User talk:Cult free world

HELLO

May you be granted 20 times of that what you have wished for me !

Last thing that we should expect is forgiveness.

Positive POV on Sahaja Yoga

Hi CFW, you seem to have archived your answer to my question before I could read it. But I looked at the history. You ask me to "GUESSSSS". Hmmm... the hissing of a snake, or is that the sizzling of your temper? My guess is that you have absolutely no exposure to the movement and have never made an honest attempt to learn anything about it except by doing searches on the Internet. Your posts reflect this anyway. Freelion (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, keep gusssing, Seek and Thou Shalt Find!! --talk-to-me!! (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to use your vibes for confirmation :-) --Simon D M (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross Intro

Greetings, CFW, and thanks for revisiting your edits to the intro over at Rick Ross (consultant) (and for encouraging focus on content rather than contributors). Given your relatively short edit history, I am assuming you are new to Wikipedia, and want to honor you for stepping up and being bold. There is a general concern about WP:NPOV around a variety of "cult-related" subjects on Wikipedia, and I sometimes find it helpful before jumping into controversial articles to review the article history, such as by checking older versions:

The phrase "de-progammer" (like "cult") is a problematic one, which is why such paragraphs as the following have existed in the past.

He has been referred to in the media as a "cult deprogrammer" (Ortega, 1996), a "veteran cult watcher" (Padgett, 2003), a "self-styled cult buster" (Grove, 2004), as an "internationally known expert regarding destructive cults" (Bond, 2005), a "cult expert" (Cohen, 2005), and an ' alleged cult "expert" ' (Lewis 2003), and has been interviewed and quoted by the media in the United States and other countries in relation to his interest in cults.

Each of these labels has a slightly different rhetorical and emotional weight, which is why I prefer to keep things as unadorned as possible. One can objectively be considered an expert witness by one or more specific courts, but general terms such as "cult expert" are much more subjective, which is why I prefer to focus on unadorned descriptions and/or specific references. Does that make sense? On this particular article for these particular phrases, there are solid editorial reasons to avoid unnecessary adjectives.

Thanks for your participation in the talk page, and I'll look forward to seeing more of your edits! - Rorybowman (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links.. most appreciated!! I feel, lead is closing down to perfectionism, barring few POV statements, once that is cleared, we can move on to other sections and clean the article from getting biased, achieving NPOV is next to impossible, everyone has a POV and feels that is NPOV, :) all that we can do is to present a counter statement for each biased statements, that will make every article, balanced, looking forward to work with you !! --talk-to-me! (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV

The page you refer: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaj Marg was deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, and not by me. Deletion reviews are to be placed at WP:DRV and not on my talk oage. Please stop adding spurious comments to my talk page, which are bordering on personal attacks and trolling ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is to this page talk page of the deleted article clearly indicates your previous involvement with the subject and as such, YOU under no condition should abuse your admin power's to delete article with which YOU are personally involved with. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I have nothing to do with this conversation, but Jossi deleted it as per Speedy Criteria G4, which is deletion due to the fact that it was previously deleted. It wasnt that he had anything personal with it, but rather it had been previously deleted, and was being deleted again. Same thing happens with articles which are recreated over and over and speedied each time. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice the discussion Jossi is a well known cult promoter on wikipedia, except Don, all appear to be member of some or other cult, this deletion was done with sole intention to hide information, (i cannot see any other reason for deletion). For Jossi, even after declaring that he will not get involved with cult related article he deleted the page, even if it was under G4, as Jossi was personally involved with that article previously he should have posted a discussion, rather then deleting the article which he himself nominated for deletion once. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are so well informed! A million successes and warm welcome to you! I had mistaken Jossi for a Scientologist before you pointed this out :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, he was approached by another user who wanted him to take a look at the article once it had been recreated. She didnt know what to do with it, so he speedy deleted it as per the guidelines. He is an admin, and as such, has the ability to speedy delete things which have been recreated after a previous delete. He would have done the same if it had been about this or about a water company. If you ignore the fact that you call this page that of a cult's page, what he did was not a conflict of interest because it was a speedy delete due to the replication. Not anything else. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that was a case of water company, if he himself had nominated the article for deletion once, he should have posted the request on appropriate forum, if you notice the old discussion both user's the lady and Jossi, were hand in hand, then also, it was more personal action rather then community approach, we cannot deny off wiki communication between cult member's and as such, a person who is involved with any article must under no condition use admin power's to that article. there is a process for deletion WP:AFD if that was a recreation, then view of all opposing member's must also be taken into account, and no personal usage of admin power, a lady asking for deletion, and there you go... article is deleted. This is not the norms of wikipedia as far as i can understand. From lady's talk page, it is more then clear that she is also a cult promoter as Jossi is, hence view of two people, having exactly same motive (hide information from wikipedia) is not community view. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletes are used for quick deletions of recreations. To have put it into AfD would have been ridiculous, and beaurocratic. It also would have probably been speedied and he would have been admonished for not taking the shortcut. AfDs are not used when the article has been deleted before. Please see WP:AfD as well as WP:Speedy to learn the difference between the two. The quick and dirty of it is this: The article had been deleted before. Then it had been created again... and he, as an admin, was informed about it and it was speedied. If the article had been about a water company, I doubt we would be having this converstaion. In the end, you have a personal beef with this admin, and are looking for anything to pin him to. This is very quickly becoming a trolling issue and not an admin overstepping his bounds issue. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queerbubbles, Why was he the only person informed about the subject ? there is a tag, (wp del) which i used mistakenly once, which is used for article's under speedy deletion, a user approaching an admin, who has declared that he will not use his admin power's for cult related article's, and there is no information for community to have a look, and ruzzz page is deleted !! this is a clear case violation of wiki norms, wp:del was the correct approach, deletion indicates something fishy. --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been deleted previously. Period. Full stop. He was implementing a guideline in his speedy deletion. If you want to take this to ArbCom go right head, and I will comment there as well. If you truly believe this so much, then take the next step. The back and forth is going no where... Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking me questions and i am responding ;), if needed i will take the next step, and hope you will be there as well. :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be picky, but I asked nothing. I was merely commenting. I found this while recent changes partolling. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's partolling? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes Patrolling is akin to vandalism patrolling. You click Recent Changes repeatedly until you find something fishy or that catches your interests. Its old school. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pa-TROLLING, I get it. And I get that you think this was fishy. So this was completely random? And you don't know Jossi? I just met CFW, honest. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your skeptecism... however you can see through my edit history and his edit history that never the two of us have met. You can also ask for a checkuser to see if I'm a puppet... but I'm not. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you request a checkuser? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to request one, but a checkuser looks at two (or many) IP addresses and performs analysis of edits and times online, as well as various other statistics which I'm not privvy to. They are used to confirm sockpuppets. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia, the "new" school --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. The world will not end tomorrow, don't panic.

warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Specifically, calling editors "cult-promoters" or "cult members" like you did here is a slanderous form of personal attack. Renee (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slander is spoken. Libel is written. If this is a legal issue, why doesn't Jossi just sue Cade Metz? [1] And what is the deal with the mischaracterizations of CFW's arguments as anti-Indian? [2] I think you should recuse yourself from this because of your close association with Jossi. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chipping in buddy !! have a look at this page, all that i can make out is either she is mentally disturbed or she is a paid member of this particular cult, as Jossi is of prem rawat, I am trying to re-write the page Jossi deleted, and on temp page she removed the link of a court order and made statement that one of party has already won the case, now this can happen only in case of a paid member promoting a POV or someone mentally unstable, with cults brainwashing, loosing mental balance is not something new, this i have noticed in my local surrounding's also, and same is reported in media as well [3], i feel pity for such brainwashed cult members. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments are further personal attacks. This is your last warning: no personal attacks and behave civilly when editing Wikipedia are site policies, and if you further violate them your account will be blocked to prevent further attacks. Everyone is expected to participate in a positive manner here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission

Hi Talk to me...

Thanks for the meil...

If you will start the page ("Sahaj Marg" or "Shri Ram Chandra Mission") up again, and leave me a message with the name of the page, I will participate.

There is still a court case in the Supreme Court of India pending re who owns the Sahaj Marg name and the "possessions" (Ashrams etc...). http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/ac%20661900p.txt The case is by the grandson of Babuji who is the one making all the claims of criminal activity (murder of his grandfather, and his father, and the take-over of this "small meditation group" by a businessman called Chari and his father... who is now deceased).

I got involved with Wiki, as my wife of 35 years joined this new "cult of a person" (Chari) and we are now seperated (2yrs ago) after her being in this group for one year. I just wanted other potential victims to know that this group, although once being a genuine "meditation group", and who although promising a path to GOD, is not above being ruthless and divisive as their own society records, newspaper articles and court records now show. There are allegation in court and newspaper articles in India, about other "crimes" in this group also (sexual abuse).

I kept the WIKI pages (Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission) active for 2 yrs. Other admins helped out with the content. when Renee and Jossi got involved and the debate deteriorated to "erasing" the pages until the court case was resolved, I decided to not try and keep it going for a while to let things "calm down" until the case was resolved...There did not seem to be a concensus possible at that time and POV's were pushed from all sides.

There are other "admins" and "editors" who are more true WIKI-ans and believe in the philosophy of WIKI but these two are involved with such groups (cults and so called "NEW religions") themselves, so it is difficult for them to see the TRUTH. Their agenda seems to be to "erase" and "delete" from WIKI all information that exposes all cults so as to protect their own group. WIKI has been infiltrated at the "admin" level (Jossi) and it is difficult to combat it with such an unresolved "controversy" in Shri Ram Chandra Mission and in Sahaj Marg. For a while there were two Shri Ram Chandra Mission pages, one called "chennai" and one called "Shahjahanpur" and the followers of both were "vandalising" the other page.

Are you an "admin"?...How can you stop the "deletions" from Jossi from going on? Someone started a page on Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur a while back and Jossi also deleted that one also. Now the same happened with "Sahaj Marg India" according to an e-mail by Shashwat who was an editor on the original pages.

If you are still interested in starting a page on Sahaj Marg, tell me how to proceed. You start it and I will participate with all the info I have on the subject that should be WIKI (concensus and fair). If I inadvertently enter some POV, I am sure that someone will correct me...

I believe in WIKI...

Thanks for your involvement...

4d-Don... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4d-don (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heavens I have someone with information, I am trying to re-write the page here, but given my one week experience with this cult i may not be able to write a complete article, may be you would like to participate in discussion here also --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where can i find the murder charges, the french twin of this article which i am translating does not have any link to this charge, do you have any WP:RS about this ? newspaper, court case, or something smiler ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IU

This is the first step in username review. Please review this. Others have noted your username is offensive and represents a POV. Would you be willing to change your username? Renee (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for you to focus on content and not the contributer ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi talk-to-me...

I will read your "re-write" attempt and get back to you...

I noticed that Renee is "threatening" you also... I will see what you wrote and give you my opinion tomorrow... Sun is shining, dog barking, have to go out for a walk in the forest and "talk with the ONE"...;-))

Keep the info NPOV so that we can get started...

4d-don --don (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a pleasant day ahead, looking forward to work with you :), ooh Renee, there are many like her.. Jossi is one of them --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 Week

You have been blocked for 1 week due to personal attacks like this. There is also a discussion taking place at WP:ANI regarding some of your edits here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cult free world (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

reason —no reason given — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am blocked for making personal attack, i wonder what are these [4] [5], [6], [7], [8], last one is an abuse. the statement in question was in response to a threat by the same user, Renee, [9], which was noted as something which could escalate into legal threat by another user here [10], my response that the concern person appears to be mentally unstable [11] or a paid member of the group, was based on my short discussion with her, about a topic, i noticed that she did not wanted any information to be presented on wikipedia, about that particular group, taking help from admins who have declared their WP:COI [12].

Other user's also noted that Renee's approach is threating [13]. My stand is not restricted to any particular group or person, but my concern is more about the direction wikipedia is moving into, as noted before, the talk page of the concern topic is now deleted, my objection remains same, there was a link on that page, which pointed towards previously deleted article and i noticed comments from 4 member's only, one was user:Jossi who has admitted that he is on pay role of prem rawat second was from User:Bksimonb who works in PR team of brahma Kumari, both of these user's have admitted their direct involvement with the respective groups, third person was User:Reneeholle, fourth user was Don. Renee has not admitted her paid involvement with this particular group, but her edit behavior clearly showed the same, Moreover there is NOT A SINGLE NOTE FROM ME ON HER TALK PAGE as i simply ignored her threating messages, which were moving more towards legal threat, as noted by more then one wikipedia editor.

I suspect her paid involvement with the group, while we were working on a temp page, about the subject, (on advice of another admin User:Will_Beback), and there one statement was made that there is dispute between two groups, and reference given was court docket, (which was taken as it is, from wikipedia's french twin of the subject). She removed the dispute section from temp page and stated that judgment is in favor of one party, and reference given was some blog !! Giving reference of a blog, after removing a court docket from a temp page, indicates some problem, or something fishy. This heavy biasing and attempt to reduce information from wikipedia is harmful for future prospectives of wikipedia project, As the talk page which i am referring to has already been deleted, so there is no trace of that particular discussion left, if this tendency of curbing information from paid member's of corresponding groups is not checked, it may lead wikipedia into a wrong direction, or may be in that direction which is not intended.

My direct involvement with article's is bare minimum, mostly i am on talk pages, discussing the matter and letting informed people make the edits once it is agreed. Regarding calling a group a cult, is something which is based in WP:RS if there is a reliable source which refers a group as cult, I write honestly that the group is cult, as per this particular WP:RS and hence respective member's are referred to as cult member's.

I did not filed any personal attack request at notice board, for all the abuses made against me, for the simple reason that i believe that editor's are free to make comments whatever they feel is appropriate, even for abuses that were placed at either my user page or talk page, i have never taken the matter beyond placing the link for the same.

But I am surprise to see that a comment in response to statement made on my talk page, by another user, about first user, can tantamount to personal attack, given the fact, when it is made for a genuine concern that the said threat appears to be legal in nature. My statement was either she is a paid member or mentally sick as i could not find any other reason for such threats when there was no wikipedia article about the discussed subject till that time !!.

Hence i request admin's to unblock me, and allow me to put forth my response about the said discussion and take my concern regarding developing tendency on wikipedia, which has the potential to deviate the concept of wikipedia, to a larger forum such as Arbcom.

Once again, I am not against any particular group or person, but genuinely concern about broader interest of wikipedia and internet community in general. This can be cross checked from my edit history. --talk-to-me! (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

First off, I am the anon IP that removed some material from your userpage... sorry I thought I was signed in. Sethie (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question

In looking over some of your discussions I do see some similarity between you and a former user Shashwat Pandey.

Would you let me know if you are him, or were asked to come here by him?

Thanks. Sethie (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where can i find this most feared person amongst cult member's, i have noticed, Reneeholla, sefacts and few more have labeled me with different identities. How can i get in touch with this guy.. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling us "cult members" violates WP:NPA which you just were blocked for for a week.

I am noticing you didn't answer the question, but chose to attack me. Would you please just directly answer the following question: are you Shashwat Pandey and/or did he ask you to come and edit here. Sethie (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And i doubt you are another incarnation of Reneeholla, noticed your involvement with Sahaja Yoga as well!! both edits are quite similar and on similar line !! will YOU be honest enough to revile your identity before you ask for mine ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking the impossible. I think that very few people are honest enough and brave enough to revile their identity. I for sure would not do that. :) Andries (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for identities doesn't makes much sense to me... but understandable... hallucination ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is asking who for an identity? :) I am asking you cult free world, are you or are you not this user: [[14]]. How is a question a hallucination? Sethie (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

give it one more try... may be you can guess...keep guessing Seek and Thou Shalt Find!! In any-case Thanks for that link above... it made lot of things clear, like the trio, here [15], I must confess, I am already fond of user:IPSOS [16] ;) and an honest answer also, I was aware of user:Jossi only before i decided to come on wikipedia, but now i am falling in love with this trio as well ! Since you were also involved with that Sahaj yoga article, which user:Reneeholla along with user:Jossi is preventing from getting published, how can you help me in getting more material according to WP:RS ? . --talk-to-me! (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have once again not answered the question with a yes or a no. Your unwillingness to do so is very telling.

Shashwat for me to help you find some RS's, they need to actually exist! You have been working on this project for over a year.... and have yet to provide a single RS. If you did, I would be happy to have them in there.

If you take the time to review the Sahaja Yoga page you will notice that Sethie is IN FAVOR and argues FOR including critical material.

I'm on your side Shashwat... the difference is, I am fine with playing by the rules. Sethie (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to presume whatever you feel like, send me an email if you know how to contact this guy !

Why are you changing my userpage ? you don't have any article to do that or what ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a checkuser would be able to clarify this? There are undeniable similarities between Shashwat_pandey's edits and this user's editing behaviour. 124.168.133.20 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement

I fully endorse the recent actions taken by admins here who are really keeping Wikipedia sane and clean. This page and the discussions here is a clear case of attempted blight at Wikipedia. I could not understand a thing on User:Cult free world's page and this discussion page, where it started and where it is leading to. This discussion starts with attacks between different people and then almost instantly centers on Sahaj Marg pages and 4d-don starts talking about starting the Sahaj Marg page again. I was involved in the maintenance of Sahaj Marg page and later during the AfD process. It was deleted because first of all it was turning into a useless debate over legal cases those are pending in courts, secondly it was filled with POV, allegations and all kinds of inaccurate information, representing one of the worsts Wikipedia had to offer - a classic case of blight. The statements made above in this discussion that the AfD was a result of two people is absolutely false, you may see for yourself here: [17]. I clearly remember one of these users started blogging on the discussion of Sahaj Marg page before it was deleted, last Sept. (literal cut pastes from blog sites). Don't want to name him because intention here is to prevent blight and not personal attacks. Let's not create more mess, we have got enough to clean up in this world. --Duty2love (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that this user's sole purpose on Wikipedia is to sow dissent and cause subjective disruption on articles concerning groups he/she takes a difference to. Attempted blight is indeed the case here, and so I join in asking the user to please edit in a constructive manner, and perhaps steer clear of articles on subject matters which clash with your own opinions. 124.168.176.97 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Comments such as these [[18]] about other users is in violation of WP:NPA. Please stop. . Sethie (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that constitute PA ? what is there in those links ? is that love ? or anything other ther PA ? you have not left any message to those users, why me then ? if you have any POV clash regarding any of my edits use respective talk page, and try to stay away from users and get involved with articles, there are other sites where u can get personal with users, wikipedia is NOT such a forum. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not clear on it now, there is nothing I can do to clarify that for you. I suggest you stop or you will almost certainly be blocked again. Sethie (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your comments about other users on your talk page are personal attacks, please stop. Sethie (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what prevents you from reporting the matter ? if there are editors who are not involved with cults feel the same i may discuss the matter with them, for you, please don't give useless warnings, even i can also do the same, place warnings after warnings on your talk page, but that will be a comment on YOU and not on your contributions, do that yourself, what you are advising me to do, stay away from my talk page or user page. Thank You, if you have any concern about my edits, discuss the matter on that talk page, not here.--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your userpage is really rude. Are you here to write an encylopedia or to stir up trouble? Please remove the links from your userpage. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that i have your opinion about my view, i would like to have your opinion about what is stated in those links, before i soften up the language. --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is stated in those links is exatly that. If you must link don't put a spin on it at all simply quote ( and add the context too) However the main problem is that you attribute what is being said to Sahaja and you have no legit reason to do that. This is inflammatory and bound to upset people. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm thanks for chipping in.. :) I will change language now ! --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, your user page is saying: these people are: vulgar, have hallucinations, are mental slaves etc. Sethie (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]