User talk:Persian Poet Gal/Rev Dump

Protect?: Admins please resist the temptation to protect this talk page :D! ^{(Why I No Longer Protect)}
Sign: Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~
Urgent: Need to contact me immediately? Email me
Status: Partially available ^{(What does this mean?)}

Table of Contents

Archives

I move archive my talk page every so often. If you have recently left a message for me and do not see it on my talk page anymore, feel free to look through the archives below to see my response.

2010

May 09-January

2009

December 08-April

2008

Old Archives

2006-2007

BLP question

Dear Persian Poet Gal, Thank you for coming by the Sahaj Marg page. I'm not very clear on the WP:BLP policy, but am concerned that the following comment impugns a couple of living persons, just to cast aspersions on their characters without evidence:

"At last Chari, Uma Shankar Bajpai and 6 others have been charge sheeted for the criminal offence of tresspassing into the Ashram on 2nd June 2006. Their non-bailable warrants are being issued for the same from the lower court three days back."

Can you please let me know what you think? Renee (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I actually thought we were doing pretty good on the article itself -- there doesn't seem to be disruptive editing -- just lots of discussion (some productive, some not) on the talk page. And, the BLP stuff is very confusing to me. I can see your point about the "recommended" line and will bring it up on the talk page. Renee (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAHAJ MARG CONTROVERSY

Poet Gal...

All attempts to bring forward and discuss content have met with "deleting" the content to be discussed and calling is either "soapbox", not WIKI "RULES", PRIMARY, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, etc...

[This] is the WIKI "GUIDELINES" that I am adhering to...check my bio...I have sat on many committees and have worked with many teams but if you think that "black-listing" or "threats of blacklisting" me is WIKI, to stop me from doing what I see as WIKI acceptable, go ahead an try... I have worked in "information dessimination" for years in NEWSPAPER (columns), TV (host of Talk show), and "information library on "ENVIRONMENTAL" issues and "DEVELOPMENT"... In Canada at least, we are still allowed to "discuss" in the open and I have received a MEDAL from our Governor General for service to the country and the PLANET in advancing Freedom of SPEECH for all, even for RELIGIONS and such SECTS as SRCM who would stiffle it... I want their MESSAGE out also, for all to see, but I want all information that is WIKI acceptable in the article also...I asked you and Sethie to get some broader input on some points...have you done so?

The guidelines interpretation by this "few" editors are not accurate and should be challenged by all who think that FREE SPEECH is what the INTERNET is advancing for all of us. When some (and groups, and cabals) use WIKI to PROMOTE and to MUZZLE any "controversies", then I will take on the battle, like so many others on WIKI and take on even the INDIA PROJECT of the Chamber of Commerce if I have to.

This is the "WIKI Guidelines" in the page you sent me... To discuss "CONTENT", we have to bring it forward and READ it... That is the problem... any item brought forth that is controversial is "DELETED" by some "admins" and others who are taking on the same tactic, thinking it is WIKI... that brings about a POV (of course) that is then "threatened" with BLOCKING by other Admins... ALLOW THE CONTENT TO BE DISCUSSED OPENLY AND FREELY IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE...

Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be tagged or deleted - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

4d-don--don (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poet Gal...

Point taken... I will use less "colour" in the future... ;-))

Gotta laugh, because it's not funny!

4d-don--don (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

4 the block on User 71.81.82.79. I get so tired of these twits... One other thing: how do I get that "time/date" clock on my page? Trekphiler (talk) 14:43 & 14:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN-WIKI practices on Sahaj Marg discussion Pages

Poet gal...

For your information, I present these recent events on Sahaj Marg discussion page. This (tactic) was also done to Shashwat before me, frustrating him to the point that then got him blocked. If you read my "comments" as not "WIKI acceptable" and/or "light-hearted" then please let me know...I feel that this and the rest of the comments on the discussion page as "suggested" by Sethie are not according to WIKI guidelines for "admins", who should be more "concensual"...

This marginalizing and "isolating" of "dissenting" voices who bring forth "controversies" or differences is what is now commonly called "bullying" in our schools and which is being covered in the MEDIA daily because of the "emotional" retaliation of the "BULLIED" (just like Shashwat)... Keep this for a record of the tactics used. I trust you to be fair and "concensual"... You can read the rest of the discussion (today's May 18, 2008) on the Sahaj Marg discussion page and read the "TONE".

I hope this (last paragraph) is not too "colourful" ;-))

Thanks

4d-don

To this comment Sethie:

Well, Shashwat is gone, and 99% will be permanently banned or topic-banned (meaning he won't be able to edit this article and others). With his disruptive activities gone, things are/will be alot easier. Sethie (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote this on his [talk page] as part of another comment from him in my talk page:

Which bring me to Shashwat...

To "black-list" or "bad mouth" Shashwat, a victim of this group (SRCM-Chennai) not SAHAJ MARG, is not constructive as we also need, or could use, the input of "honorable" victims, such as Shashwat in the discussion. Although we can't allow allegations (even in court cases) and anecdotes to enter the article, the input of victims is "healing" to them and is helpful to us in writing the article. (Court JUDGEMENTS however are NPOV and should be as acceptable in a WIKI article as they are in a NEWSPAPER article, if we use "COMMON SENSE".) To black-list the VICTIMS is to victimize them again, by stopping their "story" from being believed and accepted... Victims are sometimes "emotional" but are we not all emotional at times... I would like you to remove this "blocking" of Shashwat on WIKI (99%) as a "good faith" WIKI participant, a "fellow human being", and compatriot of many in Sahaj Marg. I would like the "hearts of our children all together again"...trying to reach concensus in FAIRNESS...Shashwat is not a "vandal" and tries to be fair through his pain. His family was just negatively affected by this group... let's help him heal...

I don't know the others such as "talk-to-me" or cultfreeworld" but if they are "blocked" also, I would like to see them participate also, if only in the discussion... The article can be "protected" at any time. Black-listing is so RELIGIOUS and so DIVISIVE...that would show "good faith" to me... I do not erase other editor's "POV" (and they are there)...and I don't attempt to have some editors "blocked" forever.

I appreciate this attempt to be "concensual" and your revealing things about yourself. I will return to being "civil", try not to express my own POV so much. (as much as I can), and try to work in a "concensual" manner.

We should review what is "WIKI" acceptable and what is not...

Sethie replied:

I didn't block Shashwat, I can't unblock him. And if I could, I wouldn't. He has consistently shown an unwillingess to play within wiki parameters.

   I don't know Shashwat. I just know of his activities here on Wikipedia. And they have been pretty yucky, not just by my standards, but by the communities. He has been blocked 3 times as CFW, had a sock account blocked, and has yet to find ONE experienced wikipedian who agreed with ANYTHING he has said.

Sethie (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, he left this on [my talk page]:

Since his block, has Shashwat or Cult-free world contacted you and asked you to post or say certain things here on wikipedia for him? And have you done so?

Thanks, Sethie (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To which I wrote on his [talk page]:

I know Shashwat from the Internet...this other cfw, you seem to say is also Shashwat? He has not confirmed that to me, and I don't care either way...just a name... Maybe I will ask him! Thanks...What about talk-to-me?

and later:

Shashwat...

Thank you for not "black-listing" Shashwat...For your information, I have agreed with some of the material he brought forth and tried to "re-write" and edit some other...Being wrong does not mean being EVIL (VANDAL). At first, I usually let all people expose all of their "POV's" without erasing, and then I attempt to wittle it down to a "FAIR" and "CONCENSUAL" article with all... I have never had the opportunity to "finish" as there was always another EDITOR (from another group) reverting, changing, etc... so I stood out for a while until it calmed down...When I did, the article was deleted...

It is not harder for me to deal with Shashwat or other "victims" who are sometimes "emotional" in their wanting to EXPOSE their PAIN, and express their POV in "no uncertain terms", as it is to deal with someone who thinks they are right "intellectually" and think that skewing the interpretation of "guideline" without the filter of "common sense" (which they wrongly think they use all the time without "skewing"), means that they are telling the TRUTH and are interpreting the WIKI policies "accurately"...

To which Sethie replied:

"you seem to say is also Shashwat?" I have been saying this for over a month. When you say "seem to say" I don't trust your tone or your words. I do trust that you have never asked him.

   I could give a crap if this article leads people to SCRM (I don't hope that it does). However I do care that wikipolicies are maintained. That is my only concern here. "so as not to "collude" and attract unintentionally, recruits for the group because of the WIKI article..." That agenda will, I predict, has and will lead you, as it did me, to not follow wikipedia policy.

   You keep saying basically the same things over and over. Concensus is against you. Find someone on wikipedia who agrees with you. None of us do. Sethie (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

4d-don Replied

I was trying not to "put words in your mouth" as I don't know that for a fact and have never had it confirmed...I know you think so (POV), but I don't. You say the same thing over and over also (POV)...and your claim to speak for "all on WIKI" is also a little POV I think (my POV)...OH! OH!, I'm in trouble now! lol ;-)). Concensus is not against me, except you seem to believe (POV) that "in your mind" it is. That is why I will go to a "broader" concensus of WIKI membership... When you say: "none of us" you are of course, not speaking for others and are WIKI (good faith) as you express your POV. ;-)). You are allowed your POV by me and I joke about it only for fun. I will not have you blocked, or report you to "persian gal" but will ask for broader INPUT on the issues at hand unless we can reach a "concensus" among us.

About Shashwat...I converse with him regularly and he comments on my blog sometimes, but have refused to "conspire" or collude with anyone to "destroy" any person's "belief", or carry anyone's "words". My job as an INFONAUT is to INFORM not DESTROY. I have not asked him and/or he did not confirm anything (I don't think so, if he did, it went by un-noticed by me) about his WIKI stance, id,... except I was told that he was "BLOCKED" (by him and you) and I know where he stands from reading him. He is a "VICTIM". On this SRCM matter I "speak" no opinion but my own in the discussion, and I try to adhere to WIKI's NPOV policy in the Article. If you speak to Shashwat as you do with me here, he may tell you that "I betrayed" him quite a few times...lol ;-))

Then Sethie posted this on the [Sahaj Marg Discussion page]:

'I have noticed that as soon as Shashwat was blocked your tone and conversation style underwent a radical change. Now it seems to go back and forth between the Don I know and a Don I don't know. Until you answer this question 22 there is nothing further to discuss. I would ask others to reframe from dialogueing with Don as well until he has been open and honest about that. Sethie (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)'

4d-don Replied

Sethie...

Ha! ha! ha! You're funny! Specially after I answered you that question on your talk page! The Answer then and is now: NO! I speak for myself only!! But many readers agree with me. Maybe you think that I'm Shashwat also? ARE YOU BEING POV or ?? are you on a "SOAPBOX" or a MISSION? Can I ask you a question about your private "conversations" with Renee? (lol.. ;-))) I told "Poet Gal", I would not use "colour" but you guys are too much! ... One has to laugh! How does one become like that?

Since the "admin" ecourages "reFRAME from dialogueing", as per WIKI guidelines, I guess that means that we will have to talk directly through the article... but I will wait and confirm all my input, as I usually do, with other "admins" first and then post directly to the article...

Keep on the Sunny Side of LIFE...

4d-don--don (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And then Sethie:

Thanks for your clear answer to that question.

   I am tired of you making personal, insulting comments about me. I am striking them out.

   If this is the best you can do, after me talking with you, after Persian Poet Girl talking with you, then please, go away. Sethie (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

4d-don--don (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your barnstar pasted elsewhere

Hello, I assumed that this barnstar pasted on this blocked user's page is not yours and reverted the User:Zippycup who added it to a blocked user's user page. I have been re-reverted by an IP and the BS is back on the user page. I have also left a note at User talk:Zippycup who has ever since moved his talk page elsewhere. Just letting you know. Prashanthns (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I have replied to you on my talk page. Peace! Sethie (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the move vandalism with my user and talk pages. That sure came out of nowhere. =\ Oh, well. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I autorefresh my Firefox tab containing the move logs anytime I log on now. I stare at them occasionally to see if anything fishy is going on.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very bizarre choice of pages to move, too. Not sure if I should be honored or just perplexed. Thanks for move protecting my pages. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes?

Hello again. I assume you remember commenting at User:RyRy5/Admin Coaching on the oppose section. In your opinion, have I changed since then? I would like your opinions on this. You should check my contributions also if you don't mind. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 03:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a shiny

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Many times you clear out CSD and AIV when several users are on Huggle at the same time. You also prevent or end the massive vandal revert-wars that occur while waiting for someone to clear AIV. In recognition of these facts, I, J.delanoy ^gabs _adds, hereby award you this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar along with my sincere thanks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious people are being kind to me lately ^_^...is it the coming the apocalypse or something?!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Well, I don't know about the Others. I finally remembered to give you that. I've been meaning to for at least a week or two. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]