May you be granted 20 times of that what you have wished for me !
|
Thank you for the changes to your userpage. :) I like this current version much better.
If you remember, I was very much interested in working with you ON the Sahaj Marg article (as opposed to deleting it) with you and I am still am. With a few more sources and not giving WP:UNDUE to controversy, an article is probably possible. Sethie (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If you did read the entire page, you will have noticed the Note on the name section which is linked in the introductory words (not even sentence, but word). It explains why and how the term "Hindu" came to be used and linked to the conspiracy. For the sake of clarity, I will quote it here
“ | The term Hindu was used commonly in opprobrium in America to identify Indians regardless of religion. Likewise, conspiracy was also a negative term. The term Hindu Conspiracy was used by the government to actively discredit the Indian revolutionaries.[102][147] | ” |
The references 102 and 147 are from Joan Jensen's paper in the February 1979 issue of the Pacific Historical Review (Jensen, Joan M (1979), The "Hindu Conspiracy": A Reassessment. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 48, No. 1. (Feb., 1979), pp. 65-83, University of California Press, ISSN 0030-8684). In the article she explicitly explains why and how it was called the "Hindu-German Conspiracy",even why the term conspiracy came to be used, and also explains why it is a misnomer to describe the event.
Pardon me for assuming then that you did not read the entire page, not least a whole section that addresses your concerns. May I request you not to engage in such taggings. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion about your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#4th_re-posting_of_previously_deleted_page.2C_circumvention_of_deletion_review_process. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this [[1]] as I said, I welcome public scrutiny of my actions.
Just FYI, in using the warn templates, you start with the first one and work your way up. If I am to be blocked for my editing, you will need to follow the appropriate protocols to ensure that this happens. Sethie (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
This is in regards to the Sahaj Marg page which you are trying to start and which is already under MfD as mentioned above [2]. I don't know if you are Shashwat and/or Rushmi, little I care also, but if you really want to make a better world, then perhaps start with a positive step, like having a positive thought, wearing a positive attitude. It really works!! Now if we start analyzing it, we may argue for hours what is positive and what is negative; however there is one tool we all have which holds the key to the right answer and that is our Hearts, so if we turn to our hearts and ask it to first forget ourselves, our desires, our tendencies, our compulsions, our pre-judices and then tell if this is a right action, surely the right answer will come. I am not suggesting any right answer, all I am suggesting is a means to get it because believe me, I am as interested in making a better world as perhaps you are, if not more. While this may sound simple, it's not easy ... don't believe it then give it a try. Duty2love (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll email you, but I'd first like some assurances you wont reinsert it without consensus , either in main space or user space. DGG (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Responded to your message here.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please remove and replace if you wish under your own heading. The evidence page has its own rules. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Given your pro cult view, you may be in a better position to fill in the achievements section here. Kindly do not delete anything or tag anything, kindly give your input to this specific section only. Thank You --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see a note for you here [4].
Duty2love (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested --Liamjones4477 (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You got to do your homework and provide good cause/reason based on previous edit patterns. Then see WP:SUSPSOCK.
Keep it short and dont waffle on or the admin will lose interest and think it is politically motivated. They "dont get involved in content disputes" ... allegedly--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cult free world for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Remember this is not against YOU CFW/Shashwat, but only against your actions. Duty2love (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Reneeholle is not a CheckUser, and thus has no access to your IP information apart from that which you post publicly by editing anonymously. If you've done that in the past, the IPs by which you've edited are publicly visible. You would have received a warning about this on the edit screen at the time. Rebecca (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear CFW,
I have posted response to your query about History section [here], also another response to your comment just above that section. I totally agree that Wikipedia is about giving information, only slight correction ... correct and relevant information. Regarding French Wikipedia, I really can't read French so have no idea what's out there. Also it doesn't seem logical to me that since something is there in French Wikipedia, it should be here also. All that matters is information should meet Wikipedia policies those are clearly defined, e.g., secondary sources, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:R, WP:NOT .. you know all that. I am all for working with you on this so let me know if you have any further questions. Duty2love (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
At User Talk:Jimbo you posted:
Hey.. if you are discussing me.. then as a token of curtsey, you should notify me also, so that i can respond, BTW, this matter has been discussed in detail here at MfD [8].--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no BLP to start with, in anycase, it has been addressed here [9]--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
((helpme))
WP:DRV is to challenge a deletion discussion, I have written an article about a controversial subject, which is fresh, and has no resemblance from what was deleted previously [5]. The fresh article is based on french wikipedia page about the same topic [6]. Do we need a DRV for this translation (from wikipedia only) and adding references, at the first place ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that you are engaged in disputes that involve charges of incivility. Please make sure that you are not violating WP:CIVIL, an important policy. In general, it's wisest to comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I find your behaviour to be disruptive. Your edits are tendentious, tending to advance an agenda, your comments ascribe motive where none is necessary and you show every sign of simply discounting every request to be less aggressive. I have blocked you for 48 hours to give others a break, and will be discussing this on the admin noticeboards. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Cult - Kindly explain how can this be a "minor edit"??? You've practically re-written the whole page here and tried to pass it off as a minor edit. Please be careful in what you classify as minor edits - This kind of thing could set back bigger-picture goals that you're trying to accomplish. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
CFW,
I came across this wonderful verse by Sankarācārya today and I don't know why but I remembered you and thought of sharing it with you, since you are interested in Vedanta philosophy (as your page says). Titikṣā is a great word in Sanskrit, it is one of the virtues to be developed by a student of Vedanta. Saknarācārya defines it in following verse in Vivekacudamani
Sahanaṃ sarvaduḥkhānām apratīkārapūrvakam
Cintāvilāparahitaṃ sā titikṣā nigadyate
'The bearing of all suffering without anxiety and weeping and without the intention to react is called titikṣā.' --Duty2love (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Embhee (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Cult free world, you were blocked less than a week ago for a 48 hour period due to your disruptive editing of articles. Once the block had ended, you promptly returned to editing in the same way. Your current editing practices are making articles worse, rather than better. As a block of 48 hours clearly did not dissuade you from editing in such a way, I have blocked your account for 1 month. A pledge on this talk page to work with others and edit constructively rather than pushing a personal agenda and trying to subvert articles to fit your own point of view will see this block reduced. Neıl ☎ 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Cult free world (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No diff/reason provided for block!! even after request
Decline reason:
A reason was provided, you were continuing to make disruptive edits and edit war over them immediately after the release of your block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
Cult free world (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No justification for any block, except problems with directly involved cult member's. Any edit, which violates any wikipedia policy should be pointed out.If there is ANY at the first place.
Decline reason:
Those "cult members" are your colleagues in editing Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. Edit warring, civility, consensus; please take time to clearly understand those rules, and more importantly the principles underlying them (or rather, the general idea). Until you do so, you will continue to encounter serious problems with editing on Wikipedia. — Vassyana (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
Cult free world (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
, Vassyana, if i am not wrong, we have already discussed our different view's at Jossi's ArbComm case, it would be nice, if a neutral admins (without any previous difference) comments here, Once again provide a diff which constitute disruptive edit
Decline reason:
A diff was provided by User:Hersfold. Instead of attacking every admin who chooses not to unblock as biased (or to continue playing WP:SOUP with everyone, i.e., playing ignorant to exactly what the problem is), why not start with an admission that there is something you are doing wrong? — Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
Cult free world (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
One single diff constitute disruptive editing ? there has to be a pattern for disruptive editing, show it, i will accept it, moreso is there ANY thing in that diff, which violates any WP policies ?
Decline reason:
reason —per all above — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
Per the ANI report here, your previous edit history, and the comments of other editors on your last appearance at ANI (here), I have extended the duration of this block to indefinite. If you believe you have been blocked unfairly, you may contest the block by adding the text ((unblock|your reason here)) below. EyeSerenetalk 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)