User talk:Momento

Welcome!

Hello, Momento, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 02:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Signing your entries

Thank you for your contributions. Please note that you can use four tildes ~~~~ to automatically add a signature and time stamp to your comments in discussion pages. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Concerning article Prem Rawat: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Some other quotes

• In an interview with in 1973 Tom Snyder host of "The Tomorrow show" TV series, Snyder asked Prem Rawat: "Now I'm not trying to be disrespectful but' Ive got to ask you this question: Many of your followers say that you are God. What do you have to say about this?" To which Rawat replied: "No, I am not God. I am only a humble servant of God."

• At a press conference during the 1973 Millennium gathering, Rawat denied to the press that he believed himself to be the Messiah, characterizing himself instead "as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world." A reporter then asked him about "a great contradiction" between what he said about himself and what his students were saying about him, and he responded by suggesting the reporter ask the devotees themselves about that. In a still-later speech, Rawat was to characterize as mistaken the early Western reaction to him upon his arrival, saying, "when people saw me at that time, they really didn't understand what it was all about."
  • He didn't answer the reporter's question. In fact, what his students said about him derived from claims he made about himself. The reporter was correct about there being a great contradiction. 69.251.176.184 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• In an interview with the Miami Magazine, in 1979, Prem Rawat spoke of what he believed God to be. In answer to the question, "If God is within, can't people experience God without the help of someone else?", Prem Rawat said, "God being within is one thing, and experiencing God is another. Just like having water in front of you is one thing, and drinking is another. God is within you. God is omnipresent."

• Millennium Press Conference

Q: Guru, you’ve said that it’s the presumption of the press among others that claim has been made on your behalf that you are the Messiah, and that is not your statement. I understand this is not your statement. I have read on several occasions that you have disavowed any such claim. The question I am interested in is, since the presumption and the confusion seems to arise because your followers, especially those who are involved in the publication of the magazines, have made this claim on your behalf, are there any plans that you have to put an end to this confusion and these presumptions by directing them to quit making such claims?

M: Only thing I can do is pass my comments about it, pass my statements about it, which I am as a matter of fact doing.

That you may want to add to the Prem Rawat article ~---

sorry for late reply

It was never my intention to misrepresent your opinion. Please tell me what is wrong with the follow (http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/3540.html) Andries 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean?Momento 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what you wrote on my talk page "Andries your comment on the anti Prem Rawat forum (http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/3540.html) that "Wikipedia editors assert that 'Guru Maharaj ji is God' can refer to his father", is untrue and should be retracted.Momento 02:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)" I have no problem to leave this case for what it is if what I wrote there no longer bothers you. Andries 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong is that no Wiki editor has produced a quote of Guru Maharaji saying "I am God". And therefore no Wiki editors " assert that 'Guru Maharaj ji is God' can refer to his father". You discredit Wki and its editors when you say things that aren't true. The comment can stay on www.prem-rawat-talk.org, it is just one lie amongst many.Momento 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. First of all I was sincerely convinced that I was telling the truth then, so it was not a lie, but at worst a mistake. Second of all, I do not think that it was a mistake, but I still think it is true what I wrote there. Prem Rawat has said basically that Guru Maharaj Ji is God e.g. when he said "To be here as individual and yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything; in which everything is and he is everything. Guru Maharaj Ji. The Lord. All-powerful." from "The Final Step" Malibu, California, June 11, 1978. From the Divine Times June/July Volume 7, Number 4 ~ The Guru Puja Special.[1] Andries 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you keep doing it Andries - "Prem Rawat has said basically that Guru Maharaj Ji is God." When he said over and over again a human being can't be god. Read the quote again.Momento 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what he said, he said "God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk." He was speaking of some concepts about God "up there" (for lack of a better phrase), not of God not being able to incarnate in human form. The above quote, which is one of many, clearly indicates that he has claimed to be the Lord incarnate. Just this year in India he said "If lord Krsn had appeared to the giant gathered armies at the battlefield as he did to Arjuna in his true form, the battle would have been over very quickly, but He did not, the lord comes to each individually." 69.251.176.184 01:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

There is a saying in WP that says: Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Hello. Got your message on my talk page.
Concerning the article, I'd love to help out. However, this is not something I'm familiar with. Also, the article seems to be out of stubhood and going quite strong, despite the debates. Could you specify what exact part/section of the article you'd like me to help with? Or is there some point you are trying to convey but not being able to get across? Waiting for your reply. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 11:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to use "vandalism" on an edit summary, unless it is obvious vandalism, Momento. Simply revert and explain why in talk. That user is a newbie and does not understand how WP works, despite his claims to the contrary, in addition to having a huge ax to grind given the embarrassing situation he put himself into when he missapropriated data and got dinged. So, we need to be patience and not allow him to disrupt the editing process. Best would be if he engages constructively, although I doubt that it will be that easy... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding A RFA

Momento, for your information, there is an RFA Evidence Page involving Andries. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful with Wikipedia:edit summaries

You removed the following information from the article [2] witht the edit summary "Removed original research"[3]" This information is cited so it strikes me as not original research. I may miss something, but your edit summary strikes me as erroneous at best

A 1998 article in Rocky Mountain News referred to Elan Vital as a "cult"<ref>"Former Guru on a Different Mission", ''[[Rocky Mountain News]]'', [[January 30]], [[1998]].<br>Nowadays, former cult members estimate Maharaji (he's dropped the Guru from his name and simplified the spelling) has 100000 to 200000 followers...</ref>.

In case I am wrong, please explain. In case I am right I urgently request you to be more careful with your edit summaries. Andries 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact the former cult members estimate Maharaji's following doesn't imply criticism. To insert this in the criticism suggests that the editor believes it is criticism without any supporting evidence.Momento 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The label cult can be interpreted as criticism. Andries 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on its context and since the context is estimating followers there is no reason to see it as critical.Momento 22:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mishler's claims

Work in progress.

1) Wiki BLP policy is that "editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources". So is Mishler a reliable source, failing any one of the following criteria is enough to fail Wiki's standards.

Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view. - Mishler is clearly biased.

Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification.- Mishler is only quoted in 2 newspapers, neither paper corroborates his claims.

Corroboration—The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.-No other source corrborates Mishler.

Recognition by other reliable sources—A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. Sources which have been attacked, or have rarely or never been cited, may be more suspect.Melton mentions other Mishler claims but not these".

Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.- Mishler's claims are 30 years old

Persistence— If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should be treated with caution.Mishler has been dead for 25 years

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources "Wiki policy is that exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to biographies of living people", Are Mishler's claims exceptional? They are according to Wiki policy. Exceptional claims are -

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known - Mishler is the only one to claim Prem Rawat "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". Suprising since PR promotes a method for achieving inner peace.

Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. Mishler's claim that he left the group after trying to get the Maharaj Ji to tell his followers plainly that he was not God, is "out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest that PR had previously defended". See the numerous Wikiquotes where PR says that "a human being cannot be God".

NPOV - Undue weight = a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

For the record...

Your recent edits to Prem Rawat aren't corrections of errors on my part. You seem to be trying to truncate or contextualize the information for the reader. The more recent edit appears to be satisfactory, but the initial one clearly puts the author's words in the wrong context (as he wasn't speaking of other sant mats, but of Rawat and his lineage). Please be mindful that changing words in this way can easily change the meaning of a sentence to the point that what you're saying is wrong, as was the case with the previous set of edits you made to that passage which I corrected. Cheers. Mael-Num 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Stay tuned folks. Mael-Num is wrong and is probably realising it just about now.Momento 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm realizing something, but I don't think it's what you think it is. Mael-Num 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If the root of realisation is "real", excellent.Momento 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks

Your conduct here appears to be a personal attack. Please review what Wikipedia says on this subject here. I'm posting this on your talk page in the hopes that we can resolve this situation amicably and without the need for escalation to administrative intervention. Thank you. Mael-Num 09:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In Maerl-Num's three months at Wiki M-N has been cautioned for incivility twice, cautioned for personal attacks once, blocked for violating 3RR and recently accused me of being a sock puppet and a meat puppet with zero evidence. Momento 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Block joke

<<unblock|First and ultimate point I am not a sock puppet and ever since I created the Momento account I have never edited Wiki as anyone else. Therefore Betacommand is wrong. Second, I am a consistent editor of Prem Rawat articles and constantly involved in discussions on the talk pages. Two of the most consistant editors Jossi and Andries both rejected the sock puppet argument presented by Mael-Num. No other editor supported Mael-Num. Third, my accuser has been editing Wiki for just three months and has been cautioned for incivility twice, cautioned for personal attacks once, blocked for violating 3RR.Fourth, the only "evidence" presented is that I and VictorO edited a Prem Rawat article on the same day. A closer look will show that on one occassion we were editing different bits at exactly the same time - Here's VictorO editing Prem Rawat at 21:57, 20 January 2007 and Momento is editing Talk:Prem Rawat at 21:57, 20 January 2007. Fifth, VictorO was blocked from 22:21, 20 January 2007 by Sandstein until 10:22, 21 January 2007. During that period I made nearly 20 edits.This action by Betacommand is a joke and he has been criticised for incorrect blocking by others.>>

Reviewing admin: I support the unblock. I cannot unblock him myself as I am involved in editing that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for Momento's evidence above (sent by Momento to me via email):

• VictorO: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

• Momento: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The autoblock was removed by me after user was unblocked by User:Betacommand on 17:02, February 26, 2007 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

RFC Betacommand

Hi - there is no point adding a comment to this page, it is an archive, a historical record - people will revert or remove additional comments to that page. --Fredrick day 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Editing Prem Rawat/lead. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat/lead

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Editing Prem Rawat/lead. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Lelkesa 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please agree with formal mediation and sign your agreement with it there Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat Thanks. Andries 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I now included Vassyanana and Rumiton in the mediation and informed both of them. Please re-consider your rejection of mediation. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat Thanks. Andries 09:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Keeping cool

I understand the discussion over at Talk:Prem Rawat can get heated and frustrating. However, please try to refrain from snarky comments like this. They only serve to bait people who are already hot under the collar. Please try to keep a polite tone, even when you feel flabbergasted or offended. Thank you for all your effort on the article. I look forward to your further contributions. Be well!! Vassyana 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Rawat on the internet

Momento, it seems that you try to hurt my credibility by writing that I post on the ex-premie forum. Where else on the internet is there open and frank discussion of Prem Rawat? I was unable to find it, except on the ex-premie forum. Andries 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That you choose to write on an anti-Rawat is as relevant as Jossi having a potential COI.Momento 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Where can I write on a more neutral forum? Andries 21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where a "more neutral forum" is. I have no interest in discussing Rawat on an internet forum of any sort.Momento 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You have made three reverts at Prem Rawat. Please avoid violating the rules. Vassyana 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert three times. In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article. I made an edit to a long standing section based on "exceptional claims" and "BLP" which Andries immediately reverted to a previous version. Andries made another edit which I allowed and after discussion in the talk page I again removed only the material that I believe contravenes "exceptional claims" and "BLP". Andries reverted a second time and added some more material which I again allowed stand. I then checked and translated the original source material and found evidence that Andries had deleted crucial material from the quote and after discussing in tallk, I removed only the material that I believe contravenes "exceptional claims" and "BLP", Andries reverted for a third time. But thanks for your intervention anyway.Momento 02:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil

Some of your recent edit summaries have been off-key and potentially inflammatory.[4] Please try to stay cool and civil. Comments, and especially edit summaries, like that are not at all helpful to the edit history or editing climate. Thanks. Vassyana 10:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please re-consider?

You cannot have me banned so easily, so I request that you re-consider your disagreement not to have mediation. You can try to get me banned by making a request to the wikipedia:arbitration committee, but your behavior will then be scrutinized by them too. Andries 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2

Can you please sign the agreement to mediation there Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2? Thanks in advance. Andries 15:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2. Andries 16:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 2. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

Hello, I'm taking this mediation case. Please provide me with an e-mail address for yourself I can use, if that is okay. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3

Please sign to agree with mediation here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. Andries 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Evening Standard

1. Many newspapers use terms like "accused" and "alleged", while reporting a story.
2. It is quite possible that the emails were called "secret" upon reliable information from a confidential source known only to the Evening Standard, who did not want to be revealed for fear of retribution. Also common in journalism.
3. Again, other statements in the article are most likely backed up to confidential sources that were afraid to speak publicly on the record.

But in any event, I have said from the outset that these are all points better addressed by other regular contributors to WP:RSN, and not by regular posters to the talk page Talk:Prem Rawat and the Prem Rawat associated articles - who would most understandably have a colored opinion about the use of a source which speaks negatively of that individual. You say that my posting to that noticeboard was "attempt to circumvent Wiki policy and guidelines." -- However I have not edited the Prem Rawat article to put that information into the article or into any other related article, I have instead waited for feedback from the noticeboard, which exists specifically to give feedback on usage of sources like this. I fail to see how you could come to the opinion that this is in any way, shape or form an "attempt to circumvent Wiki policy and guidelines." Now, I'd like us both to wait for a response at WP:RSN from someone who does not regularly post to Talk:Prem Rawat or edit the Prem Rawat article regularly. Thanks. Cirt 09:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

1. You forget to mention that the evening standard is a tabloid and tabloids are not considered reliable sources for articles, and particularly BLPs
2. You are assuming too much in your repetition of "secret:, "fear of retribution" and other such colored opinions
3. You are indeed subverting process and bypassing, by assuming bad faith, discussing editor's opinions, and making these public
4. You have done that in the past, and you should know better by now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1. How am I assuming anything? Aren't you and Momento also assuming about just how this source obtained its information, as well?
2. What have I done that discussed any editor's opinions? I think it is most appropriate to ask for a neutral point of view from a noticeboard that is specifically constructed for that purpose. If I wanted input from regular, heavy posters to Talk:Prem Rawat, I would have asked at that talk page for opinions on the source. I didn't. I asked at WP:RSN, which is the specific place to do just that. That is not a "subversion" of anything, it is specifically what the page is designed for, to ask questions about usage of sources. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

You do not have to respond, if you feel that I need further clarification on something regarding this, please politely contact a third-party administrator who is more neutral in this manner, and ask them to talk to me about something. Otherwise, we're done here. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Divine Light Mission article

I am interested to know why the opening paragraph of the Divine Light Mission fails to mention what it was. Can you think of a suitable noun to describe it, or is the idea of describing what it was somehow anathema to some people, on the basis that it is better not to know? I understand that some people are very much against people knowing about cults in order to protect those people from such. Nevertheless, it might be useful to describe what the Divine Light Mission was, for those with an academic interest, at least. Matt Stan (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

DLM covers a very wide spectrum. It started as as a vehicle to help spread Shri Maharaj Ji's message in India, it became a religion in the US, a charity in England, an association else where. It has been described as a New Religious Movement, as a New Age cult,a s an off shoot of Sant Mat, as a Hindu off shoot etc. Ours is not to choose a description but to provide what scholars say and let the reader make up their own mind.Momento (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, you haven't actually answered my point, which is that the introductory paragraph of the article doesn't yet say:

• It started as as a vehicle to help spread Shri Maharaj Ji's message in India
• it became a religion in the US
• a charity in England
• an association else where
• It has been described as a New Religious Movement
• as a New Age cult
• as an offshoot of Sant Mat
• as a Hindu offshoot

Someone had indicated in the article that it was, as you say, a cult, but you removed that edit with a pejorative comment and left no description at all. Is your assertion that "Ours is not to choose a description" an edict of Mr Ji himself? It is usual in wikipedia that one does choose a description for each entity described. That is what the encyclopedia is for. Also it would be interesting to know whether there are in fact any disinterested scholars who have performed academic analysis and with sufficient credentials for them to be cited in support of any description. Or is the mention of scholars itself an unverifiable assertion? Otherwise, why not just include what Divine Light describes itself as, or does it not provide any description? If I said an apple was a fruit, would you require me to provide academic references to verify that fact? I think not. If someone puts that the Divine Light Mission is a cult, given that it is so many things in different countries, presumably for financial reasons, then is that not a sufficiently succinct description? 84.9.48.35 (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No.Momento (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Melton mentions it in his encyclopedia of cults, so that is a reputable source, I has also been described as an NRM in reputable sources and a sect. All this should go in. Andries (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you spent a minute reading the article you would see the views of Aagaard, Barker. Chryssides, Derks, Downton, Galanter, Haan, Hummel, Hunt, Kranenborg, Lee, Lippy, McGuire, Melton and Messer are all included and references to sources given. You will also note that most scholars refer to DLM either by name or as a "movement" in their writings.Momento (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and? Movement is not the only label for the DLM given by scholars. Andries (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That is really disingenuous... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sory, I so not understand your comment. Andries (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this conversation else where.Momento (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Love of Prem Rawat

Momento loves Prem Rawat so so much that he cannot bear to have anything critical of him said anywhere, for numerous obvious reasons, though his love for mankind may be more quesionable. Why not, for instance, allow people to hear a balancing view? Surely Momento would demonstrate his love for mankind better if he allowed people with grievances against the money-collecting organisations of Mr Ji to be heard, just in case there was something in what those people had to say, and so that others could take a more objective view! Latest news from the horse's mouth, so to speak, is that recruitment of new premies is not going according to the Lord of the Universe's business plan, but donations from existing disciples are well up, so there's not too much to get worried about at the moment. 147.114.226.175 (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to criticism, it's like bugs on your windscreen. You're a bit late for this conversation.Momento (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is criticising you, Momento, but you deleted some criticism of Mr Rawat, as you said in the edit summary, for obvious reasons. Obviously it is your love for Mr Rawat that overrides any judgment that you might have about allowing criticism of him to be known. You are a survivor. Maybe not everyone else is. Incidentlly, is it true that if you were to seek an audience with the Guru on order to get advice on how best to keep a lid on things then a ticket for such an audience would cost you $500? 147.114.226.175 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to follow your analogy: if wikipedia is the windscreen and you are not averse to criticism (but you nevertheless remove it), perhaps you are the bug? 147.114.226.175 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Cult of Wikipedia

You removed the following from the Prem Rawat article and stated "Reverting ex-premie attack." This is not adequate explanation and as such I have now reverted.

"His religious movement is widely recognized as a cult or former cult - by independent academics and the mainstream media as well as ex-Rawat-followers." This is from today's article found in The Register: The Cult of Wikipedia.

You may disagree with what is said about this topic but to delete anything that you find objectionable is not acceptable. Wiki is not a personal encyclopedia but is instead intended to represent a general world-view of knowledge. It is recommended that you not participate in articles in which you may have difficulty maintaining a NPOV. Regards.

• As you referred to me as an "ex-premie" I googled the term and found this site: [Prem Rawat's former followers present Ex-Premie.Org, the truth about Prem Rawat, a.k.a. Maharaji, The Prem Rawat Foundation, and Elan Vital] As I've never been involved with this organization your reference is inaccurate. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.132.123 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Your continued reverts without responding to my comments is puzzling, especially as you note "Reverting undiscussed edit" in your most recent revert of my contribution. It's difficult to ascertain your intention if you do not respond to my inquiries. As mentioned previously it is recommended that you not participate in articles in which you may have difficulty maintaining a NPOV. Regards.
• I completely agree with you. I think momento was right to consider theregister a poor reference, so he correctly removed it. But each of the references in the section he is removing seems very strong. Does anyone disagree? It can not be considered appropriate to remove that content without giving any indication of why *each* of the references is not valid as strong as it appears.217.33.236.2 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Before making any substantial edits, discuss on the Prem Rawat talk page. Thanks.Momento (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be mindful...

... of WP:3RR. There is no need to engage in edit wars with anon editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm either reverting vandalism or violations of BLP. Please protect the PR article from undiscussed and improper edits from anon editors.Momento (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. That could help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia was explicitly designed to allow for anonymous contributions and editing. Those sections of Wiki that need protection from anon editors are protected. Please do not diminish the value of anonymous editors merely because you disagree with their input. User_talk:Jossi's admonition is nearly correct but should read: "There is no need to engage in edit wars." Additionally, my attempt to warn you of WP:3RR was deleted by you as "vandalism." 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that you are also edit warring and violating WP:3RR. My I also suggest that you seem to know too much about Wikipedia, to assume that you are a new editor? See WP:SOCK for more information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I implied that I am a new editor. That is not the case as you will see if you look at my history. Your reference to WP:SOCK is unclear - is your implication that I am a sockpuppet? That is inaccurate and unwarranted. WP:NPA 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at your history, and 10 edits was way too little to assume that you have not edited before or currently edit under another username. If that is not the case, my sincere apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted.24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, as you likely realize most IP addresses are refreshed and released to other users. Not every edit listed is mine (but the majority are) and I've edited many other times but apparently with a different IP address. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that the article has been semi-protected. You are welcome to register and create a new account if you don't have one. Editing as a registered user has many benefits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it

Don't feed the wildlife.[5] I would recommend self-reverting the comment. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you stop inserting negative material to placate the wildlife.Momento (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with what I added? It's all well-sourced and it's not all negative material. My aim remains the same as it ever was regarding Prem Rawat's article ... that it be well-sourced and comprehensive. Considering my past involvement, I would have hoped you'd have better faith in me. Vassyana (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I operate on a day to day basis. And you are no longer the independent, neutral editor I admired. You are now editing with the sole aim of putting negative material in. As Melton says in Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145) "Ex members attacked the group with standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control." Your inclusion is a cheap shot that could be inserted about any minority philosophy. It is unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. You should revert it.Momento (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the same person with the same view of the article that I had previously. I'm not making any cheap shots. Even though the information is negative, it is well-sourced. NPOV demands that all significant views be given an appropriate amount of space. Regardless of personal opinions, a number of clearly reliable sources discuss some negative claims about Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital. Such claims should be proportionately represented in the article. I understand it can be a touchy subject, but please take a breath and don't take it personally. Vassyana (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd check your reference. My version of J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145 says

D. DIVINE LIGHT MISSION

The arrival in the United States in 1971 of a 13 year old religious leader from India was met with some ridicule but, more importantly, an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults who were willing to seriously examine his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God. From that initial support, Guru Maharaj Ji was able to establish a flourishing American branch of the Divine Light Mission.

Founders and Early History The Divine Light mission was founded by Shri Hans Maharaj Ji (d. 1966), the father of Maharaj Ji. Early in life he encountered Sarupanand Ji, a guru of the Sant Mat tradition by whom he was initiated. Though Sarupanand Ji had told his disciples to follow Hans Maharaj Ji, after the guru’s death another disciple, Varaganand, claimed the succession and took control of the guru’s property. Hans Maharaj Ji began to spread the teaching independently in Sind and Lahore, and in 1930 he established an informal mission in Delhi. His following grew steadily. In 1950, shortly after Indian independence had been declared, he commissioned the first mahatmas, followers who had the ability to initiate and who devoted themselves full time to the work of propagating the teachings of Shri Hans Maharaj Ji. He also began a monthly magazine, Hansadesh. By 1960 followers could be found across northern India from Bombay to Calcutta, and the need to organize them more formally led to the founding of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad). just six years after the founding of the Mission, Shri Hans Maharaj Ji was succeeded by his youngest son, Prem Pat Singh Rawat (b. 1957), who was but eight when he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji had been recognized as spiritually adept, even within the circle of the Holy Family, as Shri Hans Maharaj Ji’s family was called. He had been initiated (i.e., given knowledge) at the age of six and soon afterward gave his first satsang (spiritual discourse). After his father’s death he heard a voice commissioning him as the one to take the knowledge to the world. He assumed the role of Perfect Master at his father’s funeral by telling the disciples who had gathered, “Dear Children of God, why are you weeping? Haven’t you learned the lesson that your Master taught you? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you now. Recognize Him, obey Him and worship Him.” Though officially the autocratic leader of the Mission, because of Maharaj Ji’s age, authority was shared by the whole family. During the 1960s Americans in India searching for spiritual guidance discovered the Mission and a few became initiates (i.e., “premies,” or “lovers of God”). They invited Maharaj Ji to the United States. In 1970 Maharaj Ji announced his plans to carry the knowledge throughout the world and the following year, against his mother’s wishes, made his first visit to the West. A large crowd came to Colorado the next year to hear him give his first set of discourses in America. Many were initiated and became the core of the Mission in the United States. Headquarters were established in Denver, and by the end of 1973, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers as well as over twenty ashrams, which housed approximately 500 of the most dedicated premies, had emerged. The headquarters staff expanded to 125, and social service facilities, such as a medical clinic in New York City, were opened. Two periodicals, And It Is Divine, a magazine, and Divine Times, a tabloid, were begun. Enthusiasm ran high. After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity. The event failed; attendance was miniscule. The Mission was left with a $600,000 debt which required it to cut its staff and programs. Millennium 73 was but the first of a series of events which gradually led the Mission to withdraw from the public scene. It was staged just as the anti cult movement reached national proportions and turned its attention upon the Mission. Several deprogrammed ex members became vocal critics of the Mission. Through his Executive Secretary, Maharaj Ji announced that he was replacing the predominantly Indian image with a Western one. Among other changes, he began to wear business suits instead of his all white Indian attire. Many of the ashrams were discontinued. To the problems caused by the debt and the attack of anticultists were added internal problems within Maharaj Ji’s family. In December 1973, when Maharaj Ji turned 16, he took administrative control of the Mission’s separate American corporation. Then in May 1974, he married his 24 year old secretary, Marolyn Johnson, and declared her to be the incarnation of the goddess Dulga usually pictured with ten arms and astride a tiger. Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved. Mataji, Maharaj Ji’s mother, disapproved of the marriage and the life style of the now successful guru. Relations within the Holy Family were strained considerably. Accusing her son of breaking his spiritual disciplines, Mataji took control of the Mission in India and replaced him with his eldest brother. In 1975 Maharaj Ji returned to India and took his family to court. In a court decreed settlement, he received control of the movement everywhere except in India, where his brother was recognized as its head. Publicity about the marriage and the subsequent family quarrels caused many Western followers to leave the Mission, though a large membership remained. By the late 1970s the Mission in the United States had almost disappeared from public view. Maharaj Ji continues to travel the globe speaking to premies, and the Mission, while growing little in the United States, has expanded significantly in Southern Asia, the South Pacific and South America.

Beliefs and Practices The Divine Light Mission is derived from Sant Mat (literally, the way of the saints), a variation of the Sikh religion which draws significant elements from Hinduism. It is based upon a succession of spiritual masters generally believed to begin with Tulsi Sahib, an early nineteenth century guru who lived at Hathrash, Uttar Pradesh. It is believed that the person mentioned as Sarupanand Ji in Mission literature is in fact Sawan Singh, a prominent Sant Mat guru. In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration. The Mission has as one of its stated goals the instruction of the world in “the technique of utilizing the universal primordial Force, that is, the Holy Name (Word) which is the same as the Divine Light and which pervades all human beings thus bringing to the fore the eternal principle of unity in diversity.” In the Sant Mat tradition this practice is called surat shabd yoga, the practice of uniting the human spirit with the universal divine sound current. The particular methods of accomplishing that union vary from group to group and are one reason for their separation. Within the Divine Light Mission, initiation into the yoga is by a process known as giving knowledge. Though premies were instructed not to talk about their initiation outside of the Mission, details of the process were soon revealed by ex members. At initiation, a mahatma, the personal representative of Maharaj Ji, introduces new members to four yogic techniques, all of which are quite common within Sant Mat circles, although equally unknown to the average person, even to the average Indian. These four techniques reveal the means of experiencing the divine light, sound, word, and nectar. To experience the divine light, one places the knuckles on the eyeballs, a process which produces flashes of light inside the head (and also pinches the optic nerve). To discover the divine sound or music of the spheres, one plugs the ears with the fingers and concentrates only on internal sounds. The third technique involves concentration upon the sound of one’s own breathing. Finally, to taste the nectar, the tongue is curled backward against the roof of the mouth and left there for a period of time. Once learned, these techniques are practiced daily. Frequently, meditation is done under a blanket, both to block outside disturbances and to conceal the techniques. Unlike many Sant Mat groups, the Divine Light Mission has had a social program from its beginning. Shri Hans Maharaj Ji called for a balance between temporal and spiritual concerns, and the Mission's stated goals include the promotion of human unity, world peace, improved education for all (especially the poor), and relief from the distress caused by ill health and natural calamities. The Mission made provision for the establishment of hospitals, maternity homes, and residences. This emphasis upon social programs was transferred to the United States. Three holiday festivals which members are expected to attend are held annually. The Holi festival is in March or April. The Guru Puja (Maharaj Ji's birthday) is in July. Hans Jayanti (Hans Maharaj Ji's birthday) is in November. Current Status Since 1974, the Divine Light Mission has increasingly kept a low profile and at present is virtually invisible in the United States. In 1979 the Denver headquarters quietly closed, and both it and Maharaj Ji moved to Miami Beach, Florida. From there, two periodicals are currently published, Divine Times and Elan Vital. In 1980, the Mission reported 10,000 to 12,000 active members in the United States. The Mission is headed by Maharaj Ji, its Spiritual Leader and the Board of Directors which supervises the 23 branches. Ministers (mahatmas) lead the Mission centers around the world. Many of them travel from center to center to give initiation and satsang (spiritual discourses). Members are required to participate in meditation daily and attend satsang each evening. Controversy During the first years of the Divine Light Mission in the United States, both it and Maharaj Ji were constantly involved in controversy. The teachings of the Mission, particularly the public discourses of Maharaj Ji, were condemned as lacking in substance. Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader. At one point, a pie was thrown in his face (which led angry followers to assault the perpetrator). Ex members attacked the group with standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control. However, as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except for the accusations of Robert Mishner the former president of the Mission, who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission.Momento (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloating/deletion

It may be better smaller, but it isn't appropriate for an editor to delet 20k of material and just say "Better". The editor who re-added the info has been discussing the changes and that's the right way to proceed. Get a consensus of editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history you will see this article has been stable at 53 since May 2007 as a result of GA reviews and independent editorial advice. Francis added 30 kilobytes of material at 16:52 today without discussing it until 20:13.Momento (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I say, he's discussing it which is the right way to proceed. While the article may have been stable for a time, questions about its neutrality have been raised so it may have to be substantially edited in order to become stable in a modified form. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Stable because you reverted nearly all my edits. Andries (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts at Prem Rawat

Your recent editing history at Prem Rawat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You've removed an image from the Prem Rawat article several times now within less than 24 H: [6] [7] [8] [9]

In the same time period you removed some additional external links several times too: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

I'm not dealing with whether or not these are useful/appropriate images/links (I gave the person continuing to insert them a similar 3RR warning), but please cut the edit warring. The related discussion is ongoing on the related talk page. Please work towards consensus there, or follow other steps in dispute resolution if you think that necessary. Working towards consensus can't get you blocked. 3RR can. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Please see WP:ANI/3RR. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule does not apply to editors who remove contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).Momento (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To your first point, you are correct. To your second and third, you are incorrect, and your disruptive revert warring and edit warring did not apply to your first point. You have been warned numerous times in the past. Apparently you did not heed those warnings, from multiple different editors. In order for neutral parties such as Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) and others to be able to continue to work constructively on the article to add balance, the disruption, reverting, edit-warring from individuals such as yourself needs to stop. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what others think. In the mean time I'll continue to edit in good faith. Good bye.Momento (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss, and do not remove cited material

Please see the discussion at Talk:Prem_Rawat#Kissing_Prem_Rawat.27s_feet and weigh in there. Lawrence § t/e 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

3rr

As you are aware you are far over your 3rr limitation. I don't know if you're trying to get in as much as possible in case you get blocked. You need to stop immediately. Lawrence § t/e 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be consistent Lawrence. You said "That's a house keeping task then, to move it to a different section." and so I moved the cite to the appropriate section. Now you're complaining about it and have put a quote about Rawat in the US back into the section of Rawat in India. My head's spinning.Momento (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Momento, you seem to be reverting a lot and you're risking being blocked for 3RR. The policy states that any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, counts toward 3RR. It need not involve the same material each time. I advise you to take a break from this article and to read the the policy carefully. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi, I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruption and edit warring on Prem Rawat. Please be sure to discuss your changes on the article's talk page when the block expires. Nakon 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been accused of being disruptive because I have been applying BLP policy. I have continuously deleted links to third-party self-published sources (that) are not allowed (that is, material self-published by anyone other than the subject or his organization), in a BLP, so that would exclude any personal websites. They are not allowed as sources or as external links, per BLP. And I have continuously deleted an unsourced photograph because - unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. This photo of the house has not been published in a reliable source nor has a reliable source identified it as Rawat's. In fact it is owned by Seva Corp. The 3 revert rule does not apply to violations of BLP

Decline reason:

Removal of an image that flagrantly violates our non-free content policy is exempt from revert limitations. I can find nothing in the policy that would exempt the link removals, though, and am thus upholding the block. — B (talk) 22:58, 9 February 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.

B, it's a pity you're not familiar with Wki's BLP policy. It states very clearly the 3RR does not apply "to reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons" and further "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines". In this case "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Contentious material in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used to support edits about living persons, either as sources or via external links. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Which perfectly described the links I removed. Momento (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin: 3rr report here. The 3rr violation included detailed repeatedly removing references to various Time Magazine articles, which were in no way, shape or form BLP violations. Lawrence § t/e 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now ... using Image:Prem Rawat's Property.jpg is a pretty flagrant violation of the fair use policy for obvious reasons and removal of that image falls under the "reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies" section of WP:3RR#Exceptions. I'm looking for 3 reverts not counting that now. --B (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

copyright was not Momento's motivation. I admit that Momento's removal of external links that violate BLP is a good reason not to count some of his reverts. Andries (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are other obvious instances of disruption, after the second 3RR notice was filed. See for example the warning above on this very talkpage by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). See the comment above by Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs). There is no reason to expect that the disruption will not continue the instant the user is unblocked. Cirt (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) WP:3RR doesn't specify motivation as being an issue. Removing a copyvio image is exempt from revert limitations even if the reason you remove it is because you don't like the color. As for the links, some are questionable, but (1) they aren't flagrantly BLP violating and (2) some legitimate links were removed along with the more questionable ones. I don't know a thing about the issue, though, and if someone else reaches a different conclusion than I do, I don't mind. (I haven't looked at any other conduct mentioned by Cirt - I only looked at the diffs given at the 3RR report so I have no opinion on any other edits.) --B (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

-

The disruption Cirt is you constantly inserting material that is in flagrant breach of BLP and other policies ie. the photo and the links. The three-revert rule does not apply to editors who remove contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research) And yes, as soon as I'm unblocked I will remove the photo and the links unless some other editor who has a regard for Wikipedia policy beats me to it.Momento (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And Lawrence, I deleted the Time quote once because the claim "At the time" was obviously incorrect as the quote was used in the 60s section but wasn't written until 1972. And after Francis reinserted it, I relocated it to the 70s section where it belongs. So that's one delete and one relocate. Momento (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And B, the links I removed are clearly in violation of BLP, as per - "Third-party self-published sources are not allowed (that is, material self-published by anyone other than the subject or his organization), again because it's a BLP, so that would exclude any personal websites. They are not allowed as sources or as external links, per BLP. Momento (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing while blocked

It's hilarious that I can get blocked by policy breaking editors for trying to edit according to Wikipedia policy. But lo and behold, whilst confined to my bedroom, independent editors who understand Wiki policy are doing it for me. I'll never lose faith.Momento (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

B has already dismissed one reason given for the block. That I wasn't being disruptive "Removal of an image that flagrantly violates our non-free content policy is exempt from revert limitations". And the following dismisses the other claim of "disruptive editing". It states very clearly the 3RR does not apply "to reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons" and further "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines". In this case "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Contentious material in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used to support edits about living persons, either as sources or via external links. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Which perfectly described the links I removed. Momento (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not explain your removal of citations to Time Magazine articles, without edit summaries. Overall, your editing of this artivle was aggressive enough to warrant a block for edit warring. — Sandstein (talk) 07:53, 10 February 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.

Sandstein. you might recall BLP policy says - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. As for the Time quote. I removed it once because the inserting editor falsely claimed that the article was written prior to Rawat coming to the West, and when it was re-inserted, I moved it to the correct 70s section. At least you tried to understand.Momento (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The BLP revert exemption narrowly applies to removal of "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)" [16]. It does not apply to the full litany of potential BLP problems. For example, WP:BLP discusses the privacy of birthdays, but we obviously would not exempt removing birthdays from revert limitations. A questionable external link would not be "contentious material". If the link were obviously and unquestionably trash (eg, linking to a racist website in an article about Barack Obama or linking to a site that had at the top in big bold letters "GEORGE BUSH EATS BABIES"), ok, but on their surface, these links do not appear to be in and of themselves "contentious material". --B (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. They are not allowed as sources or as external links. But if you wonder about Bush eating babies how about "This a picture of Mahatma Jagdeo, who sexually abused and raped children while working for Maharaji. The webmaster of this site believes that Maharaji has known about this for many years and yet did nothing to bring him to justice, or to keep him away from children, or to warn parents. Read the webmaster's personal view here".Momento (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Read it WHERE? momento? Did you forget to add your link? Wowest (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (oops. Did that in the wrong place) Wowest (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hunt's comments

Are you going to work on this with me or should I just assume you are not going to rework the sentence and move on? Onefinalstep (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I already worked with you on Hunt by pointing out what an appalling summary it was and that the info about supported by his followers is already covered more appropriately earlier in the article. And Hunt's note of criticism of leading a "sumptuous lifestyle" is adequately covered in the NPOV violating "Criticism" section. Momento (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat (II)

Your recent editing history at Prem Rawat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You made this sentence of the lead section of the Prem Rawat article:

Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[11][12] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[13][14]

agree with your POV ("70s" - which was debunked at Talk:Prem Rawat#Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references - Schnabel is a 1982 book) 4 times in less than 16 H:

• 04:55, 13 February 2008
• 20:02, 13 February 2008
• 20:29, 13 February 2008
• 20:51, 13 February 2008

Plus your behaviour more and more resembles some sort of disruption or trolling: something is discussed on talk page, you can't win the argument, you do the revert again, and start a new talk page section on the same topic as the one you couldn't win the argument on the previous day, e.g.: 20:06, 13 February 2008, starting new thread on the photo that was already discussed at Talk:Prem Rawat#Third Photo Thread (to which you contributed the previous day, and couldn't win the argument), and yet again you start deleting that photograph, moving it around etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not reversions Francis. I relocated the sentence to reflect chronology.Momento (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, corrected above. And made an even better version at WP:AN3. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis, Momento, please. It takes two to tango... I have requested page protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case: three. Page protection is probably not the best solution here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The ball is in both your courts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento did 5 reverts in less than 24H, continuing after the warning above. I didn't. My total sum of edits to that page in the last 24H is two.

The 5 reverts are now reported at WP:AN3.

Also, the talk page disruption I spoke about above was his, not mine.

You invite me to exert talk page discipline, I do.

And your defense of Momento comparing his behaviour with mine is less than exemplary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not comparing you with Momento. I have asked several times that you and Momento try and find common ground by building consensus and compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As for talk page discipline, you did not much when people were verbally abusing fellow editors, besides saying "Jossi thinks that your comment was a personal attack", when it was obvious what it was. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Little technical glitch

Hi Momento, re [17], the first of your list of three diffs isn't working: there's a space missing between "...oldid=190923935" and "16:34,..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

At the same page you now wrote [User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] - shouldn't that be [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]]? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's OK I see you've given up on your first 3RR, so I've addressed the new one.Momento (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-consider

Momento, please re-consider the way you are editing. It would be much more productive to pursue WP:DR via WP:RFC and other mechanisms, than to respond to a revert with another revert. That bhavior escalates quite rapidly resulting in editors getting dinged for 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)