User talk:Sylviecyn

Mediator
Hi Sylvie, I replied here because I don't think this is really about the article.

It isn't in mediation. I don't know why the mediators are here. Yes it is unfortunately reminiscent of the last time Steve was here and he had to disappear suddenly and without warning. Also, my suggestion about reading the archives was tongue in cheek, of course the archives are too voluminous to read and get up to speed with, that was my point too. I was not seriously suggesting he should do that.

On an unrelated note, the gold toilet thing came up again, was it you that had mentioned you worked in Florida at that time and had something to do with that toilet/jet stuff? Did you actually see the toilet? thanks. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Case Closure - Prem Rawat 6
Based on the advice of the Mediation Committee, this case will close. The mediation broke down after a party demanded a change in mediator, alleging that the mediator had misinterpreted content policy [he might equivocate with WP:OR] mistakenly and then maliciously. The committee did not agree that such a change was warranted. As a result MedCom is considering referring the case to ArbCom.

For the Mediation Committee

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement of Conflict of Interest
Conflict of Interest Disclosure

In the spirit of disclosure I want to restate that I have never held any positions of authority or directorship in any of the charity/non-profit or for-profit organizations which support Prem Rawat. I did, however, work for two associated organizations as follows:

From 1979 to 1980, I worked for a corporation named DECA. The DECA project was created in the Miami, Florida area for the purposes of acquisition and reconfiguration of Prem Rawat's first private executive jet. While working at DECA my positions were clerical/secretarial in nature within the Administrative and Design/Engineering departments. Those positions afforded regular (daily) contact with Prem Rawat, but I had no decision-making responsibilities with respect to the project itself. I worked at DECA for no wages.

For a short time after I left DECA I was then assigned to work in the Legal Department at U.S. Divine Light Mission Headquarters in Miami Beach, Florida. My position there extended for only around three months and I worked part-time as a secretary to one of Divine Light Mission's lawyers. My work was clerical in nature; I had no decision-making authorities with respect to the operations of Divine Light Mission (including its Legal Dept.), and I worked for no wages.

If anyone has questions concerning this disclosure please feel free to ask. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Dispute Resolution Invite
Hi Sylviecyn - I wonder if you'd comment here where I have invited discussion on Momento's recent removal of the following sourced sentence (in bold) from the Prem Rawat article?


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

If you're willing I'll add your name to the list of involved editors. Quite understand if you're sick of it or don't have time. At the moment I'm outnumbered :-)

Thanks! PatW (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Revert
Please explain this -- Megan B....  It’s all coming to me till the end of time  19:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat: Contentious topic designation removed
Hello ,

As a very late update to the Prem Rawat arbitration case, the contentious topic designation, previously "discretionary sanctions", originally "article probation", has been removed following a successful request for amendment.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

This notification may be mostly unnecessary, but as you had been a party to the original case, I thought you might be interested in hearing that after about 15 years, this remnant has been removed. Until today, it was listed at.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)