User talk:Red Rose 13

Our Lady of Medjugorje

It seems to me we're gaining a common ground here. I believe we can cooperate well in the future.

The major issues you have are - reliability of Kutleša's book and my alleged misuse of the Croatian sources? Hopefully, we'll be able to check the latter in a few days. I asked help from other editors who might speak Croatian/Serbian. Regarding Kutleša, it would be good, if you like, that we discuss this in a special section at the talk page. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am relieved that you see us gaining a common ground. What you listed is a good start. Other things might come up as we go along but it seems we are both willing to cooperate with each other.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Perhaps, it becomes a GA. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing

User talk:Governor Sheng Your false allegation to the Administrator Notice Board accusing me of Canvasing was ignored. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in and edits about COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just an FYI, RNA vaccine is under COVID discretionary sanctions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me, it helps to understand the complexities.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

I'll thank you not to go throwing around baseless assertions. There are three entries on Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje to which you have as yet failed to respond. You have already conceded that the paragraph relating to the government's promotion of religious tourism only needs to be stated once. It belongs under Government reaction because that's whose response it was. Manannan67 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down what is the rush. I am responding to your comments on the talk page. I am not a full time editor and have a life.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might say the same re the rush to revert any changes to the page. Manannan67 (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not aware of the history of the edits for this page. We have agreed to bring all edit ideas to the talk page for discussion. I am asking you to do the same. It is a very contentious page so we need to move slowly with all the sources vetted by using the guidelines for reliable sources. Thank you for pointing out about the author Max just please provide proof. It is not for me to prove. ThanksRed Rose 13 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"We have agreed..." appears to refer to some agreement you seem to think you have with User:Governor Sheng, although it is not at all clear that there was some sort of consensus on that. I am not submitting every edit for your approval. That's not how it works. If you want info re Bax, See Mart Bax. I refer you to the citations listed. I am not required to prove anything. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. WP:BURDEN. Manannan67 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we agree, the burden to demonstrate reliability of a source lies with editor doing it. Please take this discussion over to the page. I am finished here. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

Your recent post to WP:BLPN is signed 'Slp1', and dated '23:33, 14 February 2021'. Why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the error thanks. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern yoga gurus

Please don't revert me again. I am simply matching all the other entries in the table, which are one word, not two. Something you should have noticed and matched when you made your addition. Skyerise (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would never revert you knowingly. I thought I was matching because I saw words like assault next to sexual. Thanks for the correction.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the nice Vivekananda quote to this article, but we need the page number ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving this discussion over to the page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Chidananda

Hi Red Rose 13.... I lost the orange color and whatever phrase you had substituted for "Senior posting" in the biog box -- perhaps because I was using the Visual Editor instead of the Source Editor. Can you tell me how to get those back, and also how to add a quote to the biog box? I saw a tag (or whatever you call it) for "quote" when I edited the template on this page but when I went to the actual template page itself, the word "quote" did not seem to appear. Thanks! Azure Dave (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Let's talk this discussion over to the page itself.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits

Red Rose 13, I am becoming more and more concerned about your contributions to Wikipedia. I am writing here because this is starting to be more about your understanding of policy and so needs to be here. I refer to this edit. [1].

Your text: Kriyananda was considered by some to be a modern yoga guru. The references you gave are [2] and [[3]]. Neither of these sources state that he was a "modern yoga guru". Maybe I have missed it though. If so, please indicate where it is, per WP:Verifiable.
Your text: "Swami Vivekananda gave the definition of a competent guru with these words: "in the modern era there are many incompetent gurus, and that a true guru should understand the spirit of the scriptures, have a pure character and be free from sin, and should be selfless, without desire for money and fame." This is at least verifiable, in the two references you gave [4] (a very dubious sources) [5]. What possible connection does this have with Kriyananda, who was born long after Vivekananda died? Neither of these references mention Kriyananda. It seems like you are engaging in Original Research and synthesis. I am going to remove this until you can explain how this information is both verifiable and connected to Kriyananda by the reliable secondary sources.--Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern but follow this link to see who added this. [[6]] I saw no evidence that he is a modern yoga guru except the links he provided and this editor and I had a discussion about it. They created a page called Modern yoga gurus and they think he is that. All I did was move it down the page. I cannot remove his references. I will review the second issue.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree the added Vivekananda quote is SYNTH and when I got to that, I would have removed.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to allow me time to clean up pages after our discussions? I need time to look things over. I just looked at this page which is filled with primary sources close to the apparitions. Not much I can do about it. [[7]]Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Red Rose 13 has a long history of distorted, poor-quality work on Swami Kriyananda. That entry right now has such a distorted lede that I spit milk all over my laptop screen when I just read it. That kind of hack writing would never be be published in an actual, real, quality encyclopedia. However, I'm sure Red Rose 13 thinks it's great. Jack B108 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jack B108 If the lead bothers you, please rewrite with proper reliable sources. Please take note that the sources she is referring to had nothing to do with me. Another editor posted that. Also the whole page is a mess and has been for years. I am not interested in fixing this page. Perhaps you are. Did you actually read how many citations (secondary reliable sources) are needed on this page? Clearly it was written by biased editors. What I am learning right now is SYNTH and Attributions. My mistakes are corrected.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack B108 (talk · contribs) I agree with you. Swami Kriyananda is just one example of such poor editing. Red Rose distorted many other articles with the WP:SYNTH and by using dubious sources, for example certain Sister Maillard and other dubious authors. These articles include Jozo Zovko, Our Lady of Medjugorje, Pavao Žanić and many others. There's also a heavy POV-pushing. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1 (talk · contribs) Slp1 I am not sure why Governor Sheng is posting here. Governor Sheng as you can see I have corrected my errors of Synth, you are just repeating what has already been corrected and stated above. I wonder why? The sources I am using on OLM are secondary reliable sources however but there is a problem with your primary sources being used for contentious posts on Jozo Zovko, Our Lady of Medjugorje, Pavao Žanić and many others as you well know.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Our Lady of Medjugorje. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Slp1 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sleazy and malicious editing

Ok, so what's up with this, this, this and this? What is your problem? You've been blocked like myself for edit warring, and you're on to it again, but this time in an even more malicious manner. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You put in the sentence that is already there so we had a duplicate sentence in the same paragraph that you apparently missed. I wrote that in my editing comments. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this], this, yes the references need fixing.  this Yes Kutlesa did not write the book that is why I added the name of book. and this? We already discussed your distortion from the source and you corrected it. What is your problem? You've been blocked like myself for edit warring, and you're on to it again, but this time in an even more malicious manner. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you are attacking me for bringing the truth to the OLM page. I think you should review all the things in the last couple of days that I have had to put back on this page and others because you deleted or reverted them. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, this edit of yours is the another example of this malicious editing. First, you say I distorted the source because I used the word "tacit", and then you conlcude (after realising how stupid the accusation was I guess) that It's all good. This isn't the only issue, you avoided the issue with Talk:Romanis Pontificibus, what was that? Playing a saint again? Governor Sheng (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again you distort the truth. You distorted the source using the word "for" and then changed it to "served." saying on the talk page that you resolved this issue implying that you understood the issue.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive and borderline hypocritical is the best description of your editing here. I won't dig into Maunder's quote any longer. What's up with Talk:Romanis Pontificibus? Still avoiding the question I see. P.S. No wonder your talk page is full of complaints from other editors regarding your problematic editing history. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here as I was pulled into this, but based on a cursory reading of the handful of talk pages that both have edited in, quite frankly, you're the one that's the bully here. In the case of Talk:Romanis Pontificibus, you ping Sheng to fix a reference for an article where no real work was done at all by said user (one edit back in 2020 doesn't count), rather than just making the necessary fixes yourself (if they are in fact fixes) You did the same thing at Talk:Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions, an article Sheng doesn't edit. For that matter, pretty much all your major edits going back several months have solely been on the same articles as Sheng. That's not to excuse Sheng's conduct, there's certainly some civility issues there, but at the absolute least the two of you need to work on separate articles. The fact that this has apparently been going on for three years proves that there's certainly a major problem here. That being said, for the bit of news you might actually like, it's your talk page you can technically blank it whenever you feel like it if looking at what's written there's a problem. Wizardman 00:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]