User talk:LanceMurdock999

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mata Amritanandamayi with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu, I liked your additions to Amma's webpage. I have long thought that addition information on Amma's charitable mission is required. My only suggestion is that this be shifted to the page on the Mata Amritanandamayi Math, the organization that conducts the majority of these projects, or to a new Embracing the World page. I feel it kind of clutters up Amma's page if we put too much of this type of specific information, as it is so extension. The MAM page is linked [Mata Amritanandamayi Math]. ETW is the name being used as an umbrella for all of Amma's centers etc. But as of yet, a wiki page has not been created for it. What do you think? Would you consider shifting the additions to the MAM page? In fact, right before you entered your changes, some non-registered user--IP only--made a lot of pornographic comments and other types of vandalism. So I was also trying to undo his changes. I think I have now done that, leaving the changes of yours that you reinstated. However, if you scroll through the page history I am sure you can find the vandalism I am speaking about. They also vandalized the AIMS [Amrita Institute of Medical Science] page in a similar fashion, using some of the same IP configs. Should this be reported? Perhaps you know how to block those IPs? It was pretty bad. I try to oversee her pages as much as possible.

Okay. Thanks. Yeah, I thought there might have been some misunderstanding, because in reverting your additions I had temporarily reverted some of the vandalism as well. The MAM page has been more or less ignored. I will be probably shift this material you have added to it in the near future. Thanks.

I think what I will do is wait and see if those vandals appear again. If they do, I will try to warn them and then report for blocking.

Thanks.

LanceMurdock999 15:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. LanceMurdock999 19:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

Hi... Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I'm a teacher on summer vacation so I'm not online as much as usual. :)

I was only cleaning up what I considered to be vandalism on that page. Otherwise, I have no real interest in it. In other words, feel free to make whatever valid changes you'd like. If you find that it is repeatedly being vandalized, you can report the vandal at the administrator's noticeboard. Be sure that you have sufficiently warned the vandals first, however. If you need any help with that or other editing, don't hesitate to let me know! Cheers! Wikipelli ^Talk 12:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, LanceMurdock999. You have new messages at Wikipelli's talk page.
Message added 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wikipelli ^Talk 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add wrong information

Hello, I'm SreejithInfo. Your recent edit to the page Mata Amritanandamayi appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanceMurdock999 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amatulic, Not sock-puppetting. In fact, after reporting my perceived problems with the controversy section on the BLP Noticeboard, I've just been waiting for some sort of response. I know that Amma has a large number of supporters, and many of them may be upset about the motivation and manner in which this section has been expanding here. It seems to me that certain people are using small media reports--mainly about people's publicly stated opinions--to subvert the page, almost making it a slambook-type page. Perhaps you could look into this aspect. I've made edits to only a few Wikipedia pages and am fairly ignorant about the process in general. But perhaps someone like yourself would have a better understanding and could look into the controversy section and see if it is meeting with BLP Guidelines?

Don't worry about the sockpuppet report. It's been closed, sockpuppets were found, confirming my suspicion that socks were involved, but you're in the clear.

Because I have already taken administrative action on the page (protected it) I will refrain from getting involved in the content dispute. However, I have asked on Wikipedia:Third opinion that someone come in and provide an independent look. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]