User talk:Freelion

Hi, this is Freelion. Feel free to leave me a message. Freelion (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Current projects
Peer_review/Sahaja_Yoga/archive1

/Kundalini_draft

Something to check later http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/960583/ http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/clear-your-mind-to-beat-stress-20110712-1hbb7.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5215.2010.00519.x/full http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Displayarticle09.asp?section=health&xfile=data%2Fhealth%2F2011%2FNovember%2Fhealth_November66.xml SY in prisons www.naturalnews.com/016026.html First statement of Central Committee: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_919_2011.asp

Here is an excerpt from Shri Mataji’s talk Easter Puja, 1992:
Then also sending presents, some people start sending presents, tinned fruit. Now anybody sends tinned food we are going to throw it in the sea. Chocolates. There’s no need to send anything like that. If you have to send something then send something that is good for them for the whole school. Otherwise just don’t send. Only for your child please don’t send. You are Sahaja yogis, you are not like other people. You are special people. So if you have to send something, send for all the children but not chocolates or not things that will spoil their immune system as it is already in a very bad shape. Tinned fruit you should never send. Any kind of tinned food we are going to throw them out. And it’s gone so bad, that we had to import tinned food for these children to eat. “I don’t like it. I won’t have it.” So if you really want your children to be strong, healthy, wise, sensible Sahaja yogis then you must have wisdom yourself, to be parents. These are all realized souls born to you. Special blessings. So be kind to them, be nice to them. The harshness is not only the harshness of showing anger to the children but also of showing too much love, also is a kind of harshness because it hurts other children, also it hurts your child. Because that child starts thinking, “Oh I’m something very special. I need not study. I need not do anything.” So there should be a balanced attitude towards the children. That’s what somebody told Me that you already are booked to go to Dharamsala. I’m sorry, please don’t go. They are doing well, they are looked after. There’s all possibility of their coming down with such beautiful personalities that you’ll be proud of them. Try to understand. Try to realize that whatever effort Sahaja Yoga is putting for them should be fully materialized. I hope none of you are sort of, going to disturb them. And when you write letters always in the letter you must write, “I want you to study very well, I want you to come up very well. You are a good Sahaja yogi.” Like this. Instead of that, “I love you very much, I miss you, I’m crying morning till evening for you.” This not the way. This is Greek tragedy.

Non-free rationale for File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This needs a rationale for each of the two uses. We hope (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been done. Please let me know if there is anything else. Freelion (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about a further resize - there's a fair-use bot that should take care of it in a couple of days. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of JetBlue flight attendant incident for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JetBlue flight attendant incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/JetBlue flight attendant incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ditch &#8733; 13:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Chakra page
You claimed to be adding sourced material back in, but all you did was add unsourced material! Atiyogafan (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You claimed to be deleting the unsourced material but you didn't remove all of it – only the parts you didn't like. I have added back the ones which were non contentious and useful for the article to help with readability. Yes, unsourced material can be deleted but it is not always necessary to do so, especially when the material is not contentious and helpful for readability. Where necessary I've added citation requests. Freelion (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting the Chakras and Kundalini pages
You are not helping with these pages. You are simply making them much worse with the non-RS material. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright BrahmanAdvaita, you seem like a reasonable guy. I'll tell you what I've done. I've salvaged the useful parts of the article which were deleted, even though they are not referenced, I'm sure that no editor with any general knowledge of the subject would disagree with any of that material.


 * It is not always necessary to delete unsourced material, especially if it is uncontentious, generally known and helpful for readability (think of the layman). The previous deletions were also not done even handedly - a lot of unreferenced info was left, meaning the editor has cherry picked which info to delete. There also has been some attempt to highlight the Tummo technique which is uncalled for in this article. Freelion (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kundalini page
Your recent editing history at Kundalini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Borakai (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't try to scare me with this template Borakai. I see you are only a new editor, probably you have been blocked yourself and have a new incarnation. I am not edit warring, only returning the article to the state that reflected consensus. Please address the issues on the talk page before reverting or accusing me again. Freelion (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is obviously a new consensus, and yes that also includes my opinion. I signed up in April. Is that really new?Borakai (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus, there is disagreement – see the talk page. I think you are just a sock puppet of Atiyogafan and/or Wrothscaptcha‎ or vice versa. Freelion (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your message!
I have seen your message in edit summary (about indent), looks better now, and BTW, I replied to your message in my talk! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  04:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tito. Could I just say that your signature really freaks me out! ;-) Freelion (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Warning re your reckless deletion of talk-page content
This discussion is entirely independent of the issues about the handling of the term Kundalini. Your reversion of our contributions on Talk:Kundalini yoga without any record there beyond the edit history, while entitled to WP:AGF especially in light of your limited experience on the site, was a reckless act which must alert you to your need to take more responsibility for understanding what WP is and what your obligations are when editing. Any similar harm by you to the accessibility of talk contribs you and/or others have saved should be referred to WP:AN, and i shall make some personal effort to monitor your contribs with that in mind. --Jerzy•t 20:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Jerzy, if you haven't worked it out yet, I'm disputing your conversion of the Kundalini article into a disambiguation page. That is why the proper place for the discussion is on the talk page of the original article. Now you have begun an argument over where the discussion should take place and left me a warning for moving the discussion to the place where it began (yes - I began this discussion). You call me reckless for moving a discussion from one talk page to another yet you have not answered the questions I have left for you over your reckless and unnecessary creation of a disambiguation page. If you don't explain yourself, I will undo the damage myself as per the bold revert discuss rule. Freelion (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i was waiting for that, so i'll say it less gently than i did in my long response: go read wp:Cut and paste move before your recklessness gets serious notice. --Jerzy•t 03:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Kundalini
Resp for you at my "Kundalini article" section. --Jerzy•t 03:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again. --Jerzy•t 08:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm watching that discussion thank you. Freelion (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a real problem here
I've just taken strong action in the section Talk:Kundalini energy toward remedying the effects of a false conclusion you've drawn about me. No doubt your earliest attention to the situation will help reduce the disruption of our work. TIA. --Jerzy•t 06:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Pregabalin
I think you're probably right about the research fraud issue. I don't know how my original Pubmed search only turned up one paper on this subject, but on looking at it more closely, I see there were quite a few.

I have some concerns about putting the marketing fraud issue in the intro, as the title of the article is "Prgabalin" and not "Lyrica". But I don't feel that strongly about it that its worth fighting about. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message Formerly 98, I'm also averse to starting fights :-) I only wanted to include a summary of the fraud in the intro because it's about what the product was claimed to do and that some of these claims were not approved. No matter which name of the drug we're talking about, it's still the claimed effects that were fraudulently promoted. In regards to the research fraud, I'm not an expert in the field but I'm a believer in shaping articles with reliable sources, so there's got to be more info out there about how broadly pregabalin is used in anesthesiology. Freelion (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

April 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sahaja Yoga. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You started it Alexbrn. If you want to delete 30 references, discuss it first. Freelion (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need. WP:BOLD is a recommended approach, and insisting on discussion before making an edit is a kind of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. We are not going to retain a load of poorly-sourced content for this article. You have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Being bold is just one part of the bold revert discuss cycle. You've been bold, if not brash. I've reverted, now you need to discuss before proceeding. Otherwise, you are the one engaged in the edit war.Freelion (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are at 3RR. Revert again and I shall report you for edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not involved in a discussion, only continually deleting referenced material. Much of it is well referenced. If you have an issue, please address each part individually. I can report you too. Freelion (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am discussing at Talk but the issues are clear cut: I can tell you now this dodgy content will not stand. Of course you are free to do as you wish. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Give me a list of these "dodgy" references and tell me why you think each one is unworthy. Then I will agree to let you delete those ones only. Otherwise, you are acting like a blunt instrument and that is unintelligent. Freelion (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Then I will agree to let you" !? I'm afraid you are showing classic symptoms of believing you WP:OWN the article. You don't. The onus is on you to provide decent content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are showing classic symptoms of believing you own Wikipedia. I will agree to let you, in respect of me being another editor of Wikipedia and it being a collaborative effort. You should also play by the rules. As it is, you are exploiting your position and acting as a Wiki-lawyer, judge and jury. Freelion (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have side stepped the issue – please respond to my suggestion above that you address every single referenced sentence that you deleted. Or don't you have time? Freelion (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need - my edit was good and I am confident that WP:CONSENSUS of other competent editors will be in alignment. As a matter of policy, see WP:ONUS particularly: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" [my bold]. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not content with biomedical topics, you are now introducing undue material in an attempt to discredit the subject of this article. Shame on you Alexbrn, your bias and intention is plain. Freelion (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Block
You've been blocked for 36 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 07:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sahaja Yoga. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to have look at this case Huon. So far no one has actually told me what I've done wrong except for "edit warring". As far as I have seen, I have been paying attention to obey all the rules: Now I have explained already how another editor is being obstructive. In continuing to deal with him I have been forced to make an official complaint. Now I have been accused of edit warring. Excuse me but I have not broken any rules here. I'll be happy to acknowledge anything that you can point out. Freelion (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) adding referenced material
 * 2) editing the text to reflect the referenced material correctly
 * 3) providing accurate edit summaries
 * 4) explaining myself fully on the talk page.


 * Without going into the details here, Alexbrn disputes the quality of the references you provided or, more precisely, the use you put those references to. In this revert Alexbrn removed a large section of text that, while citing third-party sources, in fact largely consisted of quotes by the founder, without meaningful analysis by the cited sources and (according to Alexbrn; I haven't checked) carefully selected to give a specific impression ("POV cherry picking"). Regarding edit warring, you have been pushing basically the same quotes into the article for several days now, over objections. Establish a consensus on the talk page, making use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes if needed, then change the article accordingly. Huon (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input I really appreciate it. I understand the way forward but would just like to underline that this is what I have already been doing, hence my complaint. In answer to your points:
 * Alexbrn disputes the quality of the references – these are the same references he is using. Disputing the quality is nonsense.
 * The use to which I am putting the references – I have explained on the talk page what I am doing with the references (fleshing out the context). However, none of my points on the talk page were ever responded to by Alexbrn, he only reverted everything with terse edit descriptions.
 * The large section of text removed that was sourced from a third party existed to provide context for the other sourced material that was (in my opinion) cherry picked by Alexbrn to give a negative impression. I explained this on the talk page. If there needed to be more analysis provided from the source, so be it – I'm happy to improve it! But there was no discussion, no engagement with what I had written. He simply reverted multiple edits.
 * In short Huon, Alexbrn is obstructing all my attempts at providing additional context from reliable sources to offset his cherry picked POV campaign. I believe dispute resolution will be necessary moving forward. The job is open, your application would be welcome. Freelion (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to re-litigate the content dispute here; the article's talk page is the place for that. Huon (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't have to litigate the content. I'm just explaining that I have been using the talk page as per policy but the other user has not been responding constructively on the talk page. He is reverting multiple edits with minimal edit descriptions, gaming the system: citing wikipedia links for minor errors (as excuses) and not addressing the points I've made on the talk page. Basically he's being obstructive and this is the basis for my complaint. I have not been engaging in edit warring and therefore should not have been blocked.
 * I've asked you to point out what I've done wrong. You responded with some points but I have politely pointed out above that these points are invalid. Can you please point out to me where I have erred and why this block must persist? Freelion (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring
Since coming off your block you have resumed edit warring, now having modified/whitewashed our long-standing Abgrall text three times. Be aware that continued edit warring will likely result in a sanction. I note you have not persued any dispute resolution as you indicated you would. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't start this again mate. I have notarised every change that I have made on the talk page in numbered point form. How about you address those points before pointing the finger again. Freelion (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is not about content, it is about your behaviour - and this is the correct venue for an initial discussion of that. WP:CPUSH is a thing, and just filling the article Talk page with superficially polite filibustering will not succeed in giving you cover: you are a WP:SPA with a history of advocacy. I am beginning to think that a WP:TOPICBAN may be necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are getting so flustered you can't even type properly. Why don't you stick to content as you have advised me. See the talk page and stop ignoring my numbered points. You're always bringing up red herrings, that's because you are a pro-level gamer of the system. And you have a history of that. Freelion (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article Talk page is not the place to discuss your behaviour. Anyway, consider yourself warned. Alexbrn (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When you say discussing behaviour on the talk page is not the right place for me to discuss behaviour, do you mean YOUR behaviour? Should I begin a topic on your talk page for that? Freelion (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussing user behaviour on article Talk pages is disruptive. So yes, user Talk pages are appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Freelion, could you please stop edit-warring on the Sahaja Yoga article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap I question your sudden appearance in this dispute. Are you acting like a sock puppet of Alexbrn or are you guys tag teaming so that Alexbrn doesn't get a 3RR warning? You have reverted multiple edits which were all discussed on the talk page. If you are really interested, please contribute to the discussion on the talk page as I have numbered all my points. Freelion (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked you for one week for disruptive editing, including edit-warring (again), battleground mentality in discussions with other editors, and personal attacks. Calling someone a sock just because they agree with someone else and you agree with neither is impermissible. If you continue your misbehavior after this block expires, the next block will be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, *, you are not looking deeply enough at this issue. Firstly, I didn't say he was a sock, I said he was "acting like a sock puppet" OR engaging in tag teaming. Alexbrn is involved in pushing his POV on this article. Basically he is vilifying a new religious movement. Sure he's smart enough to play by the rules, he's gaming the system. He's requested support from the Fringe theories noticeboard (hardly the most neutral forum) in order to find like-minded sceptics to back up his attack. I have not personally attacked Chiswick Chap, I'm just pointing out that he is answering Alexbrn's clarion call to assist him in his mission. And Chiswick Chap didn't contribute to the discussion at all, he just did a revert on Alexbrn's behalf.
 * I have been documenting all of my points on the talk page. They are respectful and numbered and have not been addressed by Alexbrn or anyone else. Why are you not disciplining him for not respecting the process? Why is it that Alexbrn can make continuous changes to articles without even proper edit summaries let alone discussion and consensus on the talk page? If my discussion is getting tiresome, Mfb, why don't you point out my errors on the talk page? Freelion (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My advice to you is to work for WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page and don't make any non-trivial edits without it. Try to argue without rancor. If you don't, I see a topic ban in your future. Doug Weller  talk 08:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice Doug but to be honest I thought this is what I have been doing for some time now. I have documented all my concerns in detail on the talk page and asked for discussion. But all I'm getting is dismissive non engagement and reverts of everything I do. Even basic things like reformatting a quote got reverted. It's pure obstructionism is it not? Freelion (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Brief Reply
I will reply briefly to your email, here. Since there is nothing that requires confidentiality, I will reply on your talk page, where you or anyone else can reply. (If you are not civil, your use of your talk page may be revoked, but I do not think that is likely.) Your description of your exchange with User:Alexbrn is too long and has unnecessary detail, except that it expresses anger, and I still have to guess what the nature of the content dispute is. You are complaining that you have been unfairly blocked when other editors have not been blocked. Read the 3-revert rule, which forbids making three reverts in 24 hours. I see that your contribution history does appear to go over 3 reverts in 24 hours before each of the times that you were blocked. I haven't checked whether any other editor has gone over 3 reverts, but that is a reason why you were blocked. Also, stating that another editor is acting like a sockpuppet is a personal attack. I have not read the exchange in enough detail to know who has attacked whom except for that.

Your action in requesting dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard was a good idea, but you should have listed the other editors, and should have listed them after I said that you had not listed them. I would have supported a request to move the discussion from the fringe theory noticeboard to DRN. It does appear that Sahaja Yoga is a new religious movement that is considered by outsiders to be a cult. Wikipedia reflects the description of new religious movements in the mainstream media. If they are described as a cult, we say that they are described as a cult. If you have an issue with exactly how they are described and if you believe that the description is not neutral, you should discuss your concern.

At this point, my advice is, rather than arguing that you were right, which is the usual type of unblock request and seldom is granted, to acknowledge that you violated 3RR, and to agree that you will abide by 3RR, and ask to be unblocked in order to request moderated dispute resolution at DRN, but you should know that the moderator will take a mainstream point of view. That is my advice at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That is a very disappointing reply Robert, frankly I expected better. I have given you detailed evidence of POV editing by the editor in question and you have not addressed any of my points. I never claimed to be right – I asked you to review the discussions and if I am wrong, please tell me why. You have not reviewed the discussions by the look of it.


 * Contrary to your summation, I was not blocked for going over 3 reverts each time. I was for the first time, the second time it was for reporting the other user for edit warring (he was warned, I was blocked), the third time was for likening the actions of another user to a sock puppet which, if you consider the context, is fair. The first block for a 3RR by the way, was after I was insisting that the deletion of over 30 sources should be discussed as per policy. This fact has never been given any consideration or explanation by the admin(s) who blocked me.


 * You and others keep advising me to "discuss and seek consensus" – well that is exactly what I've been doing but the other editor is not engaging in discussion, just high handed dismissals and reversion of my edits while finding others from a like-minded sceptics forum to do the same on his behalf. Freelion (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What seems like a fair concern is potential conflict of interest (WP:COI), since you have only edited on this topic (WP:SPA) and tend to remove criticism. The others editors edited on many topics and care more about the encyclopedia as a whole, with Sahaja Yoga only one of many articles needing work...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have wondered about WP:COI. Looking deep into the SY article's history I see has been busy with the whitewash (e.g., , ) since their account was created on 19 December 2007. And, since the topic of sock-puppetry has now been raised, I note that there was a question asked whether Freelion was a sock of , an account with similar interests, which was blocked on 12 December 2007. The question at the time received a surprisingly testy non-response. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a pretty good response! At least it was in good humour unlike the stonewalling and high handed dismissals I've been receiving from you! Please, do me a favour and waste some more your time checking up on me and feel free to report me for sock puppetry. As for your jibe that mine is a WP:SPA, I note that essay offers the following: many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest.
 * Since signing up to edit Wikipedia over 10 years ago, I have contributed to many articles, even created one. But unlike you I do not have the time and inclination to spend all day every day waging a POV war. Unlike you, I stick to editing articles where I at least have some basic knowledge. It is clear you know nothing about Sahaja Yoga but wish to discredit it by cherry picking, removing perfectly good sources using any pretext and creating heavily POV summaries. My first venture in Wikipedia editing was to protect this article from an assault by someone just like you who used the same underhanded methods.
 * To test my accusation, that you are heavily biased and editing the article in bad faith, consider the following: Judith Coney has made many points about Sahaja Yoga in her book – some reflect well, and some reflect poorly on the movement. But you have exclusively emphasised the negative statements. You've even removed several neutral/good sentences in the last few days! See these:, ,.
 * You accuse me of whitewashing but I am trying to add more context from existing sources. It's easy to create the wrong impression as you do by excluding context. Go through the discussion and find me an example of where I am trying to make a change that is not adding context. But you are obstructing this because it "doesn't suit your purposes". You know this better than anyone. Freelion (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is true I know nothing about SY other than what I can read in the (scarce) RS available on the topic - and believe me I have scoured the libraries. The point is we are obliged to reflect these sources accurately, and that includes giving due weight to the topics and views they contain. It is probably not useful to view content in the source as "good" or "bad" reflections on SY and to try and achieve a certain score; just summarize the content and let the chips fall as they will. My advice to you is to describe concisely any point of contention on the article Talk page, make a concrete actionable proposal, and seek consensus, backing off when it's clear that has already been achieved. At the moment you've been arguing in various directions but your actual actions are continued wholesale deletions and edit-warring in the article itself (e.g. this is not "adding context"). There is also the option to continue discussion at WP:FT/N (a noticeboard specialising in neutrality in WP:FRINGE areas) or open dispute resolution - though in that case I think we should invite the several editors who have been involved in this topic over the last several months. I would also add that making self-serving and false statements (like the fake quote above: "doesn't suit your purposes") and launching personal attacks is not going to prove helpful to you in the long run. I hope this situation can progress more productively. Let's see. Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's not a lot written about Sahaja Yoga from third party sources that have not had their own barrow to push. Kakar is a Freudian analyist, Coney a sociologist and Abgrall is an anticultist. To know about Sahaja Yoga you have to try it for yourself, it's about self reflection and being honest. Not so helpful for reliable sources on Wikipedia of course but at least I know that to be the truth. So when I say "good" or "bad", I mean close to the truth or the opposite, which is misleading. Sure, people can dig up all kinds of faults but there's no need to base the article on this when there's plenty of good stuff as well. That's called good editing and keeping things in context, WP:DUE and all that.
 * The diff you point to is when I removed a contentious paragraph for discussion. I've been talking about the problems with it for about a week. You simply say "it's fine" or "it suits our purposes" (your words), when it is a dubious source, inaccurately summarised, and contains no scholarly discussion or context. That's not consensus and it's not "me against everyone else", it's just you not even discussing things and being bloody minded. Sorry, for saying so because your last comment is actually starting to sound reasonable but you have been obstructive and very difficult. The WP:FT/N noticeboard would not be my first choice to find a neutral second opinion. Who even looks there except for people intent on persecuting "fringe groups" or anything not considered scientific? How about a discussion at dispute resolution? Or I'm happy to bring together other editors who've contributed to the article over the years. Freelion (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * FT/N has hundreds of noticeboard followers all of whom I assume are good faith editors intent on making sure our fringe content remains neutral, which is not to say they all agree on everything (far from it: in fact it is richly comedic that you labelled Chiswick Chap as a sock of me, when we more-often-than-not take rather different positions on many fringe matters, in good faith). I think your view that it is full of people "intent on persecuting" any groups, is problematic. I am happy to discuss anything up to, but not beyond, a reasonable point. As regards the Abgrall source the fact is nobody agrees with your view, and you have been edit-warring just trying to disappear the source and the text it supports. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As regards "truth", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which by its very nature is a summary of accepted knowledge on topics, as found published in suitable sources. If you do not agree with that, your aims are at odd with the aims of the Project. I'm sure you see why Wikipedia can never be beholden just to what individual editors hold to be "the truth", especially as for fringe topics this would open us up to all kinds of trouble. Alexbrn (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ... every editor is expected to heed policies like WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI and the noticeboard is to gather the attention of more editors (anyone can read it and participate). Including those who may practice meditation techniques, such as myself.  Wikipedia editors come from many backgrounds but all are expected to edit in accordance with policies and sources (editing being a privilege).  As for COI, it is simply normal human behavior not to be able to objectively edit about a topic we are very involved with (I wouldn't edit articles in relation to people I worked with or employers/clients/colleagues, and rarely edit those on software or protocols I work(ed) on).  This principle also applies elsewhere: administrators don't take admin action and are normal editors on topics they are involved with (WP:INVOLVED).  Independent secondary and tertiary sources are preferred to primary and self-published ones.  If it was the case that too few secondary sources existed, it would be an indication that the article lacks the necessary notability to remain.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's great you and Chiswick Chap know each other and have such a good repartee. I'm sure you've made a lot of friends over there in the fringe theories group. Chiswick Chap didn't offer any reason for reverting multiple edits (which just happened to be the same revert that you just did) and then, without contributing at all to the discussed changes, he accused me of edit warring. Basically he acted as your proxy to do the revert, otherwise you would have received a 3RR warning. Hence my comment that he was acting "like" your sock puppet. I apologise to Chiswick Chap for any offense caused but am glad you at least got a laugh over it.


 * My assumption that editors who like to discuss fringe matters take delight in hammering non mainstream articles was only an assumption. Maybe it's just in the name "Fringe theories noticeboard". You linked to the "Wikipedia is not a battleground" article – I am not creating a battleground by suggesting an alternate noticeboard for dispute resolution or requests for comments.


 * You liken my continuation of requests for a proper response on the talk page to flogging a dead horse. The fact is, you haven't responded to 7 numbered comments in relation to the Abgrall reference. There is no consensus, you alone have put that reference there. It's a poor quality reference and it's badly summarised. Since then you have avoided answering my points and have been obstructive. Too busy apparently, and too bored to go through all that detail. Yet you manage to find the time to trawl through my contributions history from a decade ago, amazing!


 * Good/bad, True/false, due/undue. Responsible editors have the job to make the decision between what is due and what is not. They summarise, judge how authoritative a source is, and which parts of the source to use. The point of summarising accepted knowledge on topics is to arrive at an approximation of "the truth". Your view is, as you admit, not well informed. Your judgement therefore is limited to the application of Wikipedia rules and what you find in the limited published sources. From what I've seen, you are applying the Wikipedia rules and choosing content very selectively in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent.
 * Freelion (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to reply further here as this is not proving productive. Multiple people have now given you advice. It's up to you whether you take it. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. Freelion (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Freelion. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Really bad considering you are already blocked for personal attacks. Doug Weller  talk 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Doug Weller - I respectfully disagree. I don't see any personal attacks.  I do see what I would call impersonal attacks, claiming that Wikipedia as a whole is biased and is misrepresenting things.  I think that a warning is in order, but I don't see where he has engaged in personal attacks.  Battleground editing, yes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug. In fact, if he hadn't seen fit to give the user a final warning, I would have upped the block to indefinite; the user was already on notice. These attacks are not "impersonal": "Since then you have avoided answering my points and have been obstructive. Too busy apparently, and too bored to go through all that detail. Yet you manage to find the time to trawl through my contributions history from a decade ago, amazing!" and "From what I've seen, you are applying the Wikipedia rules and choosing content very selectively in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent."--Bbb23 (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I really would like to understand why you thought those comments were not personal attacks. Doug Weller  talk 12:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Doug Weller, User:Bbb23 - Maybe I have an idiosyncratic personal view of the concept of personal attacks, or maybe the rule against personal attacks is interpreted in a way that I think is too expansive. It appears to me that the now-indeffed user was railing about the integrity or lack of integrity of Wikipedia institutionally, rather than of individual administrators.  I think that we can agree to disagree, and that we can agree that this user and Wikipedia are a mismatch.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In looking it over further, I see that some of the arguments are personal attacks. I see that I started out being neutral about this editor because he was polite to me, which he wasn't to other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also see that the exchange has gotten hard to follow because of a minor misfeature in how talk pages work, and that is that if you have two sections with the same heading "July 2019" it gets confused. But that is a minor technical issue, and the major issue was an editor for whom Wikipedia was the wrong electronic workplace.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug and Bbb23, these aren't personal attacks; they are statements of plain facts. It's hard not to sound personal when the complaints are about the actions of a specific person who is being obstructive and gaming the system. I did make a formal complaint but that got me blocked as well! I've made my points so many times without them being addressed. I am not criticising Wikipedia as a whole but am honestly quite dismayed and incredulous that you administrators do not see what is really going on. Freelion (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed your block to indefinite. I've also revoked TPA because I don't believe this page should be a platform for continued personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)