User talk:Sethie/Archive4

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

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, --Elonka 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Liite Buddhism

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)

I'll have to concur on this. Further, you, Sethie stated: "Trust me- I didn't waste a full three minutes on this "article."" From that alone, it is clear that you are disqualified from any further involvement in the matter as per Wikipedia Policy, wherewith I am sure you are familiar. Castanea dentata (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

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.

Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia

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)

Hi Sethie, need help

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)

Forgot my password

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)

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations‎

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)

Well, that's you POV.

It all comes down to sources, not your opinion of the sources, I will take a closer look. If the sources are fine, your objections are groundless.

Also please not the name of the article, ALLEGATIONS. Sethie (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Golden plates‎

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)

I reverted them; please review policies on how we use such words such as "claim". I am more than happy to compromise, but that is not a word that should be used unless your objective is to cast doubt, which is not acceptable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course [WP:WTA]] is not a policy. It is style guideline. But if SR believes it is a policy then it must be so. Albatross2147 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga

Point out the specific statement, which tantamount to nonsense, personal comments, insult etc. how long has it been that you are involved with the nonsense you are referring to on this page ? --Cult free world (talk) 19:42, 11 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)

"Neutrality is disputed" tag

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)

February 2008

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)

Reactive attachment disorder

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...

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)

End of planet Earth

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)

NEWBORN

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)

User:80.80.162.253

I love Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, don't you? Grsz11 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

) Nice.

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)

AfD question

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)

The question is- in your experience, do those who start the AfD "vote" or not? Sethie (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether they do or don't doesn't mean they need to. However, I think I've been a little off with you at the AfD and I'm heading there to apologise. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

EBAY

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)

lol!!! Those stains seem to be problematic....

I think she needs to give you a cut... it was your link that led me to the site. Btw I tip my hat- I was a bit of an ass with my post and you responded with good humor. Well... ughhh said. :) Sethie (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

hopefully those high bids aren't Jimmy using wikipedia money to buy them back. [[2]]!!!! Sethie (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol! I'd ask for a cut by posting to her IP address that she uses to complain about the article in talk space but that woman scares me a little. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

She has intense eyes... and intense breakups!

I feel for her and Jimmy- I have done my share of embarrassing things.... I'm just not famous enough for anyone to care! :) Sethie (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

Warning

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)

I invite and welcome public scrutiny to my actions. Sethie (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

you may wish to comment here. Renee (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

question

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)

Hey Renee.

I am watching things.... and will act, as I said on ANI, if he breaks any rules. peace! Sethie (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

You may wish to weigh in on the proposed deletion of this page. Renee (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. We can use the RFC as comparison to current writing style and single-purpose focus. I found this post interesting and right on about axe-to-grind bloggers (pro or neg). Regarding the report, unfortunately, most of the difs have been deleted along with the deleted pages. By the way, have you ever tried those edit counts? They only include articles that are active. If you've edited on any deleted articles, it's like all of those edits never happened. Renee (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Continued harassment

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)

Page move

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]

Reverts

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)

You are engaged in edit warring at User:Cult free world/Proposed page. Note that this is a userified page, translated from another encyclopedia, and that you have made a number of reverts. While they do not violate 3RR, it is disruptive and sanctions will be imposed if there are any further reverts. Furthermore, pestering and trolling by taking the page to various locales for deletion -- i.e. forum shopping -- is frowned upon. seicer | talk | contribs 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you please clarify where I forum shopped? I am not sure what you are talking about? Sethie (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

re User:Cult free world/Proposed page

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)

Re your message on my talkpage; it is still Cult free world's userpage, and they are permitted to remove what content they like - it all remains in the history. If you can find another admin with an opinion sufficiently different to agree to revert the page... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

unblock request

{{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.}}

update and question

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)

Hey Renee- hmmm yeah that ANI is based on his not understanding how anon-IP's work on wikipedia.... it's not big deal he's just making a stink about how things run.

It was an odd checkuser request, he just listed a bunch of people and provided almost no evidence.

When I make a suggestion based on wiki policy, Shashwat can't hear it- he seems to assume that everyone who disagrees is a member of a cult- so dialoguing is mostly a waste of my time with him. Once enough admins and other users weigh in, then I can participate...

Ummmm removing talk page disucssion is a no-no, even if it's on your own page... I'll look into it. Sethie (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the frustrating part. Is that I'm really trying to give good faith responses about why sources aren't verifiable or reliable and he just goes off into some attack. I really tried to demonstrate that when I saw the first paragraph sources and restated them to encourage him that, yes, these are great! More like this! Thanks and happy Saturday. Renee (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently you can do whatever the heck you want on your user space but I've been assured over and over that mainspace is much different. Articles that violate core policies and especially BLP won't be moved to mainspace. I think at this point the best thing to do is to just point out patiently, kindly, where sources and text don't meet Wiki policies and why. I'm going to wait a week or so and see what others say and just give it a break. I realize now that my mistake was that I was equating user space with main space and the same rules just don't apply. Renee (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem open to reason at this point, because anyone who says something he doesn't like is "a member of a cult." It is possible the best course is to let him try and publish it, and get blocked, if not banned. Sethie (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your input

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)

RfC by CFW

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)

Look I have been through this now three times with him. He doesn't understand the difference because he can't or doesn't want to. I don't see what else can be done. If he trys and publishes it, it will get deleted, and he'll probably be heavily blocked or banned. Sethie (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Duty has been a saint. The more references Cult adds the greater liberties he takes with the sources and the greater the errors introduced. You don't think it's worth responding to the RFC? I haven't decided yet whether or not it would be worth it. Advice would be appreciated. Renee Renee (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond once some other non "zombie" and non "members of cults" respond. Sethie (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are probably none left in the world given his definition of those words (i.e., anyone who disagrees with him). On to more interesting and collaborative articles then...Renee (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Renee, how interesting, CFW has never used the term "zombie." However, Shashwat used it all the time. Oh and now CFW is. Hmmmmm. Sethie (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

still active?

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)

I'm not sure to be honest with ya. Sethie (talk) 04:40, 22 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)

Glad to see you back! (and in good form too! the old Sethie we know and love...) Renee (talk) 13:35, 25 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)

To be honest, I can't really believe I did it either, and oh well, the inspiration struck once Shashwat said he was ready to publish it, I figured, why wait? Nice work on removing the junk from the article and I concur, the remaining issue is the "cult" allegations. Sethie (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New Page

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)

Shashwat said he was going to publish it...

I personally saw no progress happening with the discussion...though I did feel your participation was great. Sethie (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No issues. Initially I was surprised, but now it appears like a good move ... hoping real progress now ;). Duty2love (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

just for fun

You'll like this.Renee (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Page showing up on searches

Sorry -- the latest Scatalogist report finds it #4 on the first page still. I think you should proceed with the deletion; now it is being used inappropriately as a blog. This,this, and this may be useful. Renee (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey could you post the link to this Scatalogist report? Sethie (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange. It's not showing up now! If I add the word India it shows up 7th here but for some reason what was showing up this morning is not showing up now. Curiouser and curiouser. Renee (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- sorry I misunderstood. I see Embhee thought the same thing too. I've adjusted my post. Best, Renee (talk) 03:33, 8 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)

This is just for the redirect.

A redirect for deletion can be closed in a couple of days whereas a page for deletion can take weeks, so I thought we could start there.

Also, from my perspective, if the page does not show up on search engines, it doesn't make any real difference if the page exists or not.Sethie (talk) 15:09, 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)

Well the redirect and the actual page are two different things.

I would prefer to delete the actual page as well. However,that vote, last time, took almost a month and the decision was to keep. So I am a bit more cautious this time. Your suggestion to replace those things sounds great.

I think the page will be gone at some point, I am just looking to do what I can in the meantime. Sethie (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

comments from Don

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)

no comment. Sethie (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job!

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...

I appreciate your willingness to chat.

I can't find anyplace where you called me or others a "member of a cult" just members of SCRM. I appologize for misquoting you.

I didn't block Shashwat, I can't unblock him. And if I could, I wouldn't. He has consistently shown an unwillingess to play within wiki parameters.

I don't know Shashwat. I just know of his activities here on Wikipedia. And they have been pretty yucky, not just by my standards, but by the communities. He has been blocked 3 times as CFW, had a sock account blocked, and has yet to find ONE experienced wikipedian who agreed with ANYTHING he has said.

He has made hundreds of posts, and not once has anyone, with any experience on wikipedia, agreed with his position. And there have been plenty of uninvolved people who have chimed in and said to him, no, I disagree.

Shashwat has made hundreds are arguements. Hundreds. And not a single one of them has been agreed with, by anyone here with any wiki-experience.

So either wikipedia is run by Sahaj Marg people, or Shashwat is screwing around here, wasting our time. Yes, he may be trying to heal, and I concur that talking/sharing about hurts can be very healing. However is wikipedia really the place for that? There are specific groups/forums for people who are recovering from cults.

Shashwat felt this qualified as a WP:RS for Sahaj Marg: [[11]].

Don, the people who you think are involved, of course that will skew perspective. However, look at them, especially Renee. She really, really understands wikipedia policy. Maybe she has learnt it so she can "defend her cult." I don't know. I do know she has put A LOT of time into learning her way around here. If she was the most "brain-washed of zombies," I would still trust her over you or Shashwat, just because she has taken the time to learn her way around.

I concur he is hurting and trying to work it out. I vehemently deny that this qualifies him to work on the article! In fact all that qualifies anyone to work on any article here is reasonably decent behavior. And he just seems unable to do that with this topic.

If someone shows up to play basketball and proceeds to try and throw a football through the hoop, first you'd ask them to stop, then you'd explain the game to them, and if they refused to change what they were doing, you'd ask them to leave, and if they still didn't change, you'd make them leave. They would be interfering. Shashwat was. He got booted. Maybe it is healing for him to throw the football around on a basketball court. But it is vastly interfering for the rest of us, and no he doesn't have a single thing to offer a basketball game, or maybe out of 100 things he posts here, one will be helpful, but why should those of us who are into playing basketball have to put up with 99 football plays to get 1 basketball moment?

There are plenty of other places for him to do his thing.

Lastly, I don't believe you when you say you don't know cfw/Shashwat, I have read you dialogging with him on his blog.

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)

"you seem to say is also Shashwat?" I have been saying this for over a month. When you say "seem to say" I don't trust your tone or your words. I do trust that you have never asked him.

I could give a crap if this article leads people to SCRM (I don't hope that it does). However I do care that wikipolicies are maintained. That is my only concern here. "so as not to "collude" and attract unintentionally, recruits for the group because of the WIKI article..." That agenda will, I predict, has and will lead you, as it did me, to not follow wikipedia policy.

You keep saying basically the same things over and over. Concensus is against you. Find someone on wikipedia who agrees with you. None of us do. Sethie (talk) 20:07, 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)

Thank you for clearly answering my question.

Nowhere do I claim to speak for all of wiki.

If consensus if not against you, please show me another editor here who agrees with you. if you can't.... then well, maybe consensus is against you?

I didn't ask you to find someone "who thinks like you." I said, "Find someone on wikipedia who agrees with you." Let me know how that goes!

(of course it is a mission impossible since SCRM controls wikipedia and we are all, except you and Shashwat, SCRM's "Zombies.") =)

""broad concensus" of editors" who agree with you? Ahhh Don, your sense of humor is back! Good for you! Sethie (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep it On Content

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)

Hey Persian-

I concur that the article talk page post was unneeded and "over the top" and not neccesary, at all.

"If 4d-don is in violation of any behavioral guideline I will notify him myself." Thank you! This is getting old, fast.

I do not believe I asked DOn who he was a colleague of, or who he was communicating with. That does not feel like a fair or accurate summary of my question to him.

Would you please re-read what I wrote and let me know what you think I was asking him? Sethie (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You have chosen not to respond. I have put an accurate summary of what actually happened here [[12]]. Sethie (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not see your response sheesh. Was all that necessary Sethie, to create a subpage? Just because 4d-don has been contacted regarding soapboxing does not give you the permission to use an article talk page to probe him about it or the people he is in contact with. Such discussions are meant to be kept on user talk not on article talk space.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I completely agree that the article talk page was not a helpful way to go about that at all.

No, it was not unnecessary to create a subpage. And, when an admin so inaccurately portrays my actions, in a case that HOPEFULLY! :) will go to mediation, I felt it necessary to protect myself, and just to speak out about what seemed a really odd and frustrating interaction.

Seeing your response above, specifically,"to probe him about it or the people he is in contact with." I am exceotionally glad that I did create the page.

I'm not sure if you are able to hear this or not however, I, in no way shape or form, "probe[d] him about who he had contact with." I asked him something completely different.

Wishing you much, much happiness! Sethie (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It was unnecessary and I'm not saying my summary is the only one set in stone but you were specifically asking him if Shashwat or CFW contacted him. Just like it is inappropriate that 4d-don was labeling people cult members who disagreed with him, it is inappropriate for you to claim those who disagree with you may have been in contact with Shashwat or CFW. Even if the case is true, its still pretty much probing. Do you see my point?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:29, 22 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!

Thanks for all of the encouraging comments here and there. Greatly appreciated! Renee (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

From Don

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)

I thank you for not labeling people as cult members. It does help create some more relaxation on the page.

What would create even more harmony on the page is if you stop labeling people anything, even members of a group.

How would it be for you, if to everything you posted, someone said, "No, that is invalid, because you are an anti-SCRM blogger. You are just trying to run this page with your POV?" Sethie (talk) 21:31, 26 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)

Don, if you are going to call me part of a cabal, etc., I don't feel the pull to engage in dialogue with you right now.

If when you are open to present your thoughts and feelings without slander, accusation, etc., I will be here. Sethie (talk) 01:24, 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)

Hey Don.

I hear that it was not done intentionally, and I believe you.

It could be Satan! :) Or possibly a mediumistic spirit channeled from SCRM? =) I don't know. I will note that on your talk page. Thanks! Sethie (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

love this!

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)

Thank you

		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...

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)

Proposal - Ten Maxims

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)

AfD nomination of Creative visualization

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)

Capitalization of REBT article

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