User talk:Bksimonb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] BKWSU information technology team

Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University/Archive02

[edit] Copyright issue

Simon,

we are still waiting for clarification on the position of copyright on God Shiva's images.

Can you tell us when to expect this? There would seem no good reason for delay.

Thanks Brahmakumaris.info 16:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA to TalkAbout

[edit] NPA to Bksimonb

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Bksimonb,

First, Sir I feel personally attacked by this: “Do not rant and rave on the discussion page of an article. That is for discussing the article only." I have been civil to you and your members of the Brahma Kumaris organisation. What I see here is that you are trying to work the system to hide your true practices, to suit your PR needs under a shield of "verifiable" sources approved by your members, while leaving others out that are quite legitimate. The truth cannot be forever shielded in secrecy. TalkAbout 21:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on this thread. Regards Bksimonb 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Simon,

you wrote stating that;

"Sadly, this underlines how little due care and attention you are giving any given references that oppose your organization's current PR and, perhaps, how unaware or misled you have been of your own organization's history."

In case I have it entirely wrong, can you please verify when and whether the BKWSU told you and tells newcomers about, e.g.;

  • the 40 years Confluence Age and failed 1976 Destruction scenario?
  • the re-editing of the Sakar Murlis?
  • the role that Kirpalani's parnet Sevak Ram played?
  • the role of the Advance Party?

Indeed, when does the BKWSU actually tell people about;

  • the importance of mediumship and channelling within the organization's spiritual practise (as listed on the old letterhead)? [1]


If you can read what I wrote and not see the concern and public interest that individual's are being willfully mislead ... what can I say?

What divine virtue is this you are practizing here? 195.82.106.244 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider the statement, "...this underlines how little due care and attention you are giving...". I consider it to be a personal attack in that it is a clear accusation of negligence or, in this context, some kind of sinister cover-up. Also alleging that I am somehow "misled" is somewhat offensive in that it seems to imply I must be gullible or stupid. At the very least I would say the sentence wasn't very civil not least because the statements were stated as fact, not qualified as a personal opinion.
I really don't understand how the rest of your post justifies the remark in question. It seems to me to be a bit off-topic and perhaps intended to provoke a reaction.Bksimonb 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.119.13.124 and arbcom statement

  • Just to give you a fair chance, you had probably amend your comment from "may". Luis actualy signs himself or gives his email account whilst editing on that IP address User:70.119.13.124 e.g. [2]. Its a wonder you could not just ask him or he could not remember. The discussion page is helpful too; [3]. I think it would look disingenuous of you not to point this out and I don't want to have to. Luis picked up a vandalism warning from an Admin the day after registering his user name on the first of April.
  • To make the user tags work, you need to go like this; [[User:Bksimonb|bksimonb]]. Note second name after a pipe; |

The same is true of IP users.

  • You also duplicate the same reference by mistake;

[4] [5]

which makes it look like you are padding it up. 195.82.106.244 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful info. Regards Bksimonb 17:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary Injunction

A temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized BKWSU effort

Simon,

You are no more being honest about the collective efforts than you were about the failed predictions of Destruction and the whole 1976 business. But may be they are not being entirely honest with you. Can you tell?

For individuals that are supposed to be egoless, surrendered and in the service of God, you appear to be hung up on personalizing this whole business by way of these jibing ad hominen attacks.

They only lower the BKWSU's standing in everyone's eyes.

195.82.106.244 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear 195.82.106.244,
Please be careful not to make statements that indicate I am "dishonest", "hung up" etc. Also statements such as "failed predictions", "they are not being entirely honest", "supposed to be egoless" etc. are blatenly ridiculing and indicate animosity towards myself and the BKWSU.
Accusatory comments are a form of personal attack. I think myself and other editors have a right to be able to take part on Wikipedia without being intimidated in this way.
BTW. There is absolutely no reason why an organisation can't engage in Wikipedia. I don't see any problem with this as long as respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Where I think we disagree is the nature of this involvement. You seem to be implying that all the pro editors are somehow part of this "team". They're not.
Regards Bksimonb 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Simon,
why would stating an objective fact, as with e.g. 1976, be classed as animosity? What you mean is that it is looks bad. But it is part of the unavoidable controversy within the BKWSU and Shiva that we have to address.
We are told Lekhraj Kripalani was so sure about it that he was willing to stake his fortune. True or false?
We know that even after his death, whilst being channelled via the medium Gulzar, he contined to predict a 1975/76 Destruction. True or False?
It is as simple as that.
You are in a position to give us an official statement, to check the vercity of the Murlis quotes and posters, why will you not do it? It is not the old "never deny or never confirm" line again is it?
Look, I want to establish good faith as much as you and so if you do, want to establish good faith, let us make it public record;
  • just come back to me once with an official statement about the predictions of Destruction, the veracity of those teaching posters or those Murli quotes. Let us see if we are starting from a level playing field of honesty and integrity.
That is all I am asking. Yes or no? 195.82.106.244 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Will respond further soon. In the meantime I think some of the questions you raise are addressed in the statement I made in the arbitration case. Regards Bksimonb 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luis

Simon,

part of the process in resolving conflict is negotiation.

I am perfectly happy to negotiate a way forward but I am not dealing with Luis any more, I am just ignoring him. The one element where I am more than willing to accept that there is not a centralized effort, is the degree to which it is unsuccessful because he will not tow the line. Unless he is just aiming for some phyrric victory, I cannot for one single cell of my body believe that the BKWSU would allow or instruct themselves to be represented in a public, archive discussion in the manner he is handling himself, and this matter, now.

I am afraid that since his little trick of sneaking around the back to attempt to block me out via a secret IP user address, I have lost all respect for him.

I do not know what you can do from within the BKWSU but right from the beginning of all this I have flagged it up with BKs that you really ought to get this guy off the case. Despite the arbitration process being ongoing, we are still witnessing a dive into more and continued personalized attack on the discussion page. I am sorry but this is not a Gyani or Brahmin way of doing things. 195.82.106.244 05:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear 195.82.106.244,
I believe that Luis is something of a rough diamond and yes, some of the things he has posted do not reflect my own sentiments. The main reasons we let things continue were as follows,
  • We want to keep a hands-off approach to other editors. Us telling people what they can and can't do in their private homes with their own computers is, IMHO, "cult-like".
  • Luis was the only person who could possibly keep up with you.
  • Luis has an accademic background which is useful.
  • Our first priority is to remove bias and libel from the article. Luis has achieved a lot in this respect, albeit in his own unique way!
  • Wikipedia has it's own policies and remedies if anyone is misbehaving.
I am sure the arbitrators have carefully read the evidence you have presented and taken it into account. I know they are also keeping a watchful eye on the article and discussion. Now is not a good time for any involved editor to be behaving badly. However, at time of typing and this close to the final votes on the case, they have not targetted Luis for any specific remedy.
I can see that you and Luis do seem to have a knack of pressing each other's buttons. If you feel you are being subjected to a personal attack then I support your not "biting". May I also suggest that you avoid talking about editors who trouble you in a way that is also likely to provoke an unwanted response from them. It is very easy to see what an editor's "contribs" are and check up on what they are saying about you so talking about someone on Wikipedia is effectively the same as talking to them.
Regards Bksimonb 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

Its no problem but you, we, they really ought to sort this out in some other way.

I promise you that if they are in anyway concerned about the negative PR element to all this, that Luis has and is making things 10 times worse.

Luis is, of course, right that the internet matters but he has gone about it in entirely the wrong and non-Brahmin manner. [ ... and now will do so ever 5,000 years for eternity].

195.82.106.244 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dearest 244

Dear 244; Come on... Give me a break!! YOU are really concerned about BK now... Do you know about Aesop's fables... the ears of the wolfe are stiking out my friend...You want to teach about shrimat now...Haha...(sorry.. it was a good joke though) I feel that you think that being spiritual means to be a "dummy." I respect you 244, I really do. I just do not trust you. I think you do not understand the difference between "arbitration" and "mediation." Better look it up. There is nothing to negotiate, my friend.. it is over. Just wait for the arbitrators to come up with their results. I am concerned that you will look bad.. . someone even suggested that you are better off leaving in the discussion page (it wasn't me) ...my role is to be here with you....I am not perfect, but definetely you will make me Karmateet...Wah my fortune!!

One more thing. Do not make a big deal about "catching me"...You never did. You just saw it eons after the fact. There is nothing wrong about posting your abusive ways for admins to see with an IP and signing my name right beside it. There is no regulation that forces me to do so: (Make sure 244 knows about your dealings with wiki admins) Everything legal and within the limits of Shrimat and Wikipedia, of course... No lies or misrepresentations here... at least on my part. Better review that TCP/IP book my friend. I was here last kalpa as well, Don't you remember that?.. just doing my part... Best, avyakt7 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user [6]. 195.82.106.244 is placed on Probation. He may be banned from editing any article which he disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing, especially that relying on inadequately sourced original research. Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is placed on article probation. The principals in this matter are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Should any user violate a ban imposed under the terms of this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brahma Kumaris Editing

Bksimonb, I have no issues with bold editing as long as you do not remove well sourced material. I did leave Some people a note on the user's talk page as to the requirements as per the arbitration committee. So, my point with you is yes, I would like to work in a positive fashion. PEACETalkAbout 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry and replied

Sorry, I mistook your edits. I apologize. Anyway, go to my talk page, I replied to you there. Bsroiaadn 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==

i only came back because i have the references now to put back all the stuff you know is true but took out...........i am not interested in speaking with you Green108 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed with that response to an honest attempt to reason with you [7]. All I can say is that by posting and editing with such a cavalier attitude you won't last long on Wikipedia.
I strongly refute the allegation that your are adding bits that I took out. I actually don't have much of a problem with much of your most recent edits to the page. I am just puzzled why you think it is necessary to adopt such a hostile and pointlessly accusing stance towards other editors who would otherwise be quite happy to work with you.
Regards Bksimonb 08:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i am not hostile at all,it is merely your projection..........i am perfect peaceful. i dont have the time or interest for any personal connecton...like appledell and her "goading".

by you i mean 'you Bks' have spent the best part of a how long trying to suppress ,and take out what you and i and they knew to be true ,i suppose because you did not think it was possible to back it up with references or that anyone would bother........well, you're wrong. its all in the academics' books and papers and by the rules now. i think it's fair for others to have the chance to know the whole truth ,that's neither negative or cavalier. Green108 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian section

Bksimonb, Listen, I realize that the entry doesn't read well, but until the book arrives or Faith gives some clarification it has to stay within the context of what she is quoting. Frankly it doesn't make sense to me, but I don't want to end up in the "trouble" basket because I removed someone's well cited material. I did make it a sub section as the prior way just carried far too much weight, more so than any other ones listed. I did mention it on the talkpage. Now as to the "airplanes" metaphor...I really don't understand that one! But, alas what can I do or say until the book gets here. I have asked her(assuming since she signed Faith) to clarify by providing the prior sentences but I am still waiting. Oh, that reminds me I have to get some to you as per your request too (onto your talkpage as agreed). So, just wanted to clarify that part as I like things that are clear and to the point that read well.PEACETalkAbout 20:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. I've replied regarding the citation on the article since it is relevant there.
Errm. How can I help regarding airplanes? I haven't commented on them before, that was Faithinhumanity. The quote was from what looks like an Avyakt murli and they are probably translated from the word "Viman" which is a flying machine from Hindu mythology. They are considered by BKs to be a memorial of the flying machines of the "golden age". I found this link which may be interesting on the topic [8].
I have removed the diff link you probably noticed. I obviously didn't read the edit line properly since I was sure it was Faithinhumanity reverting twice. Apologies.
Regards Bksimonb 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Request

Hello BKsimonb. I'm Aeon an advocate from the AMA. By the looks of your request and the ensuing ArbCom case it looks fairly cut and dry. The Anon user has been banned by the ArbCom. Any edits that is made by him or by sockpuppets can be reprted to WP:AN/I for enforcement of the block. As for the member Green108 can you give me a little more about the issues surounding this user so I cna better assist you? Æon Insanity Now! 23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA

Hello:) I have taken the AMA case. I will try to help. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/k/s/User_talk%7EBksimonb_9590.html"