User talk:Swamiblue

Please Stop putting COI Tags on my Talk Page

I am warning you from adding any further COI tags on my talk page. Just because you can't follow Wikipedia policies correctly and your edits get reverted - you fancy messing other people's talk pages. If you have substantive evidence to believe I have a COI then please take this matter to WP:COIBOARD. If you continue your annoying behavior, I will have to report you. Take note that unfounded repeated accusation constitutes harassment - see WP:HARASS. I have removed your Talk page disruptive edits based on violation of Wikipedia policies and not because of any sacrosanct intent as you believe so. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


User:Kapil.xerox, STOP threatening me. I have asked you several times, within my rights, to disclose whether or not you are involved with BAPS and so far you failed to answer. Several media outlets reported Pramukhs sexual abuse allegations and I brought to the talk page to discuss whether or not this is something that needs to be included in the article. You are intensely focused on removing this discussion from the talk page even though the consensus was to not include it. Your obsessive nature to get this already resolved discussion off of the talk page combined with your tedious and persistent editing of related topics demonstrate that you have a strong bias and should refrain from editing topics where you cannot keep a neutral point of view. I will request for some more users to get involved on the help pages. Again STOP parasitizing my talk page. Swamiblue (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And just a note, all your harassment can be seen on my talk page. I can only assume that you literally start your day by looking at my contributions on wikipedia which is really sad. You have only reverted my edits for the past three+ years and call on the same group of 3-4 users to reach a consensus on topics that show any documented criticism towards BAPS, Pramukh Swami and related articles. Have I had issues? Of course but this removing of talk page discussions is blatant conflict of interest. WP:COIBOARD is a starting point.

Examples of the same group of users obsessing over any critical discussion regarding BAPS and related topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendence:_My_Spiritual_Experiences_with_Pramukh_Swamiji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj#Sexual_Abuse_Allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShastriji_Maharaj&type=revision&diff=709809858&oldid=709809665

Swamiblue (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is settled. See consensus on the Talk page. If you cannot build consensus then at least respect it. Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Matter is resolved? I do not know what planet you are living on! You must have not read the posts above.Swamiblue (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I can edit from Mars! Thanks to Intra-Planetary Deep Space Internet. - Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

... to Gamaliel: did you notice that he didn't edit in a while? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not, last time he edited was on April 14 which is about two weeks. Did I do something wrong? Are you able to assist in my inquiry? Thank you User:Gerda Arendt Swamiblue (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read your post, only wanted to prevent you from being disappointed by no answer. Just read his page a bit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it and now I see all the stuff on the talk page. Good to know. ThanksSwamiblue (talk)

Your comments

Hello, Swamiblue,
You might be disappointed that your comments on User talk:Bbb23 and WP:ANI haven't received much of a positive response. That is, in part, due to how long your remarks are. Editors and admins are busy, working on article building or other projects, and the vast majority will not want to spend 10-15 minutes going through a wall of text, trying to discern what action you are requesting. Most editors will just skip reading it at all or get annoyed.
I think you will have much more success if you cut down your remarks to 2-3 brief paragraphs that concisely state the problem you are having and the remedy you are seeking. The bottom line is that the longer and more complicated your complaint is, the less likely it is that anyone will take the time to read in thoroughly (or at all). Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Liz, I will summarize it and get to the point. Swamiblue (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indefnitely blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely based on the comments at my Talk page and at ANI. You continue to take unreasonable positions in certain topic areas, fight with other editors, accuse other editors of conspiring against you, edit-war, and make personal attacks. As you know, you have a long history of similar problems and have been given plenty of rope to reform and adapt yourself to sensible, collaborative editing at Wikipedia, but you have failed to do that. Please see WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Swamiblue. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]