User talk:Cult free world

HELLO

May you be granted 20 times of that what you have wished for me !

Last thing that we should expect is forgiveness.

Thanks and....

Thank you for the changes to your userpage. :) I like this current version much better.

If you remember, I was very much interested in working with you ON the Sahaj Marg article (as opposed to deleting it) with you and I am still am. With a few more sources and not giving WP:UNDUE to controversy, an article is probably possible. Sethie (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re;Tagging Hindu-German Conspiracy

If you did read the entire page, you will have noticed the Note on the name section which is linked in the introductory words (not even sentence, but word). It explains why and how the term "Hindu" came to be used and linked to the conspiracy. For the sake of clarity, I will quote it here

“

The term Hindu was used commonly in opprobrium in America to identify Indians regardless of religion. Likewise, conspiracy was also a negative term. The term Hindu Conspiracy was used by the government to actively discredit the Indian revolutionaries.[102][147]

”

The references 102 and 147 are from Joan Jensen's paper in the February 1979 issue of the Pacific Historical Review (Jensen, Joan M (1979), The "Hindu Conspiracy": A Reassessment. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 48, No. 1. (Feb., 1979), pp. 65-83, University of California Press, ISSN 0030-8684). In the article she explicitly explains why and how it was called the "Hindu-German Conspiracy",even why the term conspiracy came to be used, and also explains why it is a misnomer to describe the event.

Pardon me for assuming then that you did not read the entire page, not least a whole section that addresses your concerns. May I request you not to engage in such taggings. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other names used for the topic are the Indo-German Conspiracy, the Ghadar conspiracy (or Ghadr conspiracy), or the German plot. Why not use these names and place HINDU-GERMAN CONSPIRACY in the note ? all the reference give at least one of the alternative names for the theory. --talk-to-me! (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notice

There is a discussion about your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#4th_re-posting_of_previously_deleted_page.2C_circumvention_of_deletion_review_process. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tnx for info... --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning of me

Thank you for this [[1]] as I said, I welcome public scrutiny of my actions.

Just FYI, in using the warn templates, you start with the first one and work your way up. If I am to be blocked for my editing, you will need to follow the appropriate protocols to ensure that this happens. Sethie (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOh comeon.. i m not on wikipedia to get anyone blocked.... just that your persistent useless warnings irritated me a bit. --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good one! Lol! Thanks for the joke.... it was fun to smile with you

And nice to hear an expression of feelings. Wow. Nice post. Sethie (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India

User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Renee, when you ask other's to remember to sign their posts, you must not forget to do that yourself.--talk-to-me! (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching out to you

This is in regards to the Sahaj Marg page which you are trying to start and which is already under MfD as mentioned above [2]. I don't know if you are Shashwat and/or Rushmi, little I care also, but if you really want to make a better world, then perhaps start with a positive step, like having a positive thought, wearing a positive attitude. It really works!! Now if we start analyzing it, we may argue for hours what is positive and what is negative; however there is one tool we all have which holds the key to the right answer and that is our Hearts, so if we turn to our hearts and ask it to first forget ourselves, our desires, our tendencies, our compulsions, our pre-judices and then tell if this is a right action, surely the right answer will come. I am not suggesting any right answer, all I am suggesting is a means to get it because believe me, I am as interested in making a better world as perhaps you are, if not more. While this may sound simple, it's not easy ... don't believe it then give it a try. Duty2love (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is something which i learned from my life experience, never get surprised, any cult related article that i touch, cult member's claim, i am someone who was previously involved with article, but the same does not hold true with the other party which had bitter experience with that particular cult. When you talk about heart, kindly go and speak to those who have suffered unexplainable, unbearable pain of separation, all in name of spirituality and speaking from heart, why is it, that all cults lead to one path, and that is pain and sufferings not only to those who are directly involved but to many many more life's which are indirectly related to the directly infected person ? your heart becomes silent there ? about various other names, that people have given me here, do you really think i care more then how much you care for that ? The page is deliberately being prevented from getting published, by the group itself with the sole intention of preventing information such as sexual abuse, and other court cases from getting into public domain, does you heart supports that ? or your heart is only conditioned to support view of the particular group you are involved with ? if this is the case, then it is not a just case. --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me my friend I have gone through much of what you are talking about in my own family. It is very human to first blame the practice or the Master for the problems we see in our lives after someone engages into a true spiritual practice, because it brings change and we don't like that. In fact these problems are the very tools to develop patience, tolerance and Love, the three essential elements, but instead of going through these, we resist and in some cases it results in the unfortunate separation. If one goes through these, it would truly change one's perspective, rather oneself for good. It's pretty childish to say all spiritual practices (seems like what you call as cults) lead to pain and sufferings. Yeah they do unsettle lot of things, like when we dust a desk after many days or months, we may sneeze for a while, but we know that a higher purpose is being served. In fact life itself will bring those circumstances, just in a much much longer time span. Anyways, my main purpose of writing to you was trying to suggest positive actions. It is pretty evident that you are more interested in listing pending court cases against this organization rather than really giving true information about it, but my friend, Wikipedia is too matured to let that happen and such efforts will only leave you more drained and frustrated. Tell me which big and good organization does not have court cases against them, it is very easy to file a case don't we know. If a spiritual organization is really effective, has a guru who is capable, has members who really have changed in a positive way, it is like a flower blooming in the garden, bees will find it. We all have free will and power of discretion to judge, I respect yours and trust that you will do the right thing. Duty2love (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copies

I'll email you, but I'd first like some assurances you wont reinsert it without consensus , either in main space or user space. DGG (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

need to see what it was all about... there is one whole category on french wikipedia, see this, i was surprised as why it is such a contentious topic, realized later that it was about sexual abuse and other court cases, that is why the group is soo much worried as not to get the page published. You have my assurance, i will not post it, but need to know what all was there which was so contentious about it.--talk-to-me! (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLP. As you know, the allegations of sexual abuse in the court cases you mentioned above were ruled "prima facie libelous and defamatory." (page 4, #5) And, the court case you cite to make your point actually dismissed the appeal to have the lower court case quashed, saying,a "Prima facie offence under section 307 I.P.C. is appearing against the accused applicant [the Pioneer newspaper]. It is not a case where charge sheet may be quashed." Here is the full ruling and here is the summary judgement.

This kind of mis-representation makes it difficult to assume good faith regarding the representation of sources. To work together there must be honest representation of sources. Renee (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to interpret any court document, you need to come out with some secondary source, your attempt till now has been only to mess things up see this [3], you are making statements yourself, and tagging it for reference too, this is very strange!!, same thing you have done here also, nomination for deletion was proposed, by you only, and then messing up with things again, this nomination was after your statement,I am absolutely open to an article. These contradictory statements lead nowhere. If you want to interpret any court docket, comeup with secondary sources, else let them be as they are. If lack of secondary source for article was missing, you are proved wrong again! i have added many newspaper articles, and other sources, I have found many more, given plenty of WP:RS available for this particular cult, reason for it been deleted before is now evident, you have a presence in every deletion discussion related to this cult. It will be beneficial for the article if you stay away from it, as all your edits are disruptive in nature.--talk-to-me! (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Advice please

Responded to your message here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to my statement on the evidence page

Please remove and replace if you wish under your own heading. The evidence page has its own rules. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my ignorance.. but your comments about my efforts is no surprise!! --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this for you; please review these changes made by myself, and improve them.

On the evidence page, you are expected to keep your your input to your own section. Please note that the Workshop page also has its own rules, and you should familiarise yourself with them before contributing to that page. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. :) greatly appreciated --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed

Given your pro cult view, you may be in a better position to fill in the achievements section here. Kindly do not delete anything or tag anything, kindly give your input to this specific section only. Thank You --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no pro or con POV, just neutral and balanced with good sourcing. I've searched and cannot find any verifiable or reliable secondary third-party sources. I notice you have not been able to find any either. I think the best thing to do at this point is reduce what you have to a stub (removing all primary sources, blogs, promotional site sources, foreign language sources) and then work on finding bona fide third-party sources and try to build it out from there. Renee (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish your statement was true :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for you

Please see a note for you here [4].

Duty2love (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Meher Baba Discussion started

Thought you might be interested --Liamjones4477 (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I have that page in my watch list. :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHECKUSER

You got to do your homework and provide good cause/reason based on previous edit patterns. Then see WP:SUSPSOCK.

Keep it short and dont waffle on or the admin will lose interest and think it is politically motivated. They "dont get involved in content disputes" ... allegedly--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Transmission Effect

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cult free world for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Remember this is not against YOU CFW/Shashwat, but only against your actions. Duty2love (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint on my talk page

Hi there,

Reneeholle is not a CheckUser, and thus has no access to your IP information apart from that which you post publicly by editing anonymously. If you've done that in the past, the IPs by which you've edited are publicly visible. You would have received a warning about this on the edit screen at the time. Rebecca (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your post

Dear CFW,
I have posted response to your query about History section [here], also another response to your comment just above that section. I totally agree that Wikipedia is about giving information, only slight correction ... correct and relevant information. Regarding French Wikipedia, I really can't read French so have no idea what's out there. Also it doesn't seem logical to me that since something is there in French Wikipedia, it should be here also. All that matters is information should meet Wikipedia policies those are clearly defined, e.g., secondary sources, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:R, WP:NOT .. you know all that. I am all for working with you on this so let me know if you have any further questions. Duty2love (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right...

At User Talk:Jimbo you posted:

Hey.. if you are discussing me.. then as a token of curtsey, you should notify me also, so that i can respond, BTW, this matter has been discussed in detail here at MfD [8].--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no BLP to start with, in anycase, it has been addressed here [9]--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I came into the conversation in the middle, and my part of the discussion was a tangent about why I don't think that the court has actually found the newspaper's statements to be libelous, but you certainly were an interested party, and I apologize for not notifying you. If our positions were reversed, I certainly would want that courtesy. I'm sorry , it honestly just did not occur to me. All the best. Xymmax (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry. I thought you checked other's contributions because you always seem to post on others pages and assumed you wanted to see others responses, but I should have notified you on this page. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You assume way too many things..--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed

{{helpme}}

WP:DRV is to challenge a deletion discussion, I have written an article about a controversial subject, which is fresh, and has no resemblance from what was deleted previously [5]. The fresh article is based on french wikipedia page about the same topic [6]. Do we need a DRV for this translation (from wikipedia only) and adding references, at the first place ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CFW,
Many of us have taken a lot of time and given plenty of feedback, but you have not taken any feedback here and adjusted the article. If you want it to pass a deletion review you should get consensus first, otherwise it will never pass. Right now you have the opposite, nearly every source and claim are contested. And as mentioned before, existence of an article in French wikipedia alone can not be the qualification, only qualification is that it should meet WP policies and standards, also many of us can't read French so really don't know whats out there. Please bear in mind that WP policies are made to minimize (if not prevent) addition of content which could be a POV, prejudiced or mis-directing in any kind. I am trying to help you because you mentioned here you are new to the subject, and it is very possible to get pre-judiced in that case. Duty2love (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be cool

I've noticed that you are engaged in disputes that involve charges of incivility. Please make sure that you are not violating WP:CIVIL, an important policy. In general, it's wisest to comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I find your behaviour to be disruptive. Your edits are tendentious, tending to advance an agenda, your comments ascribe motive where none is necessary and you show every sign of simply discounting every request to be less aggressive. I have blocked you for 48 hours to give others a break, and will be discussing this on the admin noticeboards. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of "Minor Edits" Classification

Cult - Kindly explain how can this be a "minor edit"??? You've practically re-written the whole page here and tried to pass it off as a minor edit. Please be careful in what you classify as minor edits - This kind of thing could set back bigger-picture goals that you're trying to accomplish. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titikṣā

CFW,
I came across this wonderful verse by Sankarācārya today and I don't know why but I remembered you and thought of sharing it with you, since you are interested in Vedanta philosophy (as your page says). Titikṣā is a great word in Sanskrit, it is one of the virtues to be developed by a student of Vedanta. Saknarācārya defines it in following verse in Vivekacudamani

Sahanaṃ sarvaduḥkhānām apratīkārapūrvakam
Cintāvilāparahitaṃ sā titikṣā nigadyate

'The bearing of all suffering without anxiety and weeping and without the intention to react is called titikṣā.' --Duty2love (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission does not constitute Titikṣā. --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please work toward consensus

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Embhee (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked (2)

Cult free world, you were blocked less than a week ago for a 48 hour period due to your disruptive editing of articles. Once the block had ended, you promptly returned to editing in the same way. Your current editing practices are making articles worse, rather than better. As a block of 48 hours clearly did not dissuade you from editing in such a way, I have blocked your account for 1 month. A pledge on this talk page to work with others and edit constructively rather than pushing a personal agenda and trying to subvert articles to fit your own point of view will see this block reduced. Neıl ☎ 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a diff for what you have stated. --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really, honestly, that unaware of the problems you cause? If so I don't see much hope for you. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can guess imagine and fantasize about the reasons, but for such reaction, all we need is one diff, which constitute this block of one month, please provide the diff which substantiate this block --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cult free world (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No diff/reason provided for block!! even after request

Decline reason:

A reason was provided, you were continuing to make disruptive edits and edit war over them immediately after the release of your block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The page was published from my user-space, into main-space, without any discussion [7]. How can addition be disruptive ? when none of the content violate any wikipedia policy! [8] How come one change (properly sourced and well referenced) constitute edit waring ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cult free world (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No justification for any block, except problems with directly involved cult member's. Any edit, which violates any wikipedia policy should be pointed out.If there is ANY at the first place.

Decline reason:

Those "cult members" are your colleagues in editing Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. Edit warring, civility, consensus; please take time to clearly understand those rules, and more importantly the principles underlying them (or rather, the general idea). Until you do so, you will continue to encounter serious problems with editing on Wikipedia. — Vassyana (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cult free world (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

, Vassyana, if i am not wrong, we have already discussed our different view's at Jossi's ArbComm case, it would be nice, if a neutral admins (without any previous difference) comments here, Once again provide a diff which constitute disruptive edit

Decline reason:

A diff was provided by User:Hersfold. Instead of attacking every admin who chooses not to unblock as biased (or to continue playing WP:SOUP with everyone, i.e., playing ignorant to exactly what the problem is), why not start with an admission that there is something you are doing wrong? — Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cult free world (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

One single diff constitute disruptive editing ? there has to be a pattern for disruptive editing, show it, i will accept it, moreso is there ANY thing in that diff, which violates any WP policies ?

Decline reason:

reason —per all above — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

August 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

Per the ANI report here, your previous edit history, and the comments of other editors on your last appearance at ANI (here), I have extended the duration of this block to indefinite. If you believe you have been blocked unfairly, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. EyeSerene^talk 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]