Marici Punarvasu

Complaint against Wikipedia

The Ram Bomjon entry I am complaining about, had been misused as a means of libel just again. Moreover my editing possibility had been taken away from Wikipedia. The link which the editors show solely, is again a link which is leading to a Hindustani Times article which is writing about WITCHCRAFT CHARGES, as a justification for kidnapping, tying with a chain for there months and raping my person at the order of Ram Bomjon!

Are all Wikipedia editors of this article members of this cult? Is there not a single pragmatic and law-abiding editor? So why are you again and again misusing Wikipedia for libeling the victims of Bomjon?Taking away the only balancing information, added by an editor other than myself, mentioning my website?

When I requested that the link would lead to my website's Home Page, instead of the mistakenly "sensational" "Is Marici schizophrenic?" article only, the Wikipedia editors corrected the intentional misusing. But recently a Bomjon-fanatic editor again misused the Wikipedia editing possibilities and entered a Hindustani Times article link only, deleting my website's link entirely. Moreover that Hindustani Times is writing the nonsense, claiming that I was tortured by Bomjon and his Sangha "on witchcraft charges"...

There are plenty of OTHER articles, in the archives of The Himalayan Times and other Nepali media about my kidnapping by Bomjon. But you are giving here a link about the nonsense of "witchcraft" charges.. Where do we live, and where is Wikipedia living? In the Dark Middle Ages...?

Marici Punarvasu (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Marici Punarvasu 8 Feb 2014 Marici Punarvasu (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced it with a neutral reference. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Legal action (or the threat of it) could result in a block and your voice being silenced. --Auric talk 11:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The reference you added in in Hungarian and it is senseless for an English article read by English readers. Please replace with a relevant English link, for example http://www.ekantipur.com/2012/03/27/national/captive-slovak-released/351296.html

If only one-sided additions are allowed, and the neutrality of the article is not ensured, that is also a breaching of Wikipedia rules. Yet you have apparently not taken away the editing rights from those, who had repeatedly used this article as a tool for libel of my person. I am requesting an unbiased approach. Thank you!

Thus please return also the link to my website, which ensures that the article is not used solely as a one-sided propagation material for that person and his group, but is balanced with the information from his victim.

I took back my threat with legal action, but expect still that you all abide by the Wikipedia Rules concerning publishing living persons.

The website link, neither the paragraph about me, was originally not my initiative.

Marici Punarvasu (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Marici Marici Punarvasu (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-English references are perfectly fine. I've kept that and added the one you provided. Please consult Help:Referencing for beginners as to why your website link would likely be removed if I restored it.--Auric talk 13:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that I myself should not propagate my own website: I also did not. It was originally not added by myself. I only corrected it to lead to the Home Page and not to a single article on it. Marici Punarvasu (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, I discovered http://www.punarvasu.myewebsite.com/ which is similar to the site that was removed from the article. Are both yours?--Auric talk 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That was the story of 2011, when I came to volunteer to this Guru to Nepal. I was a reporter about the events there, for a Google Group of about 700 members, I copied GG posts there. But as you see, soon I had to report about controversial events. After the 3 months captivity by Bomjon I made the other website Halkoria in Europe.Marici Punarvasu (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Marici10Feb2012Marici Punarvasu (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia entries as means of defamation

When the entry about Ram Bahadur Bomjon had been misused for libel and defamation by its editor a few months ago, I complained to Wikipedia about it. I am one of the few victims of this Guru and his followers. Thus they used the entry about this person to mention me as the "Slovak woman" (in the circle of Bomjon everyone can identify me by this), and openly justified their violence and rape by my alleged "witchcraft"!

After my complaint this sentence was taken away.

But the cult had took the liberty again to misuse the Wikipedia entry for manipulation: recently, on the 27 January 2014 they entered a paragraph about me, which is nearer to accuracy and uses factual data, nevertheless the link they had provided was directing the readers not to my Home Page, but to a single article, "Is Marici schizophrenic...?".

This is a manipulation again, as superfluous readers would not all go through the whole article, as well as might avoid seeing the overview of all facts (breaching of law) by this Guru and his cult, through my website's Home Page. While, in tune with the well-known efforts of this cult to label me (and other critics and victims) as "mentally disturbed", the title of my article, where the Wiki article redirect the reader, could be misunderstood and "prove" for the cult that I am mentally ill.

I had thus re-edited the article to redirect the reader to the Home Page of my website.

But I am seriously concerned about the continuous attempts of the authors of this article to use it as a means of their libeling war against their critics and victims of their crimes.

Is there any way to set a control board to watch this article, and in case of unethical changes done by editors, to require proofs and reliable links?

Thank you,

Marici Zsuzsanna Takacs

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Marici Punarvasu, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Marici Punarvasu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy (February 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for
your contributions
to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article. I could not find but the Comments left by the reviewer under my article, to be able to read the reasones why it was rejected. Could anyone help m to find these comments?

Thanks, Marici Punarvasu (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Marici Punarvasu 16Feb2014 Marici Punarvasu (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The reasons are at the top, in the grey box.--Auric talk 14:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Auric. I found it. But can you explain me why is an article, which contains around 40 links and nearly all its words are linked to a serious source, showing tens of other links in the references (BBC, French TV etc), assessed as an article which have no reliable sources to prove its statements? Because exactly this was the reason for its rejection. I avoided all tabloid-like links and statements which cannot be proved. Marici Punarvasu (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Marici18Feb2014Marici Punarvasu (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Literarily: "It's not clear what the article's actually about." This is surprising, when there is a list of controversial cases well proved by media over the course of 8 years... "There's a controversies section in the Ram Bahadur Bomjon article already, but most of these statements are unreferenced, and will never be accepted into the encyclopedia as they are presented." This is really surprising, as if the reviewer did not take the time to read both articles. The Controversies in the Ram Bahadur Bomjon articles are written 2, and not linked to serious sources (like Nepali TV, French TV, main Nepali newspapers), while myself list about 15 controversies including such serious deeds as violent attacks with swords on many other people, all linked to TV news and the biggest Nepali newspapers. And as I mention above, heavily referenced by paralell media articles (national and international). Is there any way to request another or others to review the article, if the author does not agree with the reasons? As I actually don't know how to "improve" it, as any "improvement" to the main topic (list of controversies) would change what the article wants to say (that there are much more grave controversial issues than the two ones briefly mentioned in the original article, and which somewhat alter the "rose colored" image the Ram Bahadur Bomjon article offers). Now it has about 40 links inside the article body: should I increase it to double? And if another article mentions a topic, listing 2 cases, while the topic in reality considers about 10 cases - then is it not OK to use the same word "controversy"? I could of course add my Controversy list to the original article too, but watching the attempts of some editors to use the original one as a means of libel (see edit history), I don't think that the original article's author and/or editors would be so unbiased as to accept the whole list of controversial affairs and media links. Please advise! Thanks,Marici Punarvasu (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Marici Punarvasu18Feb2014Marici Punarvasu (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ram Bahadur Bomjon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

• had been [http://www.canadanepalvideo.com/2012/06/interview.html]filmed by the Nepali Television]. Angry locals had consequently demolished his concrete meditation platform and Stupa, which had

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello Marici. I have just reverted your recent edits to the Bomjon article, without first reading your talk page. You have apparently been through a very traumatic experience, and your desire to make it known is understandable. Nevertheless, the Wikipedia rules for living biographies are there for important legal and moral reasons. Allegations of criminal behavior against living people must be very carefully sourced, and only the most reputable can be accepted. I suggest you read through wp:blp before editing further. There are many experienced editors there who will be glad to answer any questions you may have. Rumiton (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rumito. I am not suffering from trauma. It is not about myself. You can see that I did not add anything to the existing text about Marici. Please find me any sentence which would write about criminal allegations in my text. There is nothing more than what had been written on Nepali media - rewriting the texts of the articles. If media sources of the Nepali main TV station or the main Nepali newspapers like The Himalayan Times and Kantipur are considered by you not serious sources, I am surprised that you accept as a serious source the propagational "official websites" of this cult, listed in multiple versions in the References.

If a previos editor wrote explicitly that Darshan Subba Limbu sexually abused Marici, is that also not a criminal allegation? Yet, you had not deleted it on the same ground. The media the editor cites, does not write that Darshan Subba Limbu had sexually abused Marici. It is the editor's own sentence. Yet you did not mind it, because this editor is not myself.

While I myself did not write any direct criminal allegation of this type, just cited big newspapers and TV, you deleted my entry. Can you provide a logical reason for this one-sidedness, please?

Do not turn your problem on my trauma plese. Wikipedia should be not a place to libel authors of edits. You should read the edits of pro-bomjonists with the same approach as mine, without justifying your one-sidedness with pitying the author's "trauma".

I listed controversies sourced by Nepali media, for example a main Nepali TV, Avenue, and main French TV, and gave paralel media links to all "allegations", except two (cases both registered in Nepal). It is not about my trauma, but the free access of the public to information. This had been now blocked by your action.

The article is now totally one-sided, and "sourced" by only pro-bomjonist links (their own websites and videos). While the Internet and Nepali and international (French, BBC) media provide many sources (I listed), showing a quite different picture. If Wikipedia editors are biased to one side, and refuse to accept the serious sources I gave, and instead accept the sources of so called "official websites" of a cult then this is against the rules of a neutral content. Please click on the links I had provided and do not reject them plainly just because of your impression. Then you will see that the controversial issues of Ram Bomjon are cross-referenced by many independent media of Nepal and a few abroad.

On the other hand you did not mind (and did not react!) when this article was including direct libel of a living person) me, justifying kidnaps and rapes by "WICTHRAFT". It is minimally strange that this had to be removed only after incidentally I myself bumped on it. The same way you had accepted the manipulative link added by an editor to a link giving an impression that Bomjon's victim is schizophrenic. Again, it had to be my friends to bring it to my attention.

It is really surprising how dramatically you react on any editing of this article, which would show a balanced reality, sourced by main news agencies and televisions.

I am requesting to return the list of controversies. Otherwise this article does not meet the Wikipedia rules concerning neutrality. To list only 2 out of more than 15 victims of a controversial personality, is not right.

Please if you wish to act as a guard of this article, then also do it to the "other side", and do not allow this article to become a propaganda tool and a tool of libel of victims and critics. Do not block the truth to come out. Because of such manipulations with information the two foreigner victims, who first both checked Wikipedia about this Guru, came to him in good faith! Had you been provided the public with a balanced picture before, you could have prevented two tragic tortures of human beings. It is not about a personal trauma. It is about an unbiased image. You can yourself find all the tens of links I am providing, and see for yourself, that they are well based and cite such sources as the Nepali Police. If that is not a serious source for you, then I wonder why do you consider serious the video links and three so called "external links" to the cult's own websites, to cite from.

Marici Punarvasu (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Marici PunarvasuMarici Punarvasu (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am reading. I will reply when I get back from work. Rumiton (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to your post on my talkpage. Rumiton (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bomjon followers cops clash.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bomjon followers cops clash.jpg, which you've attributed to The Himalayan Times. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nepali media about the clash between Bomjon followers and police 2012.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nepali media about the clash between Bomjon followers and police 2012.jpg, which you've attributed to Nepali online media. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bomjon's victim Marici in Kantipur Nepali newspaper article.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bomjon's victim Marici in Kantipur Nepali newspaper article.jpg, which you've attributed to Nepali newspaper. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bomjon, Ram Bahadur - fake birth certificate.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bomjon, Ram Bahadur - fake birth certificate.jpg, which you've attributed to Nepali media. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy

Hello Marici Punarvasu. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)