Jump to content

User talk:Bksimonb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.82.106.244 (talk) at 05:32, 3 January 2007 (No problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BKWSU information technology team

Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University/Archive02

Simon,

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

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

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

NPA to TalkAbout

NPA to Bksimonb

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

Bksimonb,

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

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

Personal attack

Simon,

you wrote stating that;

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

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

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

Indeed, when does the BKWSU actually tell people about;

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


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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Hello,

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

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

User:70.119.13.124 and arbcom statement

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

The same is true of IP users.

  • You also duplicate the same reference by mistake;

[4] [5]

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

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

Temporary Injunction

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

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

Centralized BKWSU effort

Simon,

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

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

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

195.82.106.244 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Luis

Simon,

part of the process in resolving conflict is negotiation.

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

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

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

No problem

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

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

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

195.82.106.244 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bksimonb&oldid=98114145"