The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - Most of the comments here are from the nominator and a few other involved users - that's not to say they all are. User:SheffieldSteel and User:DGG on the other hand, among others, have presented arguments based on WP:USER that reflect the long standing practice at MfD: Userspace is given wide latitude and we will normally assume good faith for editors who wish to try to work on a deleted article in userspace and allow users to do this for a reasonable period of time provided there is no evidence of archiving (i.e. storing a deleted version long-term without any meaningful effort to improve it to article space standards). None of the delete arguments take into account this practice by the community to show why it may not be applicable here. There is no consensus as to how long is too long and it is far beyond the scope of this MfD to determine a sunset for this article or to preclude another MfD nomination prior to any particular future date. Procedural note: there is also a request here to speedy delete a subpage in userspace, the page was already deleted by another admin under G6, however I question the appropriateness of requesting speedy deletion of a page in another user's userspace when it is not a copyvio, attack page, or other wholly inappropriate page and in particular of performing such a deletion under G6. Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the charges on the Discussion page. First, all of the editors on the discussion page are directly involved and the allegations made by the nominator appear to be a WP:COI collateral attack on the article. All claims against the page should be in the nomination or otherwise raised on the debate page, not on the Discussion page as these pages are rarely used and should be used to go into more depth on arguments already raised on the debate page. Second, the claims appear to be actually made against User:Cult_free_world and comments on his or her user or user talk page and not material in the article under nomination. Third, a quick review of the article did not indicate any such issues. Therefore, these matters have not been considered in this closing. Raise any such issues at WP:BLP/N, WP:ANI, or by contacting WP:OTRS. Editors are cautioned to Assume good faith and not to make tangential claims against other editors during deletion discussions which are about pages, not editors.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cult_free_world/Proposed_Sahaj_Marg_India[edit]

This page is a 5th attempt to post a duplication of pages on the topics of Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Here are the original sets of articles, which all were deleted due to lack of secondary sources and notability:

Here are two recent attempts to re-post the exact same articles again, one on a regular page, one on a talk page, [7], [8]. Now, the exact same article has been posted on user space here. There are repeated assertions that "new" third-party secondary sources have appeared, but despite repeated requests for them, none have been forthcoming, [9][10][11][12][13] [14][15] [16][17] [18], which leads one to conclude that it's because there are none. Finally, the group/practice is just not notable. This and this are what comes up when one runs a Google News search on the topics of Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (i.e., nothing). Please note that when the strategy of posting in main space without new sources failed, the user tried to post in talk space, which failed as well. Now he has posted in user space (the exact same article), to circumvent the deletion review process. Please consider salting the topics given this persistent attempt to circumvent the deletion review process. Renee (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable court case ?? heard this term first time ! moving to talk page!! which talk page..? didn't see it anywhere... you messed up with the article and then come here and vote delete. this discussion is about the article what i am trying and not what you are writing. You have already put in your vote, now sit back and relax, let this discussion reach an end, and please stop playing games, by editing the content, and then coming and voting delete. Rest assured I will get the community RfC before moving the article in main space. --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Comment Enough with the personal attacks, already. Let me remind you that this is wikipedia - It's not your place to challenge other users motives. Please limit your discussions to the issues. We'd be happy to look at any secondary sources that you may have come up with since the article was canned last - If not, I vote that this article must go! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not already voted in this same page ? why are you in such a great hurry ? the page cannot be published without sources, and that is precisely the reason, as why it is in user space, i.e to add reference as per WP:RS --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


About Motive of other user's, what do you think this [19] is for ? and why was this [20] needed from user:jossi, whom Renee approached for deletion of that page ? why do people declare their motive when heavily biased editing is obvious. --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me type this slowly to help you read better. Motives are immaterial here. Present solid secondary references if you want to post anything here. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Innerself's contributions till date. [21] --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "...this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content..."Renee (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no reason not to re-nominate this page if no work is done on it for some time, which might imply that it was being used as an archive. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But where do you draw the line? Say he works on a few lines a week, continues to revert edits by anyone with other viewpoints, continues to make statements not backed up by the sources, still provides no secondary sources. How long do you wait? I know you've interacted with this person before, do you really think he's trying to write a NPOV article? acting in good faith? (with the reversions, failure to produce a single secondary source, the personal attacks like below) This is why I suggest he create an article on Word and then follow Wiki procedure and go for a deletion review. Renee (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have also reverted changes to the article in Cult free world's user space. Why not leave him in peace to work on this article? The place and time to draw the line, in my opinion, is when and if the article is moved into main space, at which time policies like WP:RS and WP:V apply to it. As an aside, Renee, I would caution you against this sort of thing because it may constitute a violation of WP:CANVASS. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were supposed to notify all active users when an article was put up for deletion? I notified all those who had been active on this and other versions of the article, regardless of whether they were positive or negative toward the group. My apologies if one is not supposed to do that. I honestly thought we were supposed to notify active editors.Renee (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately, there has not been active collaboration. To the counter, three other editors have tried to work on the article and he continuously reverts them (e.g., see this). He just ignores our comments on the talk page (i.e., see ten requests for secondary sources by a variety of editors above, as well as discussions on references). He edits to promote a POV in line with his user name (e.g., see this). He knowingly mis-labels court cases (i.e., he labeled a court case "sexual abuse" when it was a libel case that the court found prima facie libelous and defamatory). This pattern is identical to the pattern in the previous articles; the active editors on these articles just don't want to repeat a frustrating history. We just need some sort of mechanism to prevent the abuse (i.e., reverting edits, refusing to collaborate, mis-labeling or mis-representing sources, etc.) and it seems like salting of the topics would work, because then a proper deletion review can take place where the new evidence can be evaluated on its merits without all of the violations of Wiki policy. (It's just as easy for him to work on his version on Word, since he won't allow anyone else to work on it anyway.) The real issue here is abuse of the system, which I hope Wiki policies can prevent. Renee (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cult Free World/talk-to-me was banned for one week for personal attacks like the ones above and below (see this).
This miscellany for deletion case is not about what the article says, but about upholding the proper Wiki deletion review procedures and about avoiding the mis-use of user space. WP:User says if the space is being used to maintain his preferred view of disputed content of previously deleted material, that is a mis-use and should be deleted. Cult Free World/talk-to-me has reverted every single edit by other editors in order to maintain his preferred view of disputed content, this exact content has been deleted four previous times, and the condition for re-posting content (provide secondary sources) has not been met despite being requested by a variety of editors over ten times. Wiki has procedures for cases like this, deletion review. Let's work together as a community and follow those procedures.Renee (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the group in France is noteworthy? Who knows? Most of the articles don't appear to meet Wiki sourcing standards. Renee (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the votes a pattern emerges: Those who voted "keep" have not personally worked on the topics in question or with this editor and his previous incarnations (he is not new, "I am someone who was previously involved with article"); all of those who have voted no have, plus a few who haven't. The reason we are asking for secondary sources up front is we're observing the exact same sources/info as he's put in previous versions (i.e., primary sources, foreign sources, blogs/self-published websites, info that appears on his blog, etc.). There is a consistent history by this user of citing a reference for a claim made in the article, and yet when the source is examined, no such thing is said. We are weary of researching, documenting, and discussing the same sources over again, and hence, have asked for the reliable third-party secondary sources up front. Having said that, I will follow-up with a compromise proposal. Renee (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed Compromise: Per all comments,here is a proposed compromise:

  • Endorse. Per nomination. Renee (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - an excellent suggestion. Xdenizen (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing has changed. As you mentioned most who said keep were not involved what went through last sept, User:Cult Free World itself mentioned that it did not know about last years [32] changes. When nothing has changed since then, why go over the same exercise again? Basic problem that we faced last time was, several statements about the organization were unverifiable since they were still not resolved by the courts. It is best to shelf this until those cases are cleared. Duty2love (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a giant waste of everyone's time - I know this isn't a gambling site but I'll bet real money that we're running a fools errand here by even considering re-posting rejected material here. What's the point??? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Duty2love's comment, if the statements are unverifiable due to being sub-judice, recommend deletion.Mayawi 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-proposal: Let this AfD run its course normally.

  1. If the closing admin decides to delete the article, that should be the end of the matter, as any further attempt to recreate it without adequate sourcing will probably entail admin sanctions against User:Cult free world.
  2. If the result of this AfD is that the article is kept, then it may still be nominated for deletion at any time in the future - but whoever nominates it will need to wait for a period of inactivity, in order to justify deleting it as an archive of a deleted page. In the meanwhile, User:Cult free world should be given every oportunity to find reliable secondary sources discussing the subject. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Review of Nominated Page. For those not familiar with this user and past versions of this page, here is a review. The "new" sources are the same sources as in previously deleted articles. The mis-representation of references to promote a POV also has begun (i.e., he makes a claim, provides a reference, and when the reference is examined it does not support the claim). This is not a new user (by his own admission, i.e., "I am someone who was previously involved with article"). He has changed names to avoid scrutiny of his previous warnings and blocks. He has failed to work in good faith on this article with other editors (e.g., when one points out exactly what a reference says and how it doesn't support a claim, he just ignores the editor and continues making untrue claims).

I understand the generosity of spirit that wants to give a "new" user a chance, but I am very concerned about the potential BLP violations occuring in this user space (i.e., presenting statements as true that were ruled libelous and defamatory by a district court, upheld by a high court), and the reposting of exactly the same content and references (all the while pretending he just found them, when he acknowledges he was involved in the now deleted articles). Renee (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I mis-read this post Cult Free World refers to below, my apologies, I have struck it out. Renee (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is very interesting First statement by Renee is (i.e., he makes a claim, provides a reference, and when the reference is examined it does not support the claim), second is a link with statement This is not a new user (by his own admission, i.e., "I am someone who was previously involved with article"). The complete text which is however present in the link, but for those who do not wish to go there and read it, here is the complete text, from same link,

any cult related article that i touch, cult member's claim, i am someone who was previously involved with article, but the same does not hold true with the other party which had bitter experience with that particular cult.

This is true with Sahaja Yoga article,[33] and brahma kumari article, [34]. Now i leave the decision on everyone reading this, as who is trying to manipulate everyone on wikipedia!! WHY ? why so much of agony ? for what ? may be because we all love our job, isn't it ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I rest my case - Cult Free is referring to everyone who doesn't agree with him as a "cult member". Quit the name calling, will you?
And what does he mean by "Love our job???".... Is this a reference to his previous claim that anyone disagreeing with him is a paid member of "the cults"? THIS is the compulsive paranoid sociopathic behavior that he has demonstrated again and again and again that leads me to distrust him, of all people, to ever be able to deliver a wiki-worthy and balanced article. I vote against wasting any more time with him and to ban this user altogether. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


All statements are general, none is personal, most of the government committees, use the same term, and there is nothing personal about it, but what is this ? Moreover, this discussion was suppose to be about the temp page, and not me, the moment i touched this particular subject, i am facing numerous personal attacks this one is from YOU, there have been many notices about me, from these members only, (related with THIS topic only) not only at ANI, but also various other forums such as IU etc as well, and all have been rejected if all this is only to prevent this particular article from getting published and not letting me do that, then I am sorry, wikipedia is conceptualized to give information and not to hide it.If you stop disturbing me, and let me focus on article rather then replying you guy's here and there, only then can we actually uphold the essence of wikipedia, and not by blocking user's from starting an article altogether. I would request to stop discussing me here and there, and let me work for construction and not destruction. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Given disruptions like these and behavior like this, how can anyone focus on working on article when i have to respond at so many places, I try to give 2 hrs everyday, out of my busy scheduled IRL, to wikipedia. I do not have any one-on-one experience of this cult, and hence my attempt is mainly rooted in internet search, and may be some help from ex-member's. I have already requested for text of deleted article so as to get more information, and may be links. But for any constructive work to take place, Renee need to stay away not only from article, but also from commenting about me at numerous other talkpages and noticeboards. How can that be ensured ? otherwise, all my time is consumed in responding to them. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article that I am trying to work on (given heavy interruption by Renee and associates), was nominated for deletion by user:jossi, who has later admitted his POV clash with cult related articles, and next time, it was deleted by him only, as such, genuine case for deletion cannot be confirmed, as clarity about actions came after the action has taken place. As such, it cannot be confirmed that article in its previous version was not a valid WP article, as noted by one involved member that article was there for close to two year, before Renee got involved, and got it deleted. And as such, to me it appear that an article about the subject is MUST for wikipedia, as it was deleted against the understood philosophy of concepts like wikipedia. I look forward to support in my effort to make addition to wikipedia and not work in reduction. Notability issue is already addressed by french category about the same subject.--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's follow Persian Poet Gal's advice and drop the attacks and work together. The dates of both of these posts were before this was filed (this was filed per ANI suggestion). If you look at the edit history, I carefully edited your initial version to get it into what I thought would be shape to find sources. You reverted that. I reverted twice after that and stopped work on it at that time, because you kept reverting it. Two others others worked on it too, and you reverted their edits as well. I have not touched this one whit since filing this, so it is disingenuous and a mis-representation to claim I have blocked you from working on it when I have not touched since filing this.
Wiki articles are built on consensus and compromise. I'm willing to work in good faith -- are you? If yes, then please start now and I will do the same. This means we have to collaborate -- give and take. Are you willing to do that? Renee (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Given the fact that you change your stand every other statement you make [35] and then [36], and then [37], and finally this has made me believe, I cannot trust you. Hence i would like you to remain outside the development process, I will get the wikipedia standard confirmed by other neutral user's before publishing the article. I request the same, kindly stay away from the article or commenting about me, till article is not published. --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on here? This is an MfD page, already turning into heated discussion, already turning into a scene we all went through last year. If some one is thinking this page is their personal property then please WAKE UP!! Looking at the citations mentioned above to me it looks like User:Renee changed its stand to work with User: Cult free world rather than the other way around, though unlike many of us who are firm in our stand that this page is a waste of time, as it is already happening. Arguing over court cases [38] is not something we want to do here at WP. My sincere request to admins is please act on this MfD soon. Duty2love (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brother, the only thing those posts prove is that user:Reneeholle has tried to work with you or follow Wiki procedures. Where have you ever taken any of her comments seriously? Wiki is a collaboration... a consensus model. Hard as it might be (and trust me, I know it can be hard - I've tried to find middle ground many many times with you on these pages), you cannot refuse to work with editors; that violates the essence of Wiki. Just keep in mind - Your posts, like the one above only serve to prove, yet again, your inability to collaborate. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Collaboration comes into picture when article moves into main space, in my user space you have to let me work, so that i can improve and make it at par with wikipedia standard. Any interruption like these, are highly disruptive and does not show your good faith attempt, for improvement, neither does your, calling people PIG on wikipedia indicates your honest approach towards other users, as such you have not demonstrated yourself to be worthy of working in collaboration in building process.--talk-to-me! (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seek first to understand, then be understood ..... I wasn't calling you a pig (since I have no clue about your real-world personal hygiene habits) - "A pig with lipstick is still a pig" is a common American phrase used when someone tries to window-dress the truth. You should know that since you are in the US. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many such (even better) phrases in India, which will require clarification if i put them here, but as my common-sense informs me, i do not use such phrases, and simply state that which is objective and to the point, no-nonsense. limit your opinion to that where it is required, you are suppose to put in your argument for deletion of the page, and not imagine other wikipedia user's hygiene habits, no-one can stop you from explaining yours, but you are not suppose to comment about that on a deletion discussion page. --talk-to-me! (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this post. This article is completely unobjective and violates the spirit of Wiki. Anirudh Joshi -31st March 12 .16pm

Anirudh Joshi has no other contribution other then this post.[39]--talk-to-me! (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


More Wiki There are wikipedia pages such as Anti-Hinduism and Khalistan. Both these articles are highly controversial, the other one doesn't even exist, but there is a wikipedia page about the said topic. I may have a very strong POV against the Khalistan article, but can I question its existence on wikipedia ? once again is wikipedia here to give information or to hide information? all attempts, this one and all the referred past attempts to hide information by Renee and associate (Renee has presence in all the deletion discussion about this subject!!) are a clear cut case of hiding and abusing wikipedia policies, with help from admin's like user:jossi who due to their active involvements in cults, are working in a direction which is opposite to the understood philosophy of wikipedia. I have come across numerous secondary sources about the page, which jossi, and Reneeholla in association with Marathi_mulga are claiming is not notable, or does not have secondary sources, if I (having no background knowledge of this cult ) can find so many secondary sources simply by doing search and using social networking sites, is it possible that these directly involved members do not have this information ? This nomination itself does not show good faith attempt to support wikipedia and help it grow more. --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per user:Cailil for the time being helpful attempt to get more sources for this article. Seems like legitimate use of user space. I will vote for deletion if after 8 weeks no reliable sources have been found. Andries (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - not only is WP not a web server, this is potentially embarassing, libelous, and a troll magnet. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - It appears to have been cleaned up and is a legitimate article under construction. All POV material seems to have been removed. Allow it to be in userspace for a few more weeks. I would edit out a word or two, make some other copy edits, and tag it, if it were in the main space. Some browsers (e.g., Google) may pick up this page. Browsers do not pick up diffs, so those are of no concern to me. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he reverted most of the changes you spoke of here (after you wrote this). I looked through the edits by IP 78... and was pleasantly surprised to see how cleaned up it was. I wonder if Cult Free would be willing to revert as a show of good faith that he seeks a balanced and neutral article? Renee (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to take out the POV/libelous material, e.g., weasel words like "cult", unreliable sources, etc. Cut out the cruft and stop playing games. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



You have already voted as keep. You don't get two votes.
Where ?? this is my only vote, other is comments (less then Renee's comments in any case)--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the counting admin, please see Talk to me's "Why Delete?" vote.Sethie (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not mess up with the article if you cannot contribute constructively. I do not have all the time in the world to remain focused to this cult only. Those who have already voted, may kindly sit back, and allow me to finish it, and move on. once again, kindly do not mess-up with the article, and let things move as expected.--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cult free world, AKA talk-to-me!, this is not an "article". The article was previously deleted. This is user space - and every editor's user space belongs to the community at large. Any editor has the right to remove libel, defamation and personal attacks from user space. The same rules apply to article and non-article space on Wikipedia. Why not take your draft offline if you don't want people "messing" with it? Cleo123 (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the relevant policy is here Wikipedia:User#Copies_of_other_pages . I think this supports my opinion that this user page should be time limited (max. 8 weeks) unless reliable secondary sources can be found. Andries (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once I discovered it was showing up on Google, I fiercely edited out all the garbage and non-RS's. For refference, here is the version before I began editing it: [[42]] Sethie (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which Cult Free World reverted here, and then Sethie re-worked on last night.
Comment. Andries, normally I would agree with you as your proposal sounds reasonable for editors working in good faith with others to produce balanced articles. But, the libel issue is serious and cannot be allowed on Wikipedia; the editor's repeated reversions of other editors' reversions of his libel puts Wikipedia at risk for a lawsuit. There are no reliable or verifiable secondary sources, even Sethie's cleaned-up version is about 50% OR. He reverts anyone else's edits to the document -- why work on Wiki if only to harass? I think WP:HARASS, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOT are some relevant policies here. Wikipedia pages are not personal webpages. Renee (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Renee when you are so adamant not to see an article about your employer this is a huge contradiction, as such, it is impossible to assume your good faith, for constructing an article you are dead against, same holds true for sethie also. Kindly do NOT disrupt the development process, I will take the community feedback, by filing for RfC about all concerned topics once I am done with it. My work would have been over by now, if your group (Sethie, Marathi_Mulga, duty2love and of course your good self) had not troubled the article so much. Kindly stay away from the article, you have already voted here, nominated here, tagged it for speedy deletion numerous times, Now do not disrupt my effort to understand this cult, and write a balanced article, properly sourced, and as per wikipeia standard. You have done your part, now let me do mine. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is the kind of blogging we had to endure on previously deleted pages. Renee (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would appear to be, yet another attempt to publish derogatory commentary on google via Wikipedia. In fairness, it seems that the "blog content" above that doesnot directly relate to deletion debate should be removed before the page is archived. WP:NOT dictates that Wikipedia is not a webhosting service or publisher of original thought. Cleo123 (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renee when you are so adamant not to see an article about your employer this is a huge contradiction, as such, it is impossible to assume your good faith, for constructing an article you are dead against, same holds true for sethie also. Kindly do NOT disrupt the development process, I will take the community feedback, by filing for RfC about all concerned topics once I am done with it. My work would have been over by now, if your group (Sethie, Marathi_Mulga, duty2love and of course your good self) had not troubled the article so much. Kindly stay away from the article, you have already voted here, nominated here, tagged it for speedy deletion numerous times, Now do not disrupt my effort to understand this cult, and write a balanced article, properly sourced, and as per wikipeia standard. You have done your part, now let me do mine. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Another relevant policy is WP:NPA. I just found these, which are excellent for all of us to review: WP:NUTSHELL and WP:Verifiability and Notability.Renee (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
don, please restrict your commentary to the page under discussion and refrain from making overt personal attacks. Please, note that WP:SOAP applies not only to the User Page under discussion, but to this discussion page, as well. Cleo123 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cleo123 would you comment about this also ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am almost done with the subject, just two more sections remain, before i file for RfC about all concerned wikipedia policies from community itself. --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Good Lord! Now 4d-don's even openly posting his blog messages and blog site here. (Scroll to the end and he publically posts his blog. Please, can we stop this madness? Renee (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two different people are talking to each other on their respective talk pages… what is your (conflict of) interest in their communication ?--talk-to-me! (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two different people are talking to each other...??? Now, that's an odd turn of phrase. What reason could there be for anyone to think they were anything other than two different people? I don't see where Renee has alleged any COI. I suspect she cited the incident as yet another example of WP:SOAP, consistent with the misuse seen on this user page. Cleo123 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment[edit]

Admins... show some fairness....name calling such as "madness" is a POV and an attack...could we stop that...I respond to a POV (not neutral) posted on my "talk page" with my POV...

4d-don--don (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More