User talk:Freelion

Archives

Hi, this is Freelion. Feel free to leave me a message. Freelion (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current projects

Wikipedia:Peer_review/Sahaja_Yoga/archive1

Something to check later
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/960583/
http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/clear-your-mind-to-beat-stress-20110712-1hbb7.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5215.2010.00519.x/full
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Displayarticle09.asp?section=health&xfile=data%2Fhealth%2F2011%2FNovember%2Fhealth_November66.xml
SY in prisons www.naturalnews.com/016026.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}
First statement of Central Committee: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_919_2011.asp

Here is an excerpt from Shri Mataji’s talk Easter Puja, 1992:

Then also sending presents, some people start sending presents, tinned fruit. Now anybody sends tinned food we are going to throw it in the sea. Chocolates. There’s no need to send anything like that. If you have to send something then send something that is good for them for the whole school. Otherwise just don’t send. Only for your child please don’t send. You are Sahaja yogis, you are not like other people. You are special people. So if you have to send something, send for all the children but not chocolates or not things that will spoil their immune system as it is already in a very bad shape. Tinned fruit you should never send. Any kind of tinned food we are going to throw them out. And it’s gone so bad, that we had to import tinned food for these children to eat. “I don’t like it. I won’t have it.” So if you really want your children to be strong, healthy, wise, sensible Sahaja yogis then you must have wisdom yourself, to be parents. These are all realized souls born to you. Special blessings. So be kind to them, be nice to them. The harshness is not only the harshness of showing anger to the children but also of showing too much love, also is a kind of harshness because it hurts other children, also it hurts your child. Because that child starts thinking, “Oh I’m something very special. I need not study. I need not do anything.” So there should be a balanced attitude towards the children. That’s what somebody told Me that you already are booked to go to Dharamsala. I’m sorry, please don’t go. They are doing well, they are looked after. There’s all possibility of their coming down with such beautiful personalities that you’ll be proud of them. Try to understand. Try to realize that whatever effort Sahaja Yoga is putting for them should be fully materialized. I hope none of you are sort of, going to disturb them. And when you write letters always in the letter you must write, “I want you to study very well, I want you to come up very well. You are a good Sahaja yogi.” Like this. Instead of that, “I love you very much, I miss you, I’m crying morning till evening for you.” This not the way. This is Greek tragedy.

Non-free rationale for File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a rationale for each of the two uses. We hope (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. Please let me know if there is anything else. Freelion (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about a further resize - there's a fair-use bot that should take care of it in a couple of days. Skier Dude (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of JetBlue flight attendant incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JetBlue flight attendant incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue flight attendant incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ditch ∝ 13:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chakra page

You claimed to be adding sourced material back in, but all you did was add unsourced material! Atiyogafan (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed to be deleting the unsourced material but you didn't remove all of it – only the parts you didn't like. I have added back the ones which were non contentious and useful for the article to help with readability. Yes, unsourced material can be deleted but it is not always necessary to do so, especially when the material is not contentious and helpful for readability. Where necessary I've added citation requests. Freelion (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop disrupting the Chakras and Kundalini pages

You are not helping with these pages. You are simply making them much worse with the non-RS material. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright BrahmanAdvaita, you seem like a reasonable guy. I'll tell you what I've done. I've salvaged the useful parts of the article which were deleted, even though they are not referenced, I'm sure that no editor with any general knowledge of the subject would disagree with any of that material.

It is not always necessary to delete unsourced material, especially if it is uncontentious, generally known and helpful for readability (think of the layman). The previous deletions were also not done even handedly - a lot of unreferenced info was left, meaning the editor has cherry picked which info to delete. There also has been some attempt to highlight the Tummo technique which is uncalled for in this article. Freelion (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini page

Your recent editing history at Kundalini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Borakai (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to scare me with this template Borakai. I see you are only a new editor, probably you have been blocked yourself and have a new incarnation. I am not edit warring, only returning the article to the state that reflected consensus. Please address the issues on the talk page before reverting or accusing me again. Freelion (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously a new consensus, and yes that also includes my opinion. I signed up in April. Is that really new?Borakai (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus, there is disagreement – see the talk page. I think you are just a sock puppet of Atiyogafan and/or Wrothscaptcha‎ or vice versa. Freelion (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your message!

I have seen your message in edit summary (about indent), looks better now, and BTW, I replied to your message in my talk! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tito. Could I just say that your signature really freaks me out! ;-) Freelion (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning re your reckless deletion of talk-page content

This discussion is entirely independent of the issues about the handling of the term Kundalini. Your reversion of our contributions on Talk:Kundalini yoga without any record there beyond the edit history, while entitled to WP:AGF especially in light of your limited experience on the site, was a reckless act which must alert you to your need to take more responsibility for understanding what WP is and what your obligations are when editing. Any similar harm by you to the accessibility of talk contribs you and/or others have saved should be referred to WP:AN, and i shall make some personal effort to monitor your contribs with that in mind.
--Jerzy•t 20:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, if you haven't worked it out yet, I'm disputing your conversion of the Kundalini article into a disambiguation page. That is why the proper place for the discussion is on the talk page of the original article. Now you have begun an argument over where the discussion should take place and left me a warning for moving the discussion to the place where it began (yes - I began this discussion). You call me reckless for moving a discussion from one talk page to another yet you have not answered the questions I have left for you over your reckless and unnecessary creation of a disambiguation page. If you don't explain yourself, I will undo the damage myself as per the bold revert discuss rule. Freelion (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i was waiting for that, so i'll say it less gently than i did in my long response: go read wp:Cut and paste move before your recklessness gets serious notice.
--Jerzy•t 03:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini

Resp for you at my "Kundalini article" section.
--Jerzy•t 03:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again.
--Jerzy•t 08:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I'm watching that discussion thank you. Freelion (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a real problem here

I've just taken strong action in the section Talk:Kundalini energy#Requested move toward remedying the effects of a false conclusion you've drawn about me. No doubt your earliest attention to the situation will help reduce the disruption of our work. TIA.
--Jerzy•t 06:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pregabalin

I think you're probably right about the research fraud issue. I don't know how my original Pubmed search only turned up one paper on this subject, but on looking at it more closely, I see there were quite a few.

I have some concerns about putting the marketing fraud issue in the intro, as the title of the article is "Prgabalin" and not "Lyrica". But I don't feel that strongly about it that its worth fighting about. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Formerly 98, I'm also averse to starting fights :-) I only wanted to include a summary of the fraud in the intro because it's about what the product was claimed to do and that some of these claims were not approved. No matter which name of the drug we're talking about, it's still the claimed effects that were fraudulently promoted. In regards to the research fraud, I'm not an expert in the field but I'm a believer in shaping articles with reliable sources, so there's got to be more info out there about how broadly pregabalin is used in anesthesiology. Freelion (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Freelion. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Freelion. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sahaja Yoga. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You started it Alexbrn. If you want to delete 30 references, discuss it first. Freelion (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need. WP:BOLD is a recommended approach, and insisting on discussion before making an edit is a kind of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. We are not going to retain a load of poorly-sourced content for this article. You have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is just one part of the bold revert discuss cycle. You've been bold, if not brash. I've reverted, now you need to discuss before proceeding. Otherwise, you are the one engaged in the edit war.Freelion (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are at 3RR. Revert again and I shall report you for edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not involved in a discussion, only continually deleting referenced material. Much of it is well referenced. If you have an issue, please address each part individually. I can report you too. Freelion (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing at Talk but the issues are clear cut: I can tell you now this dodgy content will not stand. Of course you are free to do as you wish. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a list of these "dodgy" references and tell me why you think each one is unworthy. Then I will agree to let you delete those ones only. Otherwise, you are acting like a blunt instrument and that is unintelligent. Freelion (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Then I will agree to let you" !? I'm afraid you are showing classic symptoms of believing you WP:OWN the article. You don't. The onus is on you to provide decent content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are showing classic symptoms of believing you own Wikipedia. I will agree to let you, in respect of me being another editor of Wikipedia and it being a collaborative effort. You should also play by the rules. As it is, you are exploiting your position and acting as a Wiki-lawyer, judge and jury. Freelion (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have side stepped the issue – please respond to my suggestion above that you address every single referenced sentence that you deleted. Or don't you have time? Freelion (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need - my edit was good and I am confident that WP:CONSENSUS of other competent editors will be in alignment. As a matter of policy, see WP:ONUS particularly: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" [my bold]. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not content with biomedical topics, you are now introducing undue material in an attempt to discredit the subject of this article. Shame on you Alexbrn, your bias and intention is plain. Freelion (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Freelion reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: ). Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You've been blocked for 36 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 07:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sahaja Yoga. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Freelion (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The summary by BBB23 at [[1]] says that his judgement was based on the fact I had already been blocked for edit warring. On that occasion I was reverting the undiscussed deletion of over 30 reliable sources. I made requests for discussion on the talk page but this was ignored by Alexbrn. Here are the diffs:

I would encourage you to look closer at his method of operation. He is deleting changing anything he likes, not engaging in proper discussion (just wiki-lawyering) and instead of working with new material, simply reverts everything with the most terse reasoning. Freelion (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you're pointing to Bbb23's summary, let me quote another part: "[...] contrary to Freelion's statements above, they are discussing Freelion's changes reasonably on the Talk page. The picture Freelion paints of Alexbrn's conduct is self-serving and false." Continuing this misrepresentation in your unblock request is not going to help you. Even if Alexbrn's conduct were as bad as you assert, you're not blocked for Alexbrn's conduct but for your own. You'll need to address that. See WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to have look at this case Huon. So far no one has actually told me what I've done wrong except for "edit warring". As far as I have seen, I have been paying attention to obey all the rules:

adding referenced material
editing the text to reflect the referenced material correctly
providing accurate edit summaries
explaining myself fully on the talk page.

Now I have explained already how another editor is being obstructive. In continuing to deal with him I have been forced to make an official complaint. Now I have been accused of edit warring. Excuse me but I have not broken any rules here. I'll be happy to acknowledge anything that you can point out. Freelion (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into the details here, Alexbrn disputes the quality of the references you provided or, more precisely, the use you put those references to. In this revert Alexbrn removed a large section of text that, while citing third-party sources, in fact largely consisted of quotes by the founder, without meaningful analysis by the cited sources and (according to Alexbrn; I haven't checked) carefully selected to give a specific impression ("POV cherry picking"). Regarding edit warring, you have been pushing basically the same quotes into the article for several days now, over objections. Establish a consensus on the talk page, making use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes if needed, then change the article accordingly. Huon (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input I really appreciate it. I understand the way forward but would just like to underline that this is what I have already been doing, hence my complaint. In answer to your points:

Alexbrn disputes the quality of the references – these are the same references he is using. Disputing the quality is nonsense.
The use to which I am putting the references – I have explained on the talk page what I am doing with the references (fleshing out the context). However, none of my points on the talk page were ever responded to by Alexbrn, he only reverted everything with terse edit descriptions.
The large section of text removed that was sourced from a third party existed to provide context for the other sourced material that was (in my opinion) cherry picked by Alexbrn to give a negative impression. I explained this on the talk page. If there needed to be more analysis provided from the source, so be it – I'm happy to improve it! But there was no discussion, no engagement with what I had written. He simply reverted multiple edits.

In short Huon, Alexbrn is obstructing all my attempts at providing additional context from reliable sources to offset his cherry picked POV campaign. I believe dispute resolution will be necessary moving forward. The job is open, your application would be welcome. Freelion (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to re-litigate the content dispute here; the article's talk page is the place for that. Huon (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to litigate the content. I'm just explaining that I have been using the talk page as per policy but the other user has not been responding constructively on the talk page. He is reverting multiple edits with minimal edit descriptions, gaming the system: citing wikipedia links for minor errors (as excuses) and not addressing the points I've made on the talk page. Basically he's being obstructive and this is the basis for my complaint. I have not been engaging in edit warring and therefore should not have been blocked.

I've asked you to point out what I've done wrong. You responded with some points but I have politely pointed out above that these points are invalid. Can you please point out to me where I have erred and why this block must persist? Freelion (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Since coming off your block you have resumed edit warring, now having modified/whitewashed our long-standing Abgrall text three times. Be aware that continued edit warring will likely result in a sanction. I note you have not persued any dispute resolution as you indicated you would. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start this again mate. I have notarised every change that I have made on the talk page in numbered point form. How about you address those points before pointing the finger again. Freelion (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]