User talk:Tao2911/Archive 1

Edit warring

So you have a choice. You can continue edit warring, which will end up with you being blocked. Or you can follow the guidelines, which have already been pointed out to you. There is nothing personal in this, the guidelines apply to everyone. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among the editors. Repeatedly removing, without discussion, large amounts of text and numerous citations, as you have done recently, is not the way to go. Nor is playing a fine line with the three-revert rule. Instead, you could take time out and carefully read the relevant guidelines. Then, assuming good faith with the editors you are in contention with, see if you can reach agreement, point by point, with them on the talk page. If that doesn't work you can seek dispute resolution. If you consider you have already gone far enough down the path of seeking consensus with the current editors, then seek dispute resolution. But don't continue reverting without consensus. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Is It

Dear Tao,

Thank you for your comment on my page. I had no choice but to appeal to administrator when the edit warring ensued. I may not have been editing very long, but I have been following this article for a very long time, and have noticed many edit warrs and disputes, all of which you have been involved with.

I am only interested in creating a neutral yet informative article on Adi Da. I may be pro-Adi Da but I am not interested in creating a pro-Adi Da article, or using wikipedia to assert my own pro-Adi Da views. Neutrality is it.

In my opinion, you simply have not demonstrated neutrality, although you speak of it often. A little glance at the "Discussion" page very easily shows this in statements such as these:

"Should we drag out the quote about earth is populated by 6 billion slugs who will recognize his attainment by 2000, uh, he meant before his death, uh..."

"Da is not so special as you might think, despite his claims"

You then write:

"...but being an admitted devotee practically disqualifies any claim for neutrality"

And again:

"I will continue to stand in the way of losing neutrality on this page. In understand wanting to improve the article - but neutral POV is of the utmost import."

Don't the statements I quoted above disqualify you for any claim of neutrality?

These are your opinions, and I have my own, but you do not see me making statements like this in the Discussion page or within the article. It is not that these statements are just being made in the Discussion page, but they are very clearly reflected in your edits. It is not about opinions, mine or yours. In fact, the only edits I've actually made are citations, which you then removed without sufficient explanation, other than it didn't agree with you. Wikipedia simply cannot function with any integrity in this manner, and so I leave this article in the hands of Admins, whose job it is to uphold Wikipedia standards and ensure the integrity it was created for. If something is posted by you and it is neutral, then there is absolutely no problem! I am just letting the Admins be the judge of that now. There is no sense in edit warring, and my only request and intention is for it to stop.NeesheePandit (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of well-sourced material from Adi Da

If you continue to remove well-sourced content from Adi Da, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my post in Discussion before you make any edits, so we can discuss it and reach an agreement. I am happy to work together and clear any bias in the article, it is just easier to discuss it first rather than making a bunch of edits. We are both guilty of this! Let's take it slow and I think we can make this article neutral once and for all.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Although it is rather dated, you might find the source you are looking for in a book an old friend of mine wrote:

• Oakes, Len (1997) Prophetic charisma: the psychology of revolutionary religious personalities, Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815627005. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tao,

Could you fix the citation #25 please? It is listed as a strange template at the bottom. Thanks.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Da

I'm sorry you have become so disheartened, Tao. You have been a valuable participant, and it will be a shame if you give up on the article. It was because you were doing the necessary balancing that I moved the article in the direction of a GA. Without such balancing, achieving GA status is unlikely. But I appreciate the numbers have stacked against you lately and your role has not been easy. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Adida.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Adida.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Adi Da. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Adi Da. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Talk

Hi Tao, thought you should know about this policy from WP:talk:

Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice. Italics may be used more frequently for emphasis or clarity on key words or phrases, but should be avoided for long passages. Remember that overuse of emphasis can undermine its impact. If adding emphasis to quoted text, be sure to say so. Italics can also be used to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles, ship names, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Starr 1 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3o

Hi Tao, I think you need to list your 3O request here. — goethean ॐ 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war

Hi Tao2911, I am asking you to please not edit war with me. Everyone has a right to edit. To edit at will and then revert others when they try and contribute is to try and own the article. This goes against Wiki policy, as you already know. I think that you have been doing a good job, I just think you need to let others edit as well. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning Tao, please do not edit war. Please allow other editors to participate. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dude, you are out of line. You are the one who is reverting my edits, all to work with you. You are making biased edits. I am making suggestion about what to do to make me ok with them. You like to accuse. Familiarize yourself with a mirror. Cheers. And leave off with the notes here. Bring it up in Adi Da talk.Tao2911 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adi Da. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Adi Da record more carefully - I have been accommodating David Starr edits, allowing things, just changing phrasing, making suggestions to him for consensus - he has been actually 'reverting' my changes, and refusing to address my issues in 'talk.' His constant accusations of 'edit warring' are aggressive 'wikilawyering' and he has been warned about this in past. I have reverted nothing. His edits are biased and not sensitive to page in its current form. I have incorporated a number of his changes and made changes he has requested - he has not acknowledged this, reverting even these.Tao2911 (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tao2911. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation and characterization of these edits. The records show that I have incorporated MANY of D Starr's edits, and acted on all of his concerns, explaining every move in talk, and requesting that he do the same. I have not 'reverted' his edits. I have changed his additions to suitable language and in keeping with page in current form. A careful review will demonstrate this. D Starr's accusations in history of "reverting" are not born out by careful review.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tao2911. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

accusations, repeatedly from D Starr, does not edit warring make. I have never been blocked, or even reviewed for such. I already placed a mediation request due to his repeatedly disruptive edits. The page was relatively stable with editors working together for months until he arrived and slapped a POV label on page without warning or discussion in talk. Since then, I have made dozens of significant edits to address his concerns, and he has NEVER acknowledged these efforts, or the huge amount of effort I and others have made to improve a once deeply problematic entry. Tao2911 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Starr 1

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars probably applies in this case as well. The bar for vandalism is quite high so thats not really something that applies in this case.©Geni 22:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another warning

Tao2911, Your behavior is really out of line. You were the one who erased the paragraph at Adi Da in the lead. [[1]]. Your constant accusations of vandalism, your always reverting of even the smallest edit, your wallpapering my talk pages with templates, your constant misrepresentations of my actions at Adi Da Talk, and your ownership of the Adi Da article are not acceptable. Please stop. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starr, you are beyond reasoning with. You refuse to participate or respect that a number of us with differing viewpoints seem to work just fine, and you are constantly disruptive and disrespectful of the WP process. The fact is you removed dozens of aspects of the Adi Da page without discussion, you don't acknowledge when others accommodate your requests, you are perpetually the most disruptive force on that page, that you refuse to address reasonable points and clear citations, and all prove that you don't have good faith regards the page - you have an agenda, and you will not be allowed to scuttle months of work by many editors working in concert.Tao2911 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

Tao, you forgot to notify the other parties that your request for mediation has now been accepted at [Requests for Mediation]. I am quite sure the othet parties were not aware. Perhaps you should let them know? Thanks. --Diannaa ^TALK 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received no notice of this. It is not my job to notify others - they are all parties to the same request, and should probably be watching it as I should be. In any case, since then, Diannaa has entered in and assisted biased editors in their desired removal of material, and edit warring. I'm unclear about how this will now proceed, but I'm looking into it.Tao2911 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding WP:NPA

Please take careful note of our policy of no personal attacks on other editors. This has been raised with you before, but you appear to have forgotten that we expect editors to comment not on other editors but on their edits. This includes sarcastic snark and speculation about motives. I appreciate that you believe you are involved in a disagreement with other editors at Adi Da because you think they are trying to whitewash the article, but your conduct is less than ideal and is not helping your case. It's good that talk page discussion has continued, but if you can't discuss the subject in a collegiate and civil manner it might be wise for you to disengage and find another article to work on. I will start to apply the sanctions at my disposal if there are any more incidents of this kind. EyeSerene^talk 12:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 2 weeks

You have been blocked 2 weeks for sock puppetry. (blocked by –MuZemike 02:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Adi Da. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon ^talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

email

Tao, do you have an email address? — goethean ॐ 12:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of course. but not really wanting to go there.Tao2911 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eido Tai Shimano page:

Please see the following ZSS video for an explanation of how the Society came under Shimano's control. He was NOT "invited to teach at the Zen Studies Society"

http://www.shimanoarchive.com/video/ShimanoHagiography13.mov

Where is the reference to support "with Soen's blessing, he moved to New York"?

Kobutsu (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write any of this, so you at barking at/up the wrong tree...Tao2911 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made this change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eido_Tai_Shimano&diff=prev&oldid=370661165

Kobutsu (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. I changed the allegations section. I didn't touch the "Soen permission" thing. I don't know anything about that.Tao2911 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.... well then the history is in error or that part was inadvertently changed.

Kobutsu (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change the substance of that text. Period. I simply don't know anything about those details or events you're saying I changed, or care. I split a run on paragraph, maybe adjusted grammar, but not facts, no additions; the substance of my edits were only to 'allegations'. You are simply confused. I really don't care about that page, so please carry on with your activities.Tao2911 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please stop adding improperly referenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Slp1 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning about this. Do not restore material from www.shimanoarchive.com or the http://www.thezensite.com without getting consensus that these are reliable sources on the BLPN. I told you this several times on the talkpage of the article. In addition, a website posting of a draft article that explicitly refers that Village Voice refusing to publish material due to legal concerns is an obviously inappropriate source for Wikipedia.[1]. A scanned letter, hosted on a unreliable website is too. [2]. If you wish to inform the world about this, please do it elsewhere. --Slp1 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. the letter is verified by independent analysis as authentic, and source says as such, so I added as footnote, with link citation. DON'T WHITEWASH. Read your guidelines. This is important information, not tabloid rumor. Its presented NPOV. Don't template blast - take it to talkpage of entry.Tao2911 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I am actually in the middle of composing a report for the WP:ANI regarding the continual reinsertion of material sourced to a website BLPN has viewed as a poor source, which as you know is a blockeable offense. I am glad to see that you have posted to BLPN to get further opinions. However, per BLP you need to remove the information from the article sourced to it until it is determined to be a reliable source. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" I strongly suggest you revert yourself on the article to remove the material, per BLP. If you do that, I will take it that you are interested in following policy and I won't need to post to ANI.

You'll notice that I have actually added lots of reliable sources attesting to the problems. I'm currently sitting in the library with the Tworkov book which I was going to use to expand on them. Try working with me, rather than against me. --Slp1 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should take this discussion to Shimano talk page.Tao2911 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time

Please take your time your additions and edits are disputed by more that one editor. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who is this? God? Is that you?Tao2911 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, it was me and I didn't sign, I have added it now.Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments regarding other users

This diff is imo a bit personal, you would do well to strike it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to be listening to my requests to discuss? why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I've failed to follow your schedule. I didn't receive the memo - what is it we are discussing again?Tao2911 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your unconsensus alteration will not stay in the article, your edits are like attempting to hold sand in your hands. Discussion and consensus are the way to your goals here at wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cute metaphor. Are telling me you are going to remove tertiary sourced information?Tao2911 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. http://www.shimanoarchive.com/PDF%27s/Shimano_Story_By_Aitken.html
2. http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/ZenTeachersToZSSBoard.pdf