User talk:Simon D M/archive2

Jan 2008

Simon DM, you seem to be engaged in an edit war. Please desist from removing sourced material without prior discussion. Also, you have been warned about harassing other Wikipedia editors. Freelion (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied across from your userpage. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 13:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Freelion, I suggest you put more effort into reviewing WP policy and discussion on talk pages. If you have any specific issues, please raise them in the relevant place. --Simon D M (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Question

How have you created those pages on your user page ? i tried to do the same, but am unbale to make a link to User:Cult free world, do these alternative pages which you have created on your user page, become part of google search ?

Thanks --Cult free world (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's allow just for few days as draft but not like Simon for months. he knows already abd has been warned for that. Simon I suggest you put more effort into reviewing WP policy --Agenor 77 (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agenor, pls reference the relevant WP policy (and the alleged warning). --Simon D M (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed these and removed them as no longer necessary. But I'd still be interested in knowing the relevant WP policy (and the alleged warning). --Simon D M (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the links to them but it seems they haven't disappeared. If anybody knows how to get rid of the orphans, pls let me know. --Simon D M (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sahaja Yoga, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. 124.170.164.157 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon/124.170.164.157, You have given me a COI warning, suggesting you have a history on WP. Have you ever participated using a username? If so, what is/was it? Also, do you yourself have any COI regarding Sahaja Yoga? --Simon D M (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Input needed

Please give in your view about merging flag controversy section in Nirmla Srivastava page with Sahaja Yoga page. --Cult free world (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Shaw

Scott Shaw's article on Wikipedia, Scott Shaw, does mention that he undertook postgraduate studies in geography at Oxford, citing this external biography. This page also mentions Oxford: Experience Festival. It doesn't seem to prove anything that this connection isn't mentioned on his own website since that site doesn't mention any of his education beyond high school. I cannot find any mention that he was a member of Univ.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comment about the worthlessness of those references! BencherliteTalk 12:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Freelion

I suggest, let the personal attack statements made by him be there, it demonstrates the mindset of a person. --Cult free world (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it's WP policy to remove them from the page, although they remain forever in the history and can be referred to by diff if it is ever necessary to document Freelion's behaviour. --Simon D M (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalise my talk page anymore. Your comments have been removed and as I said, no correspondence will be continued with you. If it offends you, do not visit my talk page. Freelion (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freelion, Wikipedia is not a platform for you to carry out personal attacks. Your insults have been removed. --Simon D M (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the arbitrary name of "Simon" has inadvertently implicated you in the fraud I have described, I apologise. The name in the story has been removed and there is no name similar to your user name. Now please desist from any further changes on my user page, otherwise I will report you for vandalism. Since you seem to be touchy and have something to hide, you better not ask me personal questions. As for your query about Sahajhist, you should direct your claim to an administrator and not tamper with my user page Freelion (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Marga

your addition to the sahaja on this page does not seems appropriate... on doing some googleing, i found this moreover there is no wp page about that group, (appears it is not notable enough!!) there is no concept such as sahaja yoga or marg, except its literal translation (simple or natural...) again a fooling tactics used by these cults. --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have not had time to read it all but is looks like a RS. Feel free to link it. If you're suggesting that Sahaja Marga is not fit to be called a marga, it's not the job of WP EDITORS to judge. Same with Sahaja YOGA. However, I DO think there is a distinction to be made between margas and yogas that many groups follow, and yogas and margas that are basically propritary systems, exclusive to one group. --Simon D M (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to above mentioned topic only, do you have sufficient information about that group so as to start a wikipedia page ? someone had tried to start that page, and a well known cult promoter admin on wikipedia user:Jossi deleted that page, without any discussion. I could not read the page, as it was deleted before i could notice it, but there must be people on wikipedia who have enough knowledge about the subject so as to start the page and maintain it. any help will be highly appreciated. --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user

I have reverted your edits on two pages concerning the edits of a banned user. There are a couple problems with your edits. First of all you have not provided proof that the anonymous user is a sock of a banned user, and secondly and more importantly the messiah claimant that you are adding has no verifiable source, and thus can be removed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the anonymous user on this one. The reference you provided seems to be self-published, which is not generally acceptable. (Moreover the page doesn't claim anything about being a messiah). Do you have a third party reference from a reliable source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rock solid refs supplied. It seems our anonymous friend is having difficulty accepting them though. --Simon D M (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like getting into a fight over my identity, (you have baselessly marked several ip addresses I have used to edits as sock-puppet accounts - which have then been blocked from editing). I can understand you wanting to protect pages from a user you suspect of using a sock-puppet account, but (I believe) there are 'official' ways of going about things rather than hysterically reverting a user's edits because of some vague notion that a user is a sock-puppet. 124.168.176.97 (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you didn't commit vandalism with every edit summary, your claims of innocence might be more convincing. --Simon D M (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already written, I tried using a username, but had them blocked. And then you come along and stalk me around pinning sockpuppet notices on my user page. Reading your previous history here, this seems very much in character. 124.168.176.97 (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which usernames have you used? If you have been blocked unfairly, you should appeal rather than IP hop, you are in breach of WP policy by circumventing your block. --Simon D M (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you express yourself on such matter ? [edit warring] --? 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

Catalog of blanking by editor Asdfg12345

Simon, I have made a list of notable source editor Asdfg12345 has blanked in recent months:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_fletcher#Editor_Asdfg12345.27s_blanking_of_facts_from_notable_source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby fletcher (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-Page protection?

I am wondering if this is the best move. The problem there is that probable-Sfacets will then maybe create accounts, which is a different sort of annoyance. Hohohahaha (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't talking about me, because I am not that user, as I have said. 203.158.49.198 (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party views on Falun Gong

I'm trying to rewrite the article, [1], and have shortened the Buddhism section, and removed what I see as excessive quoting and technical jargon, although some users objected. What do think of my rewrite?--PCPP (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]