User talk:Bksimonb/Archive 1

Copyright issue
Simon,

we are still waiting for clarification on the position of copyright on God Shiva's images.

Can you tell us when to expect this? There would seem no good reason for delay.

Thanks Brahmakumaris.info 16:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NPA to Bksimonb
First, Sir I feel personally attacked by this: “Do not rant and rave on the discussion page of an article. That is for discussing the article only." I have been civil to you and your members of the Brahma Kumaris organisation.  What I see here is that you are trying to work the system to hide your true practices, to suit your PR needs under a shield of "verifiable" sources approved by your members, while leaving others out that are quite legitimate. The truth cannot be forever shielded in secrecy. TalkAbout 21:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply posted on this thread. Regards Bksimonb 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack
Simon,

you wrote stating that;

"Sadly, this underlines how little due care and attention you are giving any given references that oppose your organization's current PR and, perhaps, how unaware or misled you have been of your own organization's history."

In case I have it entirely wrong, can you please verify when and whether the BKWSU told you and tells newcomers about, e.g.;


 * the 40 years Confluence Age and failed 1976 Destruction scenario?
 * the re-editing of the Sakar Murlis?
 * the role that Kirpalani's parnet Sevak Ram played?
 * the role of the Advance Party?

Indeed, when does the BKWSU actually tell people about;


 * the importance of mediumship and channelling within the organization's spiritual practise (as listed on the old letterhead)?

If you can read what I wrote and not see the concern and public interest that individual's are being willfully mislead ... what can I say?

What divine virtue is this you are practizing here? 195.82.106.244 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please consider the statement, "...this underlines how little due care and attention you are giving...". I consider it to be a personal attack in that it is a clear accusation of negligence or, in this context, some kind of sinister cover-up. Also alleging that I am somehow "misled" is somewhat offensive in that it seems to imply I must be gullible or stupid. At the very least I would say the sentence wasn't very civil not least because the statements were stated as fact, not qualified as a personal opinion.


 * I really don't understand how the rest of your post justifies the remark in question. It seems to me to be a bit off-topic and perhaps intended to provoke a reaction.Bksimonb 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:70.119.13.124 and arbcom statement

 * Just to give you a fair chance, you had probably amend your comment from "may". Luis actualy signs himself or gives his email account whilst editing on that IP address User:70.119.13.124 e.g. . Its a wonder you could not just ask him or he could not remember. The discussion page is helpful too; . I think it would look disingenuous of you not to point this out and I don't want to have to. Luis picked up a vandalism warning from an Admin the day after registering his user name on the first of April.


 * The link to the "google flooding" is broken and I can't find it myself yet ... this one will at least get you to the right page; http://www.brahmakumaris.info/bb/viewtopic.php?t=324&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15. Your given link may be bound by a cookie or something.


 * To make the user tags work, you need to go like this; bksimonb . Note second name after a pipe; |

The same is true of IP users.

 
 * You also duplicate the same reference by mistake;

which makes it look like you are padding it up. 195.82.106.244 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful info. Regards Bksimonb 17:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction
A temporary injunction has been passed in Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Centralized BKWSU effort
Simon,

You are no more being honest about the collective efforts than you were about the failed predictions of Destruction and the whole 1976 business. But may be they are not being entirely honest with you. Can you tell?

For individuals that are supposed to be egoless, surrendered and in the service of God, you appear to be hung up on personalizing this whole business by way of these jibing ad hominen attacks.

They only lower the BKWSU's standing in everyone's eyes.

195.82.106.244 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear 195.82.106.244,


 * Please be careful not to make statements that indicate I am "dishonest", "hung up" etc. Also statements such as "failed predictions", "they are not being entirely honest", "supposed to be egoless" etc. are blatenly ridiculing and indicate animosity towards myself and the BKWSU.


 * Accusatory comments are a form of personal attack. I think myself and other editors have a right to be able to take part on Wikipedia without being intimidated in this way.


 * BTW. There is absolutely no reason why an organisation can't engage in Wikipedia. I don't see any problem with this as long as respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Where I think we disagree is the nature of this involvement. You seem to be implying that all the pro editors are somehow part of this "team". They're not.


 * Regards Bksimonb 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Simon,


 * why would stating an objective fact, as with e.g. 1976, be classed as animosity? What you mean is that it is looks bad. But it is part of the unavoidable controversy within the BKWSU and Shiva that we have to address.


 * We are told Lekhraj Kripalani was so sure about it that he was willing to stake his fortune. True or false?
 * We know that even after his death, whilst being channelled via the medium Gulzar, he contined to predict a 1975/76 Destruction. True or False?


 * It is as simple as that.


 * You are in a position to give us an official statement, to check the vercity of the Murlis quotes and posters, why will you not do it? It is not the old "never deny or never confirm" line again is it?


 * Look, I want to establish good faith as much as you and so if you do, want to establish good faith, let us make it public record;


 * just come back to me once with an official statement about the predictions of Destruction, the veracity of those teaching posters or those Murli quotes. Let us see if we are starting from a level playing field of honesty and integrity.


 * That is all I am asking. Yes or no? 195.82.106.244 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Will respond further soon. In the meantime I think some of the questions you raise are addressed in the statement I made in the arbitration case. Regards Bksimonb 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Luis
Simon,

part of the process in resolving conflict is negotiation.

I am perfectly happy to negotiate a way forward but I am not dealing with Luis any more, I am just ignoring him. The one element where I am more than willing to accept that there is not a centralized effort, is the degree to which it is unsuccessful because he will not tow the line. Unless he is just aiming for some phyrric victory, I cannot for one single cell of my body believe that the BKWSU would allow or instruct themselves to be represented in a public, archive discussion in the manner he is handling himself, and this matter, now.

I am afraid that since his little trick of sneaking around the back to attempt to block me out via a secret IP user address, I have lost all respect for him.

I do not know what you can do from within the BKWSU but right from the beginning of all this I have flagged it up with BKs that you really ought to get this guy off the case. Despite the arbitration process being ongoing, we are still witnessing a dive into more and continued personalized attack on the discussion page. I am sorry but this is not a Gyani or Brahmin way of doing things. 195.82.106.244 05:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear 195.82.106.244,


 * I believe that Luis is something of a rough diamond and yes, some of the things he has posted do not reflect my own sentiments. The main reasons we let things continue were as follows,
 * We want to keep a hands-off approach to other editors. Us telling people what they can and can't do in their private homes with their own computers is, IMHO, "cult-like".
 * Luis was the only person who could possibly keep up with you.
 * Luis has an accademic background which is useful.
 * Our first priority is to remove bias and libel from the article. Luis has achieved a lot in this respect, albeit in his own unique way!
 * Wikipedia has it's own policies and remedies if anyone is misbehaving.


 * I am sure the arbitrators have carefully read the evidence you have presented and taken it into account. I know they are also keeping a watchful eye on the article and discussion. Now is not a good time for any involved editor to be behaving badly. However, at time of typing and this close to the final votes on the case, they have not targetted Luis for any specific remedy.


 * I can see that you and Luis do seem to have a knack of pressing each other's buttons. If you feel you are being subjected to a personal attack then I support your not "biting". May I also suggest that you avoid talking about editors who trouble you in a way that is also likely to provoke an unwanted response from them. It is very easy to see what an editor's "contribs" are and check up on what they are saying about you so talking about someone on Wikipedia is effectively the same as talking to them.


 * Regards Bksimonb 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem
Its no problem but you, we, they really ought to sort this out in some other way.

I promise you that if they are in anyway concerned about the negative PR element to all this, that Luis has and is making things 10 times worse.

Luis is, of course, right that the internet matters but he has gone about it in entirely the wrong and non-Brahmin manner. [ ... and now will do so ever 5,000 years for eternity].

195.82.106.244 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dearest 244
Dear 244; Come on... Give me a break!! YOU are really concerned about BK now... Do you know about Aesop's fables... the ears of the wolfe are stiking out my friend...You want to teach about shrimat now...Haha...(sorry.. it was a good joke though) I feel that you think that being spiritual means to be a "dummy." I respect you 244, I really do. I just do not trust you. I think you do not understand the difference between "arbitration" and "mediation." Better look it up. There is nothing to negotiate, my friend.. it is over. Just wait for the arbitrators to come up with their results. I am concerned that you will look bad.. . someone even suggested that you are better off leaving in the discussion page (it wasn't me) ...my role is to be here with you....I am not perfect, but definetely you will make me Karmateet...Wah my fortune!!

One more thing. Do not make a big deal about "catching me"...You never did. You just saw it eons after the fact. There is nothing wrong about posting your abusive ways for admins to see with an IP and signing my name right beside it. There is no regulation that forces me to do so: (Make sure 244 knows about your dealings with wiki admins) Everything legal and within the limits of Shrimat and Wikipedia, of course... No lies or misrepresentations here... at least on my part. Better review that TCP/IP book my friend. I was here last kalpa as well, Don't you remember that?.. just doing my part... Best, avyakt7 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user. 195.82.106.244 is placed on Probation. He may be banned from editing any article which he disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing, especially that relying on inadequately sourced original research. Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is placed on article probation. The principals in this matter are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Should any user violate a ban imposed under the terms of this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris Editing
Bksimonb, I have no issues with bold editing as long as you do not remove well sourced material. I did leave Some people a note on the user's talk page as to the requirements as per the arbitration committee. So, my point with you is yes, I would like to work in a positive fashion. PEACETalkAbout 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry and replied
Sorry, I mistook your edits. I apologize. Anyway, go to my talk page, I replied to you there. Bsroiaadn 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Green
i only came back because i have the references now to put back all the stuff you know is true but took out...........i am not interested in speaking with you Green108 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very disappointed with that response to an honest attempt to reason with you . All I can say is that by posting and editing with such a cavalier attitude you won't last long on Wikipedia.
 * I strongly refute the allegation that your are adding bits that I took out. I actually don't have much of a problem with much of your most recent edits to the page. I am just puzzled why you think it is necessary to adopt such a hostile and pointlessly accusing stance towards other editors who would otherwise be quite happy to work with you.
 * Regards Bksimonb 08:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i am not hostile at all,it is merely your projection..........i am perfect peaceful. i dont have the time or interest for any personal connecton...like appledell and her "goading".

by you i mean 'you Bks' have spent the best part of a how long trying to suppress ,and take out what you and i and they knew to be true ,i suppose because you did not think it was possible to back it up with references or that anyone would bother........well, you're wrong. its all in the academics' books and papers and by the rules now. i think it's fair for others to have the chance to know the whole truth ,that's neither negative or cavalier. Green108 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian section
Bksimonb, Listen, I realize that the entry doesn't read well, but until the book arrives or Faith gives some clarification it has to stay within the context of what she is quoting. Frankly it doesn't make sense to me, but I don't want to end up in the "trouble" basket because I removed someone's well cited material. I did make it a sub section as the prior way just carried far too much weight, more so than any other ones listed. I did mention it on the talkpage. Now as to the "airplanes" metaphor...I really don't understand that one! But, alas what can I do or say until the book gets here. I have asked her(assuming since she signed Faith) to clarify by providing the prior sentences but I am still waiting. Oh, that reminds me I have to get some to you as per your request too (onto your talkpage as agreed). So, just wanted to clarify that part as I like things that are clear and to the point that read well.PEACETalkAbout 20:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi TalkAbout. I've replied regarding the citation on the article since it is relevant there.
 * Errm. How can I help regarding airplanes? I haven't commented on them before, that was Faithinhumanity. The quote was from what looks like an Avyakt murli and they are probably translated from the word "Viman" which is a flying machine from Hindu mythology. They are considered by BKs to be a memorial of the flying machines of the "golden age". I found this link which may be interesting on the topic.


 * I have removed the diff link you probably noticed. I obviously didn't read the edit line properly since I was sure it was Faithinhumanity reverting twice. Apologies.


 * Regards Bksimonb 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

AMA Request
Hello BKsimonb. I'm Aeon an advocate from the AMA. By the looks of your request and the ensuing ArbCom case it looks fairly cut and dry. The Anon user has been banned by the ArbCom. Any edits that is made by him or by sockpuppets can be reprted to WP:AN/I for enforcement of the block. As for the member Green108 can you give me a little more about the issues surounding this user so I cna better assist you? Æon Insanity Now!  23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * why not just ask me..........i am quite happy to talk honestly about the bkwsu and what is going on here ,it is hard to follow all this sneaking around in the background the Bks are doing to try and control the article


 * so, go ahead and use this diff because i said something nasty like sneaking.......but please ,how do you think it feel to discover someone is trying to make a case up against you to have you banned lol! Green108 15:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am taking a semi-break right now since the AMA guy who is assigned to me is also taking a break. I'd rather wait for advice before acting.


 * By doing this there is no chance I will ever "control" the article. I very much doubt anyone from the AMA would let me do that if that were really my intention. As I understand it they can only assist me in ensuring that the article, and the conduct of other editors, meets Wikipedia's standards and policies.


 * Thanks for your interest. Best wishes Bksimonb 08:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA
Hello:) I have taken the AMA case. I will try to help. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel stupid asking you this, but what does ETA mean? Shalom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 20:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What AMA case is yours? I did not put it down on my desk so I do not know what case it is. Shalom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 15:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just waiting for you to tell my what case it is. I am here enough to help out. I saw that you want help in using dispute resolution. Some things that I would do is keep your cool, set a reasonable date to get this dispute over and all of us can work to meet it, be civil, and be willing to bend a little. Sound fair? Have a nice week:)--James, La gloria è a dio 16:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a message for all involved on Green's talk page. Please take a look. Have a nice week and God bless you and everyone you know.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, both sides will need to bend to end this dispute. Secondly, does June 10 sound like a reasonable date to get this over with.--James, La gloria è a dio 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

:-(
Bksimonb, Ok, let us see how Green does to my reply on the article talk page to his odd humour. I hope I don't have to eat my hat on this one. Once again my apologies. PEACETalkAbout 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am off studying "World Religions" this summer in hopes of keeping up with the lot of you. Just got my midterm paper back on Hinduism and well I think I might pass. Honestly I was having a hard time keeping up with all the Hindi and the BKism too boot so I needed to do it for several reasons. Hope you are doing well. Ay, I now have a better understanding of "Liberation"!:-)PEACETalkAbout 06:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi TalkAbout, I think I understand the reasons why you are studying and would like to convey my whole hearted support and good wishes to you with your studies. Does this mean you are taking a Wikibreak? It's certainly useful to understand the BKs with a full appreciation of the unique religion and customs of India. Although I visit the place once a year and have many friends there I am still finding out stuff that surprises me about the place even today. Kind regards Bksimonb 07:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Green108
I strongly recommend you file a checkuser request under code B, as they can easily figure out if this user is a sock of another. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 07:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR and other comments
Just for balance, you seem to have reverted just as many times as Green108. So please consider yourself warned also. It would be best if you discussed on the talk page rather than trying to carry on a discussion with Green108 in the edit summaries. That's just bad form. As this is not a biography of a living person, there is no real urgency in coming to a consensus. In point of fact, I agree with you on the Romain document, but it doesn't help your case to get into a revert war over it. IPSOS (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation
I think the best thing to do is to try to fight one battle at a time and try to do it in a non-confrontational way. I'd start a heading on the talk page about the Romain reference only. Then I'd list the article on the appropriate article RfC page. I am on your side with respect to this reference, and I suspect you already have one other regular editor to support you. Already the consensus is 3-1 against using Romain. All you need is for a couple of previously uninvolved editors to agree. Once consensus is clearly established, it is much easier to get admins to take action. That's why it is important to have a new section to gather all the opinions in one place rather than all over the talk page. Once neutral editors come in from the RfC on the specific issue rather than a general call, you will be in good shape. Prioritize the importance and do them one at a time.

On the age thing, I'd suggest compromise, making it clear in the article that there are various sources which suggest different birthdates, but use the most official or reliable for the main listing and category. IPSOS (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there Simon, thanks for replying. I am only a six month Wiki editor, but I am totally sold on the project and the philosophy behind it. I agree that the way problems like this are resolved has repercussions for the future of Wiki, and that the tools for dealing with them seem to be still evolving. IPSOS' advice sounds very good and professional to me. I have, as I said, referred the page and its problems to other more experienced editors, especially jossi as I have found him very helpful, but he is very busy also, like most effective people. Vassyana is very good value also. If the suggested methods prove helpful, and edits made with a view to neutralising and improving the article are allowed to stand, I would be happy to get involved again, but you really do seem to be in a hostile situation at present. All the best with it. Rumiton 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't make a request for comment as I suggested. Without outside parties, there won't be any progress. Go to Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy and add a request to the top of the list. Use Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University as the link and sign with 5 (not 4) tildes. New request go at the top. IPSOS (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bksimonb, I saw your note to IPSOS about how Green108 changed your actual words in an RFC post you made.  You might consider posting something at   showing the diff.  --Renee 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon, thanks for dropping a line. No, I don't judge people or groups by the emotional content of Wiki talk pages, knowing how fraught peoples' minds can become. I read somewhere once that the truth cannot be expressed in words, and I have found that to be accurate (note that I cannot say "true" or I would be contradicting myself.) :-) All the best, Rumiton 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

quick request
Dear Simon, Can you please go back in and sign your "further proposed changes" post? Makes it easier to keep track of the parties. Thanks a bunch. Renee  --Renee 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response! --Renee 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Simon, I think it's best to leave up other's posts on the talk page. It only reflects on them, doesn't harm the article, and makes sure everything's fully transparent.  Best, Renee    --Renee 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon, Thanks for your response.  Sounds reasonable.  I forget sometimes there may have been a long and frustrating history leading to current responses.  I don't think you have to worry about the attack element -- when I read that post it just reflected poorly on the author and not on you. If you want to put a quick note after that post you can simply say, "XXX is blocked user reported to Wiki Admin for action" and leave it at that.  These type of people want you to engage (I've learned the hard way) and I wish I had responded more like the above in the past.  Live and learn as they say.  Best, Renee    --Renee 09:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick preference question -- do you prefer to be called bksimonb or simon? I've seen you addressed both ways and have addressed you both ways myself.  Thanks, Renee     --Renee 13:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108 sock has been blocked
May I consider this resolved, or do you still want input about edit removal as suggested in that thread? Carlossuarez46 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How did the defenses hold up overnight? By the way, blocking dynamic IP's is a tricky business. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey RfC
If you look, you will see that the criticism section is the only section of the article that has sources. The lack of secondary sources in the main part of the article suggests to me that the subject of this article lacks notability. I am trying to be fair; and, in fact, I believe all the necessary sourcing is there. If you think something that should be there is not, point it out to me and if it is a genuine problem I will either supply the necessary sourcing, or remove the problematic statement. Kwork 18:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I use the best sources I can find, but certainly do I wish there were better sources. To the best of my knowledge, no independent study, not even a good scholarly historical essay, has ever been written about her. Because of that, the article should do a better job of establishing Bailey's notability. I just took a look at amazon.com for her book White Magic (probably her most popular book) and its sales stand at "Sales Rank: #262,410". That is not very impressive, so the article needs to prove she is notable, but it does not. The best argument for her notability is actually in the criticism section of the article, which is a rather strange situation. Kwork 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you notes
Hi Bksimonb, I saw your appreciation note to IPSOS (which was nice of you). One thing you can do to show appreciation is to give him a barnstar award. He really was instrumental in getting some other pages I was working on into a balanced, neutral state for the first time ever and I gave him one for each article (and he surely deserved them). Best, Renee  --Renee 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks -- I didn't mean for you to do it for me! IPSOS does deserve one.  Best, Renee  --Renee 12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar! IPSOS (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of images
So.........if it is too big for you, why not just make it smaller?

to be frank, i dont believe you for one minute.........Green108 19:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Yes, why don't you file a checkuser. I believe if one is still open you just add to it. If not, it is still done on the same page. Or maybe bring it to the attention of Thatcher131. He should be able to advise. IPSOS (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that was an SSP. You should also open a request for checkuser. IPSOS (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, I think it is more of a G. It's not really vandalism or attack. It's the use of sockpuppets to prevail over established consensus in a content dispute. IPSOS (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Had to steal this from you for the Alice Bailey site. Hope you don't mind! Renee --Renee 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice words. My dad's in ICU right now so there's just lots of waiting and letting the healing process work. Here's where I used it:  .  Feedback welcome.  --Renee 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for keeping an eye on the Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission pages. It seems there is a group of neutral editors committed to keeping the pages clean and balanced.  Thanks!  --Renee 00:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your information
I am getting rich every moment in information on wikipedia !! Now i have found a person who is willing to answer my quearies.. :) will not be useing any talk page for some time, till I have all my information in place and also i have learned something about how to work on wikipedia.

Thanks once again for your information. I will be highly oblidged incase you all can support me move up the ladder of learning here. --Rushmi 09:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Awww, thanks for the wiki smile! That was very nice of you. It's really a joy editing things with someone with a sense of balance and fairness. I've kind of left the Alice Bailey page as James, who clearly knows what he's writing about seems to have been able to add text. I think Kwork knows a lot too and wants to make a contribution. I hope he can do it in a neutral way. In any case, there are loads of admins watching that page. What to tackle next, when the Sahaj Marg talk page gets back to sanity? Are you working on anything interesting? Renee  --Renee 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sahaj Marg
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sahaj Marg, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Peace in the land?
Hi Simon, Glad to see the BKWSU page quiet. If the AFD goes through for the Sahaj Marg and related pages there will be peace everywhere! (well, the Alice Bailey page still needs peace...)

Thought you might be interested in this. I can't remember if you ever had to interact with Shashwat, I don't think so because I came to the BKWSU page from an RFC when I was looking for something to do after he left, but he is really something else! Glad it's resolved.

Now, on to peace in the middle east, curing the common cold, and reversing global warming...

--Renee 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments welcome to the following AFDs. Renee 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Chennai)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Chennai), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Renee 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Renee 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Institute of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness
An article that you have been involved in editing, Institute of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Renee 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

reintroduced article sections
Dear Bksimonb, you may wish to review this. Hope you're doing well. Renee 00:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, thanks anyways. Just wanted your opinion as you were familiar with the material (and most of those weighing in on the AFD were not familiar with it).  Renee 13:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted peace village link
Dear Bksimonb, thanks for bringing to my attention about the issue that happened. I agree with you.I have deleted the link to peace-village, also you can mark the Peace Village article for deletion.

Thanks --Divine.virtues (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

BKWSU information technology team
Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University/Archive02

Re the last note you added to my talk page
If you have evidence, contribute it to the sockpuppet report directly, at Suspected sock puppets/Green108.

Personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 08:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Karan Karavanhar
In fairness to you, I note that I drew to the admins' attention how this modus operandi of your of using other to do work you would like to do yourself to support your position is not new, i.e. making little timely reports to others, especially admins and the symmetry of events.

I have referred to it as part of the persistent "gaming" which I, fairly, believe it is.

The adminstrator Thatcher refers to "internal documents of the BKWSU" which, originally, you use the term to describe the Murlis. I, other academics, professionals and trustees that I am in contact with, all hope that this year sees the BKWSU engaging on a programme of openness and honesty that includes the making public of the Murlis in their original, unedited form and other historical documents, so that they can be used in a complete and accurate review of the organization by academics.

Personally, I hope that these even go as far to include details of recent libel cases, inquests findings on the suicide cases and so on.

I also wish the organization well in its development of a 'Duty of Care' programme and an external Ombudsperson Service to handle internal abuses and will continue to watch with interest. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the issues you have however this is Wikipedia. All we have to do here is have a fair, balanced article based on reliable sources. Otherwise I hope you are successful in your off-wiki communication with the BKWSU and wish you a happy new year. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help enforce WP:NPA
Can you please help respond to things like this and this? Arbcomm clearly says that involved editors must refrain from aggressive editing and personal attacks and I don't see a single effort at good faith. Thank you. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
I watchlisted this article and made a couple changes to it to fix issues that you found in your read through. I left the term 'neo-Hindu' because it's quite common in academic writing on new religious movements of this type, but I did change 'sect' to 'religious movement', as the words to avoid guidelines recommend. Haven't had time to look through the rest, and I'm not sure when I will get a chance to, but I'm happy to provide feedback for proposed edits. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 B s a d o w s k i 1   09:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

please archive
Hi BKsimonb, Can you please archive all of the old talk on the BK page (sept 2009 and earlier)? I've forgotten how and it will make our discussions easier. Thanks, Renee (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)