User talk:Brihines

Please read our guidelines related to external links that clearly states that Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority are not acceptable. Your addition has been reverted on that basis. Please do not re-add. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Radha Soami Satsang Beas entry
Jossi, I wasn't the one who added the "controversies" section to this article. But the link does indeed lead to a category of my Church of the Churchless blog. You said that I'm not a "recognized authority" on Radha Soami Satsang Beas(RSSB).

Well, I wrote a book that was published by RSSB. I was a member of the organization for over thirty years and became a speaker at large events. My blog is an active center of discussion for both disgruntled and contented RSSB members.

So I don't understand how anyone could be more of a recognized authority on this organization. Please explain. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, though I use Wikipedia a lot. I'm just surprised that a site/blog like mine that contains some of the most detailed and sophisticated criticism of RSSB wouldn't qualify as being a recognized authority.

Doesn't Wikipedia value alternative points of view? I thought Wikipedia was against "puff pieces" that only present one side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brihines (talk • contribs) 03:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is your blog, then it is even more inappropriate for you to add it. See our guidelines relates to conflict of interests. As for your question, yes, in WP we present significant viewpoints as published by reliable sources. You may want to read WP:NPOV and WP:V, two of our core content policies for more information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)