User talk:Surdas

Welcome!

Hello, Surdas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Beback talk 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

Prem Rawat and related articles are under probation. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat for details. Please seek consensus on the article talk page before making contentious edits. Will Beback talk 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal remarks

Thanks for giving your input at talk:Prem Rawat. For the future, I'd like to suggest that it's best to avoid making even impersonal remarks about Rawat's followers or other Wikipedia editors, at least on article talk pages. Keeping discussions focused on the topics rather than the personalities seems to work well. (Of course I don't always follow my own advice, but I usually regret it when I don't). Will Beback talk 08:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Please read this policy carefully. It applies to all pages on Wikipedia, even talk pages. Do not make unsourced negative comments about any living people, such as you apparently did in a recent remark. I have edited out the offensive part, but don't do it again. Will Beback talk 22:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking action, sometimes i tend to forget myself Surdas (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary

Hello. Summarizing your removal of a webpage URL from the Prem Rawat aticle as deleted since rumiton found it vulnerable to internet attacks gives a false impression of the reason why it had to go. It wasn't the website that was "vulnerable" it was the people who might log onto it. And it wasn't me who found the problem, it was Trend Micro Maximum Security. The website was identified by them as a transmitter of malicious software, or of being an online scammer, or of fraud. Please become more careful how you characterise edits, your own and other people's. Rumiton (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

refactor

Hi there, would you consider moving your recent talk page addition from the Media section to the Divinity/divinity section? I don't think we can consider a DLM publication as "the media", particularly in light of the premise of that section that it was only the media that misconstrued him as saying he was God. It would help keep all the points that don't deal directly with the media (by which I think it is being defined as the "Western Sensationalism Machine", or something similar, for that section) in one section. Thanks for your time. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sure, i would agree if rainer and momento wouldn't have commented on it yet and momento even edited it so that the blatant contradiction wouldn't fall into the eye. I contributed this as a counterpoint only to the cult followers agenda to keep rawat clean from those claims that he has always made. Surdas (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thanks for your input, I don't always have as much access to documentation as Rumiton and Jossi had, (and possibly Momento has). I can't just call up TPRF and get more info, as Rumiton stated he'd done on at least 2 occasions lately. So all sources are appreciated. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And please re-format your addition so that it conforms with everyone else's. The idea is to make your point with the quality of your argument not by using more space or more bolding.Momento (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...in his opinion. If you think something needs special attention drawn to it, I think you should draw attention to it, as long is it's not WP:POINT -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The link you included in the RFC violates WP:BLP. Please remove it.Momento (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Prem Rawat". Thank you. -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Prem Rawat 6". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Prem Rawat 6, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 6, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Case Closure - Prem Rawat 6

Based on the advice of the Mediation Committee, this case will close. The mediation broke down after a party demanded a change in mediator, alleging that the mediator had misinterpreted content policy [he might equivocate with WP:OR] mistakenly and then maliciously. The committee did not agree that such a change was warranted. As a result MedCom is considering referring the case to ArbCom.

For the Mediation Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed

I have removed your impermissible comment from the PR talk page. Maelefique recently had Rumiton sanctioned for "incivility" and I will not hesitate to follow the same course if you violate BLP or the article probation rules again.Momento (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was only repeating what is easily accessable and sourced on the internet -

Notes on People

He may be the Perfect Master and Lord of the Universe to 50,000 or so American followers but, to his mother, 17-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji is just a "spiritually imperfect" playboy. Yesterday she and the Divine Light Mission in New Delhi "removed" him as spiritual leader and renounced all responsibility for his "despicable" decline from vegetarianism, celibacy, abstinence from alcohol and other austerities.

Shri Mataji (Holy Mother) is the patron of the six-million-member Indian mission founded by her husband, who died in 1966. Their son and his 26-year-old American wife, formerly his secretary, have a 2-month-old daughter and have adjusted to a life-style that includes mansions and fancy cars. At his Divine Light headquarters in Denver, a spokesmän described the "removal" of the guru as "ridiculous" and said that his mother, during a recent United States visit, tried to gain control of the mission here but "lived exactly the life-style of her son." Maharaj Ji, the spokesman said, is an his way to India.

Copyright The New York Times Originally published April 2, 1975

Surdas (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat Dispute Resolution Invite

Hi Surdas, please would you comment here where I have invited discussion on Momento's recent removal of the following sourced sentence (in bold) from the Prem Rawat article?

In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults.^[1] Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,^[2] warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat.^[3] Mishler complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill, but his charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.^[2]

Thanks! PatW (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults" Mark Foster, Los Angeles Times 12 January 1979 p. 3
^ ^a ^b Melton (1986), p. 141–2
^ Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, 15 February 1982

[LAT1979-1] "Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults" Mark Foster, Los Angeles Times 12 January 1979 p. 3

[MeltonDLM-2] Melton (1986), p. 141–2

[Brown-3] Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, 15 February 1982

[1]

[2]

[3]