Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, -- El on ka 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there are 26 references in External Links. This is a valid topic.
Next time, please READ the article before marking it for speedy deletion.
And try out the many web results provided for you. Wyeson 08:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Liite Buddhism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Liite Buddhism, 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 take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Castanea dentata ( talk • contribs)
Good morning,
You recently edited my information on Steve Maraboli.
I understand the pages have problems. I Ask that you please help me make it fit in the guidelines.
I was not trying to make it sound like a vanity piece about Steve, but now that I read it over (after reading the COI page) I guess I didn't do such a good job.
I am an A Better Today staff member and enjoy Wikipedia very much and would love to have Steve's page fit with the rest. I just need help.
Thank you.
Have a nice day!
- Dana
staff@abettertoday.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abettertoday ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dana!
I am open to working with you on it... and I'd ask that you not remove any more tags until the problems are addrrssed.
Thanks, Sethie ( talk) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Great! Thank you so much! I won't change anything until you say so.
- Dana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abettertoday ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Heya Dana-
I am headed on a wikibreak... it's not that you shouldn't touch the page... it's just I see you have removed three tags... without, from my opinion, addressing the issues.
I have asked for some others to look at the page and help you out.
Warmly, Sethie ( talk) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, my account name is freelion and I forgot my password after I upgraded my machine. I haven't registered an email address on the account. Is there any hope for me to get my account back? 60.241.68.183 ( talk) 12:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi.
Good question!
I would reccomend asking here [ [1]]. Good luck! Seth Sethie ( talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In its present form, it is a simple, unquestioning list of every time some ill-informed reporter, cop or preacher claimed SRA. I don't have to tell you how contentious this topic is. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a comment in support of yours. This sort of crap is regularly being promoted to FA and gets selected as FAOTD. I have just made some changes to the nonsense about Angel Moroni ie change "said" which carries implication of general acceptance of truth of statement to "claimed". We shall see if these survive. Albatross2147 ( talk) 13:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is one "Where is the minority ? removal of such information from encyclopedia article, is a push to hide facts (well referenced and properly sourced), by brainwashed zombies"
Reffering to Sahaja Yoga as a gang (and then striking it out?)
I never said I was involved in the nonsense, so I can't respond to your other question. Sethie ( talk) 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, it concerns me that rectifying the neutrality on the Sahaja Yoga page is taking so long. I have only mentioned the first section, and there are many other sections which I find are not using neutral wording. The process is currently being stalled by argument. Is this argument not proof enough that the neutrality of the article is disputed? Could you please insert the tag so that it acts as a disclaimer at least. Freelion ( talk) 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there
I don't have the power to do that... and also I believe concensus is against that. I believe you are the only one seeing serious neutrality issues.
That's not to say I don't think the article can't be improved and I just don't see any serious NPOV issues with the article. Sethie ( talk) 05:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Golden Plates, 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 take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Maddie talk 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This article is currently undergoing a review for FAC. In the circumstances could you please discuss any proposed changes on the talkpage or Project comment page first. I'm not saying your edit isn't right - its just that it makes it difficult for reviewers and editors to deal with FAC issues if it keeps changing. Fainites barley 07:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sethie.. you recently edited a quote I put in the "Life Coaching" section from a famous life coach named Jamie Karia. My problem I had is I dont understand what I did wrong. There's a lot of information on that page leaning towards Life Coaching being a joke, but someone tries to stick in a good word for it and it gets removed. Next questions is, how do I get it to stick? What did I do wrong?
Let me know because I want that quote there and I don't think it should have been removed. thanks.
Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.239.111 ( talk) 07:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look at End of planet Earth. The article is mostly original research. What isn't original research is uncited facts, some of which are unverifiable, others of which are blantantly false. The subject matter in the article is already discussed in a much more thorough manner in Earth, and the information in Earth is well-supported by verifiable citations. I don't see anything worth merging into Earth from End of planet Earth. I think it would be better to remove the merge take and proceed towards deletion. Let me know what you think about it on the talk page: Talk:End of planet Earth. Thanks. Dgf32 ( talk) 02:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the {{
prod}}
template to the article
NEWBORN, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and
Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at
its talk page. If you remove the {{
prod}}
template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
BJBot (
talk)
12:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, don't you? Grsz11 ( talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I honestly wasn't sure if it was vandalism or not... I tried the 3rr page with no results. Thanks for the help.
Schucks, I'm gonna miss that guy. Sethie ( talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what the question was, but if you're asking whether AfD contributors will help sort out the article, the answer in my experience is "sometimes". -- Dweller ( talk) 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my language but holy fuck! I wonder if my posting to the talk page had anything to do with the increase in price? Note that the other garment didn't increase that much in price. Perhaps it has to do with the white stain? Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and if you want to you could add {{User:Uga Man/Userbox}} to your userpage.-- Uga Man ( talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{#if:| as you did at
[3], you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your comments about other users on their talk page are personal attacks, please stop.
--
talk-to-me! (
talk)
18:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
you may wish to comment here. Renee ( talk) 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, Saw your note on the ANI board and wanted to get clarification. Do you think we should file "miscellany for deletion" or just revert the draft with warning if anything not within Wiki guidelines appears? Or, maybe we can give Cult Free a week to list his secondary sources for us to evaluate and then file miscellany for deletion? I'm not sure what the resistance to providing secondary sources is? (unless there are none, which is what I suspect is the case) Anyways, what do you think would be reasonable? Renee ( talk) 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to weigh in on the proposed deletion of this page. Renee ( talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sethie, you may wish to have a look at this advice from a neutral admin. [4]
Kindly stay away from the article i am trying to build, and let me finish. -- talk-to-me! ( talk) 12:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not create malicious redirects. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. Users who continue to create such redirects may be blocked.
As you have done here [5]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.
As you have done here [6], [7], [8]. Kindly refrain -- talk-to-me! ( talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I regret that I have had to block you for 12 hours in an attempt to make you understand that you are continuing to act in contravention of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cultfree world is permitted to work on an article in his/her own userspace without disruption from other parties, unless the material is so egregious as to violate core policies. Having survived various deletion reviews this projected article cannot be considered so. If you have further concerns regarding the content then you should use the proper channels to discuss how to improve the piece. Please conduct yourself more appropriately in this matter in the future, or you may face more severe sanctions. Thank you. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I reverted changes that were massive BLP violations after NUMEROUS request from myself and other users to use only RS's per BLP, and RS's because, well wikipedia is built on them! The admin is also wrong- the page has not survived "various deletion reviews" it passed a MfD with an 12-7 (12 to delete, 7 to keep vote!) and as soon as the vote closed the user in question reverted the article to a more controversial shabby version! [
[9]] More importantly this warning from an admin was plenty [
[10]] however 10 minutes later LessHeard decides that isn't enough, and blocks.}}
Hi Sethie, Congrats on the unblock I see above. I just noticed this on the ANI board, but I'm not even going to respond. Going to try and limit myself to just focusing on the content and ignoring the personal attacks.
By the way, did you see the results of the checkuser here. Everyone wrote very differently so I didn't think any of those were socks. Lots of people out there interested in this page, so I have no doubt that if it ever makes it to mainspace it'll be accurate and neutral.
Are you going to respond to Cult's RFC? I notice he sanitized his talk page so no one could see recent posts (and failed to archive them). I'm going to take a break and then maybe just link to things I've already said. Really not much more to say content wise.
Thanks and have a good weekend. Renee Renee ( talk) 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is an RfC on CFW's proposed page where you have contributed before, your input will be helpful. Duty2love ( talk) 07:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sethie, Please see my response to CFW's latest comments here. I am getting exhausted telling him the need for secondary sources for a good article, but he doesn't want to admit. It's clear he does not intend to follow Wiki policies and try to reach consensus, and that he's more interested in getting the article out in its current shape which based on OR rather than in creating a neutral article? Any feedback from you would be helpful here, since you have been involved with this topic for sometime. Thanks! Duty2love ( talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, Just have a quick question for you. The sock case is still active until it's closed -- correct? The reason I ask is because of this. It was my understanding that the checkuser was just part of it (and actually, we should have known it'd be stale), but the crux of the case is the same pattern of abusive editing. Thoughts? Best, Renee Renee ( talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
hey Sethie, I say your delete of the redirect and think you were right. Have you seen this? Thanks, Renee ( talk) 12:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Holy Cow! Can't believe you did that! I'll start working on it now. Renee ( talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie, Just trying to understand what am I missing ... what was the reason of publishing this page hastily? Was the process here incorrect, wasteful or something else? Duty2love ( talk) 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You'll like this. Renee ( talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie: Is this only for the deletion of the redirect page or the user's article page also? Duty2love ( talk) 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie: The search for "Shri Ram Chandra Mission" brings up this redirect, and also "Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation". Should I go and abbreviate them to SR and SF respectively? I think the best is if we can delete the redirect totally instead of fixing it piece by piece. Please advice. Embhee ( talk) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My "reality Check" is not a "soapboxing" but asking "imput from the discussion page" so as to reach concensus. Your calling it that so as to "erase" it and saying I accused you of being in a cult are not accurate and verge on "lying" so as to advance you Position of blocking or deleting anyone who does not support the SRCM or any other "meditation" group... You appear to be in a conflict here also... would you support the "catholic" church that way or are you otherwise motivated...
I will ask the question again and seek to stimulate concensus on the discussion page...until we get some more "un-biased" input...I will continue to attempt to present all the facts in the article in a "WIKI" fashion...but we are talking the DISCUSSION PAGE are we are talking about ASKING Quewtions on statements by the current Master and soon-to-be ex-Master of the SRCM according to the judgement of the Court case...
I will seek input from other "religions" as request that they also get involved in this debate...I will be requesting some input from SRCM (Shahjahanpur) about these issues and requesting the President, Navneet comment on the issues I bring up...
Stop erasing my "Search for concensus" called a "reality Check"...We might as well all know what this group of Chari supporters (or "machines") as he calls them in his last speech to PRECEPTORS are trying to hide so we can decide our approach in being fair and accurate but also informative and WIKI in a true encyclopedia, not the PR job you are currently supporting in an unfair and biased fashion...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 06:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, Yup, you're right, flushed! Good job. Renee ( talk) 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie...
Thanks for this comment...
I did not use the words "cult member" for anyone as I did not know you, I may have "lumped you in" with others, and now I know as you told me and I believe you. I apologize for affecting you negatively. I know for those who say so, that they are members of this GROUP that some have deemed a "SECTE" and that some have called a "SECTE NUISIBLE". (Renee, Marathi, duty2love), simply because I believe them...It is still only "anecdotal" from a PRIMARY source (them) and not a FACT to be included in a LIST...but "membership" can skew their "NPOV" on a WIKI article but it is accepted by me...We want that angle to make the article FAIR, just not in a dogmatic fashion applying "guidelines" as rules thus eliminating most material that come from "credible" and reputable sources.
WIKI asks that we use "common sense". ex. Although a "governement report" can be PRIMARY or SECONDARY, in the case where a department of Government puts out a report on the actions taken and state that they spent x dollars on a situation. That is PRIMARY and needs (if asked for) a secondary source)...
But in the case of the Report on Sects, that can't be PRIMARY as the information in that report was gleaned from other "SECONDARY" sources such as NEWSPAPER article (secondary), the reading material of the GROUPS (some PRIMARY, some secondary), and other sources such as courts, other reports, Academic research etc... the committee did not go out and PROVE that all on the LIST was a "SECT", that would need a "secondary source". But it was from gathering of INFORMATION that was OUT THERE in the PUBLIC (PR, books, etc. ), and in the MEDIA. That is why I don't like lists...but IT IS A FACT that it is out there and it is not PRIMARY...
WIKI has GUIDELINES that demand "common sense". If a newspaper article in a reputable newspaper is called "PRIMARY" by some, then there is CONFUSION in the GROUP... If some call the French Report on SECTS, "PRIMARY", then they have not sat on such a committee. They would then know that it is not PRIMARY. It is NOT by all criteria that I know. I have done some writing (columns) and I know that it is not journalistic to call newspaper sources PRIMARY, unless the reporter is reporting on "HIMSELF" or "HIS EXPERIENCE". I don't think that would ever happen. Likewise, if the Committee is the ONE DOING the Action such as "spending money" or other actions, that can demand a "secondary" source" for confirmation.
Which bring me to Shashwat...
To "black-list" or "bad mouth" Shashwat, a victim of this group (SRCM-Chennai) not SAHAJ MARG, is not constructive as we also need, or could use, the input of "honorable" victims, such as Shashwat in the discussion. Although we can't allow allegations (even in court cases) and anecdotes to enter the article, the input of victims is "healing" to them and is helpful to us in writing the article. (Court JUDGEMENTS however are NPOV and should be as acceptable in a WIKI article as they are in a NEWSPAPER article, if we use "COMMON SENSE".) To black-list the VICTIMS is to victimize them again, by stopping their "story" from being believed and accepted... Victims are sometimes "emotional" but are we not all emotional at times... I would like you to remove this "blocking" of Shashwat on WIKI (99%) as a "good faith" WIKI participant, a "fellow human being", and compatriot of many in Sahaj Marg. I would like the "hearts of our children all together again"...trying to reach concensus in FAIRNESS...Shashwat is not a "vandal" and tries to be fair through his pain. His family was just negatively affected by this group... let's help him heal...
I don't know the others such as "talk-to-me" or cultfreeworld" but if they are "blocked" also, I would like to see them participate also, if only in the discussion... The article can be "protected" at any time. Black-listing is so RELIGIOUS and so DIVISIVE...that would show "good faith" to me... I do not erase other editor's "POV" (and they are there)...and I don't attempt to have some editors "blocked" forever.
I appreciate this attempt to be "concensual" and your revealing things about yourself. I will return to being "civil", try not to express my own POV so much. (as much as I can), and try to work in a "concensual" manner.
We should review what is "WIKI" acceptable and what is not...
4d-don...
Sethie ( talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie
I know Shashwat from the Internet...this other cfw, you seem to say is also Shashwat? He has not confirmed that to me, and I don't care either way...just a name... Maybe I will ask him! Thanks...What about talk-to-me?
I take nothing away from any editor, the members of SRCM and others. However, I see many incidences on "POV" that are left to stand in the discussions, and SOURCES which are interpreted by some as "WIKI allowed "or "WIKI not allowed" that reflect a "skewed" perspective. ie PRIMARY, SECONDARY, and third party sources. Some Primary sources are allowed and some need (if demanded by others) a secondary source. But that WIKI policy should not prevent article from reputable newspapers, court JUDGEMENTS, GOvernment COMMISSION Reports, UN Committee Reports, and others from making it to the final article. We are not here to PROMOTE the SRCM but to reflect accurately what Sahaj Marg and now the SRCM really is...so as not to "collude" and attract unintentionally, recruits for the group because of the WIKI article... the controversies must be in the article but in a FAIR and WIKI way.
To prevent any NEGATIVE from entering the article, the way it is being done here is NOT WIKI POLICY and shows a BIAS...It is not vandalism to show CONTROVERSY when these FACTS are not the POV of the editors... such as the articles I bring forward and that you erase...How can we discuss them as PRIMARY or SECONDARY if we don't see them? the same with the report...I read it in French and in English and it is not a PRIMARY report...that is the COMMON SENSE that we are to use in our decision, after reading the SOURCE...
This is a commision of 30 people...they are not all against SRCM...that is a "persecution complex" that all religions have used to "attack" the credibility (of the members) of anyone who uses the LAW to deal with SOCIETAL PROBLEMS caused by RELIGIONS in general and now, the phenomenon of "harmful sects" in particular. The power of the traditional Churches has been severely reigned-in over the centuries. Sects (as they attack RELIGION) are now becoming a "Phenomenon" around the world and are "below the radar" of most citizen who think they are now getting into "SPIRITUALITY", not religion, or other such "non-religious", non-dogmatic" group, but it is not always the case...Some are very dangerous and some are "incidious" in their abherrant behaviour. That is what the French report says. Now we have to make sure that we don't "point" the wrong part of the "dangerous-ity" of the "commission" report at Sahaj Marg. We don't know. The best way is to let that REPORT and all other reports, and secondary sources and some PRIMARY sources be interpreted by the readers, not by us...
Shashwat...
Thank you for not "black-listing" Shashwat...For your information, I have agreed with some of the material he brought forth and tried to "re-write" and edit some other...Being wrong does not mean being EVIL (VANDAL). At first, I usually let all people expose all of their "POV's" without erasing, and then I attempt to wittle it down to a "FAIR" and "CONCENSUAL" article with all... I have never had the opportunity to "finish" as there was always another EDITOR (from another group) reverting, changing, etc... so I stood out for a while until it calmed down...When I did, the article was deleted...
It is not harder for me to deal with Shashwat or other "victims" who are sometimes "emotional" in their wanting to EXPOSE their PAIN, and express their POV in "no uncertain terms", as it is to deal with someone who thinks they are right "intellectually" and think that skewing the interpretation of "guideline" without the filter of "common sense" (which they wrongly think they use all the time without "skewing"), means that they are telling the TRUTH and are interpreting the WIKI policies "accurately"...
You must understand what makes a PRIMARY source acceptable by itself and what PRIMARY source needs a "secondary" source as "confirmation". The only WIKI filter here is "COMMON SENSE". If a UN Committee or a US State Department "committee" report is OK and WIKI acceptable, then so is a French COMMISSION REPORT (of 30 members). A source can be "PRIMARY and SECONDARY". That is not the case with all "GOVERNMENT reports", some of which need "secondary confirmation", using COMMON SENSE.
A secondary source such as a NEWSPAPER article is WIKI "OK" in most cases, but still we have to use COMMON SENSE, and what a "junior" reporter puts into an newspaper article from notes on a scratch pad, can sometimes need "confirmation" before being included into an "encyclopedia" article, which lasts a lot LONGER and hence needs to reflect a MORE comprehensive view of the situation, group, etc.. in question... We don't want to malign wrongly a group on the word of a JUNIOR reporter from a "mis-quote". In the case of the newspaper in question, we have to read it to decide, using COMMON SENSE. Is it at arm's length? Is is "skewed", biased, etc..? I have read it and i think it reflects the "incident" fairly and accurately for all sides. The SRCM (Shahjahanpur) and the SRCM (Chennai)...
I since have gotten more material from the Chennai group that are even more "controversial" form a speech of Chari to the PRECEPTORS... I have to decide how to get it out and if some of it is WIKI material or not... Lots of reading...see you later...
Thanks for the comments...
Don-- don ( talk) 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
I was trying not to "put words in your mouth" as I don't know that for a fact and have never had it confirmed...I know you think so (POV), but I don't. You say the same thing over and over also (POV)...and your claim to speak for "all on WIKI" is also a little POV I think (my POV)...OH! OH!, I'm in trouble now! lol ;-)). Concensus is not against me, except you seem to believe (POV) that "in your mind" it is. That is why I will go to a "broader" concensus of WIKI membership... When you say: "none of us" you are of course, not speaking for others and are WIKI (good faith) as you express your POV. ;-)). You are allowed your POV by me and I joke about it only for fun. I will not have you blocked, or report you to "persian gal" but will ask for broader INPUT on the issues at hand unless we can reach a "concensus" among us.
About Shashwat...I converse with him regularly and he comments on my blog sometimes, but have refused to "conspire" or collude with anyone to "destroy" any person's "belief", or carry anyone's "words". My job as an INFONAUT is to INFORM not DESTROY. I have not asked him and/or he did not confirm anything (I don't think so, if he did, it went by un-noticed by me) about his WIKI stance, id,... except I was told that he was "BLOCKED" (by him and you) and I know where he stands from reading him. He is a "VICTIM". On this SRCM matter I "speak" no opinion but my own in the discussion, and I try to adhere to WIKI's NPOV policy in the Article. If you speak to Shashwat as you do with me here, he may tell you that "I betrayed" him quite a few times...lol ;-))
Those who think like me?... Probably no one...I AM ONE! But Shashwat, Michael, Christian, Elodie, Alexis, Jeanne, Charles, talk-to-me, and many more too many to list, read this site regularly and contact me, and will come forward, I am sure, if they are "really" needed, or to take the next "shift" (I hope) of INFORMING the WIKI READERS...and not for PROMOTING any "ism", which would not be WIKI. This is not the "only" Wiki where this (EXPOSING SRCM) is taking place. It is almost GLOBAL. (Spain, Italy, Germany, France, etc...)
In the Reformation era, JUSTICE is BLIND...In the Information era: KNOWLEDGE is BLIND. Wether I am speaking to SHASHWAT, or CFW, or ??, (anyone could call themself "Sethie") I don't care, my ideas change with COMMON SENSE, not with the AUTHORITY or the IDENTITY of the SPEAKER. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS...I don't have a "SAVIOUR" an "Authority", or a HEAVEN or 70 Virgins, waiting for me in the "BRIGHTER WORLD" such as SRCM and/or RELIGION, that would allow me to be "immoral" in this world in the name of "defending" or protecting my belief and thus earn a better "seat" in the other world. Religions do that even to WAR! (Is that now accepted as a FACT or is it just my POV?)
I don't converse regularly with any other "regulars" on his site except Duty2love who has contacted me recently for a chat...(to get some "who I am" info, and why I am involved here...with good intentions, I presume...he being "spiritual" after all...lol). I do keep in touch with all the others involved with this issue in other parts of the world but not as a "conspiracy" except maybe as an "Aquarian conspiracy" . I am sure you are aware of the term...The Aquarian Conspiracy means that we all reach the same stage of "evolution" without "consciously" conspiring". There is no "organized" anti-SRCM GROUP, just "individuals" who have been negatively impacted by this "Chari" faction of the SRCM and want to "inform" others...
To stand against the abuse of the Catholic Priests does not mean to "Destroy" Catholicism, or "PRAYER" or "Confession", (I have also participated in exposing the abuse there), but to it is done as a "heads-up" to INFORM the next potential victims, or on WIKI, to include in the article, the "controversies" that are confirmed by "credible" secondary sources according to a "broad concensus" of editors.
4d-don--
don (
talk)
20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie I removed this comment by you urging 4d-don to answer a question on their talk page. There is no reason to post such a request on a talk page and it does not relate to improving the content what-so-ever. Though I commend you of doing a fairly good job on staying on article content, it is not constructive at all that you would try to probe an editor through article talk. Also, regardless if 4d-don is colleague of anyone, it does not give you the permission to probe him in a pushy manner about it. If 4d-don is in violation of any behavioral guideline I will notify him myself. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We are in agreement that my actions on the talk page were unnecessary.
I am not sure if you can hear this or not, and here is exactly what I asked Don: "Since his block, has Shashwat or Cult-free world contacted you and asked you to post or say certain things here on wikipedia for him? And have you done so?
Saying that I asked him "if CFW contacted him" is the same as saying "Joe shot James" and neglecting to mention that Joes shot James in self-defense! It is half of what happened, and feels extremely unfair, dishonest, and plain ol' inaccurate! By neglecting to include that information, it puts a very negative "spin" on my actions.
I agree with you 100% that to claim that he was in contact would not be respectful.
That is why I didn't. I asked. You seem to agree "Sethie I removed this comment by you urging 4d-don to answer a question on their talk page."
As per probing, what I can say is that it felt pushy and forcing to me to ask the question again on the talk page, and ask others to reframe from dialogue with Don until he answered it. Sethie ( talk) 20:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the encouraging comments here and there. Greatly appreciated! Renee ( talk) 00:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
Accepted! Thanks...(your last post on my talk page)...no harm done to my ALL, heart and mind included! Hope it is the same for you, as it was not my intention to "dis-respect" you...
I still don't think that "group member" or "sect member" is the same as being a "CULT member" and I have been trying to stay away from using that word, in favour of the more neutral "SECT" or "SECTE" (as in "sector" or GROUP...) in French as is used in the French Government Commission Report (30 members). The qualifier "nuisible" or "harmful" is what makes one "secte" a cult or not, and to show "harmful", is not easy...One relies on "courts" and "secondary" sources for that confirmation in the former case, and for citing in an article under the heading of "controversies", in the latter. "CONTROVERSY" does not mean PROVEN one way or the other...but is more than "rumour" or "anecdote".
Have a Good Day!
Don-- don ( talk) 19:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
This is the second time you accuse me or "deleting" material that I did not even see or read until it was brought up by you or some other "single purpose accounts, and "meat-pupplets" with COI on the Sahaj Marg page.... I do not delete other's posts INTENTIONALLY or anything else as I believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH, unlike some who tend to HIDE the TRUTH... I don't know how it happens to be under my name, but I did not even read these posts... check elsewhere... One of you are the only ones to benefit from that tactic as was used with Shashwat to have him blocked... check out your own cabal, I did not do it...again... Get your "cabal" to stop their personal attacks, POV, etc deleting parts of the conversation willy nilly...ie Marathi... Could someone be using my "id" and deleting his own material? Then accusing me of doing it?
I will be more careful in the future and if it happens again, I will go to a "higher authority" and complain...again...! Just to have it recorded...Not here!
Either way, it was not "mean spirited" or intentional...
Don-- don ( talk) 01:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
Your latest accusation of Deleting is even more "weird"...I apparently erased part of one post and put in part of another "intentionally" as I was writing my "post" below... That is strange and deserves to be "looked at" and analyzed by a "techie" ... [ [13]]
How can that happen without "intention"...My mouse could slide by itself but not "highlight" and erase by itself and not "put in another section" by itself...
hmmm... Don't know...All I can say is that it is not "intentional" and it deserves a "second look"...I will check out the whole "discussion page" before editing by next few posts and if it happens again, let me know... without an "accusation"... I can assure you that it is not "intentional"... It has never happened before in 3 yrs of doing WIKI until NOW!! Yet there has never been anyone who was "eraseing" content before either...just archiving and that is OK...
Could it be.... SATAN! The great Confuser!! ;-))
I will ascertain from my side that it is not done "inadvertently" by me, and if it happens again, we have to start an "investigation" and involve a "techie"... I think...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I love this. I wonder what would happen if we get as many people as possible to say it and look at the image before they even open the Sahaj Marg pages and work on them? Would be a cool experiment, huh? Renee ( talk) 10:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The Soap-Buster's Barnstar | ||
Awarded to you for your daily efforts to bust soap-bubbles in a civil, kind manner. You make other editors' lives easier for doing so. Renee ( talk) 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you!
Renee (
talk)
17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Do not try to readd the block notice on User talk:4d-don. It is not a violation of any guideline for him to remove it after the block duration has passed. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Pls let me know what you think about this proposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahaj_Marg#Proposal_-_Ten_Maxims
Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Creative visualization, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative visualization. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! In August 2007, you requested a move of the article rational emotive behavior therapy to its capitalized form, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. I am now requesting a move back to the un-capitalized form, because this seems to be the correct form according to MOS:CAPS and various sources – please see this discussion. If you contest this (or agree), please write here. Thank you! / skagedal talk 21:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
/Archive1 before 11/06
/Archive2 11/06-5/07
/Archive3 5/07-1/08
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, -- El on ka 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there are 26 references in External Links. This is a valid topic.
Next time, please READ the article before marking it for speedy deletion.
And try out the many web results provided for you. Wyeson 08:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Liite Buddhism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Liite Buddhism, 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 take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Castanea dentata ( talk • contribs)
Good morning,
You recently edited my information on Steve Maraboli.
I understand the pages have problems. I Ask that you please help me make it fit in the guidelines.
I was not trying to make it sound like a vanity piece about Steve, but now that I read it over (after reading the COI page) I guess I didn't do such a good job.
I am an A Better Today staff member and enjoy Wikipedia very much and would love to have Steve's page fit with the rest. I just need help.
Thank you.
Have a nice day!
- Dana
staff@abettertoday.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abettertoday ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dana!
I am open to working with you on it... and I'd ask that you not remove any more tags until the problems are addrrssed.
Thanks, Sethie ( talk) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Great! Thank you so much! I won't change anything until you say so.
- Dana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abettertoday ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Heya Dana-
I am headed on a wikibreak... it's not that you shouldn't touch the page... it's just I see you have removed three tags... without, from my opinion, addressing the issues.
I have asked for some others to look at the page and help you out.
Warmly, Sethie ( talk) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, my account name is freelion and I forgot my password after I upgraded my machine. I haven't registered an email address on the account. Is there any hope for me to get my account back? 60.241.68.183 ( talk) 12:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi.
Good question!
I would reccomend asking here [ [1]]. Good luck! Seth Sethie ( talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In its present form, it is a simple, unquestioning list of every time some ill-informed reporter, cop or preacher claimed SRA. I don't have to tell you how contentious this topic is. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a comment in support of yours. This sort of crap is regularly being promoted to FA and gets selected as FAOTD. I have just made some changes to the nonsense about Angel Moroni ie change "said" which carries implication of general acceptance of truth of statement to "claimed". We shall see if these survive. Albatross2147 ( talk) 13:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is one "Where is the minority ? removal of such information from encyclopedia article, is a push to hide facts (well referenced and properly sourced), by brainwashed zombies"
Reffering to Sahaja Yoga as a gang (and then striking it out?)
I never said I was involved in the nonsense, so I can't respond to your other question. Sethie ( talk) 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, it concerns me that rectifying the neutrality on the Sahaja Yoga page is taking so long. I have only mentioned the first section, and there are many other sections which I find are not using neutral wording. The process is currently being stalled by argument. Is this argument not proof enough that the neutrality of the article is disputed? Could you please insert the tag so that it acts as a disclaimer at least. Freelion ( talk) 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there
I don't have the power to do that... and also I believe concensus is against that. I believe you are the only one seeing serious neutrality issues.
That's not to say I don't think the article can't be improved and I just don't see any serious NPOV issues with the article. Sethie ( talk) 05:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Golden Plates, 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 take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Maddie talk 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This article is currently undergoing a review for FAC. In the circumstances could you please discuss any proposed changes on the talkpage or Project comment page first. I'm not saying your edit isn't right - its just that it makes it difficult for reviewers and editors to deal with FAC issues if it keeps changing. Fainites barley 07:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sethie.. you recently edited a quote I put in the "Life Coaching" section from a famous life coach named Jamie Karia. My problem I had is I dont understand what I did wrong. There's a lot of information on that page leaning towards Life Coaching being a joke, but someone tries to stick in a good word for it and it gets removed. Next questions is, how do I get it to stick? What did I do wrong?
Let me know because I want that quote there and I don't think it should have been removed. thanks.
Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.239.111 ( talk) 07:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look at End of planet Earth. The article is mostly original research. What isn't original research is uncited facts, some of which are unverifiable, others of which are blantantly false. The subject matter in the article is already discussed in a much more thorough manner in Earth, and the information in Earth is well-supported by verifiable citations. I don't see anything worth merging into Earth from End of planet Earth. I think it would be better to remove the merge take and proceed towards deletion. Let me know what you think about it on the talk page: Talk:End of planet Earth. Thanks. Dgf32 ( talk) 02:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the {{
prod}}
template to the article
NEWBORN, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and
Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at
its talk page. If you remove the {{
prod}}
template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
BJBot (
talk)
12:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, don't you? Grsz11 ( talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I honestly wasn't sure if it was vandalism or not... I tried the 3rr page with no results. Thanks for the help.
Schucks, I'm gonna miss that guy. Sethie ( talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what the question was, but if you're asking whether AfD contributors will help sort out the article, the answer in my experience is "sometimes". -- Dweller ( talk) 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my language but holy fuck! I wonder if my posting to the talk page had anything to do with the increase in price? Note that the other garment didn't increase that much in price. Perhaps it has to do with the white stain? Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and if you want to you could add {{User:Uga Man/Userbox}} to your userpage.-- Uga Man ( talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{#if:| as you did at
[3], you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your comments about other users on their talk page are personal attacks, please stop.
--
talk-to-me! (
talk)
18:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
you may wish to comment here. Renee ( talk) 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, Saw your note on the ANI board and wanted to get clarification. Do you think we should file "miscellany for deletion" or just revert the draft with warning if anything not within Wiki guidelines appears? Or, maybe we can give Cult Free a week to list his secondary sources for us to evaluate and then file miscellany for deletion? I'm not sure what the resistance to providing secondary sources is? (unless there are none, which is what I suspect is the case) Anyways, what do you think would be reasonable? Renee ( talk) 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to weigh in on the proposed deletion of this page. Renee ( talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sethie, you may wish to have a look at this advice from a neutral admin. [4]
Kindly stay away from the article i am trying to build, and let me finish. -- talk-to-me! ( talk) 12:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not create malicious redirects. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. Users who continue to create such redirects may be blocked.
As you have done here [5]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.
As you have done here [6], [7], [8]. Kindly refrain -- talk-to-me! ( talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I regret that I have had to block you for 12 hours in an attempt to make you understand that you are continuing to act in contravention of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cultfree world is permitted to work on an article in his/her own userspace without disruption from other parties, unless the material is so egregious as to violate core policies. Having survived various deletion reviews this projected article cannot be considered so. If you have further concerns regarding the content then you should use the proper channels to discuss how to improve the piece. Please conduct yourself more appropriately in this matter in the future, or you may face more severe sanctions. Thank you. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I reverted changes that were massive BLP violations after NUMEROUS request from myself and other users to use only RS's per BLP, and RS's because, well wikipedia is built on them! The admin is also wrong- the page has not survived "various deletion reviews" it passed a MfD with an 12-7 (12 to delete, 7 to keep vote!) and as soon as the vote closed the user in question reverted the article to a more controversial shabby version! [
[9]] More importantly this warning from an admin was plenty [
[10]] however 10 minutes later LessHeard decides that isn't enough, and blocks.}}
Hi Sethie, Congrats on the unblock I see above. I just noticed this on the ANI board, but I'm not even going to respond. Going to try and limit myself to just focusing on the content and ignoring the personal attacks.
By the way, did you see the results of the checkuser here. Everyone wrote very differently so I didn't think any of those were socks. Lots of people out there interested in this page, so I have no doubt that if it ever makes it to mainspace it'll be accurate and neutral.
Are you going to respond to Cult's RFC? I notice he sanitized his talk page so no one could see recent posts (and failed to archive them). I'm going to take a break and then maybe just link to things I've already said. Really not much more to say content wise.
Thanks and have a good weekend. Renee Renee ( talk) 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is an RfC on CFW's proposed page where you have contributed before, your input will be helpful. Duty2love ( talk) 07:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sethie, Please see my response to CFW's latest comments here. I am getting exhausted telling him the need for secondary sources for a good article, but he doesn't want to admit. It's clear he does not intend to follow Wiki policies and try to reach consensus, and that he's more interested in getting the article out in its current shape which based on OR rather than in creating a neutral article? Any feedback from you would be helpful here, since you have been involved with this topic for sometime. Thanks! Duty2love ( talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, Just have a quick question for you. The sock case is still active until it's closed -- correct? The reason I ask is because of this. It was my understanding that the checkuser was just part of it (and actually, we should have known it'd be stale), but the crux of the case is the same pattern of abusive editing. Thoughts? Best, Renee Renee ( talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
hey Sethie, I say your delete of the redirect and think you were right. Have you seen this? Thanks, Renee ( talk) 12:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Holy Cow! Can't believe you did that! I'll start working on it now. Renee ( talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie, Just trying to understand what am I missing ... what was the reason of publishing this page hastily? Was the process here incorrect, wasteful or something else? Duty2love ( talk) 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You'll like this. Renee ( talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie: Is this only for the deletion of the redirect page or the user's article page also? Duty2love ( talk) 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie: The search for "Shri Ram Chandra Mission" brings up this redirect, and also "Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation". Should I go and abbreviate them to SR and SF respectively? I think the best is if we can delete the redirect totally instead of fixing it piece by piece. Please advice. Embhee ( talk) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My "reality Check" is not a "soapboxing" but asking "imput from the discussion page" so as to reach concensus. Your calling it that so as to "erase" it and saying I accused you of being in a cult are not accurate and verge on "lying" so as to advance you Position of blocking or deleting anyone who does not support the SRCM or any other "meditation" group... You appear to be in a conflict here also... would you support the "catholic" church that way or are you otherwise motivated...
I will ask the question again and seek to stimulate concensus on the discussion page...until we get some more "un-biased" input...I will continue to attempt to present all the facts in the article in a "WIKI" fashion...but we are talking the DISCUSSION PAGE are we are talking about ASKING Quewtions on statements by the current Master and soon-to-be ex-Master of the SRCM according to the judgement of the Court case...
I will seek input from other "religions" as request that they also get involved in this debate...I will be requesting some input from SRCM (Shahjahanpur) about these issues and requesting the President, Navneet comment on the issues I bring up...
Stop erasing my "Search for concensus" called a "reality Check"...We might as well all know what this group of Chari supporters (or "machines") as he calls them in his last speech to PRECEPTORS are trying to hide so we can decide our approach in being fair and accurate but also informative and WIKI in a true encyclopedia, not the PR job you are currently supporting in an unfair and biased fashion...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 06:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie, Yup, you're right, flushed! Good job. Renee ( talk) 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sethie...
Thanks for this comment...
I did not use the words "cult member" for anyone as I did not know you, I may have "lumped you in" with others, and now I know as you told me and I believe you. I apologize for affecting you negatively. I know for those who say so, that they are members of this GROUP that some have deemed a "SECTE" and that some have called a "SECTE NUISIBLE". (Renee, Marathi, duty2love), simply because I believe them...It is still only "anecdotal" from a PRIMARY source (them) and not a FACT to be included in a LIST...but "membership" can skew their "NPOV" on a WIKI article but it is accepted by me...We want that angle to make the article FAIR, just not in a dogmatic fashion applying "guidelines" as rules thus eliminating most material that come from "credible" and reputable sources.
WIKI asks that we use "common sense". ex. Although a "governement report" can be PRIMARY or SECONDARY, in the case where a department of Government puts out a report on the actions taken and state that they spent x dollars on a situation. That is PRIMARY and needs (if asked for) a secondary source)...
But in the case of the Report on Sects, that can't be PRIMARY as the information in that report was gleaned from other "SECONDARY" sources such as NEWSPAPER article (secondary), the reading material of the GROUPS (some PRIMARY, some secondary), and other sources such as courts, other reports, Academic research etc... the committee did not go out and PROVE that all on the LIST was a "SECT", that would need a "secondary source". But it was from gathering of INFORMATION that was OUT THERE in the PUBLIC (PR, books, etc. ), and in the MEDIA. That is why I don't like lists...but IT IS A FACT that it is out there and it is not PRIMARY...
WIKI has GUIDELINES that demand "common sense". If a newspaper article in a reputable newspaper is called "PRIMARY" by some, then there is CONFUSION in the GROUP... If some call the French Report on SECTS, "PRIMARY", then they have not sat on such a committee. They would then know that it is not PRIMARY. It is NOT by all criteria that I know. I have done some writing (columns) and I know that it is not journalistic to call newspaper sources PRIMARY, unless the reporter is reporting on "HIMSELF" or "HIS EXPERIENCE". I don't think that would ever happen. Likewise, if the Committee is the ONE DOING the Action such as "spending money" or other actions, that can demand a "secondary" source" for confirmation.
Which bring me to Shashwat...
To "black-list" or "bad mouth" Shashwat, a victim of this group (SRCM-Chennai) not SAHAJ MARG, is not constructive as we also need, or could use, the input of "honorable" victims, such as Shashwat in the discussion. Although we can't allow allegations (even in court cases) and anecdotes to enter the article, the input of victims is "healing" to them and is helpful to us in writing the article. (Court JUDGEMENTS however are NPOV and should be as acceptable in a WIKI article as they are in a NEWSPAPER article, if we use "COMMON SENSE".) To black-list the VICTIMS is to victimize them again, by stopping their "story" from being believed and accepted... Victims are sometimes "emotional" but are we not all emotional at times... I would like you to remove this "blocking" of Shashwat on WIKI (99%) as a "good faith" WIKI participant, a "fellow human being", and compatriot of many in Sahaj Marg. I would like the "hearts of our children all together again"...trying to reach concensus in FAIRNESS...Shashwat is not a "vandal" and tries to be fair through his pain. His family was just negatively affected by this group... let's help him heal...
I don't know the others such as "talk-to-me" or cultfreeworld" but if they are "blocked" also, I would like to see them participate also, if only in the discussion... The article can be "protected" at any time. Black-listing is so RELIGIOUS and so DIVISIVE...that would show "good faith" to me... I do not erase other editor's "POV" (and they are there)...and I don't attempt to have some editors "blocked" forever.
I appreciate this attempt to be "concensual" and your revealing things about yourself. I will return to being "civil", try not to express my own POV so much. (as much as I can), and try to work in a "concensual" manner.
We should review what is "WIKI" acceptable and what is not...
4d-don...
Sethie ( talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie
I know Shashwat from the Internet...this other cfw, you seem to say is also Shashwat? He has not confirmed that to me, and I don't care either way...just a name... Maybe I will ask him! Thanks...What about talk-to-me?
I take nothing away from any editor, the members of SRCM and others. However, I see many incidences on "POV" that are left to stand in the discussions, and SOURCES which are interpreted by some as "WIKI allowed "or "WIKI not allowed" that reflect a "skewed" perspective. ie PRIMARY, SECONDARY, and third party sources. Some Primary sources are allowed and some need (if demanded by others) a secondary source. But that WIKI policy should not prevent article from reputable newspapers, court JUDGEMENTS, GOvernment COMMISSION Reports, UN Committee Reports, and others from making it to the final article. We are not here to PROMOTE the SRCM but to reflect accurately what Sahaj Marg and now the SRCM really is...so as not to "collude" and attract unintentionally, recruits for the group because of the WIKI article... the controversies must be in the article but in a FAIR and WIKI way.
To prevent any NEGATIVE from entering the article, the way it is being done here is NOT WIKI POLICY and shows a BIAS...It is not vandalism to show CONTROVERSY when these FACTS are not the POV of the editors... such as the articles I bring forward and that you erase...How can we discuss them as PRIMARY or SECONDARY if we don't see them? the same with the report...I read it in French and in English and it is not a PRIMARY report...that is the COMMON SENSE that we are to use in our decision, after reading the SOURCE...
This is a commision of 30 people...they are not all against SRCM...that is a "persecution complex" that all religions have used to "attack" the credibility (of the members) of anyone who uses the LAW to deal with SOCIETAL PROBLEMS caused by RELIGIONS in general and now, the phenomenon of "harmful sects" in particular. The power of the traditional Churches has been severely reigned-in over the centuries. Sects (as they attack RELIGION) are now becoming a "Phenomenon" around the world and are "below the radar" of most citizen who think they are now getting into "SPIRITUALITY", not religion, or other such "non-religious", non-dogmatic" group, but it is not always the case...Some are very dangerous and some are "incidious" in their abherrant behaviour. That is what the French report says. Now we have to make sure that we don't "point" the wrong part of the "dangerous-ity" of the "commission" report at Sahaj Marg. We don't know. The best way is to let that REPORT and all other reports, and secondary sources and some PRIMARY sources be interpreted by the readers, not by us...
Shashwat...
Thank you for not "black-listing" Shashwat...For your information, I have agreed with some of the material he brought forth and tried to "re-write" and edit some other...Being wrong does not mean being EVIL (VANDAL). At first, I usually let all people expose all of their "POV's" without erasing, and then I attempt to wittle it down to a "FAIR" and "CONCENSUAL" article with all... I have never had the opportunity to "finish" as there was always another EDITOR (from another group) reverting, changing, etc... so I stood out for a while until it calmed down...When I did, the article was deleted...
It is not harder for me to deal with Shashwat or other "victims" who are sometimes "emotional" in their wanting to EXPOSE their PAIN, and express their POV in "no uncertain terms", as it is to deal with someone who thinks they are right "intellectually" and think that skewing the interpretation of "guideline" without the filter of "common sense" (which they wrongly think they use all the time without "skewing"), means that they are telling the TRUTH and are interpreting the WIKI policies "accurately"...
You must understand what makes a PRIMARY source acceptable by itself and what PRIMARY source needs a "secondary" source as "confirmation". The only WIKI filter here is "COMMON SENSE". If a UN Committee or a US State Department "committee" report is OK and WIKI acceptable, then so is a French COMMISSION REPORT (of 30 members). A source can be "PRIMARY and SECONDARY". That is not the case with all "GOVERNMENT reports", some of which need "secondary confirmation", using COMMON SENSE.
A secondary source such as a NEWSPAPER article is WIKI "OK" in most cases, but still we have to use COMMON SENSE, and what a "junior" reporter puts into an newspaper article from notes on a scratch pad, can sometimes need "confirmation" before being included into an "encyclopedia" article, which lasts a lot LONGER and hence needs to reflect a MORE comprehensive view of the situation, group, etc.. in question... We don't want to malign wrongly a group on the word of a JUNIOR reporter from a "mis-quote". In the case of the newspaper in question, we have to read it to decide, using COMMON SENSE. Is it at arm's length? Is is "skewed", biased, etc..? I have read it and i think it reflects the "incident" fairly and accurately for all sides. The SRCM (Shahjahanpur) and the SRCM (Chennai)...
I since have gotten more material from the Chennai group that are even more "controversial" form a speech of Chari to the PRECEPTORS... I have to decide how to get it out and if some of it is WIKI material or not... Lots of reading...see you later...
Thanks for the comments...
Don-- don ( talk) 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
I was trying not to "put words in your mouth" as I don't know that for a fact and have never had it confirmed...I know you think so (POV), but I don't. You say the same thing over and over also (POV)...and your claim to speak for "all on WIKI" is also a little POV I think (my POV)...OH! OH!, I'm in trouble now! lol ;-)). Concensus is not against me, except you seem to believe (POV) that "in your mind" it is. That is why I will go to a "broader" concensus of WIKI membership... When you say: "none of us" you are of course, not speaking for others and are WIKI (good faith) as you express your POV. ;-)). You are allowed your POV by me and I joke about it only for fun. I will not have you blocked, or report you to "persian gal" but will ask for broader INPUT on the issues at hand unless we can reach a "concensus" among us.
About Shashwat...I converse with him regularly and he comments on my blog sometimes, but have refused to "conspire" or collude with anyone to "destroy" any person's "belief", or carry anyone's "words". My job as an INFONAUT is to INFORM not DESTROY. I have not asked him and/or he did not confirm anything (I don't think so, if he did, it went by un-noticed by me) about his WIKI stance, id,... except I was told that he was "BLOCKED" (by him and you) and I know where he stands from reading him. He is a "VICTIM". On this SRCM matter I "speak" no opinion but my own in the discussion, and I try to adhere to WIKI's NPOV policy in the Article. If you speak to Shashwat as you do with me here, he may tell you that "I betrayed" him quite a few times...lol ;-))
Those who think like me?... Probably no one...I AM ONE! But Shashwat, Michael, Christian, Elodie, Alexis, Jeanne, Charles, talk-to-me, and many more too many to list, read this site regularly and contact me, and will come forward, I am sure, if they are "really" needed, or to take the next "shift" (I hope) of INFORMING the WIKI READERS...and not for PROMOTING any "ism", which would not be WIKI. This is not the "only" Wiki where this (EXPOSING SRCM) is taking place. It is almost GLOBAL. (Spain, Italy, Germany, France, etc...)
In the Reformation era, JUSTICE is BLIND...In the Information era: KNOWLEDGE is BLIND. Wether I am speaking to SHASHWAT, or CFW, or ??, (anyone could call themself "Sethie") I don't care, my ideas change with COMMON SENSE, not with the AUTHORITY or the IDENTITY of the SPEAKER. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS...I don't have a "SAVIOUR" an "Authority", or a HEAVEN or 70 Virgins, waiting for me in the "BRIGHTER WORLD" such as SRCM and/or RELIGION, that would allow me to be "immoral" in this world in the name of "defending" or protecting my belief and thus earn a better "seat" in the other world. Religions do that even to WAR! (Is that now accepted as a FACT or is it just my POV?)
I don't converse regularly with any other "regulars" on his site except Duty2love who has contacted me recently for a chat...(to get some "who I am" info, and why I am involved here...with good intentions, I presume...he being "spiritual" after all...lol). I do keep in touch with all the others involved with this issue in other parts of the world but not as a "conspiracy" except maybe as an "Aquarian conspiracy" . I am sure you are aware of the term...The Aquarian Conspiracy means that we all reach the same stage of "evolution" without "consciously" conspiring". There is no "organized" anti-SRCM GROUP, just "individuals" who have been negatively impacted by this "Chari" faction of the SRCM and want to "inform" others...
To stand against the abuse of the Catholic Priests does not mean to "Destroy" Catholicism, or "PRAYER" or "Confession", (I have also participated in exposing the abuse there), but to it is done as a "heads-up" to INFORM the next potential victims, or on WIKI, to include in the article, the "controversies" that are confirmed by "credible" secondary sources according to a "broad concensus" of editors.
4d-don--
don (
talk)
20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie I removed this comment by you urging 4d-don to answer a question on their talk page. There is no reason to post such a request on a talk page and it does not relate to improving the content what-so-ever. Though I commend you of doing a fairly good job on staying on article content, it is not constructive at all that you would try to probe an editor through article talk. Also, regardless if 4d-don is colleague of anyone, it does not give you the permission to probe him in a pushy manner about it. If 4d-don is in violation of any behavioral guideline I will notify him myself. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We are in agreement that my actions on the talk page were unnecessary.
I am not sure if you can hear this or not, and here is exactly what I asked Don: "Since his block, has Shashwat or Cult-free world contacted you and asked you to post or say certain things here on wikipedia for him? And have you done so?
Saying that I asked him "if CFW contacted him" is the same as saying "Joe shot James" and neglecting to mention that Joes shot James in self-defense! It is half of what happened, and feels extremely unfair, dishonest, and plain ol' inaccurate! By neglecting to include that information, it puts a very negative "spin" on my actions.
I agree with you 100% that to claim that he was in contact would not be respectful.
That is why I didn't. I asked. You seem to agree "Sethie I removed this comment by you urging 4d-don to answer a question on their talk page."
As per probing, what I can say is that it felt pushy and forcing to me to ask the question again on the talk page, and ask others to reframe from dialogue with Don until he answered it. Sethie ( talk) 20:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the encouraging comments here and there. Greatly appreciated! Renee ( talk) 00:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
Accepted! Thanks...(your last post on my talk page)...no harm done to my ALL, heart and mind included! Hope it is the same for you, as it was not my intention to "dis-respect" you...
I still don't think that "group member" or "sect member" is the same as being a "CULT member" and I have been trying to stay away from using that word, in favour of the more neutral "SECT" or "SECTE" (as in "sector" or GROUP...) in French as is used in the French Government Commission Report (30 members). The qualifier "nuisible" or "harmful" is what makes one "secte" a cult or not, and to show "harmful", is not easy...One relies on "courts" and "secondary" sources for that confirmation in the former case, and for citing in an article under the heading of "controversies", in the latter. "CONTROVERSY" does not mean PROVEN one way or the other...but is more than "rumour" or "anecdote".
Have a Good Day!
Don-- don ( talk) 19:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
This is the second time you accuse me or "deleting" material that I did not even see or read until it was brought up by you or some other "single purpose accounts, and "meat-pupplets" with COI on the Sahaj Marg page.... I do not delete other's posts INTENTIONALLY or anything else as I believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH, unlike some who tend to HIDE the TRUTH... I don't know how it happens to be under my name, but I did not even read these posts... check elsewhere... One of you are the only ones to benefit from that tactic as was used with Shashwat to have him blocked... check out your own cabal, I did not do it...again... Get your "cabal" to stop their personal attacks, POV, etc deleting parts of the conversation willy nilly...ie Marathi... Could someone be using my "id" and deleting his own material? Then accusing me of doing it?
I will be more careful in the future and if it happens again, I will go to a "higher authority" and complain...again...! Just to have it recorded...Not here!
Either way, it was not "mean spirited" or intentional...
Don-- don ( talk) 01:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
Your latest accusation of Deleting is even more "weird"...I apparently erased part of one post and put in part of another "intentionally" as I was writing my "post" below... That is strange and deserves to be "looked at" and analyzed by a "techie" ... [ [13]]
How can that happen without "intention"...My mouse could slide by itself but not "highlight" and erase by itself and not "put in another section" by itself...
hmmm... Don't know...All I can say is that it is not "intentional" and it deserves a "second look"...I will check out the whole "discussion page" before editing by next few posts and if it happens again, let me know... without an "accusation"... I can assure you that it is not "intentional"... It has never happened before in 3 yrs of doing WIKI until NOW!! Yet there has never been anyone who was "eraseing" content before either...just archiving and that is OK...
Could it be.... SATAN! The great Confuser!! ;-))
I will ascertain from my side that it is not done "inadvertently" by me, and if it happens again, we have to start an "investigation" and involve a "techie"... I think...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I love this. I wonder what would happen if we get as many people as possible to say it and look at the image before they even open the Sahaj Marg pages and work on them? Would be a cool experiment, huh? Renee ( talk) 10:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The Soap-Buster's Barnstar | ||
Awarded to you for your daily efforts to bust soap-bubbles in a civil, kind manner. You make other editors' lives easier for doing so. Renee ( talk) 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you!
Renee (
talk)
17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Do not try to readd the block notice on User talk:4d-don. It is not a violation of any guideline for him to remove it after the block duration has passed. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Pls let me know what you think about this proposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahaj_Marg#Proposal_-_Ten_Maxims
Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Creative visualization, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative visualization. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! In August 2007, you requested a move of the article rational emotive behavior therapy to its capitalized form, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. I am now requesting a move back to the un-capitalized form, because this seems to be the correct form according to MOS:CAPS and various sources – please see this discussion. If you contest this (or agree), please write here. Thank you! / skagedal talk 21:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
/Archive1 before 11/06
/Archive2 11/06-5/07
/Archive3 5/07-1/08