891081. OCLC 154280592.
• Autobiography of a Yogi. Nevada City, CA: Crystal Clarity Publishers. 1995 [1946]. 481 pages. ISBN 1565891082. LCCN 99165624. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yworo - what do you think about adding the languages that the book is available in? Would that be helpful to the reader?Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, so no, wouldn't really be useful, considering that a quick click of a reference link will get them that info if they need it. Lists like that are rarely encyclopedic. Yworo (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yworo - Studying Wikipedia guidelines regarding external links-Wikipedia:External links I have a question. Under the section 'What can normally be linked' is this: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

While reviewing the external link - to Why Read the First Edition of Autobiography of a Yogi?[15] It doesn't seem to fit the guidelines as being neutral, nor accurate. As I read the many pages, I did read repeated words about all the changes intermixed with opinions but very few examples. An even those examples could be a part of the revisions that the SRF publisher refers to. So looking from a factual encyclopedic perspective, which is how I view Wikipedia, it doesn't seem appropriate here. Your thoughts? Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding something: sources don't have to be neutral. Only the Wikipedia article has to be neutral. The source in question is only temporarily in the external links section. It's there to encourage its use as source material. Were it not allowed as source material, Wikipedia would not be able to neutrally present both sides in the disagreement. If you find this a problem, I can move it into the "Further reading" section. Yworo (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I will now read about the Further reading section - it'll be a couple of days before I can respond - other things to do you know. I also found a source - a 1995 open letter from the SRF publisher [redacted] that gives more details about editing the Autobiography. If the publisher would allow it, is this something to upload to Wikipedia or use as an external link or further reading? Thanks for your expert guidance. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

PDF files are not normally uploaded. If they are, they are usually deleted. Especially if they are not public domain or fair use. Should be used as further reading or external link, I'd say. Yworo (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked into that further. That document can indeed be used as a source, but we cannot link to that specific PDF, as it is an SRF copyrighted document hosted on a site that does not belong to the SRF. That is, it's probable that that specific PDF is a copyright violation. If you can find a copy hosted on the SRF site, you could of course link to that. Also, like the Ananda document, we could only use it for statements made by SRF about their editing, not for statements or opinions about Ananda. Yworo (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Yworo - Ok I have been researching the editions and here is the list as of today. I divided it into sections because it makes it a lot easier to understand for me and perhaps the reader. Jaico I still don't have a clear answer for this one - I do notice that they have the SRF publishers books on their website plus it looks like they are reprinted the 1946 version which I have put in the 1946 section. Will add new info re: Jaico as I come across it. I added info that I think pertained to the editions, let me know what you think.

Yogananda began the long process of finding a publisher for his Autobiography. In December 1946 the Autobiography of a Yogi was a published book at last. For a year, Tara Mata, Yogananda’s trusted editor, lived in a sparsely furnished, unheated cold-water flat while making the rounds of publishing houses, looking for a publisher for Yogananda's book. At last she was able to send a cable with news of success. At Yogananda's request, the Philosophical Library, a respected New York publisher, had accepted the Autobiography for publication. Shortly before Christmas 1946, the long-awaited books reached Mount Washington.” Citation [16]

From the Philosophical Library, Inc. on October 28, 1953, Self-Realization Fellowship was assigned all rights, title, and interest in Autobiography of a Yogi, including all rights in the American edition as well as editions published or to be published in foreign lands. In the November/December 1953 SRF magazines there is a copy of the notarized affidavit from Philosophical Library, Inc. signed by Phillip L. Wierner, Notary Public, State of New York, Queens.

• Autobiography of a Yogi (1st ed.). New York: The Philosophical Library. 1946. 498 pages. LCCN 47000544.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (2nd ed.). New York: The Philosophical Library. 1949. 498 pages.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (3rd ed.). New York: The Philosophical Library. 1951. 498/501 pages. (2 printings that year)
• Autobiography of a Yogi (4th ed.). New York: The Philosophical Library. 1952. 501 pages.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1954. 501 pages. OCLC 271420169.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1955. 514 pages.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1956. 514 pages. OCLC 459188400.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1959. 514 pages. LCCN 68039787.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (9th ed.). Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1968. 514 pages. LCCN 68017564.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (10th ed.). Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1969. 514 pages. LCCN 69011377.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (11th ed.). Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1971. 516 pages. ISBN 0876120753. LCCN 78151319.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (12th ed.). Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1981. 499 pages. ISBN 087612080X. LCCN 80052927.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (Anniversary ed.). Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1997. 588 pages. ISBN 0876120869. LCCN 00265526.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (13th ed.) Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1999(reprinted 2002). (1998 copyright) 594 pages. ISBN 0876120826 LCCN 8052927
• Autobiography of a Yogi (13th ed.) 15th impression. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship. 2005. 596 pages. ISBN 0876120796 LCCN 78151319.

Self-Realization Fellowship has published the ‘’Autobiography of a Yogi’’ in 29 languages. [17] In 1950 Yogananda asked Rider in the UK to publish his Autobiography of a Yogi. In 1953 SRF continued this collaboration until 2006.

• Autobiography of a Yogi (1st ed.) London, New York: Rider. 1950. 403 pages. LCCN 58018867.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (2nd ed.) London, New York: Rider. 1952. 403 pages.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (3rd ed.) London, New York: Rider. 1953. 403 pages.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (4th ed.). London: Rider & Co. 1955. 403 pages. OCLC 504109437
• Autobiography of a Yogi (5th ed.). London: Rider. 1958. 403 pages. OCLC 775853539.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (6th ed.). London: Rider.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (7th ed.). London: Rider.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (8th edition – 2 printings this year). London: Rider. 1969. 403 pages. ISBN 0090210522. LCCN 73385771
• Autobiography of a Yogi. (8th edition – 4th printing) London: Rider. 1973. 403 pages. OCLC 481614957.
• Autobiography of a Yogi (New ed.). London: Rider. 1996. 591 pages. ISBN 9780712672382. OCLC 36084750

India – not sure yet about Jaico and its relationship with YSS or SRF??

• Autobiography of a Yogi. Bombay: Jaico Publishing House. 1975. 512 pages. OCLC 756741285.
• Autobiography of a Yogi. Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House. 538 pages. ISBN 9788189955205.

Publishers who reprinted the 1946 version:

• Autobiography of a Yogi. Floating Press (Online). 2008 [1946]. 859 pages. ISBN 9781775411451. OCLC 62965
• Autobiography of a Yogi. Gardners Books. 2003 [1946]. ISBN 9788120725249. OCLC 221178768.
• Autobiography of a Yogi. Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House. 1999 [1946]. 498 pages. ISBN 9788172246600. OCLC 796041504
• Autobiography of a Yogi. Nevada City, CA: Crystal Clarity Publishers (Ananda). 1995 [1946]. 481 pages. ISBN 1565891082. LCCN 99165624.
• Autobiography of a Yogi. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers. 2003 [1946]. ISBN 9788120725249.
• Autobiography of a Yogi. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing. 2004 [1946]. 452 pages. ISBN 9781419108433. OCLC 752308536.

Think this one might need to be deleted. Autobiography of a Yogi. New York: Philosophical Library. 1994 [1946]. ISBN 9781565891081. OCLC OCLC

When I google the ISBN it takes you to a Crystal Clarity publication - here is one of the links -http://www.abebooks.com/products/isbn/9781565891081 – showing Lib SBN 10: 1565891082 / 1-56589-108-2 and ISBN 13: 9781565891081

Numbers are identical and only off by one number: From our list: Crystal Clarity ISBN # 1565891082 Philosophical Library ISBN # 1565891081

Hi Yworo - plan to upload today, the above ok? Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make the claim that the the Philosophical Library edition was printed at the behest of SRF rather than for the undisputed copyright holder, unless you can find a third-party source that states this. You can't use an SRF source for this claim. Same with the claim for transfer of rights, self-published material by the SRF would not be considered a reliable source with respect to this particular information, as it is "self-serving". See WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF for the guideline about this. Both statements also make claims about a third party (i.e. Philosophical Library), for which self-published sources also may not be used. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I thought it was clear that Yogananda was having the book published. When I wrote this I knew that Yogananda asked the Phil Lib to publish his book. I rewrote it to make it more clear. Also, isn't a notarized document clearly a third party source? copy of the notarized affidavit from Philosophical Library, Inc. dated October 28, 1953 attesting to the assignment ? Otherwise, how do you obtain a third party source when it is an agreement between two parties?Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is not a copyright issue but a publisher issue - who is going to have the rights to publishing a book.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to analyze who has what rights in a Wikipedia article; if there are no third-party sources about it, it need not be mentioned. And no, we can't use the Affadavit, especially when published by one of the parties. First, it's a primary source, even when republished. Second, we don't trust copies. I've got nothing against SRF and have no reason to suspect the affadavit might have been altered in publication; but seriously, SRF admittedly changed Yogananda's signature and didn't reveal this until years later, after it had been pointed out by others. Even with organizations with no history of such, oh let's just call it "editorial prerogative" to be polite, we wouldn't accept a copy of the document, only statements from a third-party researcher about the document. Yworo (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok - I updated it keeping in mind your instructions....thank you once again for your help! How does it look? Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Try again. You copy/pasted the text to resort them, but the source uses {{cite book}} templates. You lost the the LCCN and OCLN links in the process. You have to edit the source code, not the output, or you will lose information. Yworo (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I see what you mean - okRed Rose 13 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yworo what are you thoughts? We need your guidance. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note

This[18] is a pretty good autobiography of a Yogi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hi Yworo, did you get my email? I sent you one last night about the Autobiography of a Yogi article and mediation. I'm in a bit of a quandary about what we should do, and it would be very helpful to get your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did get your email. I think things are moving along okay. What do you think? Yworo (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think they're moving on ok too. It looks like your mentoring has done a much better job of resolving things than the normal dispute resolution system did. I'll recommend to MedCom that we let things move forward like they are at present and see how things go. I do have one thing I'm curious about though - why did you make your userspace draft of the article? Are you using it as a kind of testing place before you update the main article? It doesn't seem like it would be necessary to me, but maybe that's just me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the situation was more dire than it turned out to be. And it does give Tat Sat, whose first language isn't English, a place to test out his edits. Once he has got something that he likes, we can then invite comment from Red Rose before integrating all or parts of it into the real article. Yworo (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, I think it is time to update the main article. Red Rose quote in the beginning of the article "The introduction of the 1997 edition states..." as if it was the "official" edition of the book. Even if he said "of the 1997 SRF´s version" I don´t think it is neutral. He acts as if he is the owner of the page and compulsevely inserts links, quotes and references only to SRF. I have inserted enough information in the dummy article to add the forgery of the signature, the changes made in the text, the photographs, etc. SRF´s version with its over 500 changes after the author´s death could not be called anymore "autobiography". What are we still waiting for? Now Red Rose keeps editing saying "the first edition in the US". The first edition is the first edition. Point. It is clear that he is obsessed with SRF´s version. In fact, he should not even be allowed to edit the article since his point of view is not neutral. He affirms things he cannot prove and he tries to create havoc to hinder and obstruct the correct editing of the page with a neutral point of view. He inserted a link to a former president of SRF, Daya Mata. What has a former SRF´s president have to do with the article? I removed the link, he put it back again. I think what he is doing is so evident that we should go on now, in spite of him. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, Tat Sat has been attacking my integrity for about a month now and I am tired of defending myself!! It appears to me by observing TatSat's onesided edits that he is affiliated with Kriyananda who started Ananda and Crystal Clarity publishing. Perhaps he thinks by attacking me that he will divert the attention from himself and what he is doing. I have refused to defend myself. My intention (I am still learning)is to bring truth on this page and will continue to bring it here no matter how many times TatSat feels a need to attack my integrity. In fact his attacks make me more resolute to stand by this page as a Wikipedia editor. In previous posts he was asked and warned repeatedly not to attack the person but discuss the subject at hand. I formally ask you, Yworo, to address this issue. Because of our guidance with Sitush I have refrained expressing my observations about TatSat's behavior. Do you notice that he intermixes attacking me and then attacking the actual publisher like somehow miraculously we are one and the same? Do you seen anyone else here attacking him or the publisher Crystal Clarity? How can we work together if he can't stop attacking? How can he be allowed to bully his views onto the page? The reality is if I am obsessed with anything, it is the truth. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is from Talk Pages and behavior that is unacceptable [19] "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person." It is not just about name calling. TatSat was already given many warnings about this behavior. Please do something!!Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Red Rose, I could never be a member either of SRF nor of Ananda because I don´t believe in dead gurus - to put it blunty. All Indian scriptures say the guru must be alive. So, stop worrying and thinking anyone who believes in publication´s ethic is a member of Ananda. I was once curious about eastern spirituality but from what I could observe, I prefer a thousand times a truthful atheist than brainwashed "devotees" - generally speaking, of course. Tat Sat (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, I have not addressed the edits here [20] and am waiting for you to guide us through. One example however about one of the edits: Logically speaking if we are assuming that Gutenberg is correct in saying that the 1st edition is in public domain, wouldn't posting Chapter 49 from the 1951 version onto Wikipedia be a copyright violation? From my previous research and posted before - Crystal Clarity Publishers' offers their 2nd edition of the 1st edition.[21] A quote from the page: " This updated edition contains bonus materials, including a last chapter that Yogananda himself wrote in 1951" Not sure why this chapter was posted? Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the Chapter 49 from the 1951 book is infringing on Wikipedia copyright policy. I request that the file be removed asap.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect to chapter 49, our source for the public domain status is Gutenberg, and they do not include the 49th chapter. We should make sure that the text on Wikisource is indeed only that which is the public domain. Yworo (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest, we refrain from personal attacks. Also, affiliation with a certain group isn't important as long as we are following NPOV. We need to assume good faith from all parties if we want to end this constant back and forth edit wars. Steering the discussion back into the subject matter, I made a few changes on Yworo's AY page. Please take a look and comment. Also, please take a look at the "Signature" paragraph I created on the talk page. NestedVariable (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Our friend tat sat, reverted my changes. Don't want to enter into an edit war. Red Rose & Yworo please take a look at my last edition and comment. As Yworo suggested, we cannot call the changes controversial unless a reliable third party (non self-published) says so. Anyways, take a look. NestedVariable (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NestedVariable, how can you not call the changes controversial? There has even been a (40 million dollars, some people estimate) lawsuit against a rival sect because of the publication of the Autobiography of a Yogi (without the changes). There are anonymous sites full of calumny, vilification, defamations against the rival sect and its members. There is the forgery of Yogananda´s signature - which you wrote you doubted - although SRF was forced to admit "changing" due to evidence, not "gossip". And you say we cannot call the whole issue controversial because perhaps you don´t like the word? I am not interested in words but in facts. It is not what people say, it is what people do. If Yworo thinks (with other Wikipedia neutral editors) the text should be changed, then let him do it. Tat Sat (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC) PS Yworo, It all started because I posted I think it is time to update the main article. Tat Sat (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nested Variable I went back into the history of the page you mentioned - your statement seems Wikipedia neutral to me. Not sure about the reference - doesn't seem to be a third party reference. TatSat, also, in my detailed research, I have read the lawsuit findings of 2000 and the FINAL jury verdict that closed the lawsuit in 2002. When you read the final jury verdict you can see that that the jury concluded that Yogananda's intent was to give his works in question in the lawsuit to SRF, the organization that he created. I don't know why but the final jury findings were not up on Wikipedia only the incomplete 2000 court rulings. I discovered and uploaded it [22] Tat Sat, there is absolutely no mention of the Autobiography anywhere in the lawsuit. The lawsuit was never about the Autobiography. Anyone who claims it, clearly needs to show proof. In my research I came across this website that seems to focus on issues regarding Ananda/Kriyananda.[redacted] Seems to have been created by former Ananda members not SRF. Here is a quote from the home page "In this site written by former members to provide answers for the many questions, you will find articles, documents and testimonies that explain the reasons for this failure and how an idea of life in community may become the cult of a single personality." Hope this helps. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikisource should be hosting any legal documents at all. We can't use them as they are primary sources. Why are they needed at Wikisource? I don't think that's what Wikisource is for. Yworo (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, I was reading the claims made by Red Rose – errors of fact caused by stating offhand opinions as proven facts – about the lawsuits. The undeniable fact is that Autobiography of a Yogi is irrefutably in public domain – not because Guttemberg Project says so, but because there is a legal decision reached before 2002. We cannot forget it was a 12 year lawsuit and that SRF appealed many times of the decisions. Please read what Ananda says about the innumerable decisions made along those years. – I quote:

• SRF lost the appeal on books and some of the photos, but won the right to a jury trial on the writings in 50-year-old magazines and sound recordings. SRF unsuccessfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the copyright rulings. At trial, SRF's claims for the remaining photos of Yogananda were dismissed.
• By October 2002, when the case came to trial in United States District Court in Sacramento, 85% of it had already been conclusively decided in Ananda's favor, according to Federal Judge Edward J. Garcia, who had presided over the case since the beginning. The jury decided the remaining issues of the case, mostly in Ananda's favor. In total, Ananda won over 95% of the case.

This lawsuit of SRF against Ananda created a scandal among Hindu-Yoga circles. Because of one issue, all issues including the case about Autobiography of a Yogi (and the changes made by SRF), became widely commented:

• Ananda presented voluminous evidence of the term's generic nature. Thirty-five American Hindu-Yoga organizations submitted statements supporting Ananda's position.

Going back to Red Rose´s claim that chapter 49, published in 1951, is not in public domain: What he/she says is a fallacy (an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference), an unfounded allegation as can be seen in the facts above. Besides, if Ananda had not won the right to publish Autobiography of a Yogi with Chapter 49 as bonus material, Ananda would not and could not risk violating SRF´s copyrights. The proof that SRF has heavily edited the 49 Chapter, published in 1951, cannot be suppressed or kept from being revealed. You are only free before you act. If Red Rose asks for Chapter 49 to be erased from Wikisource, then Ananda will sell more books, since people willing to check the changes will buy it to compare with the current SRF´s version. Last but not least, intentional errors of fact could be called bluffing, in some contexts. If the speaker thinks that lying serves a moral end, this would be a Pious Fraud. I am talking generally again, of course. Niccolo Machiavelli, in the early sixteenth century wrote "Il Principe" (The Prince). He says: “the end justifies the means” — or “I shall do a minor evil to achieve a greater good.″ or “My aim for greater good makes all the evils I have done right.” I.e., “He believed that social benefits of stability and security could be achieved in the face of moral corruption”. I don´t. Tat Sat (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

PS I changed the formatting so that what I posted will not disappear under unecessary verbosity. By the way, Ananda´s sites we know to whom they belong. If they publish wrong information SRF can sue them. The anonymous site anandauncoverd.com we don´t know who is responsible for. It is a shame. I can add links to sites that claim Yogananda had love children. But what is the point? We are discussing a book, not sexual conduct.

• If I am not mistaken your Ananda citations are not 3rd party sources and therefore, are not valid on Wikipedia. Anybody can say whatever they like about a lawsuit but it doesn't make it the truth. I challenge you TatSat to read all the court documents and find any proof that the Autobiography of a Yogi was specifically ajudicated in the lawsuit mentioned. Also, the end of the lawsuit wasn't until 2002 and you can read the jury's verdict posted on wikisource [23] I found this newspaper article about the lawsuit and quotes from the SRF publisher lawyers which paints another view on this subject that somehow the Ananda lawyers didn't mention [redacted]. Apparently because Ananda was stealing articles, SRF was forced to take them to court.

A lengthy legal battle involving the Nevada County-based Ananda Church of Self-Realization ended Monday in federal court. All eight jurors found that Ananda and its founder, J. Donald Walters (Kriyananda), infringed on the copyrights of the Los Angeles-based Self-Realization Fellowship by reprinting articles and selling recordings of the fellowship's long-since-dead guru....But a lawyer for Self-Realization Fellowship, Philip Stillman of San Diego, said the case was never about money. "These guys literally stole magazine articles and started publishing them as their own," he said. The case hinged on the writings and recordings of Paramhansa Yogananda, a native of India who founded Self-Realization Fellowship in the late 1920s. He died in 1952. Walters became a member in 1948 but was "thrown out" in 1962, said Stillman's legal partner, Michael Flynn.

• I also read this in the newspaper article which brings up another concern regarding Kriyananda's integrity - "Along the way, Walters was sued for sexual harassment and fraud by former Ananda member Anne-Marie Bertolucci, whose lawyers claimed Walters fraudulently used his title of swami, implying he was celibate. Other women testified Walters coerced them into sex. Bertolucci was awarded damages in excess of $1 million in 1998."
• Considering that Kriyananda was "thrown out" of SRF, found to have stolen articles, used them for monetary gain and was found guilty of coercing women into sex, I find it hard to believe anything that he says or Ananda for that matter.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• A reminder TatSat that when you make claims like you just did please provide proof and not just state an opinion - "Ananda´s sites we know to whom they belong. If they publish wrong information SRF can sue them." The quotes I took from Ananda Uncovered that I used above where from a 3rd party source, The Union Newspaper in Nevada City, CA. If necessary I can contact them to receive the article directly from them. The above information regarding Kriyananda's behavior is from court cases not from my own speculation or opinion. It is fact with citations. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Here is the direct link to the Union Newspaper article [24]Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, I am not an expert on Wikisource and what should be there but I do trust your judgement about what sources we can or cannot use in an article on Wikipedia. In regards to Chapter 49, it is clearly a Wikipedia copyright violation and so I ask again for it to be removed.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2012

Well, this whole thing is getting ugly and dirty, pour l´amour de Dieu, for heaven´s sake. (I agree with what Baseball Bugs says about The Yogi Book by Yogi Berra). Now let´s see what Ananda has to say. I had not read this before and I think it is worth reading as well as this Summary of the Bertolucci case against Ananda. And this is for pre-order: "A Fight For Religious Freedom". The chapter´s titles are interesting, indeed.

I quote Ananda (Red Rose mentioned Flynn and Stillman above):

• “In 1995, after Bertolucci's attorney, Ford Green, lost a key motion in court, two new lawyers, Michael Flynn and Philip Stillman, took charge of her case. Ananda later learned that "Flynn and Stillman were SRF members" with close ties to the SRF leadership. These same lawyers later entered the SRF lawsuit against Ananda as SRF's attorneys. By the way, Yworo, I would love to go back to the book´s article. Tat Sat (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I found a third party citation and these don't seem to be. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hi, Thanks for starting and contributing to the American Indian Science and Engineering Society article! Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Court documents as third party references

Hi Yworo, a couple of questions, I don't understand why a court document from a third party, like the US Disctrict Court, isn't considered a 3rd party reference. Does wikipedia value one persons opinion over a court document? It doesn't make sense to me, please explain. Also, on that page there is a court document that was posted on wikisource and you didn't remove that one. Why is that? In fact that court document reflects an incompletion because in the my research, I discovered the legal struggle wasn't complete until 2002 with the jury's verdict.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that they are not third party, it's that they are primary sources. Legal documents require expert interpretation. Therefore we require the use of secondary sources which summarize them. We do not allow Wikipedia editors to either interpret legal documents or selectively quote them, because that amounts to performing original research from primary documents. We can sometimes also link to the actual court documents, but we can't say things about court documents that are not discussed in reliable secondary sources. In particular, I don't believe that your interpretation is accurate; this does not imply that I think Tat Sat's interpretation is any more accurate. Laypeople are simply not in the position to accurately describe the results of legal process: therefore we rely on secondary sources written by people qualified to accurately describe such results, generally legal reporters who consult with lawyers and other legal experts in the process of writing their reports. Yworo (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are so good at explaining and I appreciate it. I will continue the search for a secondary source. In the mean time,are you available to clean up that page? After all that you have taught me, I noticed there is a lot to clean up there. For instance, they have wikisourced only part of the legal issues between SRF and Ananda. I placed the jury verdict next to this wikisource to give the whole picture. You only removed my wikisource and not theirs. In the litigation section they are making legal claims not based on fact. Also, the other references in that section are all primary sources (discussed above). As an example, in my research I saw that the author of one of the references is Devi Novak, who is a minister and spiritual co-director of Ananda Worldwide [25] Please clean up that page or I can but with your guidance. The whole page needs cleaning up even the title of this page includes an honorific title, some links are dead and there are many primary sources. Thanks. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have recently started a new job and don't have as much time for WP, but I will try to look into it this weekend. Yworo (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear you have a new job but will really miss you on WP, hope you still can do editing here. They deleted the current cover of the Autobiography of a Yogi today - not sure what to do... Any thoughts? [26] Also, the reason they gave is "Violates non-free content criterion #1" [27] Is there any way you can help out with this? Thank you for all you do.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should have been uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia Commons. I think the cover has to be used under "fair use" since there is doubt about the copyright status on the photo on the cover. But the Commons doesn't allow fair use images: those have to be uploaded to Wikipedia instead. Yworo (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I just completed the rationale. [28] Also added it back onto page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi Edit Warring

Yworo, Tat Sat is edit warring on Autobiography of a Yogi. He has removed the current book cover image three times now and I have put it back in two times, explaining that you said I should re-upload in Wikipedia. He is also disregarding your guidance for this page so I Undid his edits. Requesting you join us again on this page...Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, nothing has changed. Red Rose will not allow a neutral point of view. Now the original cover is marked for deletion. It took us months to solve only this issue. We all know the book is in public domain - this means the cover and the content: text, illustrations and photographs. Red Rose reverts any editing I make. The facts about the changes in the text made after the author´s death are a relevant part of the history of the book. Also the enciclopedia of reprints of the book is ridiculous, forgive me saying it. SRF has a printing facility and the number of reprints is not relevant. If we cannot come to a consensus to make the article neutral, what should we do? Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yworo - Noticed that this sentence has been removed under Editions / Self-Realization Felloship Yogoda Satsanga - "The Self-Realization Fellowship has published the book in the United States since the 1954 fifth edition." - Needs to be added back in. Not sure why the current book cover in the infobox has been marked for deletion, hopefully TatSat can take care of that.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tat Sat, the image should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but rather directly to Wikipedia. The Commons is not interested in images for which there is any dispute. It's not their job to figure out if something is or is not in the public domain. Fair use images are allowed on Wikipedia, and that's where the image should be uploaded to. Yworo (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Question Roy Eugene Davis

Hi Yworo, to me it looks like User:122.161.157.77 added spam to this page. Am I allowed to revert the edit saying: Reverting good faith edit of User:122.161.157.77 Spam WP:SPAM Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Also when I went here [29] at first glance, it seems this user added this spam other places.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing Deborah Houlding Article

Thanks for your help in editing this biography. I am not the most experienced editor so I am taking it very slowly and checking all the links and procedures as best I can. There seems to be a lot of material on the talk page and no one was editing so I have decided to give it a go. I don't expect to finish today. Kooky2 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal decision about old magazines photographs

Yworo, could you please check the cover of the first edition which is marked for deletion? It took us months to solve this problem. I could upload the photo again as fair use, but that is a wrong information. Is there a problem? If there is, could you clarify me, please? You seem not to answer any of my posts only Red Rose´s. Also, to clarify this imbroglio about the book being in public domain but not necessarily the cover nor the photographs and illustrations, which is a falacy spread to baffle good faith editors, I will post the last decision of the lawsuit which regards the false allegation the cover of the book is not in public domain. Please check again this legal decision. The doubts are about photographs published in old magazines, not in the book Autobiography of a Yogi which first edition cover was wrongly marked for deletion: As you can see, here are two links - among many - to online facsimiles of the Autobiography of a Yogi. The publishers - who has not been prosecuted for copyright violation - state the book is in public domain and offer the book for free download (including the use of the original cover:

1. The publishers states the book is in public domain.
2. Free download by Holy Books.

I am sorry for the length text but please bear with me for this is important to clarify that the issue about the photographs were published in SRF´s maganize as you can verify, not in the book. There is no mention of the photos nor the cover of Autobiography of a Yogi which was already ruled to be in public domain without any doubt, since 1991, due to a lack of renewal of the copyrights. Please Self-Realization Fellowship versus Ananda this information, since you recommended not only the cover but photographs that are in the book should be deleted. I quote:

"29 - The final category of works in which SRF claims valid copyrights are not works by Yogananda but rather photographs of Yogananda and another religious leader, taken by various third parties and published in SRF's magazine under its blanket copyright. For four of the photographs, SRF can identify no known photographer as the author. A fifth was taken by a man identified only by his name, Arthur Say, while the remaining photographs were taken by SRF employees Clifford Frederick and Durga Mata. The district court rejected SRF's claims that the photographs were taken as works for hire or by a corporate body, and held that SRF had not introduced a triable issue regarding assignment." Thank you and forgive me again for the long post, but this is relevant information. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't really matter. The cover should just be on Wikipedia rather than the Commons, and have a fair use rationale. There is no explicit reliable source that says that the cover is in the public domain, and that's what the Commons would need. They are not going to look at and try to understand any court documents. Yworo (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into this matter. Yworo, this book with the original cover is everywhere free for download for many and many years. Red Rose keeps claiming the book is not in public domain now he suggests that the cover perhaps is not in public domain. He/she never wanted this original cover but SRF´s cover, as everyone knows. He says he is not a member of SRF nor has any connection with SRF (so not to be considered an interested party) but everything he does is to make the article about SRF´s version with links to SRF and avoiding mentioning other publishers. I was looking into book pages. You told me you think the page is neutral. I say it is not. Now, to prove my point, I checked for instance the article True at First Light and in the contents there is the topic: Publication Controversy. The history of the publication of Autobiography of a Yogi is full of controversy due to the fact the text was altered after the author´s death without proof of his wishing it to be done. This is highlighted specially - among other things - by the change in his signature many years after his death. I am unable to insert these facts. Red Rose removes any contribuition I make and falsely denounces me for "edition warship". When we were in mediation (for putting the original cover following Wikipedia´s guideline) I never edited the article, while Red Rose made dozens (literally) of editions, thus banning me without having the power to do so. What do you suggest? Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Tat Sat, on the first subject, there is no way to prove to the Commons satisfaction that either the book or the cover are in the public domain. Trying to do so is just a waste of time, since Wikipedia allows the cover to be uploaded locally under "fair use". On the second topic, the level of detail you wish to insert about editorial changes is simply not encyclopedic - too much detail. As I suggested elsewhere, the sources would support a short paragraph about the topic, and that's it. You can't make a "controversy" which has not been reported on by reliable third-party sources. The Ananda sources are fine for saying that that Ananda believes that changes have been made - but not for detailing the alleged changes. Even were a neutral, unbiased source to describe the changes, we wouldn't report on the details, but rather just use it as a reference for where interested readers could read about the details. Such details would simply overwhelm the article with information which is not crucial for understanding the topic of the article. In any case, please don't exagerate... nobody has "banned" you. If Red Rose is edit warring and has made more than 3 reverts to your changes in 24 hours, then report him at the edit warring noticeboard. You should also make sure you are not breaking the rules about reverting. Yworo (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just an fyi here. I now know how to revert back to a previous post. I didn't know how to that yesterday and that is why there were so many undos. I was also supporting our Wikipedia guidelines for this page. Also, TatSat once again you are accusing me falsely. I had absolutely nothing to do with the photograph in the info box being tagged. [[[User:Red Rose 13|Red Rose 13]] (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, thank you again. Unfortunatelly I cannot agree with you. The changes in Yogananda´s signature and photographs and text are very serious. And Ananda is a source as reliable as SRF. They can be held accountable for any false statement they make, with legal consequences. They are not anonymous sites. Both SRF and Ananda as Publishers of a reprint of the book and a version of the book should have equal weight. I agree the graphic with the changes could not be uglier and a text would be enough. It was in the article before and I just copied it. But the information is extremely relevant. SRF does not deny any changes they made. They just don´t prove the changes were made by request of the author. And yes, I am "banned",I am not exagerating. If you please take the trouble to look into the View History you will find out not one of my editions remained. And also if you check you will see I never made a false statement nor did I wanted to insert in the article opinions. Only facts. It is a fact SRF changed the book after the author´s death as it is a fact SRF altered the author´s signature many years after his death. That´s the information Red Rose does not want in the article, which as it is, is about SRF´s book. Another issue, Yworo, is the confusion SRF made between editions and reprints. You can check in edition (book) and see that it is considered a new edition only when the text is considerably changed. Otherwise it is a reprint. Since the author is dead, there cannot be dozens of new editions of the same book, only reprints of it. Of course SRF release a new edition after Yogananda´s death and kept changing the content of the book, but not so many times. You consider relevant information details that would simply overwhelm the article with information which is not cricial for understanding the topic of the article. At the same time don´t you agree the list of reprints does overwhelm the article? Thank you for your attention and your time. Tat Sat (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• TatSat - here is a sampling of your recent edits:
• "Reverted. Red Rose uploaded with another name the copyrighted imaged removed by a Wikipedia decision."

Not only did you delete the image you changed the file name by taking out the underscores. Autobiography_of_a_Yogi_current_cover Deleted image removed: Image:Autobiography of a Yogi Current Book Cover jpg |

• Swami Kriyananda - you put back the honorific I took out according to Wikipedia guidelines
• “Removed a link to nowhere” – the link goes here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_Invades_America
• "Copyrighted image removed by a Wikipedia decision was uploaded again with another name. Removed again." Even though I wrote in the summary of my reverting you the reason.
• Some of the changes made over the years include: significant edits to Yogananda's poem Samadhi, the removal of two poems ("God, God, God" and "The Soundless Roar" – Only one example from this section - Remember that I already told you that these poems were moved to Whispers from Eternity 1949 by Yogananda himself because he did not die until 1952 as you know.
• |title=Autobiography of a Yogi |publisher=Self-Realization Fellowship |edition=6th |year=1954 |location=Los Angeles |pages=501 pages | nopp=pages |oclc=271420169 – You changed the 1954 edition to 6th when it is actually the 5th.
• Also somehow this sentence was deleted and I had to put it back - "The Self-Realization Fellowship has published the book in the United States since the 1954 fifth edition."

There is much more and I thought it was important to have examples. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Red Rose, it is appaling your disregard of truth. If your look at the best book pages, there is only one cover, the first edition. This article is not neutral and is dreadful. As for putting back the honorific title of your enemy, Kriyananda, I never did it. Also, the link goes to a stub. As for the poems they were ther, in the second and last edition of the book. What SRF publishes is a version of the text. If you could forget SRF and concentrate on the book, things would be much easier. As for the eminence of the fifth edition it is not necessary, since it is part of the encyclopedic list of SRF´s reprints and versions. Tat Sat (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

TatSat here is the link where you added the honorific title swami back onto the page [30] which is against Wikipedia guidelines. Changing the edition from 5th to 6th, and the reason is? [31] And the sentence above the list of SRF editions suddenly disappeared and had to be put back. To me these three instances are three examples of you undermining this article. Also, you added the words Crystal Clarity after the intro words in the Reprints of the first edition section and before the list of seven different publishers, for what purpose? [32] I am learning but all of this seems like POV to me. [33]

Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Rose, who cares about the honorific title? Tat Sat (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Be careful with your words, Red Rose. Have you read The Prince, by Machiavel? You should. I could not have sided with Ananda because I don´t have anything to do with either sects. I side with the truth of the facts. Once I was curious about this book which for me is the "harry potter of spirituality". I collected many editions of it, including the first edition, and checked all the allegations. I have thousands of books and first editions. This book is only one among many I own about Oriental literature: Hinduism - Yoga and Vedanta - Tibetan Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Sufism, etc. I consider the "Autobiography of a Yogi" fiction, Red Rose and I don´t think the author was an avatar. That´s why I can be impartial. As for his teachings, by his followers behavior I am not interested, thank you. I much prefer an honest atheist. In fact I am not a devotee of any hindu sect. My interest has always being literary. I never tried to post my opinion in the article, just the facts about the controversial book trajectory, without emotion. I consider the stories laughable, entertaining. Do you really believe in the ressurrection of the dead, levitation and other miracles just because someone said so? I don´t. I don´t believe either in gnomes, elfs, fairies, witches, et caterva. Perhaps the title was reverted due the removal of the cover. You have made hundreds of small editions. It´s there, Red Rose, written. And the fact I mention Ananda is because there are two main publishers of Autobiography of a Yogi: the reprint of Ananda and SRF´s version. But truly, what can I expect from someone who defends the forgery of Yogananda´s signature after his death?... Pitiful. When people do not have sound arguments they attack. You have made hundreds of editions in this awful article page, while I did only a few, since you have banned me from what you think is yours and SRF´s article and you remove relentlessly my contributions. The article is as you wish and only has one point of view: SRF´s. You use the article to advertise SRF´s version of the book and prevent the inclusion of any information about the changes made by SRF - which SRF cannot deny. One moment an admin will check into your posts and he will see all the wrong information you have being providing to attain your ends. I affirm without any doubt that you are using Wikipedia to advertise SRF´s version of the book and that the article does not have a neutral point of view. It is not an opinion, it is a confirmed evidence. Spam. In an inter-wiki attack you also attempted to vandalise the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia, but there you were prevented from doing so. We spent months dealing with SRF´s members who also denied having anything to do with SRF. What I am saying is easy to check. I have never made a wrong statement. As I say it is appaling your disregard of the truth. Tat Sat (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was editing my comments when you posted your comments. Please see my revised comments. Can you please just stick to facts and third party citations? Your constant, incessant accusations seem to me as a form of bullying and trying to convince others of your way of viewing the situation. Facts and third party citations are the way to go here. Please stick to the Wikipedia guidelines.Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So instead of addressing your POV edits, you attack me with your unfounded opinions again? It seems like bullying to me. Anybody can read the article and see the third party references I have researched and added. It is right there in black and white. Both Sitush & Yworo have taught me well and I still have more to learn. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yworo, it looks like Sitush will not be editing for awhile. See Sitush talk [34] Are you available to comment on what I have written so far? Does it look neutral to you for the lead section of the article? Would like to post it and please feel free to make changes if needed.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Zen-Buddhism templates

Hi Yworo. You've removed the {{ZenBuddhism}} and {{Western Buddhism}} from several Zen-related biographies, with the argument that the subject is not mentioned in the template. This has been discussed before Template talk:Zen Buddhism#Excessively detailed template. The subjects where you removed the templates all are or have been significant for Zen Buddhism and/or Western Buddhism. I'd like to put them back, but rather first discuss this with you, instead of a precipitous action by me. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Joshua, I believe these template are being misused. First off, they are navigation templates. Wikipedia has always had a standard that navigational templates should be bi-directional: see WP:NAVBOX, last sentence in the main section: "Finally every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." Second, the templates themselves say "Part of a series on ...". This suggests that the article linked in the templates are "the series". How then can articles not linked in the template be part of this series? Quite frankly, this appears to be a form of religious proselytism, actively encouraging readers to read other loosely-related articles on Buddhism rather than being used as navboxes are intended to be used. This is completely inappropriate, and seems to be part and parcel of a number of breaches of Wikipedia policy on the part of WikiProject Buddhism, such as repeatedly including titles and honorifics such as "Geshe", "Lama", and "Rinpoche" against Wikipedia guidelines. All these issues need to be addressed and WP Buddhism needs to understand that these policies and guidelines should not be overridded by a consensus among Buddhist editors. And, by the way, I am a Buddhist, so this is not some sort of anti-Buddhism campaign. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a clear answer! I'll read the guideline, and the portal. Thank you! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Gplot

If you go to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect page you will find it and the date.

Restore it if you want.

Re the other part you deleted, I have seen that in either a book or a column somewhere. I can ask DH where it is if you want. It's really trivia but interesting. Email me if you want, I don't normally pay much attention to Wikipedia unless asked.

Keith Henson (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

splitting Tib Bsm

Hi, Yworo. You've helped with the Tib Bsm article in the past. If you have a moment, would you like to check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibetan_Buddhism.

I've proposed something there that would involve work for me but would improve the Tib Bsm article immensely in my opinion. It's turned out to be contentious. I have something coming up in the new year that would make it hard for me to devote the time to this then, so it is now or never. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Moonsell (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see talk page at Ātman (Buddhism) article.

Please see talk page at the Ātman (Buddhism) article.Merigar (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I see it, but you have not posted anything on it, so what's your point? Yworo (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, Yworo, for fairly intervening in this case of a unilateral major change to an article (its effective termination!). Warm wishes. From Suddha (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The article should be terminated. Merigar (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There are processes to follow. Either follow them or desist. Yworo (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

External Links

Trying to understand the external links - I noticed on Kriyananda page you put the external link to a social blog in external links even though it is separate from the official website and takes one to a social blog. Then in SRF page you took out the external link to SRF youtube page...confused...thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read WP:ELPEREN? It lists a specific set of sites: Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, Linkedin, IMDb, Youtube, and Find-a-Grave. It doesn't mention blogs, and I usually leave "official" blogs. Yworo (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yworo - I noticed this addition to Paramahansa Yogananda page at the bottom - Authority control VIAF: 107026466 - what is that and it's purpose - the info didn't seem accurate.... Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Authority control. Yworo (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I read it and still don't really understand it's purpose and how I can correct the errors. Any suggestions?Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Leenux

Hello, can you please help me with something. I do not know a lot about wikipedia's rules. I am dev of the Leeenux Linux, and there used to be an article about it on wikipedia. Some admins did not like that it lacked references, so I cleaned an article and added enough references. Then, the problem was that distribution was not "notable" according to them (they do not consider notable any distribution that is not in the top ten), so they deleted the page, leaving red links on other pages linking to it. Now I consider that distribution should be at least in the few articles that list linux distributions, but red links is not the solution, since article is not likely to be created once again. Thus instead I changed from link to wikipedia, to the website of the distribution, but you have deleted the link. Can you tell me what is the correct thing to do? Also, even I have removed the red link, now some other admin added it - it seams to me that there is a lot of confusion created by the admins as well. Thanks, Spiralciric (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Leenux does not appear to meet our general notability requirements. We consider external links to the homepage of non-notable subjects to be spam. You can add Leenux Linux to various list articles only if you provide a third-party reference (such as an independent review which is not a blog post), not a link to the Leenux Linux website. So, if you have a reference, you can add it. You cannot, however, add any sort of external link to the distribution homepage. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be a web directory or to provide an easy way for a reader to find the distro homepage. Rather, Wikipedia's purpose is to provide facts cited to reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Ātman (Sanskrit)

I've changed the redirect of Ātman (Sanskrit) to go to the disambiguation page at Atman. The reasoning being that the term is Sanskrit for all Dharma traditions, not just Hinduism. It is the interpretation/context/usage of the term which differs across those Dharma traditions, not it's linguistic source. (20040302 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

Aleister Crowley - Freemasonry section

Hi - I noticed that you made a radical edit to Aleister Crowley with the explanation:

"rv uncited material to last version by Rodney Orpheus, material on Freemasonry will need to be cited to *third-party sources*, not to Crowley)"

The section is new and did rely upon Crowley as a source, but it is intended as a basis to which contributors can add third-party sources and improve the article. As the central secret of Freemasonry was a major theme of Aleister Crowleys life, then it's a shame to blank the section entirely. I respectfully request that you replace the cited content. Thank you. Dara Allarah (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the citations were not adequate. Please use secondary sources as required. There are plenty of biographies of Crowley, primary sources such as The Confessions should not be used for this. His claims about himself, like anyone else's, are not considered reliable for use in Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The section has been up for less than a week and I'm sure it would have been improved by replacing the primary sourced content with third party sourced material if you'd given it enough time.

I note that the section on Thelema has remained completely uncited since January of this year but you haven't removed it. Why focus on the new Freemasonry section and ignore a far more pressing case for deletion? Dara Allarah (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I realise that the section is in an imperfect state (its new) - but would you consider restoring the section with a note on it saying that third party sources are required and I'll request help for that on the talk page - as an alternative to just blanking the section? That would be a great help. Dara Allarah (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Because there was an edit war over the original research based on your interpretation of primary sources. Start over using secondary sources please. The other party was correct that your material was incomplete and/or erroneous, an error that a professional biographer would not make. So go to the biographical sources and read and research them thoroughly so that you can support your assertions with secondary sources.

Please see my user page. I am a Master Editor III and you've been here what? a month? I have no real interest in the topic but stumbled upon the edit war on the the notice page. I've been looking over your edits, and you need to learn a bit more about Wikipedia, what quality of sources are needed, and how to behave. So, again, no, you need to start over from secondary sources. You also need to use the talk page, edit summaries are not meant to be used to communicate with other editors, but rather just to describe your edit. Use the talk page. Yworo (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons that I tend to prefer to go to a primary source when it comes to Aleister Crowley is that I tend to doubt that the secondary/tertiary sources available are really independent. So may I ask your opinion on this: there is a plethora of books written on Aleister Crowley that are authored by high ranking members of fraternal organisations such as the OTO, and they are published by houses with fraternal membership going back a long time. For instance - its well known that author Jim Wasserman used to work for Weisers publishing house. In such a situation, are books published by these authors to be regarded as independent sources for wikipedia content or not? I suppose an analogy would be - would you consider a Christian bishop that published a book on the Pope to be an independent source? Thanks. Dara Allarah (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not a good argument. Yworo (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Crowley set up the OTO to publish his work and promulgate Thelema. I wasn't arguing - I was asking for your opinion as a Master Editor so that I can improve my editing. Dara Allarah (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, the more independent the better. But Crowley was an habitual self-aggrandizer, his claims about himself are not to be trusted, and the secondary analysis provided by researchers, historians, and biographers is essential to presenting him correctly. Yworo (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well - if we just case a critical eye down the references on the Aleister Crowley page then we have: Tobias Churton - OTO member that said of his biography: "My work had the support of the OTO's World Head!". And then there is Richard Kaczynski - a member of the OTO since 1987 and senior enough to open up the annual OTO conference. Tim Maroney was a senior OTO member. Bill Heidrick gets featured (Ex OTO Grand Treasurer for over a decade). Frater Superior Hymenaeus Beta (the present O.H.O.) get's a reference, and the present OTO treasurer, Rodney Orphius - regularly edits the Wiki article and its related pages. There is also a goodly chunk that references Crowley as a primary source, or use blog pages as references.

I think Sutin and Symmonds are fairly independent... although come to think about it - the later was Crowleys executor of his Will. I agree with you that Crowley needs secondary analysis but as members of this fraternity are sworn to secrecy on some topics and see it as their mission to promulgate Thelema on the other, its all a bit.... wonky at the moment reference wise. At least, it makes me doubtful about the over-all independence of the article. Dara Allarah (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Other matters you may want to learn: we do not put any Wikilinks in headings; no emphasis or bold is permitted in the article text; no changes to quotations to insert italics or bold not in the original are permitted; quotations do not get italicized; blockquotes do not also get quotation marks; only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized in headings, etc. It's a good idea to at least skim the Manual of Style. Yworo (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh right! I didn't realise. I'll have a look at that. Thankyou!  :-) Dara Allarah (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardie's biography is probably good too, since even though he was an OTO member, he'd had a falling out with Crowley before writing it so was a lot more objective than he might have been. I'd be careful if I were you removing material from any of the biographies... however the less independent writers should have their affiliations revealed at least when first used in the article. A section about the biographies, biographers, and their connection to Crowley and/or his Order might be a good improvement, so that readers have some idea which sources are likely to be more objective. The article has clearly mostly been written and edited by followers, and we have a continual problem with it becoming more of a hagiography over time, then needing to be NPOVed (I didn't just use that as a verb, did I?) again. Yworo (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for keeping an eye on Anagarika Dharmapala Wiki page-Cheers MediaJet (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My name is John Moschitta Jr and someone recently deleted the bulk of the article on the John Moschitta, Jr page. Was that you? And if it was please restore it. The information was accurate and should not have been deleted. Thanks you John JMthe2nd (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that it is accurate is insufficient. Everything presented in the article of a living person must be cited to reliable sources. In this case, entire large sections of the article had no reliable sourcing and has been removed. If you can provide independent reliable sources not affiliated with the subject, then information based on those sources can be restored or added. Please note that IMDb is not considered a reliable source. We will need books, journal articles, newspaper articles, etc. Best regards, Yworo (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the bulk of the page has been deleted I can no longer view it to see what did and did not have citations. Most of the page was written by other contributors. It is my recollection that many of the deleted items did in fact have citations or links associated with them. Please be specific in what you feel needs to have further citations and send me the contents of what you have deleted for my review. Thank you. I look forward to getting the requested information from you. My best...John JMthe2nd (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please leave my page alone

I do not understand why you are continuously editing the John Moschitta, Jr. page. Who are you and what is your interest in that page. It seems as though you have a personal vendetta against me for some reason. Do you care to explain your actions? JohnJMthe2nd (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You do not own "your" page, and according to our conflict of interest rules, should not be editing it at all. Wikipedia articles are created and maintained by multiple editors. They are not owned by anyone, least of all by the subject. We are not here to help you promote yourself. We are here to write an encyclopedia. This isn't your personal website. Pages that you create and edit belong to the community. Others can and often do mercilessly edit "your" material.Yworo (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if the user actually is John Moschitta, as I'm sure Moschitta has far too much class to embroil himself in such a petty thing. If the user doesn't change his ways, a nice little trip to WP:ANI could be in order, or maybe first talk to your most trusted admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like he is well on his way to shooting himself in the foot sooner, rather than later. Yworo (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Steve Woodmore

Thanks so much for your recent edit(s) to the Steve Woodmore page, which I created. However, I'd just like to ask... Since you mentioned that his record of 637 wpm only stood for 5 years, instead of 20, then who broke his record? (He got this record in the year 1991... That would mean he supposedly lost the title in 1995; I do know about the Steve Shannon thing, but that is very one-sided and not many recognise him at all) To date, many sources still quote him as the world's fastest speaker. (Even the subject claims to have held the record for 20 years. "I have held this world record for 20 years now 637 words per minute, that's 10.6 words per second.") Could you provide a source which quotes Woodmore losing the title after 5 years? Thanks a lot. Cheers! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Woodmore was also featured in the 2003 Guinness Book of World Records as fastest speaker. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Guinness also decided to stop having a "Fastest Talking" section after an editorial decision. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would think that Steve Shannon is just a "one trick pony", for all he can do is recite a soliloquy; other things, he can't read so fast. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

[35]. There can't be two fastest talkers in the GBWR, can there? While you are at it, the lead of the article is horrible. First, there shouldn't be any citations in the lead, much less multiple citations per sentence. All the "meat" should be in the article with the citations, then the lead should just summarize the cited material in the body. It'd be a great improvement. As I'm sure you know, multiple citations per sentence is indicative of synthesis, a form of original research. Yworo (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Although, I do think its alright to leave some refs in the lead for BLPs. (Such as year of birth) Also, multiple sources per sentence need not always be synthesis. If the multiple sentences say the same thing, then what's wrong? Nevertheless, I have tried hard to clean up. [36] If you spot any more formatting errors or stuff, feel free to remove or clean them up. Thanks a lot. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent page moves

Hi, Yworo. You've recently moved a lot of articles which included the honorific Swami in their titles. While I do not oppose the moves per se, your moves might be in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. Even MOS:HONORIFIC makes exceptions where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, like Mother Teresa. Did you verify the prevalence of article titles in English language sources or did you have other reasons to move the articles? Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The articles I moved are all disciples of Sivananda Saraswati. The pseudo-surname indicates lineage. Sivananda Saraswati was already at Sivananda Saraswati rather than "Swami Sivananda". I do not believe that the Swami honorific is in more common usage than the formal name except with devotees. Should we include the many websites of devotees when determining "common" names, or only the academic literature? I believe the latter should be preferred, the average reader of Wikipedia is not a devotee or even a Hindu. In any case, there should be consistancy in how the names are presented within this lineage. If the founders article is a Sivananda Saraswati rather then Swami Saraswati, his disciples should be presented in the same manner. Yworo (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, academic sources should be preferred while determining common name. Besides, moving pages to clarify lineages sounds like a good idea. Thank you for the clarification. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. :-) Yworo (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly, like ask to be trouted.

<3, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hey there. He's been doing this for years, as indicated by an administrator. I have lots of experiences with him and I know the discussions I've had with other editors that find his behaviour disruptive.Curb Chain (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh believe me, I know that. In the past I have simply walked away, but if there is no action taken to deal with this, I believe an WP:RFC/U is in order, which, if he refuses to cooperate with, should be escalated to some sort of official editing ban. Though I've never heard of a "style" ban, I see no reason why one could not be implemented. Yworo (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, maybe you could look over his recent removal of multiple "image cleanup" tags with the false claim that they require a talk page discussion to be valid. They do not say so and point directly to the relevant policies to be followed in cleaning up image abuses. I think the tags should be restored. They are the way we get other editors eyes looking at these issues, and that is precisely what he is trying to avoid by removing the tags. Yworo (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yworo. I have one of the pages that I happened upon watchlisted. I we will keep in touch once the ANI issues get resolved.Curb Chain (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you have already found this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald. Summary: BMK changes articles to his own style against consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Heath Schuler, Duke Energy, Pat McCrory and Energy sector Roll-up

Hi, This topic, energy roll up, is top of my list and the focus on Schuler will intense. With the Progress Energy and Duke Energy botched merger heading, most likely to the higher courts, are you on board? On board with what? Energy Roll-up of 2012 as Charlotte, NC swcrambles to become the energy mecca.--Wikipietime (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

note

Hey There. Any reason you haven't responded to my emails?Curb Chain (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't have easy access to that email address where I am right now. Yworo (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks just wanted to know. We can talk more through email.Curb Chain (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you would rather, we can talk on IRC. Or Skype, or some other communication channel. But you have to let me know.Curb Chain (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't help you if you don't respond.Curb Chain (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I really have nothing to say via email. Not worth compromising my anonymity, at least. There is no "list" of affected articles, and no way to make one, because the text in comments isn't searchable. Wikipedia search doesn't work and neither does Google work. If you want the list of articles I know about, I'd rather post them on Wikipedia than reply by email. Thanks, though. Yworo (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that would work. You can make a one time email and send it to me. Or we can speak on irc or some tor network or something.Curb Chain (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding re Ole Nydahl

Hi Yworo, there seem to be two different rules about self-pub, I posted the details on the notice board. I would appreciate if you didn't abort our discussion at the current point, since your impression of me "cheating" is wrong and I think part of your reluctance to continue our discussion may stem from that impression. I think the discussion is fruitful, and we've already come a long way - for example, your arguments on why Orso isn't a reliable source were very convincing. Thanks for that! Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see that you pointed to a different policy than you quoted. My apologies for the "cheating" comment. But I see no other positive support for your position from any of the BLP-knowledgeable editors who monitor BLPN. Really, I see no point in continuing unless you get agreement from another BLP-knowledgeable editor. I am not going to "approve" any insertion on my own, but only with consensus of those in the discussion. I suggest you speak to Drmies, Ditch Fisher, KillerChihuahua, and/or Ken Arromdee on their talk pages. All of these editors have entered the discussion stating that the information should not be included. Even if you convince me, you will also need to convince, at the very least, two of those editors. That will require specific proposed wording using specfic citations. I suggest that you will need at least three reliable sources stating pretty precisely what you want to insert without any interpretation or inference, sources which are all independent of each other before you have a chance of convincing these other editors. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Losang Samten Biography

File:Kalachakra el paso 2012.jpg

Kalacakra mandala created by Losang Samten in El Paso, TX 2012 (C.E.)

Thank you for the considerable improvements -- particularly in the form of links, but stylistic as well -- which Joshua Jonathan tells me were your doing, over on the biography page for Losang Samten. For whatever it may be worth, I do intend to add some much-needed citations in the not-too-distant future there; but for the time being at least, I am still barely beginning to learn how Wikipedia actually works! Cheers Xeltifon (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nedd Willard‎

What are the image placement "rules"? Please direct me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

See Image use policy and How to place an image in the Manual of Style. In particular, see WP:IMAGELOCATION: "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." There will be more about indentation of heading in the MoS under Headings. Yworo (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you add a sufficient amount of text to the article to accomodate a left-place image, I'll have no problem with it being moved. When an article is short, compromises are necessary. The text is primary in an encyclopedia, and should not be shoved around. Yworo (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your many fine contributions to Taos-area articles and topics. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Golden Spike Company - social media channels

Hello, you deleted the EL to the company's social media channels citing WP:ELPEREN. Actually, as I read it, this rule is primarily dealing with personal social media sites, not corporate ones. As is, I understand that a more appropriate rule is covered (exempted) by Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL#Official_links. There has been, incidentally, a long discussion on this issue here: Talk:Golden_Spike_Company#Social_Media and I believe it was agreed, reluctantly or otherwise, to leave these links in since these were official company controlled media resources. Visitors to this page would likely be seeking all resources to the company information, and so these links are relevant and part of the company communication strategy. As I understand it, the primary objection to including social media links is that they can easily expand into a directory of web-links, a link farm of excessive links (typically fan sites for video games, film stars, musicians, etc.) that can dwarf the primary article. This is not a risk here. I have therefore restored these links. If you disagree with this, perhaps you could re-activate the Talk:Golden_Spike_Company#Social_Media thread. I don't have a personal interest in this issue, but do feel that in this specific type of situation, that including EL to company controlled social media is appropriate and valuable information to the reader. Regards, Enquire (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect. The idea is that anyone with a robust website can choose to link or not their other social media from that site. It's their choice. If they have an official website, we don't link to their social media sites. The specific wording in WP:EL that applies is: WP:EL#Minimize the number of links. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

With respect, there appears to be ambiguity. I totally understand that Wikipedia is not a directory service or link farm. However, I was reading and guided by the criteria (1 & 2), per WP:ELOFFICIAL. I have no vested interest in this particular article and no particular interest to pursue this issue. I am, however, perplexed by the apparent ambiguity or conflicting advice in the various rules on this matter. Regards. Enquire (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL applies only to websites, not social media sites. Does that clarify? Yworo (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If so, maybe the policy should say that specifically. I do not a position on this matter, I am just interpreting what I read. Maybe I am misunderstanding the intent, but I don't/didn't think so. However, if my interpretation is false, then maybe the policy needs to be reworded. Enquire (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Enquire, you are grossly misreading WP:EL. There is no ambiguity; the subject gets one, and only one, link to their own controlled website. Any other links should be to external sources of useful information. We do not give a INSERT VULGARISM OF YOUR CHOICE what their corporate "communication" strategy may be: this is an encyclopedia, not a webguide. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions!

Thanks for attending the Wikipedia Loves Libraries edit-a-thon at the Seattle Public Library! Your help was greatly appreciated. Mlet (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley Biographers section

Hi Yworo. I thought your suggestion for a section on biographers and their links to Crowley was a good one, so I went ahead, and listed biographers and partial biographers (such as Lon Milo that is cited in the main text) and cited everything. However - I'm getting trouble with people removing the section from the OTO or without a reason on the talk page. It's messy. Can you arbitrate please? See if I've done anything at all wrong or whether I'm just getting kickback from reasons outside wp policy. Maybe suggest a way forward? Thanks. Dara Allarah (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty busy right now, but I may be able to wade in later today. Yworo (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cleargreen Incorporated

Hi, Yworo. Yes, I am familiar with the concept of notability. Here are a few examples of reliable sources that discuss Cleargreen Incorporated:

• Salon, The Dark Legacy of Carlos Castaneda, http://www.salon.com/2007/04/12/castaneda/;
• New York Times, Mystery Man's Death Can't End the Mystery; Fighting Over Carlos Castaneda's Legacy, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/19/arts/mystery-man-s-death-can-t-end-mystery-fighting-over-carlos-castaneda-s-legacy.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm;
• Los Angeles Times, The Mystical Man, http://articles.latimes.com/1995-12-26/news/ls-17898_1_carlos-castaneda/2;
• Courthouse News Service, Carlos Castaneda's Granddaughter Claims Shamanistic Exercises Aren't Copyrightable, http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/07/40421.htm;
• Los Angeles Business Litigation Blog, Cleargreen Using Founder’s Grandaughter’s New Tensegrity, http://www.kleinlitigationblog.com/cleargreen-using-founder%E2%80%99s-grandaughter%E2%80%99s-new-tensegrity;
• RFC Express, Miles Reid et al v. Cleargreen Inc et al, http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/82969/miles-reid-v-cleargreen-inc/summary/;

I will update the page with more information and sources in the near future. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 16:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Paramahansa Yogananda

Hi Yworo, in looking over this page, I noticed that perhaps a better place to put the direct disciples that left SRF and started their own organization could be under Noted Disciples because there are 3 others who left SRF and started there own organizations:

• Swami Premananda, 1928 - http://www.self-revelationchurch.org/
• Norman Paulsen, 1947 Los Angeles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunburst_%28community%29 Sunburst (community)
• Swami Kriyananda, 1948 Los Angeles - Kriyananda
• Roy Eugene Davis, 1949 Los Angeles - Roy Eugene Davis

OR another option is to add a link next to their name in the Noted Disciples section to their wiki page or their organization? What do you think?Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think if they started their own organizations, they deserve more than just a single line, and could be added chronologically by foundation of their organization where Kriyananda was added. Though this should only apply to organizations primarily dedicated to the teachings of Yogananda, so perhaps not Sunburst? Yworo (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think it is done correctly as it is. Kriyananda seems to be the only one who dedicated his organization to disseminating Yogananda's work. Of the four, only two have articles, and I don't believe Roy Eugene Davis claimed to be carrying on with Yogananda's work, or does he? If so, maybe a paragraph on him before/after Kriyananda in chronological order. Sunburst wasn't really a Yogananda continuation, rather more of an eclectic mixture so I don't see why it should be given a paragraph rather than just a link from the Notable disciples section. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I just posted details but the system deleted it all! Trying again...this time I will save before I post!  :) Both Davis and Premananda's organization are disseminating the Kriya Yoga teachings given to them by Yogananda. - Davis also wrote his own books and a book about Yogananda. http://www.csa-davis.org/pages/kriya.html See the altar and the page. Kriyananda has started his own teachings, his own swami order, created his own lessons, wrote many books and one or two about about Yogananda, . Yogananda incorporated his organization SRF and gave his teachings to be cared for by SRF. Kriyananda does not actually have the teachings to disseminate but he did start successful communities based on Yogananda's ideas. I still think these three noted disciples should be placed under Noted Disciples because what all three did were beyond the ordinary. There might be others, I will have to do more research.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate it when that happens. Good luck on your second try. Yworo (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you need more details? I can find more links if it is helpfulRed Rose 13 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC) - http://www.ananda.org/ananda/ - Ananda is a global movement based on the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok I updated the section by adding the two other organizations that are based on the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda. Right now I used their websites but still need to find better references. Do you have your encyclopedic book? Also I still think they should be in the Noted Disciples section because Yogananda's legacy was given to SRF.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Legacy is not used in any kind of formal sense here. It is the right location. Their names should also be listed in the notable disciples section. Looks good. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a couple of headings to reduce confusion, without appearing to endorse any, by distinguishing them as "Formal" vs. "Other". What do you think? Yworo (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The headings really do help! will sleep on the wording....Thanks again! :) Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the subtitles - After careful consideration, it seems to me that the subtitles aren't not necessary at this time, ok?Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed an editor added opinion word (paragraphs) to this page that are not sourced. Would you like to revert as unsourced or should I? This editor also added the same words to the Kriya Yoga page...Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

László Kovács is not Hungarian

Kovács is not Hungarian, I take offense. I also have Hungarian citizenship, but i'am not Hungarian. Kovács never wrote in Hungarian language, therefore is not Hungarian writer, as a Hungarian writer wrote only in Hungarian language. Doncsecz^talk 18:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you can set whatever standards you want on Hungarian and Slovenian Wikipedia, but on English Wikipedia, we specify the citizenship of the subject in the lead sentence. If you continue to edit war over this, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was reported to the administrators and i asked László Kovács: you say that he is Slovene and not Hungarian, claim so write his affiliation. Doncsecz^talk 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not "affiliation", it's citizenship. Someone born in Hungary who has not changed their citizenship is described as a Hungarian national. It's all spelled out in WP:OPENPARA. Yworo (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Doncsecz is complaining at WP:ANEW. Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yworo (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But Kovács demand this denomination. Doncsecz^talk 18:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Too bad. I'm not sure he's significant enough for Wikipedia, perhaps we should rather delete the whole article. Yworo (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your petty and foul revenge, as László Kovács also explained his claim. In addition English wikipedia have one million article about small persons and events, which also insignificants. Doncsecz^talk 18:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's because you made an unnecessary stink about it and thereby brought the status of the article to our attention. Yworo (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I also stink articles about pushed celebs from Western Europe and the USA, who do not have anything worthwhile, in contrast László Kovács is respected person in the culture of minoritys in Hungary, this is snown in award A Nemzetiségi Hagyományok Átörökítéséért/For the inheritance of the Minority traditions. Doncsecz^talk 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to convince me of anything, tell me that you understand this site's rules about presenting the subject's citizenship first and that you will follow this rule in the future. Otherwise, I expect to start reviewing all the articles you've submitted, correcting citizenship issues, and nominating non-notable articles for deletion. <sarcasm>You sure know how to win friends and influence people, don't you?</sarcasm> Yworo (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You were a minority in the USA, but do not look this situation. Therefore you said it unnecessarily in this theme. Your work is unnecessary in this area, there are other users, were are not petty and miser persons. Doncsecz^talk 19:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We say "American", not "African American" for black American subjects; "American", not "Italian American" for Americans of Italian descent; "American", not "Jewish American" for Jewish American subjects, etc. Our rule is to omit ethnicity from the lead section of biographical articles, and to specify legal citizenship there. Sorry you don't like that, but that's just how we do it. If you disagree with this, start a discussion at the correct place and attempt to change the rule, don't simply ignore and then yell about it. Yworo (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is America, not Hungary and Europe. The (white) people of the United States is a miscellany from Europe and Africe, this is only American citizens, the real Americans is the Indian peoples. Altough the USA melt the peoples, but in Hungary is not so. The former communistic dictatorship also tried disapeared the minoritys and the citizenship was a stigma. Doncsecz^talk 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop posting on my talk page. Yworo (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)