User talk:Danh108/Archive 1

BKWSU

I've responded to your recent edits on the BKWSU talk page.

Please discuss changes before you make them. Please also note, the Wikipedia represents a world view and not just that of your experience or opinion of the Brahma Kumaris religion, and any changes should be supported by reliable sources. The page is a mature topic with many such references and topics already, so please be careful your editing does not break them.

BTW, in the plural form should write, BKs, not "BK's". In English, BK's is a possessive form meaning belonging to BK.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi J18, thank you for the feedback. I appreciate that - I'm sure it will take me some time to find my feet with Wiki, so support from other editors is much appreciated. I totally agree with your comments. How would you like to discuss the changes I intend to make? I find the page is lacking impartiality and some of the article is very poorly written and poorly structured - did you have any time to help clean this up?....I'm still very slow going with editing. Plus is there anyone else I should be sharing comments with as they may share our interest?

Thanks and best wishes

Danh108 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see you've found your Sandbox, so try experimenting there.

For the most part, I think the article is very accurate, comprehensive and well referenced. All that needs to be added are the revelations about the early part of the organization's history which are starting to come out now along with old references from that time to support them, but the significance of these have not been discussed in academia yet and so we cannot interpret them.

The topic has to be factual rather than promotional. If you find any of the facts are incorrect, and can support changes with references, then changes might be possible but you need to be careful because many of the early references and impressions promoted by the BKWSU have since been proven to be false. For the most part those have been filtered out.

Beware of not crossing the Wikipedia:I just don't like it principle.

Please reply here or if it relates to the topic, on that talk page. --Januarythe18th (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi J18, I noticed you pasted in prior content before posting - should I always do this like above? Sorry for not leaving edit rationale's. I did put some comments on the talk page already explaining my edits, but I can see now I can leave explanation for each edit. I must admit, it's a real worry if you think the page doesn't need changing. There is a lot of inconsistencies internally (e.g. even the founders date of birth doesn't match the reference given for it), some really low quality reference materials used and external inconsistencies with the academic literature I've been looking into. In some places it looks like it has been driven by someone with their own agenda picking up random quotes out of context to suit the story they are trying to tell - like what you warned me against doing, which is why I totally agreed with you. Don't get me wrong, there is some good referencing and some good material up there, but there is plenty of room for improvement. Even with the article structure - it's a bit piecemeal/dog's breakfast looking and not that well written.

So please don't just revert everything I do because it doesn't reflect your opinion - Wiki represents a worldview, not just your own. And if you could extend the courtesy you have requested of me, to discuss changes before you make them, that would be appreciated. There were some good edits with references to a Mike George book which you deleted. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey J18, On a totally separate note, I was wondering how long you've been helping build this page up? - you seem pretty on the ball...I guess it's natural for every page to have a kind of "anchor man" who keeps an eye on it. I'm trying to get hold of some of the references you've used too - some aren't online which is a bit trickier. You might be able to help....Anyways, how did you get interested in this topic?...I mean for the majority of the world, they've never heard of BK and couldn't care less..... Cheers Danh108 (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If a discussion starts on your own talk page, it's better to keep it there and in one place. No need to copy and paste it back and forward onto two talk pages. You can use your 'Watchlist' to watch for changes.

As Mike George is a promoter of the religion with his own related business interest and not qualified in any related academic subject, I don't think his work can be classes as a "reliable source".

Yes, the issue of the founder date of birth has been dealt with. The BKWSU have been publishing an incorrect version of the organizations history for decades for its own reasons, but this has finally been corrected with prior independent sources. If you are looking to re-introduce a lot of similar inaccuracies I will oppose it.

I think the best way of progressing would be for you to copy and paste a version of the topic into your Sandbox and work on it there. --Januarythe18th (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This will probably sound dumb, but if I just write on my page, how will you know that I've responded to you - I only know you've replied when I get the email about changes to my talk page....

I don't accept that you can delete Mike George just because he's a BK. He's not editing, it's someone else citing him, and naturally people who belong to the movement are going to be quite expert about it's belief's etc. So if you keep removing good edits, that will kind of suck - not very Wiki-spirited. Especially considering you're not removing that Times of India stuff I chucked off today....a little consistency helps sir.

Plus you didn't answer my other qu's - what's your interest in all this?

And copy and paste a version of what into my sandbox? Which part?

Danh108 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

PS - thanks for the tips though, I appreciate those — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds dumb. You're not reading what I write to you. If someone ask you to reply somewhere and keep the discussion in one place, then it's best to accept that request. Just as I advised you to use your watchlist [1], I will pick up changes in my Watchlist.

See, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Mike George has no academic qualifications in this field, sells books through the BKWSU organization, and has been involved promoting the religion as an adherent. That is a strong conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: External relationships which specifically mentions business and religious affiliations.

You could copy the entire BKWSU article and work on your version of it until you are happy with it, however, my primary advice to you would be to gain Wikipedia experience in non-controversial areas where you have no conflict of interest and learn a bit more about the Wikpedia and how it works. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear J18, thank you for agreeing with me about my dumbness - you remind me of my brother....just the sort of thing he would say. I have read the section you suggested and decided that not only do I not have a conflict of interest, but nor does the section you referred to justify removing Mike George's reference. Under such a definition, any person who has an expert understanding in a particular field would also have some degree of conflict of interest. It is like saying that someone writing about the theory of relativity can't quote Einstein. So I would like to offer you the opportunity to present valid grounds - please don't just repeat yourself though. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Mike George's biodata, you will read that he was an advertising copy writer who joined the BKWSU and worked for them. He has since gone on to develop his own directly related business interests within the movement. What are his academic qualifications in the field? None. Yes, by definition an advertising copy writer must have some "expertise" in marketing his clients' products or service but this is a clear conflict of interest. The book you quoted is clearly an advert for Brahma Kumaris which links to their publications division, centers, websites and other BK authors only.

You appear to want to turn the topic into more of an advert for your religion.

If there is a problem with referencing a topic on the Brahma Kumaris, it is that most of the media is the product of their own vigorous marketing campaign and, due to their relative unimportance, there has been little third party research into them. However, despite it I think the topic is highly factual and covers all the key elements of them.

I don't care to discuss personal thing and will only do so as far as they are damaging to the WIkipeda but perhaps if two unrelated individuals tell you the same thing, it is a tendency which you should be conscious of and change.

Why don't you develop a topic on Mike George (author) instead? --Januarythe18th (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems most of what you covered regarding Meditation is on the main topic on that subject so a link to it is sufficient. --Januarythe18th (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear J18, it does look like we may have to "agree to differ" on some points. You seem to be struggling to understand that I don't consider myself to have a religion. It is probably quite convenient to think anyone who disagrees with you must be under some sort of psychological distortion of religious origin. You seem quite happy to focus on personal things, but just not your own - I do note that in some of the page history I was reading you described yourself as "Baba's child"....interesting... Thanks for the suggestion about the Mike George page, however it feels like you have a better knowledge here, so I'll leave it for you to take up. I'm sure it would be an interesting read. I didn't understand the 'two unrelated individuals....' comment. I don't consider that a link to meditation will be sufficient, nor do I accept that your personal view of the BK's reflects the broader communities view, nor does it reflect the academic literature. But from my reading I can see that having this feedback from a lot more than 2 people hasn't lead to any change! Have a good day, Regards Danh108 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are starting to make this personal and offensive. I'm not "struggling to understand anything", you are. You stated that I reminded you of your brother and I suggested if "'two unrelated individuals", i.e. your brother and myself, tell you the same thing then perhaps it is a tendency you should consider. But, please, it is not my job to spell everything out or educate you on either a personal level nor a technical level.

As I have said on many occasions now, you are a new editor who needs to gain experience and it would be best to do so on topics where you have no conflict of interest, or in your sandbox.

Just show us what you wish to achieve in your Sandbox in toto or go and learn some more first. Just don't talk about it, or start to complain, and wasting energy in that manner.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey J18, Baba's sweet child, thanks for explaining re 2 individuals - that has given me a good laugh - now I get your point...you are actually quite witty and as I've said, you've given me a good chuckle. It's a shame you have such a fixed view about the page, otherwise we could probably get along very nicely. I'm sure we still can, but I get the impression you need everything to be your way, in which case you are going to be getting a bit upset at times, because that just ain't how Wikipedia works. The more I read, the more I can see the guidelines here support me and as you say, I can gain experience and confidence.

Please do specify what you considered offensive - or are you just upset because I drew your attention to something you yourself typed?

Maybe you would also like to go somewhere you don't have a conflict of interest?

Respectfully yours

Danh108 (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We are rewinding back to 'reading what has been written'. You suggested that I was "struggling to understand" when what is going on here it is clear. As an aside, researching the BKWSU's history, I came across another website which I guess is yours because it is by "Danny108". "The Man who became an angel [2]. It's clearly a Brahma Kumari devotional website, and contains many errors, which further destroys your credibility for having claimed to have no affiliation. If that is where you want to take this topic, I will have to object.

I am sorry, this is not a social networking site. I've offered you more than enough good advice to be starting with.

Please learn more about the Wikipedia, like indenting discussion, and not be a burden on others. Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear J18, apologies for the delay in response. I will be a bit remiss on the weekdays due to employment and family commitments, so you will sleep easier - mainly just weekends you will have to tolerate someone who doesn't accept your point of view is the only one.

Many thanks for the compliment regarding the website - I would have thought from my Wiki skills you would have had second thoughts about attributing such IT capabilities to me. I haven't had a chance to look at the page, but look forward to seeing this piece of 'research' you've found.

Perhaps we can add it as a link on the section about the founder of the BKWSU? This whole website discovery was amazing timing, because in the back of my mind I was feeling like I recognised your writing style - both in the article and on these talk pages, but I just couldn't place it....then....lightbulb....I could be wrong, but was there any website connection you wanted to declare? You may be inspired by Lance Armstrong?

Thanks for clarifying about the social networking too. I was concerned that you said you were getting offended, but as you haven't stated what about, I can't apologise or amend my conduct. I presume it was just because people who are so convinced they are right struggle and get upset when people don't agree with them - but the invitation remains open to clarify the point of offense if that's incorrect.

I hope you like my indentation. There were a few other points, but I can only repeat myself for you so much.

Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did clarify and, again, you're not reading what has been written. That's the last time I'll repeat that.

In short, you are wanting to take the topic back through conflicts it has already faced and resolved.

You misrepresented yourself here as having "no religious affiliation" when in fact you have had a long term committment to the cult and call yourself its servant (sevadhari) elsewhere.

You also screwed up your indentation yet again which shows that you still have a lot to learn about the Wikipedia's format and should spend more time and effort learning about the way it works. I cannot help you on that and have given you my best advice already. Please re-read it.

Perhaps your time and efforts would be better spent getting your own religion to correct its own facts rather than attempting to whitewashing the topic and turn it into a better advert for your religion? That is not what the Wikipedia is for. Sorry. I think this concludes our discussion. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd best study this because breaking it is the quickest way to get yourself banned. WP:NPA#WHATIS --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see your point - I didn't say anything negative about you. Actually, from a design POV the website is really good? Danh108 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia has strict rules about personal attacks and the inclusion of biographical details of living individuals, especially non-public figures. Being a webmaster of a single website would not pass the standards of inclusion unless, perhaps, it was a very famous website.

In your case, where you admit you are an active agent and support of the cult, it would be most likely that others would see your revision warring over this as a personal attack on the individual, see WP:BIO1E, WP:NPA#WHATIS & WP:POINTy.

If the individual was otherwise notable enough then it could be consider eligible for inclusion, however, in this case they completely fail notability, see: WP:BIO. The issue at hand was the website not the individual.

I am happy to keep allowing you to make such fundamental errors but if you wish not to find your editing not being limited I suggest you gain editing experience in topic areas where you have no emotional involvement or vested interest. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I won't bother to keep clarifying the same points with you, but for the record: I am neither a cult agent or supporter, nor do any of the range of descriptions you have applied fit. Please see my user page to remind yourself of my situation - you may wish match my open-ness and disclose your own interest in this article...to watch it so closely for years, reversing so many good faith edits that don't match your POV. I am not paid or prodded, and I act of my own free will. However I do note you seem much more interested in making baseless comments about me rather than discussing article content or answering the questions I am putting to you. For example - when you have 2 quotes from the same resource, on what basis are you selecting one quote in preference to another?

Re "The issue at hand was the website not the individual" - did the website create itself? If anyone follows the hyperlink reference they immediately see that John Allan is the respondent, website creator and a ring-leader of this group. Clearly John Allan has significant emotional investment and vested interests, and his strong views are apparent on his webpage. Talk about pot calling the kettle black....I'm a new user, but what's your excuse for the fundamental errors?

And when I removed the personal content about Dadi Janki because it is seeking to actively discredit a living person (not just name an actual respondent to public arena Arbitration proceedings), you reversed my edit! Talk about inconsistent!

I'm sorry January 18th, I'm not sure what to do with this kind of editing behaviour...

Kind Regards Danh108 (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You should re-read WP:NPA#WHATIS, so you should what the rules are. It would seem you're intent on carrying on your personal attack against someone you consider a critic of your cult.

Janki Kirpalani is the leader of an international cult, a public figure who has extensively courted publicity the world over and about whom the cult makes extraordinary claims. It's the same principle as libel or defamation, different standards apply to private individuals about which you are making unsubstantiated claims. No notability.

It's just "POINTy" behavior and you're making a personal attack.

You removed a well referenced section which reported that since 1978, your religion the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, has been claiming that she is "the most stable mind in the world" according to Texas A&M university.

However, when a journalist researched that claim the Texas A&M stated that it "found no mention of the experiments performed on Dadi Janki in 1978" nor even "any University of Texas organization called the Medical and Science Research Institute". The BKWSU continues to make such a claim, that would seem notably controversial.

It would seems to me you just don't like it because she is your leader, see WP:VERIFY, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I am sorry, I don't make the rules. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well referenced...you've got to be kidding mate! Some random person ringing Texas university is at best a primary resource, and fairly abysmal research, certainly not up to WP verifiability standards. I don't have a leader and don't really care who you defame - you are now habitual in making false criticism/claims about me - still waiting for proof, still waiting for you to match me and actually be open. But I should be clear, in my view, in normal society to continue making false allegations against someone even after they have repeatedly clarified is beyond bad manners and is usually considered offensive. I don't feel editors should have to tolerate being treated this way. Generally it's the one concealing everything and making accusations at others who is trying to deflect attention away from all the skeletons in their own closet.

Even your continued "cult" claims are not verified by resources that you your self inserted. But you simply reverted those edits to the article because it's inconsistent with your own agenda.

It appears the one citing all the rules is in greatest need of reading them. I feel I am reaching a point where some independent perspectives are needed as you refuse to respond to questions and ultimately just won't allow others to contribute to this open source article. I will let you know my course of action.

Kind RegardsDanh108 (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ernst Troeltsch's church-sect typology, upon which the modern concept of cults, sects, and new religious movements is based.

A published journalist is a reliable source not a "random person" even if your religion finds what they have published inconvenient.

Although a number of government have classified the Brahma Kumaris as a cult or even a destructive cult, as stated, I am using the word in a sociological manner. The Brahma Kumaris are not a sect of Hinduism, they claim that themselves. They are an entirely new and relatively minor religious movement, and not yet properly established.

I would say this diagram describes the accepted understanding of the terms fairly well and include it only for the sakes of this discussion hence I do not need to include references that it relates to your religion. The terms new religious movement and cult are fairly interchangeable and mean the same thing but cult is certainly far less onerous to type out time and time again. --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

When you posted your conflict of interest complaint [3], you ignored the red letters at the top of the WP:COI/N editing page which states,

"When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline."

It's in the hands of the admins now and so I have no more to say. It's would probably be best for you if you were remove any personal attacks, keep any future discussion on the topic talk page, and agree on changes before making them. Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:GAMING

It might be good to read up on this policy, WP:GAMING.

It appears to me that rather than focus on the topic at hand, and discuss the validity of content and references with other editors, you are merely going to try and game the system in your favor instead, by continuing your personal attacks.

There's no "courtesy" in your note. It's some kind of threat or intimidation. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

With all respect, and this is the last time I am going to say this, due to the recent lack of goodfaith I'm not going to get into a point by point discussion with you at this stage because we've been through all this before.

Write your alternative copy of the article in your sandbox, using proper referencing etc, and let us look at it.

I see now I flagged up the issue of "gaming" and personal attacks back in June and you and the other Brahma Kumari adherents are still up to it. Please stop. If you have just invested your time and energy is writing your version, things might have progressed by now.

The reference you keep removing is from a Korean newspaper and was properly researched. It was, of course, also true. If you are unsure of its veracity, either contact the journalist or contact your religion's leadership, or both, and check with them. It is accurate and they have official withdrawn the claim. If you are not aware of that, please go and check. That is the way it is done here. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox version

Just to draw your attention to the sandbox version of the BKWS topic I created for you.

You do not appear to have explored experimenting with it and refining it into the topic you would like to see.

I suggest that doing so is the way forward and will avoid wasting time and energy or creating unnecessary conflicts. Doing so will also give you beneficial editing experience, e.g. dealing with references, formatting and so on.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you had any further thoughts about developing the sandbox version of the topic?

If not, could you even point out which specific points you think are factually incorrect, or do you accept that the facts are correct but just not like them? --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dishonest edit summary again

I have cautioned you more than once about the use of sarcastic (WP:POINTY) or even dishonest edit summaries.

I flag up this edit, here '[4] (Inclusion of January as SPA)' where your removed your own name as a Brahma Kumari editor and replaced it with mine.

I think that betrayed a certain insincerity in your attitude towards the Wikipedia. You did not "include", you removed your own and replaced it with mine.

Please note in the last few days alone I have started two new referenced pages and would be free and very happy to do more work if my resources were no being wasted by the current Brahma Kumari SPA tagteam.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi January, you fail to mention I reverted my own edit. I just forget to use the preview button - if you look at my edits, you will see that I'm often correcting my bungles. I would suggest you don't jump to conclusions. I also note that your previous complaint about the use of edit summaries proved to be false, as did your accusations about the BK's as secretive.

That's great if you are branching out and editing constructively somewhere rather than just bullying new users on the BK article. Regards Danh108 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Very late answer to your question on my talk page

Firstly, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. We always need copyeditors here on Wikipedia. They are so important they even have their own Wikiproject page. You will find it at the following link: WP:GOCE. I would encourage you to go there, look around and join up with their efforts. Copyediting is essential on a big project like this. Thanks for being interested in it! This is coming from a rotten speller and worse typist! Thanks again and again my apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's cool Gtwfan52. You are no doubt busy with lots of important Wikipedia things. Thank you very much for the information. I will definitely be following it up. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Toolbox and e-mail

If you have the standard skin, there is a bar marked "toolbox" on the left side of your page, underneath the wikipedia globe. One of the links is to an "E-mail this user" function. To e-mail anyone, just go to their user page, hit the "e-mail this user" button, and compose and send an e-mail. For the purposes of return e-mails, I can just turn the files into attachments to an e-mail I send in response, or maybe include some in the text of the e-mail. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• their privileged position or which 'don't suit their philosophy'. The 'Special instruments' (senior members are, they allege 'constantly revising Murlis" to the extent that, for example, a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Danh108. You have new messages at Numbermaniac's talk page.
Message added 09:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- ^t numbermaniac ^c 09:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Please, if you don't mind, may I suggest that there is no need to further respond to Jan18's claims? Admins already understood the issues with him, maybe best to leave him ranting alone. Your responses were very valid, I'm just afraid you may fall into a trap to get dragged into mutual personal attacks into Jan's talk page, which may just bring confusion. Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPA suggests: no personal attacks, even if the other side is wrong. Hope this helps and you don't mind my suggestion. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I just can't sometimes believe someone would have the lack of conscience to write some of those things...and now I am actually in breach of Wiki policy because it seems impossible to assume good faith. I'm going to take a walk for a few days - maybe put some time back into the other articles I'm enjoying for a while. Anyhow, I think you're right, the admin people are great and fully on the ball. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

January is making it worse for himself and Admins can clearly see his strong prejudice and battlefield approach. I think best to leave him alone and ignore his provocations. Changeisconstant (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

GreyWinterOwl has given you a salad! Salads promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the goodness of salads by tossing one for someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Enjoy your walk. Thank you for your amazing patience to bring constructive edits to Wikipedia.

Spread the goodness of salad by adding {{subst:Givesalad}} to their talk page with a friendly message.