Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 4

message: Previous discussion has now archived as page grew beyond guideline size, see Wikipedia:Article_size. 
*a) Would contributors please follow WIkipedia convention and always place new discussion points at the bottom of page. Use the + sign above if in doubt.
*b) Would new contributors please learn a little bit about Wiki formatting, signing and dating your contributions. Failure to do so makes it very hard for other to follow or to fulfil admin tasks. See, Wikipedia:Tutorial and especially, Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Talk_pages%29. If you are having difficulties, go find an admin to help you and have a play in the Wikipedia:Sandbox first.
*c) NPA tags belong on user's pages not discussion pages.
Thank you. 195.82.106.244 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion now archived

message: 72.91.4.91, ET ALL Riveros, Avyakt7...etc...etc.
I personally am feeling as though there is a concerted effort by the above member of the BK TECH TEAM under Bksimonb as on two occasions here on wikipedia page I have been threatened with having some thing written about me and told that that the attacking hadn't begun yet by searchin man.  It would appear that anyone willing to participate on this article is RISKING being personally attacked by the organisation and their TEAM.   They never provide written evidence that they do not believe these things, they stone wall, do not answer question posed to them and will debase a person. They also have done like wise to Green108 in an effort to intimidate, and keep members from participating here.  They feel only their PR efforts should be placed here and that no information, regardless of how true it is be Deleted.  
As the most recent evidence shows, Avyak7  not only did the first sentence (which now looks like a listing of others with no content) but deleted other sections too. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=83828275&oldid=83729149  While admonishing others, as if we were small children in need of scolding, with a SUPERIOR TONE. I would also CAUTION others about having direct contact with them other than the discussion page, as they are seeking to find out who you are to intimidate and harrass.  So, please don't contact them.  As with any debate, do it out in the open. I for one would like to tell them here in public: I will not submit to anyone, by threats, intimidation, harassment or a concerted campaign.....and I do not believe you are DEITIES! Quote:I would rather die standing than kneeling.....With great regret/PEACE TalkAbout 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a similar situation going on on the PBK article:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adhyatmik_Ishwariya_Vishwa_Vidyalaya&diff=next&oldid=83787757  PEACE TalkAboutTalkAbout 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for mediation in the efforts to intimidate by BKWSU TEAM

message: In November 1995, the German Embassy in Moscow issued a verbal note to the Russian foreign minister listing a number of "youth sects" which "represent dangers because their hierarchial, authoritarian structure often contradicts the commonly accepted democratic values: ... and because their underlying ideology and the claims to the absolute truth of their convictions about `the path to salvation' tempt people and fully captivate those who seek changes and new landmarks .... " The following groups are mentioned in this document: Brahma Kumaris, The Family, Iskcon, Scientology, Shri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, The Unification Church, and some others in Missionerskoe Obozrenie, March 1996, N3, 8. Significantly, the note was published by the Missionary Foundation of the Russian Orthodox Church. 
Citation : Marat Shterin, James Richardson, and Eileen Barker, "The Western Anti-Cult Movement in Russia," 195.82.106.244
===Atrocities===
: I am still waiting to establish an acceptable level of citation for two incidents that I have sufficient evidence to present here but not yet on the topic page. Given the nature of the incidents and the sources mentioned, it will be very easy for BKWSU members to qualify these. I do not see that waiting for academic references are required where public or institutional records already exist.;
: Agra incident. we have received a newspaper report about this incident, it related to the burning of a BK sister at the center in Agra. The neighbours saw smoke coming out of the center. The police reportedly found contraceptives at the site. Apparently some incident of a sexual nature took place before she killed and burnt within the center. 
: Delhi incident. I am informed  that a surrendered BK brother committed suicide in one of the important BK centers of Delhi situated at a prime location (Raja Garden, Mayapuri). When the center-in-charge of that center, who is a Dadi Rukmini, found that BK's dead body in the room at 4am meditiation, she locked it from outside and continued all the programmes of the Thursday class, including offering food to God, serving and eating it while a corpse was lying at the center. After most of the students had left, she is said to have informed the other BKs who were reportedly very upset, informing the physical relatives of the deceased brother which led to public scene and the center being atacked. The sister was allegedly called to Mt. Abu by Prakashmani Dadi and reprimanded. 
: In both case Police were involved and so public records exist. At least the former was reported in the media. My question is, what degree of citations would the BK IT Team consider suitable for general inclusion in the article and are they willing in providing an institutional response? I was considering that sufficient evidence has been compiled here and elsewhere to establish a heading on Atrocities.195.82.106.244 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BKWSU as dangerous Sect - citation 

message: : I am still waiting to establish an acceptable level of citation for two incidents that I have sufficient evidence to present here but not yet on the topic page. Given the nature of the incidents and the sources mentioned, it will be very easy for BKWSU members to qualify these. I do not see that waiting for academic references are required where public or institutional records already exist.;
: Agra incident. we have received a newspaper report about this incident, it related to the burning of a BK sister at the center in Agra. The neighbours saw smoke coming out of the center. The police reportedly found contraceptives at the site. Apparently some incident of a sexual nature took place before she killed and burnt within the center. 
: Delhi incident. I am informed  that a surrendered BK brother committed suicide in one of the important BK centers of Delhi situated at a prime location (Raja Garden, Mayapuri). When the center-in-charge of that center, who is a Dadi Rukmini, found that BK's dead body in the room at 4am meditiation, she locked it from outside and continued all the programmes of the Thursday class, including offering food to God, serving and eating it while a corpse was lying at the center. After most of the students had left, she is said to have informed the other BKs who were reportedly very upset, informing the physical relatives of the deceased brother which led to public scene and the center being atacked. The sister was allegedly called to Mt. Abu by Prakashmani Dadi and reprimanded. 
: In both case Police were involved and so public records exist. At least the former was reported in the media. My question is, what degree of citations would the BK IT Team consider suitable for general inclusion in the article and are they willing in providing an institutional response? I was considering that sufficient evidence has been compiled here and elsewhere to establish a heading on Atrocities.195.82.106.244 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atrocities

message: Given the level of reaction that bkSimonb encountered from Green108, 195.82.106.244 and BrahmaKumaris.info, when he attempted to challenge the accuracy of a small section of the article, by citing a bk publication in support of his argument []. And given that the Bkwsu have been studied in detail and at length by a number of independent academics. It would then seem obvious to me, that the study, comparison and citation of these reputable 3rd party resources is the best way to ensure mutual agreement on future development of the article.
Sincerely searchin man 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki policy allows the use of an individual's or an organzations own published materials where the source is clear and the material non-contentious and non-self-aggrandizing Personally, I considered God Shiva and Lekhraj Kirpalani's Murli scriptures likewise acceptable which is what the mediation request  is for. 195.82.106.244 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent academic references could be the way forward 

message: By placing the References heading only under his favorite items he is implying that the other are therefore not even though they include academic reports and the BKWSU's own material.  I think this is poisoning the well in logic terms and very under handed. I am requesting that it be placed back and that his submission be BK References is he so chooses.  Other wise you are creating a system of inequalities, Deity rules for them and shudra rules for others which is unfair and not proper. No other article has such a system and I for one see this similar to racism since part of their philosophy is to think of themselves as superior to others.  I don't think this should be a wikipedia policy.  So, I am going to combine them. PEACETalkAbout 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for mediation on Avyakt7 and TEAM Removing the Reference heading from Bibliograpy/References

message: Dear TalkAbout, Good to "see" you here again... 
Please spend some time here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism and even the one in Christianity. You will see two distinct sections: One is for references (notes) the other for Bibliography. Do you see the distinctive bullets in each one? No wonder both of you (talkAbout and .244) do not/cannot understand what is a reliable source... Please don't make changes if you do not know what is correct. Check in other pages... Your argument about "deity stuff" and "inequalities" is completely irrelevant.  Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Green108, thanks for the welcome. Actually I’ve been popping in every so often for couple of months now. Maybe we’ve just missed each other. Anyhow I’ve already conducted my own analysis of the document's evolution. You’re welcome to catch up with it by checking out my comments here.[] searchin man 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please get acquainted on how to write a research paper

message: Now that the references match the opening paragraph and the "origin" header, let us focus on the section which I named "History" to avoid having two "origin" headers.
Under History,  user .244. please submit your reliable sources which should be easily verifiable under Wikipedia rules to support that paragraph.
Look forward to reading them. 
I am particularly interested in this statement: "Dada Lekhraj, known then as "Om Baba", in turn denounced the Congress as "Kansa" or wicked and under pressure of Hindu public opinion, the Sindh government reluctantly banned the Om Mandali, which went to court and had the ban order quashed." Sources?
and this one: "spending their time in intense spiritual study, meditation and alleged self-transformation. During this time, mediumistic female followers known as "Sandeshputris" or trance messengers helped add to their spiritual knowledge through psychic visions and allegedly direct contact with God." Sources? Note the use of weasel words.
and of course, i find this very interesting: "the community moved to Mount Abu, mainly due to the religious resistance to its activities in Pakistan." Sources, please?
BTW, both of your links about the "history" of BK do not have all the extra "flavor" (for lack of a better word)that you have added. Without sources to back this up, those links will be deleted as well. 
Now, back to the drill. 3 days for 244 "et all" to present "reliable resources" which need to be used as references. Otherwise, I will publish a version fully supported by researchers, experts in the field which will be published instead.(Of course, unless someone else presents reliable sources.)
While we are at this, how about presenting data (reliable sources) to back up the header under "global expansion"? Whithout this important piece of factual information, I am afraid that paragraph will need to be deleted as well.
 PLEASE READ THIS. The article will continue to be modified
 if you do not present reliable sources. 3 days.
Please remember the key word: Reliable Sources under Wikipedia'''
.... As always.. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Here is proof:
(Reverted page vandalized by IP from Indonesia. Please intorduce yourself in the article talk page before making changes, otherwise your IP may be blocked.)  This is a clear violation for allowing people to participate anonymously.
Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of  more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.
New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.
The Avyakt7(Riveros ET ALL) and BKWSU  TEAM are trying to intimidate people from participation by trying to suss out who they are, where they are from (what centre) in an effort to stop participation. What average person has at their disposal a Tech TEAM at the ready to trace, IPs, e-mail headers, and other such activity. They will go to no end to  intimidate people. There is a clear pattern developing here. TalkAbout 17:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avyakt7 and BKWSU TEAM acts of intimidation on new contributors

message: "Donations are generally not accepted from non-B.K.s as their money is considered as "impure"."
As I am aware that anyone can give donations, i think this is why they have donation boxes and as far as i know people are not guarding to check whom is giving.  
its quite odd, people from the BKWSU explain what they teach/preach in one way, "non-BKWSU'ers" say that the bkwsu got it all wrong and what they mean is... lol.
Can u imagine if this happen to Buddha or Jesus. it would be so funny.
JP
The quoted above will be edited (in the main page) as this is inaccurate and does this does not apply to this time now.
Meaning of Om Shanti has been changed, it was not accurate, close but not close enough.
:Jesselp,
Please see discussion about this on the archives and discussions under Fundamental Beliefs and Practices in the current discussion. Please provide a statement via the organisation of via Bksimon saying it is not the case, was never the case, but until then it remains contested.
PEACETalkAbout 20:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Practice

message: Dear Duality Rules,
My account name is riveros11, someone (it wasn't me) took the "initiative" to add a nickname to that account, thus; avyakt7. It is the same account.
I will repeat what Bksimonb explained before. It is not a matter of discussing whether what it has been written is the truth or not. What matters is this (from Wikipedia's site):
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
We are in WIKIPEDIA. We need to follow WIKIPEDIA's rules.  If what you consider to be "truth" has any reliable resource behind it, please let me know.
"My new introduction" can be considered anything you want: bland, not an improvement, etc.. BUT, it has reliable sources behind it and it is verifiable.
Do you acknowledge that? thus suitable for Wikipedia.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Duality Rules

message: Regards to the The following "Names or Organizations", The BKWSU have no Legal say in the running of them. the SML is a product of the Oxford Leadership Academy. 
Members of the the BKWSU have created there own personal business by adopting aspect of the BKWSU philosophy. 
    * Living Values Education Program ( http://www.livingvalueseducation.org/ )+( http://www.livingvalues.net/ )
    * Oxford Leadership Academy * Self Management Leadership (SML)( http://www.oxfordleadership.com )
    * Relax Kids ( http://www.relaxkids.com )
    * Relax 7 ( http://www.relax7.com )
    * Soul Power Seminars ( http://www.soulpowerseminars.com )
   
Plus there is no evidence that they are front names of the Organizations. There websites has no Reference to the bkwsu or are they Registered to the Bkwsu*. 
*oxford leadership academy has the global retreat center web address present.
  
JP 
::Jesselp,
::As the sites refer back to the association with BKWSU it seems then the heading should be Active Associates of BKWSU.  As you once alluded here that John Paul II was associated with BKWSU (which is not the case), in name dropping which seems to be a trend ala "Under the auspices of the UN" which is a frequent thing within the BKWSU I think it is only fair to note that they are Associated.   See, like in all governmental bodies one can not lobby an organisation without having been out of that area for a given time (time varies by country). So, it is of public interest that they be named as associates, as it would be in par with the public interest in disclosure, since the BKWSU is still listed as an NGO with the UN.  Meaning that these individuals then can not go within one body for connections, then proceeding onto another using said access.PEACETalkAbout 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names or Front Organizations 

message: As we are approaching the day to assess the validity of "practices and fudamental beliefs," let me remind you that only researched materials considered as "reliable sources" need to be considered. When offering your reasons as to why something needs to be changed, please add the citations to it and the source where it could be easily accessed. Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources

message: Page has been modified as per discussion. Jesselp, your additions are welcome. However, without reliable support(citations) what you added will need to be removed. Please produce those citations in this page.
Thank you and Best Wishes, avyakt7 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beliefs and Practices

message: If you have any reliables sources for the above mentioned topics, now is the time to produce them in this talk page. Otherwise, those headers may need to be removed as well.
I have not seen a reliable source explaining in detail about the 7 day course, except for a BK publication. 
The controversy part of it it does not have any ground to stand by itself unless a reliable source is shown. I have not seen the Christianity page dealing with issues of child abuse and their priests, for instance; even though this issue is part of  public knowledge.
This page is about Brahma Kumaris, even though a link and a brief explanation could be added in relationship with "splinter groups," unless a reliable source is shown (which I have not seen yet) it may need to be removed as well.
Same holds true for "achievements" and "names of front organizations." Reliable sources are needed according to Wikipedia policies.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 10:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 day course, achievements, controversy, names of front organizations, splinter groups, etc 

message: As performed before, 3 days to submit your reliable sources in support of the headers stated above. Failure to produce these supports (citations) will result in deletion and, or replacement of the current text on the ground of being improper for Wikipedia standards due to lack of reliable sources.  Best Wishes, 14:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 Day Drill

message: This wiki page is about BKWSU, there does not need to have so much information on the PBK'S, it only needs to be mentioned.  This section should be removed JP
:Dear JP,
:Absolutely right on that one.
:Best, avyakt7 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different page for PBK 

message: I want to discuss the re-institution of the references to channelling and mediumship.
Reference of this appears in documents by Howells, Wallis and Whaling, and naturally in the organization's own literature and "scriptures" called the Murlis. But it has been removed by the BK operating together to re-edit this article. 
I can understand why the organization and its members would want to whitewash this out of the article, it does not go along with the current PR, UN status etc and might put individual off from engaging with its practises; but in all fairness the article would not be complete if it was not mentioned.
There would appear to be 5 elements to this;
*The direct possession of Lekhraj Kirpalani by the entity since named after the Hindu God Shiva, aka Shiva Baba.
*The mediumistic channelling of this entity through Kirpalani by way of speach and actions
*The mediumistic channelling of this entity through a BK follower called Gulzar by way of speach and actions
*The mediumistic channelling of Lekhraj Kirpalani through a BK follower called Gulzar by way of speach and actions
*The mediumistic channelling of Shiva through BK followers
With respect to the last, I refer to the easily referenced and verifiable Sakar Murli dated 11/02/2003 where it says, "If you are sometimes confused reading out the Murli, Shiv Baba will come and speak the Murli. Then children [ BK followers] don't reven realise that Shiva Baba came and helped. You can't even tell if it is Shiva Bab speaking or Brahma Baba speaking. You should realise that Shiv Baba came and spoke the Murli."
Looking at the experts we have reference to "someone entering" Lekhraj Kirpalani, the "incarnation and descent into", channelling via Gulzar, a different voice speaking. Looking at Walliss and Chander we have reference to Kirpalani's eyes and body glowing red which in case there is any doubt has been helpfully pictorized by the organization in a promotional video here, . The Murli references are endlessly clear, once we have an agreement on whether they constitute acceptable citations. This is all rather different, and more direct, than the fey "inspiration" the BKWSU are claiming in public now and the public has a right to know.
*It is also an important difference to classic Raja Yoga and so central to BK faith and practise that it should be highlighted at the beginning of the article as before.
Luis, you have attempted to twist a fair and impartial statement regarding this channelled entity being "God" without providing any acceptable citation that it is actually "God" claiming that allegedly is a "weasel word". I wrote that the BKWSU "alledge" that the spiritual entity that is being channelled through Gulzar and Lekhraj is God. We cannot know that it is. Academically, it would not be widely accepted that it was. And so, I think that it is safe that we stick to "allegedly God" because the very specific concept the BKWSU has of God is so widely different from any other religion.
Your comments please. 195.82.106.244 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: re: meeting BapDada (the combined form of "God" Shiva and the spirit of the deceased Lekraj Kirpalani) via a medium at the organization's headquarters in India, I can also add Joachim Finger, 1999. As you know, the current season for BKs to personally listen and speak to "God" via the medium is currently going and so can one of you ask him what he thinks of this business and, especially, the PBKs? Thanks. 195.82.106.244 15:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channelling and mediumship 

message: Dear .244,
I would like to invite you to read the current article, if you have not done it or to re-read it if you have. In reference to "channeling" reliable sources have been provided citing experts in the field which mentions about Dadi Gulzar and the way the messages are received. The words "channelled messages" is clearly spelled out to satisfy those with a predilection to it. As far as "attempting to twist a fair an impartial statement." Please submit proof of that, otherwise it will be considered defamation.  99% of the material in the current BK page is quoted from experts in the field. Same holds true about Patanjali. His name has been mentioned as well as the difference between Raja Yoga and his teachings (they are not the same.) Any reader who would like to obtain further information can go ahead and look up the words in wikipedia.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mantra: Reliable Sources 

message: As stated, changes have been made. I suggest we concentrate on the links as well. Links must reflect the material on the page. Obviously, there are quite a few of them which do not reflect that. Same holds true for Bibliography. Time to check those.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 18:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made

message: I came to take a look at this article after one of the involved editors placed a comment in my talk page. I have tagged several sections with the  tag, as the material in these sections are not supported by any reliable source as required by our verifiability policy. I also tagged one section with the  as it consist of  long quotes from a source without any narrative. The source's quotes need to be summarized rather than using such extensive quotations. Think of the reader: as it stands now this article is quite hard to read and too long. A better lead wold be also nice to have. See WP:LEAD for some guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this article 

message: OK. I'd like to start by quoting the admin's repetition of Wikipedia Pollicy;
Note that material from an organization's website and literature, can be used in an article about that organization providing that it is properly attributed, not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self published Material from the BKWSU 

message: Dear .244, 
How many admins do you need to side with you? You know that they need to be informed of everything that is going on here before they act on your one sided story. I have never refused your arbitration. A result was given before I had the chance to post. You need to remember that I have a chance to put everything I find important in less than 500 words, I need time. You do not run my time.
 See admin page of Fred Bauder.
Admin Jossi has given already a path for us to follow. When are you going to understand that?
Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User .244 new tactic: to get other admins attention 

message: Dear .244, 
It seems that you like for me to repeat things "ad infinitum." Please do not defame me. I have never refused the mediation nor the arbitration. The mediation was never signed by anyone but yourself. No even a single member of your supporters.
Next time let us know here what you are planning to do rather than informing us after the fact. As far as your arbitration petition as stated by an admin in the page you archived without letting us know, the desicion was taken rather quickly.  
Now, I hope you are happy with my lenghty explanation. I just have a very simple question for you. Actually it is a "yes"/"no" question: Ready?
User 195.82.106.244 are you the user brahmakumaris.info?  
Looking forward to your reply. Best, avyakt7 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is user .244 = brahmakumaris.info?

message: Dear TalkAbout,
Please do not change the contents of this article without previous discussion. Your comments of "fixing mess with references." (history) it is not appreciated. No one has asked you to do that task. Please let us know in this page what you are up to before you do it. I will revert that and next time I will place a "vandal tag" in your talk page. You are being kindly warned. Also, Friday is the last day for yourself and  .244 and supporters to present "reliable sources" for the headers in question. 
Here is a copy of the article:  take a look at "controversy", "destruction", "virgin birth", "front organizations" and "splinter groups." 
Evidence means that a link to a "reliable source" supports the paragraph in question. You have selected words for those paragraphs. Some of those words are "weasel words." In your supporting material you should point out so there is no doubt that the researcher used those words. If you point to a site it needs to be a reliable source, researched material. I will be looking forward to seeing that by the end of Friday in this page. In the past I have placed the quoted material in this talk page before updating the BK page. I am expecting the same from you.
One last question: There is an IP coming from California in the "history" it is 64.121.65.67 Is that You?  It seems that this IP has been involved with user .244 in the past. That Ip had changed this article as well without discussion. I will place a warning in that IP talk page.
To make you happy and to be fair, I will make every attempt to sign as "avyakt7." If I couldn't I will add avyakt7 after my IP.
here is a link of contributions of that IP, FYI
Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User TalkAbout: following steps of .244

message: I am looking at the following revision made by Brahma Kumari Luis Riveros, aka Riveros11 or 72.91.4.91 here, . 
The message he has left says, " (Reverted page- Vandalism again by user Maleabroad - placed a last warning tag in his talk page.) "
*Now this is, a) not true and b) another bogus vandalism accusation
What he has done is remove all the contributions made by TalkAbout even though they were non-contention, referenced with clear academic or journalistic citations and positive. 195.82.106.244 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus Vandalism accusations, dishonest revisions and revision messages by [[User:Riveros11|Riveros11]] 

message: ::And just to be fair, both ways, how long do we have to put up with a user that refuses to listen or participate in a "middle way" discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation? I am sorry Sethie but it cuts both ways, it takes "two hands" to clap.
::The wiki is full of people screaming "vandalism", and using all sorts of methods to block or intimidate others, when someone else adds or changes what they have written. I have stated that I perfectly well accept to use the citable sources Luis accepts BUT also that self-published sources are also acceptable. Two admins have corroborated this policy. I am receiving a complete blanking from Riveros11 over this which is the source of dispute.
::If an organization publishes extreme beliefs, and even academics report them in papers the other editors reference, e.g. their founder "glowing red" and a "different voice speaking through him", "God descending into him" then that is not defamation; that is objective, cited reportage. In such a central claim to the BK faith, of God incarnating into their founder only, it cannot be ignored - even if it does not fit into their current or Western orientated PR.
::If we can come to a decision over the self-published material within the limits that Wiki policy sets, I will be very happy. This to me would appear too be the only bridge left to cross. That is hardly an unreasonable position. With Luis, we have faced two immense resistances, a) to the channelling issue and b) to the Destruction issue despite, again, both being referenced in academia AND he himself putting the points forward them on other website. Again, it comes down to whether the Wikipedia is PR for such organizations and individuals OR accurate reportage. 
::If there is going to be two dialogue instead of tit-for-tat attacks, I am happy to engage in it. What more can I state? 195.82.106.244 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear your pain and I don't engage in big abstract dialogues. Pick a specific point, and if I feel the pull I will discuss it. Sethie 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to be clear I am not getting involved in 90% of the arguements going on here. If I see something clearly out of wack, like Bhramakumaris.info changing all of those mirror pages, I will change it, otherwise I won't get involved. Sethie 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy and progress

message: The French source cited lists it as a cult, not a sect, hence I have changed it back to cult. Sethie 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sect or Cult

message: Dear Sethie, 
The changes I have made after following admin Jossi's suggestion have been removed by user .244. Note that even the section which he tagged to be re-written by me (since I was the author) has been taken away by .244 in a forceful manner without discussion... The re-written version will be published this week. I am following Wikipedia policies and practices. A user who has been recently blocked comes back and does the same vandalism again and ... nothing happens to him! I am certainly looking forward to hearing about the 9 points above. I have never refused to go into mediation nor arbitration. However, I request the article be changed as it was yesterday when I changed it while we wait for mediation or arbitration. User .244 has nothing to lose with this request on the other hand Brahma Kumaris does. I feel this inmediate change by a recently blocked user fits the "clearly out of wack" statement you made.
Below is the exchange I had with admin Jossi, it is unfortunately that he is not here to follow up on this at this moment, but perhaps he will a bit later...
    
Dear Jossi,
Thank you for clarifying in the article. I need to point out that at least 3 days were given for a final attempt to provide reliable resources. Note "3 day drill" in the talk page for every single part of the article. Needless to say, the previous editors have never produce a single reliable resource. User TalkAbout and the IP address ending in .244 (user known as .244) were the main editors of that article. Since previous notification was given, when do you believe I should erase those parts without reliable resources? Thank You, avyakt7 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Sethie

message: Dear .244,
I wrote in your talk page that I was willing to "negotiate" with you after I received an "invitation" from you. You requested either arbitration or mediation. I answered to you that I was fine with it and selected Arbitration. I told you that I wouldn't revert the page, even though I could and I will unless I hear from you today. I am not willing to play your games anymore and even though I am showing that you have been quite tricky in your dealings with us (are you brahmakumaris.info?) I have been patient enough by following admins advice however, with no support from them when the time comes.  I would like to show you this page as well
What are you trying to do? You know that you will get some people upset with those comments about BK and Hinduism.
Here is your complaint that I have refused arbitration. You know it is not true. Here user Thatcher is willing to restore the arbitration petition you made. Lastly, I requested to have the page reverted as it was before your revert.. while we wait for the process. Do not complain again that I am not willing to go the "middle way discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation."
 As far as I am concerned it is you who is unwilling to do it. Perhaps you feel that you can continue "free and clear" now? I seriously doubt it.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User .244 you asked for arbitration, why are you taking so long to respond?

message: I use the phrase "weasel words" as they are defined by wikipedia [], not expressing a negative attitude to the author myself. There appear to be several examples of weasel words in this article, which cannot be conducive to any apparent neutrality (which I notice is disputed anyway).
Under Controversy, it states "Seen by many as a cult". Please can you justify that term - many. Only two sources have been cited (leaving aside the question of how authoritative they are). Surely, that can't justify the term "many"? I'll amend it to "some", unless further evidence can be submitted. How much time should I allow? I think a week is reasonable. More to follow...Appledell 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Appledell, Thank you for stoping by and participating. Changes have been made in the article following admin Jossi's advice. Those "weasel words" which you mentioned were removed. Best Wishes, avyakt7 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words in this article

message: Dear All,
Note that changes have been made without making a revert to a previous version. Rather whatever version was in place was modified according to discussions and suggestions from admin. Took care on leaving out remarks related with Hinduism which user Maleabroad seems to find not suitable. I placed a warning in his talk page as well. If user Maleabroad finds something which needs to be changed, he must discuss that issue here. Also, the segment on "beliefs and practices"  which was tagged by admin Jossi for a re-write, was fianlly re-written. I had valuable help to re-write this part, being careful of maintaining the substance in Professor Kranenborg's cited article. One of the paragraphs named "activities" inside "beliefs and practices" was moved into "achievements." 
Your contribution to make this article a researched and neutral one is appreciated. Best Wishes, avyakt7 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes in Article

message: As you can see, the seven day course was mentioned. However, it does not have a single reliable source in it. Any one willing to support this?(with reliable sources)
Best, avyakt7 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 days course