User talk:Momento

Welcome!

Hello, Momento, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 02:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please note that you can use four tildes ~~~~ to automatically add a signature and time stamp to your comments in discussion pages. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning article Prem Rawat: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In an interview with in 1973 Tom Snyder host of "The Tomorrow show" TV series, Snyder asked Prem Rawat: "Now I'm not trying to be disrespectful but' Ive got to ask you this question: Many of your followers say that you are God. What do you have to say about this?" To which Rawat replied: "No, I am not God. I am only a humble servant of God." ^[1]

• At a press conference during the 1973 Millennium gathering, Rawat denied to the press that he believed himself to be the Messiah, characterizing himself instead "as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world." A reporter then asked him about "a great contradiction" between what he said about himself and what his students were saying about him, and he responded by suggesting the reporter ask the devotees themselves about that. In a still-later speech, Rawat was to characterize as mistaken the early Western reaction to him upon his arrival, saying, "when people saw me at that time, they really didn't understand what it was all about."
  • He didn't answer the reporter's question. In fact, what his students said about him derived from claims he made about himself. The reporter was correct about there being a great contradiction. 69.251.176.184 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In an interview with the Miami Magazine, in 1979, Prem Rawat spoke of what he believed God to be. In answer to the question, "If God is within, can't people experience God without the help of someone else?", Prem Rawat said, "God being within is one thing, and experiencing God is another. Just like having water in front of you is one thing, and drinking is another. God is within you. God is omnipresent."^[2]

• Millennium Press Conference

Q: Guru, you’ve said that it’s the presumption of the press among others that claim has been made on your behalf that you are the Messiah, and that is not your statement. I understand this is not your statement. I have read on several occasions that you have disavowed any such claim. The question I am interested in is, since the presumption and the confusion seems to arise because your followers, especially those who are involved in the publication of the magazines, have made this claim on your behalf, are there any plans that you have to put an end to this confusion and these presumptions by directing them to quit making such claims?

M: Only thing I can do is pass my comments about it, pass my statements about it, which I am as a matter of fact doing. ^[3]

That you may want to add to the Prem Rawat article ~---

It was never my intention to misrepresent your opinion. Please tell me what is wrong with the follow (http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/3540.html) Andries 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?Momento 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you wrote on my talk page "Andries your comment on the anti Prem Rawat forum (http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/3540.html) that "Wikipedia editors assert that 'Guru Maharaj ji is God' can refer to his father", is untrue and should be retracted.Momento 02:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)" I have no problem to leave this case for what it is if what I wrote there no longer bothers you. Andries 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong is that no Wiki editor has produced a quote of Guru Maharaji saying "I am God". And therefore no Wiki editors " assert that 'Guru Maharaj ji is God' can refer to his father". You discredit Wki and its editors when you say things that aren't true. The comment can stay on www.prem-rawat-talk.org, it is just one lie amongst many.Momento 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. First of all I was sincerely convinced that I was telling the truth then, so it was not a lie, but at worst a mistake. Second of all, I do not think that it was a mistake, but I still think it is true what I wrote there. Prem Rawat has said basically that Guru Maharaj Ji is God e.g. when he said "To be here as individual and yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything; in which everything is and he is everything. Guru Maharaj Ji. The Lord. All-powerful." from "The Final Step" Malibu, California, June 11, 1978. From the Divine Times June/July Volume 7, Number 4 ~ The Guru Puja Special.[1] Andries 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you keep doing it Andries - "Prem Rawat has said basically that Guru Maharaj Ji is God." When he said over and over again a human being can't be god. Read the quote again.Momento 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what he said, he said "God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk." He was speaking of some concepts about God "up there" (for lack of a better phrase), not of God not being able to incarnate in human form. The above quote, which is one of many, clearly indicates that he has claimed to be the Lord incarnate. Just this year in India he said "If lord Krsn had appeared to the giant gathered armies at the battlefield as he did to Arjuna in his true form, the battle would have been over very quickly, but He did not, the lord comes to each individually." 69.251.176.184 01:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a saying in WP that says: Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Got your message on my talk page.
Concerning the article, I'd love to help out. However, this is not something I'm familiar with. Also, the article seems to be out of stubhood and going quite strong, despite the debates. Could you specify what exact part/section of the article you'd like me to help with? Or is there some point you are trying to convey but not being able to get across? Waiting for your reply. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 11:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to use "vandalism" on an edit summary, unless it is obvious vandalism, Momento. Simply revert and explain why in talk. That user is a newbie and does not understand how WP works, despite his claims to the contrary, in addition to having a huge ax to grind given the embarrassing situation he put himself into when he missapropriated data and got dinged. So, we need to be patience and not allow him to disrupt the editing process. Best would be if he engages constructively, although I doubt that it will be that easy... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, for your information, there is an RFA Evidence Page involving Andries. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the following information from the article [2] witht the edit summary "Removed original research"[3]" This information is cited so it strikes me as not original research. I may miss something, but your edit summary strikes me as erroneous at best

A 1998 article in Rocky Mountain News referred to Elan Vital as a "cult"<ref>"Former Guru on a Different Mission", ''[[Rocky Mountain News]]'', [[January 30]], [[1998]].<br>Nowadays, former cult members estimate Maharaji (he's dropped the Guru from his name and simplified the spelling) has 100000 to 200000 followers...</ref>.

In case I am wrong, please explain. In case I am right I urgently request you to be more careful with your edit summaries. Andries 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the former cult members estimate Maharaji's following doesn't imply criticism. To insert this in the criticism suggests that the editor believes it is criticism without any supporting evidence.Momento 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The label cult can be interpreted as criticism. Andries 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on its context and since the context is estimating followers there is no reason to see it as critical.Momento 22:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress.

1) Wiki BLP policy is that "editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources". So is Mishler a reliable source, failing any one of the following criteria is enough to fail Wiki's standards.

Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view. - Mishler is clearly biased.

Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification.- Mishler is only quoted in 2 newspapers, neither paper corroborates his claims.

Corroboration—The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.-No other source corrborates Mishler.

Recognition by other reliable sources—A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. Sources which have been attacked, or have rarely or never been cited, may be more suspect.Melton mentions other Mishler claims but not these".

Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.- Mishler's claims are 30 years old

Persistence— If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should be treated with caution.Mishler has been dead for 25 years

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources "Wiki policy is that exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to biographies of living people", Are Mishler's claims exceptional? They are according to Wiki policy. Exceptional claims are -

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known - Mishler is the only one to claim Prem Rawat "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". Suprising since PR promotes a method for achieving inner peace.

Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. Mishler's claim that he left the group after trying to get the Maharaj Ji to tell his followers plainly that he was not God, is "out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest that PR had previously defended". See the numerous Wikiquotes where PR says that "a human being cannot be God".

NPOV - Undue weight = a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

Your recent edits to Prem Rawat aren't corrections of errors on my part. You seem to be trying to truncate or contextualize the information for the reader. The more recent edit appears to be satisfactory, but the initial one clearly puts the author's words in the wrong context (as he wasn't speaking of other sant mats, but of Rawat and his lineage). Please be mindful that changing words in this way can easily change the meaning of a sentence to the point that what you're saying is wrong, as was the case with the previous set of edits you made to that passage which I corrected. Cheers. Mael-Num 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay tuned folks. Mael-Num is wrong and is probably realising it just about now.Momento 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm realizing something, but I don't think it's what you think it is. Mael-Num 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the root of realisation is "real", excellent.Momento 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct here appears to be a personal attack. Please review what Wikipedia says on this subject here. I'm posting this on your talk page in the hopes that we can resolve this situation amicably and without the need for escalation to administrative intervention. Thank you. Mael-Num 09:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Maerl-Num's three months at Wiki M-N has been cautioned for incivility twice, cautioned for personal attacks once, blocked for violating 3RR and recently accused me of being a sock puppet and a meat puppet with zero evidence. Momento 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

<<unblock|First and ultimate point I am not a sock puppet and ever since I created the Momento account I have never edited Wiki as anyone else. Therefore Betacommand is wrong. Second, I am a consistent editor of Prem Rawat articles and constantly involved in discussions on the talk pages. Two of the most consistant editors Jossi and Andries both rejected the sock puppet argument presented by Mael-Num. No other editor supported Mael-Num. Third, my accuser has been editing Wiki for just three months and has been cautioned for incivility twice, cautioned for personal attacks once, blocked for violating 3RR.Fourth, the only "evidence" presented is that I and VictorO edited a Prem Rawat article on the same day. A closer look will show that on one occassion we were editing different bits at exactly the same time - Here's VictorO editing Prem Rawat at 21:57, 20 January 2007 and Momento is editing Talk:Prem Rawat at 21:57, 20 January 2007. Fifth, VictorO was blocked from 22:21, 20 January 2007 by Sandstein until 10:22, 21 January 2007. During that period I made nearly 20 edits.This action by Betacommand is a joke and he has been criticised for incorrect blocking by others.>>

Reviewing admin: I support the unblock. I cannot unblock him myself as I am involved in editing that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs for Momento's evidence above (sent by Momento to me via email):

• VictorO: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

• Momento: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of Momento lifted or expired. Request handled by: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The autoblock was removed by me after user was unblocked by User:Betacommand on 17:02, February 26, 2007 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Hi - there is no point adding a comment to this page, it is an archive, a historical record - people will revert or remove additional comments to that page. --Fredrick day 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Editing Prem Rawat/lead. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Editing Prem Rawat/lead. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Lelkesa 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please agree with formal mediation and sign your agreement with it there Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat Thanks. Andries 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I now included Vassyanana and Rumiton in the mediation and informed both of them. Please re-consider your rejection of mediation. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat Thanks. Andries 09:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I understand the discussion over at Talk:Prem Rawat can get heated and frustrating. However, please try to refrain from snarky comments like this. They only serve to bait people who are already hot under the collar. Please try to keep a polite tone, even when you feel flabbergasted or offended. Thank you for all your effort on the article. I look forward to your further contributions. Be well!! Vassyana 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, it seems that you try to hurt my credibility by writing that I post on the ex-premie forum. Where else on the internet is there open and frank discussion of Prem Rawat? I was unable to find it, except on the ex-premie forum. Andries 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you choose to write on an anti-Rawat is as relevant as Jossi having a potential COI.Momento 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I write on a more neutral forum? Andries 21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where a "more neutral forum" is. I have no interest in discussing Rawat on an internet forum of any sort.Momento 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made three reverts at Prem Rawat. Please avoid violating the rules. Vassyana 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert three times. In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article. I made an edit to a long standing section based on "exceptional claims" and "BLP" which Andries immediately reverted to a previous version. Andries made another edit which I allowed and after discussion in the talk page I again removed only the material that I believe contravenes "exceptional claims" and "BLP". Andries reverted a second time and added some more material which I again allowed stand. I then checked and translated the original source material and found evidence that Andries had deleted crucial material from the quote and after discussing in tallk, I removed only the material that I believe contravenes "exceptional claims" and "BLP", Andries reverted for a third time. But thanks for your intervention anyway.Momento 02:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of your recent edit summaries have been off-key and potentially inflammatory.[4] Please try to stay cool and civil. Comments, and especially edit summaries, like that are not at all helpful to the edit history or editing climate. Thanks. Vassyana 10:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot have me banned so easily, so I request that you re-consider your disagreement not to have mediation. You can try to get me banned by making a request to the wikipedia:arbitration committee, but your behavior will then be scrutinized by them too. Andries 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Can you please sign the agreement to mediation there Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2? Thanks in advance. Andries 15:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2. Andries 16:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 2. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hello, I'm taking this mediation case. Please provide me with an e-mail address for yourself I can use, if that is okay. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign to agree with mediation here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. Andries 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Many newspapers use terms like "accused" and "alleged", while reporting a story.
2. It is quite possible that the emails were called "secret" upon reliable information from a confidential source known only to the Evening Standard, who did not want to be revealed for fear of retribution. Also common in journalism.
3. Again, other statements in the article are most likely backed up to confidential sources that were afraid to speak publicly on the record.

But in any event, I have said from the outset that these are all points better addressed by other regular contributors to WP:RSN, and not by regular posters to the talk page Talk:Prem Rawat and the Prem Rawat associated articles - who would most understandably have a colored opinion about the use of a source which speaks negatively of that individual. You say that my posting to that noticeboard was "attempt to circumvent Wiki policy and guidelines." -- However I have not edited the Prem Rawat article to put that information into the article or into any other related article, I have instead waited for feedback from the noticeboard, which exists specifically to give feedback on usage of sources like this. I fail to see how you could come to the opinion that this is in any way, shape or form an "attempt to circumvent Wiki policy and guidelines." Now, I'd like us both to wait for a response at WP:RSN from someone who does not regularly post to Talk:Prem Rawat or edit the Prem Rawat article regularly. Thanks. Cirt 09:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

1. You forget to mention that the evening standard is a tabloid and tabloids are not considered reliable sources for articles, and particularly BLPs
2. You are assuming too much in your repetition of "secret:, "fear of retribution" and other such colored opinions
3. You are indeed subverting process and bypassing, by assuming bad faith, discussing editor's opinions, and making these public
4. You have done that in the past, and you should know better by now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. How am I assuming anything? Aren't you and Momento also assuming about just how this source obtained its information, as well?
2. What have I done that discussed any editor's opinions? I think it is most appropriate to ask for a neutral point of view from a noticeboard that is specifically constructed for that purpose. If I wanted input from regular, heavy posters to Talk:Prem Rawat, I would have asked at that talk page for opinions on the source. I didn't. I asked at WP:RSN, which is the specific place to do just that. That is not a "subversion" of anything, it is specifically what the page is designed for, to ask questions about usage of sources. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You do not have to respond, if you feel that I need further clarification on something regarding this, please politely contact a third-party administrator who is more neutral in this manner, and ask them to talk to me about something. Otherwise, we're done here. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to know why the opening paragraph of the Divine Light Mission fails to mention what it was. Can you think of a suitable noun to describe it, or is the idea of describing what it was somehow anathema to some people, on the basis that it is better not to know? I understand that some people are very much against people knowing about cults in order to protect those people from such. Nevertheless, it might be useful to describe what the Divine Light Mission was, for those with an academic interest, at least. Matt Stan (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DLM covers a very wide spectrum. It started as as a vehicle to help spread Shri Maharaj Ji's message in India, it became a religion in the US, a charity in England, an association else where. It has been described as a New Religious Movement, as a New Age cult,a s an off shoot of Sant Mat, as a Hindu off shoot etc. Ours is not to choose a description but to provide what scholars say and let the reader make up their own mind.Momento (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you haven't actually answered my point, which is that the introductory paragraph of the article doesn't yet say:

• It started as as a vehicle to help spread Shri Maharaj Ji's message in India
• it became a religion in the US
• a charity in England
• an association else where
• It has been described as a New Religious Movement
• as a New Age cult
• as an offshoot of Sant Mat
• as a Hindu offshoot

Someone had indicated in the article that it was, as you say, a cult, but you removed that edit with a pejorative comment and left no description at all. Is your assertion that "Ours is not to choose a description" an edict of Mr Ji himself? It is usual in wikipedia that one does choose a description for each entity described. That is what the encyclopedia is for. Also it would be interesting to know whether there are in fact any disinterested scholars who have performed academic analysis and with sufficient credentials for them to be cited in support of any description. Or is the mention of scholars itself an unverifiable assertion? Otherwise, why not just include what Divine Light describes itself as, or does it not provide any description? If I said an apple was a fruit, would you require me to provide academic references to verify that fact? I think not. If someone puts that the Divine Light Mission is a cult, given that it is so many things in different countries, presumably for financial reasons, then is that not a sufficiently succinct description? 84.9.48.35 (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No.Momento (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Melton mentions it in his encyclopedia of cults, so that is a reputable source, I has also been described as an NRM in reputable sources and a sect. All this should go in. Andries (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you spent a minute reading the article you would see the views of Aagaard, Barker. Chryssides, Derks, Downton, Galanter, Haan, Hummel, Hunt, Kranenborg, Lee, Lippy, McGuire, Melton and Messer are all included and references to sources given. You will also note that most scholars refer to DLM either by name or as a "movement" in their writings.Momento (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? Movement is not the only label for the DLM given by scholars. Andries (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That is really disingenuous... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sory, I so not understand your comment. Andries (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this conversation else where.Momento (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento loves Prem Rawat so so much that he cannot bear to have anything critical of him said anywhere, for numerous obvious reasons, though his love for mankind may be more quesionable. Why not, for instance, allow people to hear a balancing view? Surely Momento would demonstrate his love for mankind better if he allowed people with grievances against the money-collecting organisations of Mr Ji to be heard, just in case there was something in what those people had to say, and so that others could take a more objective view! Latest news from the horse's mouth, so to speak, is that recruitment of new premies is not going according to the Lord of the Universe's business plan, but donations from existing disciples are well up, so there's not too much to get worried about at the moment. 147.114.226.175 (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adverse to criticism, it's like bugs on your windscreen. You're a bit late for this conversation.Momento (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is criticising you, Momento, but you deleted some criticism of Mr Rawat, as you said in the edit summary, for obvious reasons. Obviously it is your love for Mr Rawat that overrides any judgment that you might have about allowing criticism of him to be known. You are a survivor. Maybe not everyone else is. Incidentlly, is it true that if you were to seek an audience with the Guru on order to get advice on how best to keep a lid on things then a ticket for such an audience would cost you $500? 147.114.226.175 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to follow your analogy: if wikipedia is the windscreen and you are not averse to criticism (but you nevertheless remove it), perhaps you are the bug? 147.114.226.175 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the following from the Prem Rawat article and stated "Reverting ex-premie attack." This is not adequate explanation and as such I have now reverted.

"His religious movement is widely recognized as a cult or former cult - by independent academics and the mainstream media as well as ex-Rawat-followers." This is from today's article found in The Register: The Cult of Wikipedia.

You may disagree with what is said about this topic but to delete anything that you find objectionable is not acceptable. Wiki is not a personal encyclopedia but is instead intended to represent a general world-view of knowledge. It is recommended that you not participate in articles in which you may have difficulty maintaining a NPOV. Regards.

• As you referred to me as an "ex-premie" I googled the term and found this site: [Prem Rawat's former followers present Ex-Premie.Org, the truth about Prem Rawat, a.k.a. Maharaji, The Prem Rawat Foundation, and Elan Vital] As I've never been involved with this organization your reference is inaccurate. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.132.123 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Your continued reverts without responding to my comments is puzzling, especially as you note "Reverting undiscussed edit" in your most recent revert of my contribution. It's difficult to ascertain your intention if you do not respond to my inquiries. As mentioned previously it is recommended that you not participate in articles in which you may have difficulty maintaining a NPOV. Regards.
• I completely agree with you. I think momento was right to consider theregister a poor reference, so he correctly removed it. But each of the references in the section he is removing seems very strong. Does anyone disagree? It can not be considered appropriate to remove that content without giving any indication of why *each* of the references is not valid as strong as it appears.217.33.236.2 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before making any substantial edits, discuss on the Prem Rawat talk page. Thanks.Momento (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... of WP:3RR. There is no need to engage in edit wars with anon editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm either reverting vandalism or violations of BLP. Please protect the PR article from undiscussed and improper edits from anon editors.Momento (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. That could help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was explicitly designed to allow for anonymous contributions and editing. Those sections of Wiki that need protection from anon editors are protected. Please do not diminish the value of anonymous editors merely because you disagree with their input. User_talk:Jossi's admonition is nearly correct but should read: "There is no need to engage in edit wars." Additionally, my attempt to warn you of WP:3RR was deleted by you as "vandalism." 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you are also edit warring and violating WP:3RR. My I also suggest that you seem to know too much about Wikipedia, to assume that you are a new editor? See WP:SOCK for more information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I implied that I am a new editor. That is not the case as you will see if you look at my history. Your reference to WP:SOCK is unclear - is your implication that I am a sockpuppet? That is inaccurate and unwarranted. WP:NPA 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your history, and 10 edits was way too little to assume that you have not edited before or currently edit under another username. If that is not the case, my sincere apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted.24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as you likely realize most IP addresses are refreshed and released to other users. Not every edit listed is mine (but the majority are) and I've edited many other times but apparently with a different IP address. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article has been semi-protected. You are welcome to register and create a new account if you don't have one. Editing as a registered user has many benefits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feed the wildlife.[5] I would recommend self-reverting the comment. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop inserting negative material to placate the wildlife.Momento (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with what I added? It's all well-sourced and it's not all negative material. My aim remains the same as it ever was regarding Prem Rawat's article ... that it be well-sourced and comprehensive. Considering my past involvement, I would have hoped you'd have better faith in me. Vassyana (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I operate on a day to day basis. And you are no longer the independent, neutral editor I admired. You are now editing with the sole aim of putting negative material in. As Melton says in Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145) "Ex members attacked the group with standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control." Your inclusion is a cheap shot that could be inserted about any minority philosophy. It is unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. You should revert it.Momento (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the same person with the same view of the article that I had previously. I'm not making any cheap shots. Even though the information is negative, it is well-sourced. NPOV demands that all significant views be given an appropriate amount of space. Regardless of personal opinions, a number of clearly reliable sources discuss some negative claims about Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital. Such claims should be proportionately represented in the article. I understand it can be a touchy subject, but please take a breath and don't take it personally. Vassyana (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd check your reference. My version of J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145 says

D. DIVINE LIGHT MISSION

The arrival in the United States in 1971 of a 13 year old religious leader from India was met with some ridicule but, more importantly, an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults who were willing to seriously examine his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God. From that initial support, Guru Maharaj Ji was able to establish a flourishing American branch of the Divine Light Mission.

Founders and Early History The Divine Light mission was founded by Shri Hans Maharaj Ji (d. 1966), the father of Maharaj Ji. Early in life he encountered Sarupanand Ji, a guru of the Sant Mat tradition by whom he was initiated. Though Sarupanand Ji had told his disciples to follow Hans Maharaj Ji, after the guru’s death another disciple, Varaganand, claimed the succession and took control of the guru’s property. Hans Maharaj Ji began to spread the teaching independently in Sind and Lahore, and in 1930 he established an informal mission in Delhi. His following grew steadily. In 1950, shortly after Indian independence had been declared, he commissioned the first mahatmas, followers who had the ability to initiate and who devoted themselves full time to the work of propagating the teachings of Shri Hans Maharaj Ji. He also began a monthly magazine, Hansadesh. By 1960 followers could be found across northern India from Bombay to Calcutta, and the need to organize them more formally led to the founding of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad). just six years after the founding of the Mission, Shri Hans Maharaj Ji was succeeded by his youngest son, Prem Pat Singh Rawat (b. 1957), who was but eight when he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji had been recognized as spiritually adept, even within the circle of the Holy Family, as Shri Hans Maharaj Ji’s family was called. He had been initiated (i.e., given knowledge) at the age of six and soon afterward gave his first satsang (spiritual discourse). After his father’s death he heard a voice commissioning him as the one to take the knowledge to the world. He assumed the role of Perfect Master at his father’s funeral by telling the disciples who had gathered, “Dear Children of God, why are you weeping? Haven’t you learned the lesson that your Master taught you? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you now. Recognize Him, obey Him and worship Him.” Though officially the autocratic leader of the Mission, because of Maharaj Ji’s age, authority was shared by the whole family. During the 1960s Americans in India searching for spiritual guidance discovered the Mission and a few became initiates (i.e., “premies,” or “lovers of God”). They invited Maharaj Ji to the United States. In 1970 Maharaj Ji announced his plans to carry the knowledge throughout the world and the following year, against his mother’s wishes, made his first visit to the West. A large crowd came to Colorado the next year to hear him give his first set of discourses in America. Many were initiated and became the core of the Mission in the United States. Headquarters were established in Denver, and by the end of 1973, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers as well as over twenty ashrams, which housed approximately 500 of the most dedicated premies, had emerged. The headquarters staff expanded to 125, and social service facilities, such as a medical clinic in New York City, were opened. Two periodicals, And It Is Divine, a magazine, and Divine Times, a tabloid, were begun. Enthusiasm ran high. After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity. The event failed; attendance was miniscule. The Mission was left with a $600,000 debt which required it to cut its staff and programs. Millennium 73 was but the first of a series of events which gradually led the Mission to withdraw from the public scene. It was staged just as the anti cult movement reached national proportions and turned its attention upon the Mission. Several deprogrammed ex members became vocal critics of the Mission. Through his Executive Secretary, Maharaj Ji announced that he was replacing the predominantly Indian image with a Western one. Among other changes, he began to wear business suits instead of his all white Indian attire. Many of the ashrams were discontinued. To the problems caused by the debt and the attack of anticultists were added internal problems within Maharaj Ji’s family. In December 1973, when Maharaj Ji turned 16, he took administrative control of the Mission’s separate American corporation. Then in May 1974, he married his 24 year old secretary, Marolyn Johnson, and declared her to be the incarnation of the goddess Dulga usually pictured with ten arms and astride a tiger. Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved. Mataji, Maharaj Ji’s mother, disapproved of the marriage and the life style of the now successful guru. Relations within the Holy Family were strained considerably. Accusing her son of breaking his spiritual disciplines, Mataji took control of the Mission in India and replaced him with his eldest brother. In 1975 Maharaj Ji returned to India and took his family to court. In a court decreed settlement, he received control of the movement everywhere except in India, where his brother was recognized as its head. Publicity about the marriage and the subsequent family quarrels caused many Western followers to leave the Mission, though a large membership remained. By the late 1970s the Mission in the United States had almost disappeared from public view. Maharaj Ji continues to travel the globe speaking to premies, and the Mission, while growing little in the United States, has expanded significantly in Southern Asia, the South Pacific and South America.

Beliefs and Practices The Divine Light Mission is derived from Sant Mat (literally, the way of the saints), a variation of the Sikh religion which draws significant elements from Hinduism. It is based upon a succession of spiritual masters generally believed to begin with Tulsi Sahib, an early nineteenth century guru who lived at Hathrash, Uttar Pradesh. It is believed that the person mentioned as Sarupanand Ji in Mission literature is in fact Sawan Singh, a prominent Sant Mat guru. In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration. The Mission has as one of its stated goals the instruction of the world in “the technique of utilizing the universal primordial Force, that is, the Holy Name (Word) which is the same as the Divine Light and which pervades all human beings thus bringing to the fore the eternal principle of unity in diversity.” In the Sant Mat tradition this practice is called surat shabd yoga, the practice of uniting the human spirit with the universal divine sound current. The particular methods of accomplishing that union vary from group to group and are one reason for their separation. Within the Divine Light Mission, initiation into the yoga is by a process known as giving knowledge. Though premies were instructed not to talk about their initiation outside of the Mission, details of the process were soon revealed by ex members. At initiation, a mahatma, the personal representative of Maharaj Ji, introduces new members to four yogic techniques, all of which are quite common within Sant Mat circles, although equally unknown to the average person, even to the average Indian. These four techniques reveal the means of experiencing the divine light, sound, word, and nectar. To experience the divine light, one places the knuckles on the eyeballs, a process which produces flashes of light inside the head (and also pinches the optic nerve). To discover the divine sound or music of the spheres, one plugs the ears with the fingers and concentrates only on internal sounds. The third technique involves concentration upon the sound of one’s own breathing. Finally, to taste the nectar, the tongue is curled backward against the roof of the mouth and left there for a period of time. Once learned, these techniques are practiced daily. Frequently, meditation is done under a blanket, both to block outside disturbances and to conceal the techniques. Unlike many Sant Mat groups, the Divine Light Mission has had a social program from its beginning. Shri Hans Maharaj Ji called for a balance between temporal and spiritual concerns, and the Mission's stated goals include the promotion of human unity, world peace, improved education for all (especially the poor), and relief from the distress caused by ill health and natural calamities. The Mission made provision for the establishment of hospitals, maternity homes, and residences. This emphasis upon social programs was transferred to the United States. Three holiday festivals which members are expected to attend are held annually. The Holi festival is in March or April. The Guru Puja (Maharaj Ji's birthday) is in July. Hans Jayanti (Hans Maharaj Ji's birthday) is in November. Current Status Since 1974, the Divine Light Mission has increasingly kept a low profile and at present is virtually invisible in the United States. In 1979 the Denver headquarters quietly closed, and both it and Maharaj Ji moved to Miami Beach, Florida. From there, two periodicals are currently published, Divine Times and Elan Vital. In 1980, the Mission reported 10,000 to 12,000 active members in the United States. The Mission is headed by Maharaj Ji, its Spiritual Leader and the Board of Directors which supervises the 23 branches. Ministers (mahatmas) lead the Mission centers around the world. Many of them travel from center to center to give initiation and satsang (spiritual discourses). Members are required to participate in meditation daily and attend satsang each evening. Controversy During the first years of the Divine Light Mission in the United States, both it and Maharaj Ji were constantly involved in controversy. The teachings of the Mission, particularly the public discourses of Maharaj Ji, were condemned as lacking in substance. Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader. At one point, a pie was thrown in his face (which led angry followers to assault the perpetrator). Ex members attacked the group with standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control. However, as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except for the accusations of Robert Mishner the former president of the Mission, who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission.Momento (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be better smaller, but it isn't appropriate for an editor to delet 20k of material and just say "Better". The editor who re-added the info has been discussing the changes and that's the right way to proceed. Get a consensus of editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history you will see this article has been stable at 53 since May 2007 as a result of GA reviews and independent editorial advice. Francis added 30 kilobytes of material at 16:52 today without discussing it until 20:13.Momento (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, he's discussing it which is the right way to proceed. While the article may have been stable for a time, questions about its neutrality have been raised so it may have to be substantially edited in order to become stable in a modified form. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stable because you reverted nearly all my edits. Andries (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Prem Rawat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> -->

You've removed an image from the Prem Rawat article several times now within less than 24 H: [6] [7] [8] [9]

In the same time period you removed some additional external links several times too: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

I'm not dealing with whether or not these are useful/appropriate images/links (I gave the person continuing to insert them a similar 3RR warning), but please cut the edit warring. The related discussion is ongoing on the related talk page. Please work towards consensus there, or follow other steps in dispute resolution if you think that necessary. Working towards consensus can't get you blocked. 3RR can. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Please see WP:ANI/3RR. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three-revert rule does not apply to editors who remove contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).Momento (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, you are correct. To your second and third, you are incorrect, and your disruptive revert warring and edit warring did not apply to your first point. You have been warned numerous times in the past. Apparently you did not heed those warnings, from multiple different editors. In order for neutral parties such as Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) and others to be able to continue to work constructively on the article to add balance, the disruption, reverting, edit-warring from individuals such as yourself needs to stop. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what others think. In the mean time I'll continue to edit in good faith. Good bye.Momento (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Talk:Prem_Rawat#Kissing_Prem_Rawat.27s_feet and weigh in there. Lawrence § t/e 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware you are far over your 3rr limitation. I don't know if you're trying to get in as much as possible in case you get blocked. You need to stop immediately. Lawrence § t/e 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be consistent Lawrence. You said "That's a house keeping task then, to move it to a different section." and so I moved the cite to the appropriate section. Now you're complaining about it and have put a quote about Rawat in the US back into the section of Rawat in India. My head's spinning.Momento (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, you seem to be reverting a lot and you're risking being blocked for 3RR. The policy states that any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, counts toward 3RR. It need not involve the same material each time. I advise you to take a break from this article and to read the the policy carefully. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruption and edit warring on Prem Rawat. Please be sure to discuss your changes on the article's talk page when the block expires. Nakon 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B, it's a pity you're not familiar with Wki's BLP policy. It states very clearly the 3RR does not apply "to reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons" and further "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines". In this case "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Contentious material in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used to support edits about living persons, either as sources or via external links. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Which perfectly described the links I removed. Momento (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin: 3rr report here. The 3rr violation included detailed repeatedly removing references to various Time Magazine articles, which were in no way, shape or form BLP violations. Lawrence § t/e 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it now ... using Image:Prem Rawat's Property.jpg is a pretty flagrant violation of the fair use policy for obvious reasons and removal of that image falls under the "reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies" section of WP:3RR#Exceptions. I'm looking for 3 reverts not counting that now. --B (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyright was not Momento's motivation. I admit that Momento's removal of external links that violate BLP is a good reason not to count some of his reverts. Andries (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other obvious instances of disruption, after the second 3RR notice was filed. See for example the warning above on this very talkpage by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). See the comment above by Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs). There is no reason to expect that the disruption will not continue the instant the user is unblocked. Cirt (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) WP:3RR doesn't specify motivation as being an issue. Removing a copyvio image is exempt from revert limitations even if the reason you remove it is because you don't like the color. As for the links, some are questionable, but (1) they aren't flagrantly BLP violating and (2) some legitimate links were removed along with the more questionable ones. I don't know a thing about the issue, though, and if someone else reaches a different conclusion than I do, I don't mind. (I haven't looked at any other conduct mentioned by Cirt - I only looked at the diffs given at the 3RR report so I have no opinion on any other edits.) --B (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:B, I strongly disagree that the motivation should play no role. If I blanked the article George W. Bush motivated by vandalism and at the same time also happen remove a copy right violation then I should still be blocked for vandalism. Andries (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption Cirt is you constantly inserting material that is in flagrant breach of BLP and other policies ie. the photo and the links. The three-revert rule does not apply to editors who remove contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research) And yes, as soon as I'm unblocked I will remove the photo and the links unless some other editor who has a regard for Wikipedia policy beats me to it.Momento (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Lawrence, I deleted the Time quote once because the claim "At the time" was obviously incorrect as the quote was used in the 60s section but wasn't written until 1972. And after Francis reinserted it, I relocated it to the 70s section where it belongs. So that's one delete and one relocate. Momento (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And B, the links I removed are clearly in violation of BLP, as per - "Third-party self-published sources are not allowed (that is, material self-published by anyone other than the subject or his organization), again because it's a BLP, so that would exclude any personal websites. They are not allowed as sources or as external links, per BLP. Momento (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hilarious that I can get blocked by policy breaking editors for trying to edit according to Wikipedia policy. But lo and behold, whilst confined to my bedroom, independent editors who understand Wiki policy are doing it for me. I'll never lose faith.Momento (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein. you might recall BLP policy says - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. As for the Time quote. I removed it once because the inserting editor falsely claimed that the article was written prior to Rawat coming to the West, and when it was re-inserted, I moved it to the correct 70s section. At least you tried to understand.Momento (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP revert exemption narrowly applies to removal of "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)" [16]. It does not apply to the full litany of potential BLP problems. For example, WP:BLP discusses the privacy of birthdays, but we obviously would not exempt removing birthdays from revert limitations. A questionable external link would not be "contentious material". If the link were obviously and unquestionably trash (eg, linking to a racist website in an article about Barack Obama or linking to a site that had at the top in big bold letters "GEORGE BUSH EATS BABIES"), ok, but on their surface, these links do not appear to be in and of themselves "contentious material". --B (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. They are not allowed as sources or as external links. But if you wonder about Bush eating babies how about "This a picture of Mahatma Jagdeo, who sexually abused and raped children while working for Maharaji. The webmaster of this site believes that Maharaji has known about this for many years and yet did nothing to bring him to justice, or to keep him away from children, or to warn parents. Read the webmaster's personal view here".Momento (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read it WHERE? momento? Did you forget to add your link? Wowest (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (oops. Did that in the wrong place) Wowest (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to work on this with me or should I just assume you are not going to rework the sentence and move on? Onefinalstep (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already worked with you on Hunt by pointing out what an appalling summary it was and that the info about supported by his followers is already covered more appropriately earlier in the article. And Hunt's note of criticism of leading a "sumptuous lifestyle" is adequately covered in the NPOV violating "Criticism" section. Momento (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Prem Rawat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> -->

You made this sentence of the lead section of the Prem Rawat article:

Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[11][12] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[13][14]

agree with your POV ("70s" - which was debunked at Talk:Prem Rawat#Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references - Schnabel is a 1982 book) 4 times in less than 16 H:

• 04:55, 13 February 2008
• 20:02, 13 February 2008
• 20:29, 13 February 2008
• 20:51, 13 February 2008

Plus your behaviour more and more resembles some sort of disruption or trolling: something is discussed on talk page, you can't win the argument, you do the revert again, and start a new talk page section on the same topic as the one you couldn't win the argument on the previous day, e.g.: 20:06, 13 February 2008, starting new thread on the photo that was already discussed at Talk:Prem Rawat#Third Photo Thread (to which you contributed the previous day, and couldn't win the argument), and yet again you start deleting that photograph, moving it around etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not reversions Francis. I relocated the sentence to reflect chronology.Momento (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, corrected above. And made an even better version at WP:AN3. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, Momento, please. It takes two to tango... I have requested page protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this case: three. Page protection is probably not the best solution here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ball is in both your courts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento did 5 reverts in less than 24H, continuing after the warning above. I didn't. My total sum of edits to that page in the last 24H is two.

The 5 reverts are now reported at WP:AN3.

Also, the talk page disruption I spoke about above was his, not mine.

You invite me to exert talk page discipline, I do.

And your defense of Momento comparing his behaviour with mine is less than exemplary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comparing you with Momento. I have asked several times that you and Momento try and find common ground by building consensus and compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for talk page discipline, you did not much when people were verbally abusing fellow editors, besides saying "Jossi thinks that your comment was a personal attack", when it was obvious what it was. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little technical glitch[edit]

Hi Momento, re [17], the first of your list of three diffs isn't working: there's a space missing between "...oldid=190923935" and "16:34,..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the same page you now wrote [User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] - shouldn't that be [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]]? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK I see you've given up on your first 3RR, so I've addressed the new one.Momento (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, please re-consider the way you are editing. It would be much more productive to pursue WP:DR via WP:RFC and other mechanisms, than to respond to a revert with another revert. That bhavior escalates quite rapidly resulting in editors getting dinged for 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for 3rr violation. Vsmith (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

onefinalstep's claim that Rawat "no longer denounced material possessions" Is 100% OR. The source that onefinalstep provides doesn't mention "denounced" in any shape or form. Hunt doesn't say Rawat "no longer denounced material possessions", Hunt says Rawat "does not personally eschew material possessions". The are almost opposite in meaning. onefinalstep has Rawat "denouncing" things whilst Hunt specifically stated that Rawat behavior was "personal", not in any way a public announcement, pronouncement or denouncement. Which editor, other the me, can see the difference between what Hunt says and what onefinalstep says. First one to follow the rules wine a praise.Momento (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Momento (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Vassyana but the"no longer" part of the sentence is also a complete fabrication.Momento (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vassyana, Hunt said "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers". Stick to that and you can't go wrong.Momento (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Momento, I made a proposal here: Talk:Prem Rawat#Here we go again - do you think it has merits? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP -

Articles about living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

No original research -

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Verifiability

We cannot check the accuracy of claims, but we can check whether the claims have been published by a reputable publication. Articles should therefore cite sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Reliable sources -

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

Questionable sources -

are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Conjectural interpretations

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

Momento (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Prem Rawat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> -->

You've removed "Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource" two times now in less than half a day. Just giving a warning in due time. I'm going to put that external link back (if nobody else has beaten me to it yet), which would also be my second revert in less than 24H, because there's no demonstration that this is in any sense or format a breach of Wikipedia content policy (as you claim). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use results of your forum shopping in an edit summary [18]

I already pointed you to WP:FORUMSHOP, part of a behavioural guideline.

There's a policy containing virtually the same wording: WP:PARENT (I just discovered, sorry, if I'd know I'd directed you there directly).

What you assume to be a policy breach has not been demonstrated. Your policy breaking is nonetheless demonstrable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of BLP policy don't you understand Francis?Momento (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:BLP very well, thank you. No infringement on WP:BLP has been demonstrated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping? Or a good faith attempt to ask uninvolved editors to weigh in in a dispute? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had just opened the discussion on this source at WP:BLPN. Within a few hours, not ready to wait for the outcome of that discussion, you had started the WP:ANI thread on the same topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your frequent posting on my talk page to be harassment. Stop it.Momento (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, you have repeatedly deleted sourced material from Wikipedia articles, despite numerous warnings and requests to stop. If you continue I will ask for limits on your editing. Please respect this project and its policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean BLP policies? If so, look under "poorly sourced, contentious and irrelevant gossip given undue weight". Momento (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material in question is not poorly sourced, contentious, or irrelevant, and it certainly isn't gossip. Your answer to this request isn't helpful. I suggest you take a break from editing the Prem Rawat-related articles in order to regain perspective. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We will see Will BeBack.Momento (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really should be a little more civil in your discussions on the Prem Rawat page. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion 1rr, and DR via AN and ANI, and discussion, have failed. Take it to RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add text to other people's section. Only the clerk can do that. Please move your comments to your own section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your rebuttal post that Jossi refers to above, is it also just as true that you have been a follower of Rawat for 30 years, as claimed, and that despite that, you feel you have no COI on this subject? Maelefique (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I want a "neutral, reliably sourced" article.Momento (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts - The Register 6th Feb.Momento (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of items to my evidence in the Prem Rawat arbitration and wanted to make sure you knew about them and had full opportunity to respond. I added some WikiDashboard statistics in the section on ownership, and more examples of Jossi defending you in dispute resolution in the Mixing Roles section. Msalt (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Test 5/4 13:37[reply]

Talk:Criticism of Jimbo Wales]]== Per your comments at Talk:Criticism of Jimbo Wales, the article was deleted not because I objected to the subject matter, but rather because it contained no content of any value at all. Why not add to the article on Jimbo Wales rather than expand into a new article? -- Longhair\^talk 08:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just begun adding material. It will be a comprehensive criticism of Jimbo with numerous sources and deleting it within minutes is censorship.Momento (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not censorship when the material you are adding is already sufficiently covered in the main article on Jimbo himself. -- Longhair\^talk 09:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new article will far more comprehensive than the current one and will focus entirely on criticism.Momento (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Momento, I know we have long been at loggerheads over the Rawat article but please don't let that make you think I don't harbour a friendly concern for your well-being. We are after all 'bonded' through adversity. So I just want to tell you that I am a little concerned that your adventure here is just a weeny bit indicative of you er...losing the plot. :-) What exactly is the point of this demonstration? Why don't you just come out with it and explain whatever your beef is or whatever injustice you feel is being done? Instead of launching into this oblique, unexplained new adventure of yours.... What's your problem man?PatW (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice on the talk page - you say that several people have criticism articles? who are you referring to? --87.114.159.98 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are three living people with "criticisms of..." articles. 2 redirect to "criticism of.." articles and one to the subject's article. There are 9 living people with "criticism of.." articles, 5 of the 9 are politicians, the other 4 are Cindy Sheehan (her article is titled "Criticism and support of..), Naom Chomsky, Sylvia Browne (psychic and medium) and Bill O'Reilly (reporter)Momento (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can having an article "Criticism of Jimbo Wales" be a disruption if "Criticism of Prem Rawat" is not?Momento (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales has been subject of considerable criticism by former employees and the media, but editors have made the editorial decision to incorporate that criticism into the main article about him, for a better NPOV presentation of the subject. In any article, and in particular in BLPs, any criticism should not overwhelm the article, as per Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight, and Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if it's good enough for Jimmy, why does Will want a "Criticism of..." article for Rawat. What justification is there for this contradiction?Momento (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, have you had a chance to read the guideline yet? It's apparent that you are trying to make a point, and that you are being disruptive by doing so. There is an active ArbCom case covering your behavior, among others. This incident appears to be worth mentioning in that case. Editors have been rebuked before for similar disruptions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point Will? I suggest Jimbo should have a "Criticism of..." article and it's a "disruption". And you suggest Rawat has a "Criticism of..." article and it's "not a disruption". The guideline says " disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the "proof". I haven't done that.Momento (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've shown no previous interest in the article on Jimmy Wales, or even about criticism of him, it's obvious that this is just in response to the article Criticism of Prem Rawat. It's also obvious that you haven't read WP:POINT and don't understand it. If Jossi chooses to endorse your disruption then that's not helpful either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't caused a disruption and you repeating it without evidence is a "personal attack". I presume my interest in Jimbo is the same as yours in Rawat, my attention has been drawn to his article by The Register.Momento (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#WP:POINT violation by Momento, in case you wish to respond there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your explanation to be hard to believe. If I recall correctly, you've made statements in the past that you think having a "criticism of..." article is inappropriate. Am I mistaken? Have you changed your mind? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always rejected "Criticism of..." articles as a means get around BLP [19].Momento (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you create one of them twice? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create it twice. Check my contributions. Longhair and Jossi objected to it so I immediately stopped.Momento (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did create it twice.[20][21] The first version was speedily deleted (which is why it doesn't show up in your edit history. You've written that I've made a false claim about this. The facts say otherwise. Please correct the record. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what 20 links to. And I can't see how my edit history and the article edit history can both be wrong. I created the article at 8:508:47, contested the speedy deletion at 8.50 and added source at 8:52 and it was gone by 8:56.Momento (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see it because seeing deleted edits requires having the administrative bit set in your user account. That's why your revision history doesn't show it either, etc. You created it at 8:47 and again at 8:50, perhaps unaware of the fact that it had been deleted in between. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 8:50 is objecting to the speedy deletion. If that's a re-creation, software did it, I didn't do it.Momento (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you may not have noticed that you were recreating a deleted article since it happened so fast. Nonetheless, you did so with the sole purpose (so far as I can tell) of making a point. Not content to leave it there, you went on to argue in favor of having the "Criticisms of Jimbo Wales" article. If I were the admin involved I'd think my time had been wasted due to intentional disruption. Please don't do it again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, you are engaged in edit-warring on the Divine Light Mission page. Reverting a revert is edit-warring, pure and simple. Please self-revert and cease this behavior. Let me remind you of the words of Jossi, earlier on this user: Talk page: "Momento, please re-consider the way you are editing. It would be much more productive to pursue WP:DR via WP:RFC and other mechanisms, than to respond to a revert with another revert. That behavior escalates quite rapidly resulting in editors getting dinged for 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)"

As you will recall, you were blocked for edit-warring shortly after that warning. And of course, the article is now under 1RR probation, so this behavior escalates that much more rapidly. Msalt (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat is not the Arbitration page. Comments about other editors are out of place there. Please stop making negative personal remarks and assuming bad faith. The article is on probation and I will file a complaint if you don't stop with your incivility and tendentious editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here is Will Beback's version of civility - "Ample evidence has been provided about this editor's problems." "Momento, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard. So ridiculous that it qualifies as tendentious editing.". "Momento's argument is just plain ridiculous. [22].Momento (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... for the Barnstar, Momento. Best wishes, Jayen466 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Criticism of Jimbo Wales, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission has become active. Your participation is required to make it a success. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your deleting the entire criticism section of Prem Rawat twice[23][24] without consensus, and on your previous editing behavior which includes tendentious behavior and POV pushing, I believe that you should be banned from editing the article per the ArbCom's probation. I invite you to undo your edit and work towards consensus with other editors to achieve neutral and balanced articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Momento edit-warring over criticism section at Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delet "the entire criticism section". Once the redundant Mishler and Kent material is removed and the Schabel paragraph removed to the "Teachings" article where it belongs, the "Criticism" section is empty. And, of course, it violates NPOV.Momento (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mishler and Kent material wasn't redundant because it's not included anywhere else - it's referred to without explanation. After editing this topic for two years now you should realize that NPOV cannot be achieved by deleting all criticism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out the article already says "In the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics of Rawat's movement, including Robert Mishler, the former president of DLM.[59][60] A number of these critics made the standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control.[61][62]" and "Some journalists and scholars have described Rawat's teachings as lacking in intellectual content." Anymore from them in a different section is redundant and undue weight. And, by the way, why didn't you report Francis when he wrote I was telling lies and reinserted the following errors -

1. Lipner doesn't refer to "dogma" or " direct inner experience' but to "ritual" and "true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart" as I corrected

2. Galanter source refers to premies giving satsang not Rawat which I corrected.

3. Naming Van der lans and Derks is undue weight, which I corrected.

4. Inserted material than has been tagged "citation needed" for more than a month, which I corrected.Momento (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 72hours for disruption at Prem Rewat. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Momento_edit-warring_over_criticism_section_at_Prem_Rawat. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the top of the Arbcom page "Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page". Francis didn't notify me and you have blocked me with 2 hours of his complaint. Francis has "Gamed the system". I had no time to reply and you "should still Assume Good Faith. ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals". Please undo this block.Momento (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't notice he did not notify you. It looked solid to me, though I will admit I was a bit hasty. I'll ping Francis. As for your situation, please comment here as I'm more than willing to discuss it. I'll be back on in about 8 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honest reply. I'm not the complaining type, a few days ago Francis called me a liar and two days ago I had to deal with the following but I never thought to make a complaint. I wrote this on the PR talk page after Francis reverted an hour's worth of careful editing -

I cleaned up the Teaching section and corrected several errors but it was immediately reverted by Francis [8].

Here are the errors he re-inserted -

1. Lipner doesn't refer to "dogma" or " direct inner experience' but to "ritual" and "true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart" as I corrected

2. Galanter source refers to premies giving satsang not Rawat which I corrected.

3. Naming Van der lans and Derks is undue weight, which I corrected.

4. Inserted material than has been tagged "citation needed" for more than a month, which I corrected.'' Momento (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been happy to deal with Francis on the talk page but it seems that isn't enough for him.

As for WillBeBack's input, I'd advise you to check the facts for yourself. Here's a recent example of how Will reports on my actions. He recently wrote to another editor -

Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available. If a highly reliable source says that someone was drunk then it is not a BLP violation to discuss that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But look at how many times I've denied that claim just a few days before.

Momento, Are you asserting that Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article, more reliable than newspapers or scholarly accounts? If so there's lots of material from that book that I'd like to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No.Momento (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No what? Is Collier a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis, and other personal observations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me a question. The answer is "No". Yes, Collier is a reliable source, providing normal Wiki policies are followed.Momento (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you agree that Collier is not more reliable than newspapers why did you assert that previously? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me if Collier is " the most reliable source we can use for this article". And the answer is still "No". As for whether Collier is more reliable than "newspapers", that obviously depends on the particular material in question and the newspaper concerned.12 MayMomento

As you can see, Will isn't a "reliable source".Momento (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento's narrative doesn't include him replacing the newspaper account with the cccount in Collier's memoir because, in his edit summary, "eyewitness [Collier] trumps all".[25] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will's narrative doesn't include that I was paraphrasing his edit summary "AP trumps 2nd hand quote in memoir.)"Momento (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Momento that I would request enforcement at [[#Warning] above. Francis went ahead and made the request and I promptly notified him under the same heading. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may work very well with Francis but it is Francis who is obliged to inform me.Momento (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't working "with" Francis. I simply noticed that you had't been notified and did so myself. It doesn't matter who alerted you. If you look at the my posting to the complaint you'll see I explcitly requested that no action be taken until all of the evidence was added. The blocking admin apparently felt there was enough evidence already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've unblocked you. I strongly suggest some sort of WP:DR, such as mediation, on this and related issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've relisted this AE case so more evidence and input can be obtained. There's obviously more going on