Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:02, 19 November 2007

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. The principals in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Posted by Srikeit for the Arbitration committee. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about opinions on the subject matter. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about opinions on the subject matter at the Reference desk.

India B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirituality B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPHinduismPeerreview

Archives
Nov 2005 - July 2006
July 2006 - Aug 2006
Aug 2006 - Sept 2006
Sept 2006 - Oct 2006
early Oct 2006
late Oct 2006
early Nov 2006
late Nov 2006
December 2006
Late Dec 2006 - Feb 2007
March 2007 - June 2007
July 2007 - August 2007
Late August 2007
Current

Archived

Long page and no activity for a while. Regards Bksimonb 12:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Broken references

I've gone back to an older version of the article to find the missing reference definitions, and reintegrated them into the existing article (not a revert) and restored the small amount of material removed by IPSOS which was dependent on those references.

However, I don't know why those references were removed, if they were disputed, etc. I also changed a bit of text surrounding the references back to try to maintain consistency. Again, I don't know if the text was changed or removed due to a dispute about the text or the suitability of the reference. Please start to discuss changes now rather than revert and/or trying to force them in. GlassFET 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi GlassFET. Thanks for dropping by and helping out, and also for digging out some missing refs in the article. The article had serious OR and UNDUE problems until very recently. Fortunately some neutral editors were kind enough to drop by and clean it up. I know that some references were lost since they were used more than once and the original ref was deleted in the clean up leaving orphans. It's quite difficult for any of us to keep track of things right now because the article gets POV-bombed every day and then IPSOS miraculously manages to untangle it again. Regards Bksimonb 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope what I have done has helped. I had to go back to the 16:00, 27 July 2007 version which seems to be the last version before major changes and edit warring began. I suggest that it might be a good version to make comparisons to for finding other missing references or major changes. GlassFET 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome GlassFET! a neutral editor is very welcome here. In the past, I placed a copy of the PDF file from Walliss (He gave me copies of his work)in my own website for everyone to look at. Unfortunately I decided not to continue with my website sometime ago. I suggested user Lwachowsky and Green108 and 244 (with different sockpuppets) to do the same. They fail to understand that the burden of proof is on them. It is surprising to me that something as elementary as this request is not even fulfilled by them. They have many sites to defame BK, why not ftp a copy of their "proof" there in pdf format? Best, Riveros11 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The majority of quotes refer to Walliss's book. Not the papers he presented at conferences. The book is far more extensive and detailed in its documentation of the Brahma Kumaris.

Can ANYONE confirm that they have a copy of the books referenced and have read them?

Yes, as you point out, there has been a trend of editors removing quotation from references and then content later Alternatively, the BKWSU editors who could actually provide references have instead progressed their own POV by placing citation requests or just plainly removing material altogether.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to accurate document topics not act as advertisements. Not everything can or will be flattering. --Lwachowski 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not discussion. When are you planning to pick one of the more significant changes you want to make, describe why you believe it should be made, discuss the change with other editors to achieve a consensus as to whether it is needed, how to phrase it, etc? Or are you going to continue instead to simply make demands and accusations, which will not progress the article at all? IPSOS (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, why should we buy the same book that you have? Earlier it was suggested that even we should select which authors to use. Evidently there was no follow up on this. Best, Riveros11 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to revise this discuss, I broadly agree with GlassFET to revise the articleback to the pre-edit war version as it was the more highly referenced and comprehensive. Recently, the article has been looking too much like an advert for the organization.

As GlassFET is an independent contributor, could those other contributors involves in the BKWSO or BKWSU please identify themselves as such?

Thank you. --AWachowski 22:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I wish to pick up on this discussion thread and I do not care for your censorship of it under the guise of "archiving".

I'd also like to repeat the question regarding how many of the BKWSU PR team have actually read any of these academic books that have been quoted and which ones?

As far as I am concerned, we all know the points are objectively true. I have provided citations for each one of them.I am afraid that you are merely attempting to exhibit ownership over this article, for the sake of your organization, under one guise of another. Thanks for allowing things to move forward in a gentlemanly fashion. --AWachowski 08:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly please accept my apologies for archiving your new comments by mistake. It just looked like you had pulled out old discussion and pasted it here. Having said that it would have been helpful if you had started a new topic to explain why you had un-archived the discussion and to indicate that you had added to it. Unfortunately, calling it "censorship" is somewhat inflammatory on your part. For my part, "complete tosh" is probably quite inflammatory too. Sorry. Will tone it down.

The apparent "edit waring" is simply what happens when editors who do understand what a balanced, NPOV article should look like try and do something about it and, it seems, you don't happen to like it. We can't all be wrong. The article has been changed with consensus between editors, several of whom have no connection with the BKWSU or the "PR Team" that you keep trumpeting about, with RFCs on several important decision points. Your editing style seems to be to run rough-shod over that process and simply force the article the way you want it. And then blame us for edit waring!!

I don't see GlassFET's comments regarding a previous version of the article as being an endorsement for reverting to it. Specifically, some references had been orphaned and needed to be repaired. A process that was subsequently attended to. If you look at the last comment on your talk page you will see that GlassFET has raised the same concerns that we have about your editing conduct . We are all saying the same thing: one point at a time, reasonable and meaningful discussion. That's all.

Regards Bksimonb 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing top banners

Can I suggest that we remove some or all of the top banners in order to make the discussion page more easy to read? Perhaps there are verticle rather than horizontal templates to use?

--AWachowski 22:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Is there a vertical Talk page intro template? --AWachowski 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted article

I reverted the article to last known consensus article since a lot of old material that was removed, changed or added by consensus seems to have been re-inserted, deleted or changed back. There may well be some valid edits in there too but we can't be expected to sift through them all when the overall editing style is in such blatant bad faith.

One example is this paragraph that was removed because it now has it's own article. It was removed here but re-inserted here . The edit comment was "rv section removed by BKWSU PR Team on splinter groups" which is untrue since IPSOS removed it and has no connection with any BKWSU PR team.

There are plenty of other examples of this editing behaviour. I suggest the following: slow down, take just one point at a time and discuss it in a civil, reasonable way. That way we can move the article forward.

Thanks. Bksimonb 10:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss changes first

Dear AWachowski,

I just checked your talk page and see that you are Lwachowski. (At first I thought you were new and didn't know Wiki but I see you've been over this same ground before.)

I've reverted your changes because this current version was reached by thorough consensus last time you were involved.

If some of the sections don't seem right to you, how about taking one section at a time, discussing it here and then we'll all come to consensus? I'd be happy to work with you on this.

Renee Renee 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee. Good to see you back :-) Strongly support your suggestions. Bksimonb 13:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Renee, I lost my password and have reported the matter. It is unlikely that I can get back into my old account.

In answer to your reasonable sounding request, there is a point where the futility of such a suggestion becomes a kind of dishonesty, especially when a number of users are all reverting to the same version with the allegation of "Vandalism". Whatever my edits were, and as usual the bulk of them were either reliable citations/quotation or technical cleanups, they were not vandalism. I think the proponents that seek to own WP:OWN this topic are defeating their own credibility.

Looking through the archive, what is the nature of discussion if both BK and non-BKWSU contributors are not willing to answer questions, especially those related to their awareness of the literature on the topic? How can individuals who have not read the literature possibly comment on anything beyond simple technical or editor matters? (How can you write an encyclopedia without studying the topic matters?). I raised the issue of such editors as User:IPSOS introducing factual errors in your edits due to a lack of knowledge in this particular organisation.

I am sorry, I think anyone with any degree of objectivity will be able to recognise that all these Yuktis are really just methods of exclusion and control by interested parties. --AWachowski 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

AWachowshi, I've not introduced any factual errors because I haven't written any content. I am simply helping to enforce the requirement that new editors discuss their changes with the current editors and obtain consensus for their changes. I will continue to assist the current editors of this article to enforce your adherence to this basic policy of Misplaced Pages, regardless of what account name you come back with, this time or next time. You might want to read WP:SOCK before using to many user names. IPSOS (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you most certainly have in the past, as I pointed in the discussion Bksimonb archived, and again here with typos/tagging. But how would you know? What is your specialism in this subject and how much of the literature have you actually read?

Please inform us ... I await and will pay respect accordingly.

Let's just be clear. OK, you are here as a self-appointed "Enforcer". What status does an "Enforcer" have above any other informed contributor? I stand by the citations and quotation introduced and the typographic clean ups made. Is an "Enforcer" not just another word for a bully?

Why don't you just remove the content you consider not to meet Misplaced Pages's standards and leave the corrections? Or would that require work? How can you discuss what you do not know about? (I would expect to be treated exactly the same if I were to start editing, say,nuclear bombs or some topic I did not know about.

I am sorry to confront you directly with this IPSOS but, given the history of the BKWSU IT PR Team on this topic, your actions and accusation do seem a little bit contrived. You know how to make very good accusations but do you know anything about the subject? --AWachowski 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are being incivil. Please read Misplaced Pages:Consensus, which clearly describes the situation you find yourself in and explains how to get out of it. It even has a flowchart. If what you are doing isn't working, try following the clearly described process. In particular, if your change is reverted, you are supposed to discuss your changes on the talk page. Your previous attempt at "discussion" was disasterous, because you insisted on trying to discuss all your changes at one. The linear format of the talk page dictates that this leads to confusion. Pick one proposed change, discuss it, achieve consensus, then lather, rinse and repeat. I'm sorry that you don't "get" that I am trying help you, and that you persist in using means that don't work on Misplaced Pages, and that you project opposition where you are simply using the wrong methods. That formula doesn't lead anywhere. I've been here long enough to see it repeated over and over. The problem is not with the "other editors". It's with your behaviour. It's not adaptive to the environment, and you and not listening to others trying to explain this. IPSOS (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I much appreciate IPSOS's "enforcement". Misplaced Pages has rules of engagement for resolving disputes and ensuring the editing process remains constructive. It is not just for admins to use, it is for all of us. Admins are simply editors entrusted to perform certain privileged operations. It seems AWachowski has already taking note of this by filing a sockpuppet case against me :-) Regards Bksimonb 11:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BKWSU IT PR Team and its continued influence

I am sorry to sink to this level but I think it is only fair play to make you aware of the complaint I have put in, giving you all a chance to answer. A courtesy that others have not had from the BKWSU IT PR team and self-appointed "Enforcers".

Looking back at the history and discussion of this topic, it is perfectly clear to any neutral reader what is going on here. It would appear that the BKWSU IT PR Team continues to attempt to defray and intimidate any objective contributors by reverting the article and making "vandalism", 3RR, consensus, sockpuppet, distracting arguments over what constitutes "Discussion", or whatever other method they can dream up. And needlessly erasing others good work. I see little commitment to moving forward.

The edits I made were clearly not vandalism, so please do not insult me, nor were they WP:3RR] as I am continuing to develop the article with citations, quotations, simple link formatting where you appear to be merely resisting any change. I will not be intimidated from working on the Misplaced Pages by you people.

See; Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bksimonb (I do not chose the terms nor wish to accuse individuals as such, but this appears to be the correct medium or channel for placing "meatpuppet" notices).

I apologise to Bksimonb for having to put the group complaint in his name and the non-BK editors but it would seem that he is playing a central, and tactical, role in supporting the BKWSU's attempt at media control.

Thanks --AWachowski 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Utterly stupid. Your problems all stem from the fact that you won't discuss your changes with the several distinct editors of this page who have achieived a consensus. If you don't follow the correct process for achieving a new consensus with the existing editors, it is you who is violating WP:OWN. IPSOS (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please dont insult me. You used a very dishonest summary to revert my work en masse. Having edited my user page, you new I was not a new user. You also have a short and memory User:IPSOS. I attempted an extensive and highly detailed conversation with you, of a like I have hardly seen on the Wiki, which you threw out of your pram declaring it was "not discussion" and you were not going to talk any more. Take a look over the archives before you do Bksimonb dirty work for him.

You are very good at what you do. You like use Misplaced Pages knoweldge to assert a dominant and domineering position as an "Enforcer". I never understood the motivation for such a position when one could be adding content or tidying up text.

You are clearly provoking for a reaction and I think you are very skillful in doing so. But I think that is all you are doing. You do not appear to have knowledge of the subject. You do not wish to engage in discussion, so what are you doing here?

From our previous discussions, I take it as a member of a minority religion you feel like you are heroically defending another minority religion and this is your motivation but I think the topic would benefit more IF you exhibited to study the topic and gain some expertise in it.

Can I ask you again, how much or any of the literature have you read? Thank you --AWachowski 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from getting personal. You are off the mark. I've clearly explained over and over again what my objections to your behaviour is. You are evading discussing it and projecting your own bullsh*t into the situation. None of what you say has anything to do with what I've been saying to you. Are you an idiot? or just being intentionally obtuse? IPSOS (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

AWachowski Edits

Dear AWachowski,

I think some of your edits are perfectly valid, others I think the sources are questionable and need consensus, and others are not in line with Wiki policy. The problem is that you do a zillion edits all at once so the edits that probably would be uncontested get all mixed up with edits that other editors disagree with and some sort of discussion and consensus needs to be built. This is why I suggested taking one section at a time and gaining consensus.

The reason it looks like vandalism is because some of the edits seem to promote a POV and things like posting "ex-BK" sites is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (these types of edits are consistely removed from other sites as well). So, when one compares the dif of before vs after your edit it seems like vandalism.

Again, I think some of your edits would be completely uncontested and urge you to discuss them here. In particular, here is some feedback from some of the edits:

1. Unsure about this one. Check facts? Original does read as slightly pro-PR.
2. Adding external links like these are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
3. This deleted lead sentence was crafted after much discussion and consensus and actually I wrote it based on research I did as a completely neutral outsider. Yoga simply means "union" and there are many different kinds of yoga. Your criticism that BKSWU is not regular yoga is addressed in the preceding sentence to give context.
4. This seems to be fine to me. Routledge is a good publisher.
5. This is fine; minor edit.
6. This statement is completely opinion with no fact basis and that's why it was removed in the past.
7. It's my understanding that there is now a separate Wiki article on this topic, so that's why this is not appropriate here. If I'm wrong then I think it needs clean-up because it currently reads very POV.
8. "Claimed" is a Wiki word to avoid because it is one of those words used to mould an article into a negative point-of-view. That's why this edit is not appropriate.
9. If in context then this edit seems okay to me. However, the quotation does not say that BKWSU is the precursor but Raja yoga, of which there are many types, so we would need to find a quotation that accurately reflects the sentence.
10. This is clearly biased with tabloid sources proven to print lies. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources (like scholarly sources).
11. With some editing I think parts of this could stay. For example, using the term "BK" suggests you have a real familiarity with the group that naive readers like myself would have no idea of what you're talking about. Here is a suggested version of your edit: "Recommends that companions be other group members as opposed to those given over to worldly pleasures, known as bhogis or Shudras (meaning Untouchables)."
12. This seems okay by me; excellent source (Oxford U publisher).
13. I think the first part of this edit is fine, but from line 124 forward there is a lot of POV inserted that was cleaned up through vigorous discussion and consensus this past summer.

• Please note that some of your edit summaries are very misleading. For example, here you say "citations re early history" when really you added a boatload of text.

Feedback from other editors?

Renee 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Accusing people that you clearly know are not socks, like IPSOS, myself, and Bksimon, sets a precedent of bad faith and seems to be simple revenge for changing your edits. It makes it appear that you are not willing to work with editors. I would ask that you show good faith and remove some of the names from your report that you know are not socks.

Hi Rennee. Thank you for taking the time to do this work. I recognise some of the edits, since they were discussed at length previously.

1. If it sounds pro-PR, then perhaps we can change the wording, although it is just stating the non-controversial facts as far as I can see. It is, however, under an "achievements" section. There is also a criticism section for balance.
2. Agree. This was decided by Rfc.
3. Not sure why this text is being removed. Seems innocent enough. No strong views.
4. This was removed after much discussion. The source was being used out of context and it was giving the first paragraph undue weight. The subject is covered later on in its own section. Remember? This was Faithinhumanity's pet subject.
5. Fine.
6. Agree.
7. This now has it's own article. No need to repeat here. The text is virtually identical.
8. Standard policy/guidelines. Agree.
9. Possible context issues with this quote. Walliss is relating discussion threads he has had with various BKs. Will paste whole section on talk page in context if it needs further discussion.
10. Agree. The news article in question was clearly sensationalist.
11. I like Renneholle's suggestion. The wording used in the reference is eccentric and needs to be put into plain, NPOV English. It's probably not even worth mentioning the Hindi words at the end. This article isn't a Hindi lesson ;-)
12. I'd like to see more of the reference in context. The language looks somewhat grandiose to the point of being comical. A plain-English, NPOV paraphrase would probably be better.
13. Agree.

Regards Bksimonb 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would someone other than AWachowski please integrate the compromise that you've agreed on. He doesn't seem to get that his forcing his changes as a monolithic whole rather than slowly one at at time and allowing discussion is causing a problem. IPSOS (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee, sorry that you have to be dragged into this.

No, it appears that it is correct to report meatpuppet activity using the sockpuppet and there is most certainly meatpuppet activity going to control this page. If I have to re-apply to a different channel then I will. I know the way these people work together. By that I mean more considerable collusion between the BKWSU editors internationally than you could ever be aware of. You appear to have been dragged in unwittingly and out of good willl but if you play along with it and ape them ... then what can I do? I wish to protect the work and effort I have invested and under any other circumstances, they would be laudable.

As I stated to User:IPSOS, what do you actually know about this organization and how much of the literature have you read? It is very, very difficult for you to put into perspective any edits without having a good expertise or direct experience.

The ongoing debacle, which seems to have been going on for years, has all been about the BKWSU attempting to bend the topic around to match their PR. That it is as well referenced as it is, it witness to the effort that many individuals have put in to keep it objective.

You must not confuse 'objectivity' with 'judgement'. The citations all meet Misplaced Pages standards. And they are objectively true. I am not making judgement, I just do think the article ought to reflect the truth. it is not my fault if the academic sources paint the picture they do ... but that is the difference between academia and PR. An encyclopedia is not, unfortunately about being 'nice', in your case, or using all one's guile to get ones way, like others; its simple about being right and being able to back your facts up. I have done that all alone.

I will comeback to you in detail asap. Thank you for being reasonable. Its a nice change.--AWachowski 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I have no opinion on the content changes you are making. I object to you not following the required process of discussion and achieving consensus with other editors. Why don't you try it? One point at a time. IPSOS (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a balance point between discussion and WP:OWN. So called "discussion point by point" can clearly be used by those that wish to own an article to "talk out" any progress. If the Misplaced Pages was forced to find consensus on each and every change, there would be no Wiki. WP:BB. In this situation we have a very clear desire to own and exclude by the organization's own skillful IT PR Team. You cannot be so naive as to ignore that.

Again, I ask you, how much do you actually know about the topic. Its impossible for you to judge what is balanced and informed if you have no awareness and ignore to read the sources.' Otherwise what are you doing here? Enjoying being provocative or just throwing your weight around? --AWachowski 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Given what happened in the last day resulting in the article being locked and the post regarding Scientology below, I get the impression that AWachowski's purpose here is to make a lot of commotion and noise rather than to actually create and improve an encyclopedia. I hope I can be proved wrong on this. Regards Bksimonb 09:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Renne, I took the time to check over your comments. Can I ask you again the same question. How much do you actually know about this topic and how many of the references have you actually read? For example, if we take Howell's comments on the taking of dowries from young girls, something you tried to soften in the past by editing to look like it happened in the past, in what way do you consider the current edit differs from the author's comments? Thank you.

If you have a copy in front of you, you will see that is a verbatim quote.--AWachowski 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear AWachowski, Please provide the exact diff you are speaking of. Yes, I have the Howell article on my computer and am only interested in creating a neutral article. Howell's article is a very neutral exposition of BK and focuses on gender roles and differential attritions from new religious movements (using the BK as an example) in the west vs India.

If you'd like to start with the topic you mention just above, please provide the diff and let's work from there, but please refrain from making wholesale reversions to the article with misleading edit summaries. Bksimonb is just reverting to what was agreed upon by multiple editors through consensus. Please discuss first. Renee 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientology topic as comparable

Renee, mostly,

I just wanted to offer the Scientology article as the most comparable topic. In it you see mention of splinter groups, critical links, objective and extensive documentation ... all the kind of stuff the BKWSU team keep trying to remove under a series of guises; block, complaints, collusion etc as it does not suit their PR. If in doubt, please read check the users in question contributions. I stated that they, as single topic accounts, had placed a disproportionate amount and I think that statement sticks as true.

I am sorry but I do not know any other way but to address these matters head on and I do not like bullies.

Both organizations seem to be keen on litigation as a tool to suppress informed open and independent discussion ... the only difference being that ... I think the Scientologists appear to growing out of that period of their history.(I have a friend who is a auditor, I have no problem with the honest and reasonable ones) --AWachowski 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

--AWachowski 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Though it's tempting, I'm not going to bite. If any other editor also feels that the above post is using the talk page as a forum then please feel free to delete it as such. Regards Bksimonb 08:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Its valid. The BKWSU Core IT PR Team seem possessed by the removal of any independent links to non-BKWSU. Even a contentious topic such as Scientology allows the likes.

Please address the comparison. --AWachowski 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources about Scientology, many of which refer to the anti-Scientology websites that are referred in that article. That is not the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, so the key (if I understand you correctly) is that we just need to find valid articles that would refer to these websites? (we don't post them ourselves because Wiki does not have the vetting process that a mainstream or scholarly publication might have?) Thanks, Renee 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The BKs just try to whitewash everything away. They dont care. They bend rules. Sorry to say. Not so good in English. Ecsuse me. Ugesum

Dear Ugesum, Please do not make wholesale reversions without discussion. What kinds of changes would you like to make? Let's talk. Renee (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Page protected for one week. Note that edit warring never achieves anything useful. Engage in talk page discussions and try to find common ground instead. If you cannot, please pursue dispute resolution. Also note that this article is in probation, and any further edit warring after the protection expires will result in escalating blocks for these involved in edit-warring. If you find common ground before the protection expires, or to contest this protection place a request at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note meatpuppet and WP:OWN finding on sockpuppet report regarding BKWSU Team. --AWachowski 01:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder again that this article is under probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator for:

• Continuous edit warring
• Questionable or malicious editing
• Long running failure to improve from strongly biased or otherwise compromised quality.
• Disruption
• Generally any persistent violations of policies that aren't anyone in particular's fault.

All editors of this article should be ESPECIALLY mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, etc. and interaction policies, like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

achievement edits

Hi Folks, In reference to the #1 point above under the section "AWachowski edits" I think we agreed to neutralize the tone of the opening paragraph? (It sounds a bit overly enthusiastic in tone.)

Is this accurate? (changes are bolded)

• In India, the BKWSU runs a charitable Village Outreach Programme in Mount Abu and administers the Global Hospital and Research Centre (GHRC), established in 1991 and funded by the J. Wattammull Memorial Trust...

Best, Renee (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee. Yes that looks better. Go for it! Bksimonb (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Unknown-importance Spirituality articles