User talk:Cult free world

HELLO

May you be granted 20 times of that what you have wished for me !

Positive POV on Sahaja Yoga

Hi CFW, you seem to have archived your answer to my question before I could read it. But I looked at the history. You ask me to "GUESSSSS". Hmmm... the hissing of a snake, or is that the sizzling of your temper? My guess is that you have absolutely no exposure to the movement and have never made an honest attempt to learn anything about it except by doing searches on the Internet. Your posts reflect this anyway. Freelion (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, keep gusssing, Seek and Thou Shalt Find!! --talk-to-me!! (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to use your vibes for confirmation :-) --Simon D M (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross Intro

Greetings, CFW, and thanks for revisiting your edits to the intro over at Rick Ross (consultant) (and for encouraging focus on content rather than contributors). Given your relatively short edit history, I am assuming you are new to Wikipedia, and want to honor you for stepping up and being bold. There is a general concern about WP:NPOV around a variety of "cult-related" subjects on Wikipedia, and I sometimes find it helpful before jumping into controversial articles to review the article history, such as by checking older versions:

The phrase "de-progammer" (like "cult") is a problematic one, which is why such paragraphs as the following have existed in the past.

He has been referred to in the media as a "cult deprogrammer" (Ortega, 1996), a "veteran cult watcher" (Padgett, 2003), a "self-styled cult buster" (Grove, 2004), as an "internationally known expert regarding destructive cults" (Bond, 2005), a "cult expert" (Cohen, 2005), and an ' alleged cult "expert" ' (Lewis 2003), and has been interviewed and quoted by the media in the United States and other countries in relation to his interest in cults.

Each of these labels has a slightly different rhetorical and emotional weight, which is why I prefer to keep things as unadorned as possible. One can objectively be considered an expert witness by one or more specific courts, but general terms such as "cult expert" are much more subjective, which is why I prefer to focus on unadorned descriptions and/or specific references. Does that make sense? On this particular article for these particular phrases, there are solid editorial reasons to avoid unnecessary adjectives.

Thanks for your participation in the talk page, and I'll look forward to seeing more of your edits! - Rorybowman (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links.. most appreciated!! I feel, lead is closing down to perfectionism, barring few POV statements, once that is cleared, we can move on to other sections and clean the article from getting biased, achieving NPOV is next to impossible, everyone has a POV and feels that is NPOV, :) all that we can do is to present a counter statement for each biased statements, that will make every article, balanced, looking forward to work with you !! --talk-to-me! (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV

The page you refer: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaj Marg was deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, and not by me. Deletion reviews are to be placed at WP:DRV and not on my talk oage. Please stop adding spurious comments to my talk page, which are bordering on personal attacks and trolling ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is to this page talk page of the deleted article clearly indicates your previous involvement with the subject and as such, YOU under no condition should abuse your admin power's to delete article with which YOU are personally involved with. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I have nothing to do with this conversation, but Jossi deleted it as per Speedy Criteria G4, which is deletion due to the fact that it was previously deleted. It wasnt that he had anything personal with it, but rather it had been previously deleted, and was being deleted again. Same thing happens with articles which are recreated over and over and speedied each time. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice the discussion Jossi is a well known cult promoter on wikipedia, except Don, all appear to be member of some or other cult, this deletion was done with sole intention to hide information, (i cannot see any other reason for deletion). For Jossi, even after declaring that he will not get involved with cult related article he deleted the page, even if it was under G4, as Jossi was personally involved with that article previously he should have posted a discussion, rather then deleting the article which he himself nominated for deletion once. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are so well informed! A million successes and warm welcome to you! I had mistaken Jossi for a Scientologist before you pointed this out :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, he was approached by another user who wanted him to take a look at the article once it had been recreated. She didnt know what to do with it, so he speedy deleted it as per the guidelines. He is an admin, and as such, has the ability to speedy delete things which have been recreated after a previous delete. He would have done the same if it had been about this or about a water company. If you ignore the fact that you call this page that of a cult's page, what he did was not a conflict of interest because it was a speedy delete due to the replication. Not anything else. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that was a case of water company, if he himself had nominated the article for deletion once, he should have posted the request on appropriate forum, if you notice the old discussion both user's the lady and Jossi, were hand in hand, then also, it was more personal action rather then community approach, we cannot deny off wiki communication between cult member's and as such, a person who is involved with any article must under no condition use admin power's to that article. there is a process for deletion WP:AFD if that was a recreation, then view of all opposing member's must also be taken into account, and no personal usage of admin power, a lady asking for deletion, and there you go... article is deleted. This is not the norms of wikipedia as far as i can understand. From lady's talk page, it is more then clear that she is also a cult promoter as Jossi is, hence view of two people, having exactly same motive (hide information from wikipedia) is not community view. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletes are used for quick deletions of recreations. To have put it into AfD would have been ridiculous, and beaurocratic. It also would have probably been speedied and he would have been admonished for not taking the shortcut. AfDs are not used when the article has been deleted before. Please see WP:AfD as well as WP:Speedy to learn the difference between the two. The quick and dirty of it is this: The article had been deleted before. Then it had been created again... and he, as an admin, was informed about it and it was speedied. If the article had been about a water company, I doubt we would be having this converstaion. In the end, you have a personal beef with this admin, and are looking for anything to pin him to. This is very quickly becoming a trolling issue and not an admin overstepping his bounds issue. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]