User talk:Devanagari108

Thanks for your message. Go ahead and add your suggested content to the article. We will let you know what needs to be changed. Be bold! &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello- you are clearly changing the Adi Da page into a forum for your personal prejudice in favor of Adi Da. I must ask that you take your edits more slowly, discuss them in talk, and be careful of your clear lack of NPOV. Please carefully review WP guidelines. Tao2911 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDrive655 (talk • contribs)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Own work"
You took this photo? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to Da Article
The link you question is not really commentary by Rick Ross or there would be problems, but a collection of critical links from newspapers and similar sources which are considered attributable sources on their own merits. That seems fair enough. Adidam at the time and subsequent internal sources and former followers like Georg Fuerstein have acknowleged long ago that many of the basic charges about activities in the newspapers of the time were true, but justified under freedom of religion, and that many of the members and supporters of that time were not told the truth about behavior from 1977 to the time these charges surfaced, which has a lot to do with the reaction at the time. The monetary settlements Adidam agreed to to settle the cases had a logic that makes sense if you understand both sides of the issue and not just the one that has become Adidam dogma. Now the problem with "adidaupclose" is that not only is it virtually a "sock puppet" site, the site webmaster and the editors of this site are all known, long time and well placed Adidam devotees who only repeat Adidam based information and do not really allow critical responses on the site despite outward appearances, but in particular, it makes questionable charges about former followers and their motives who are still living that are disputed, which is absolutely not acceptable since they are not the subject of the article, Da is. And it destroys the natural balance in the links which gives 2 positive links to Adidam, when various other views on Da deserve mention. I know of no policy that says 99+% of the links are not allowable, and now BLP no longer applies to links in relation to Da. I will support being fair and accurate in this article, but please recognize criticism of Da and rejection of his more radical views is the norm outside of Adidam which affects the weight based on NPOV. I would consider supporting Beezone as a link which is an advocacy site but presents a range of material over time including that prior to the avataric claims for public research and does not engage in the kind of commentary and charges rampant in the adidaupclose site. It is better to keep the article more concise and neutral and let those interested in Da research for themselves. I realize you think adidaupclose has more credibility, but I hope you can understand this position and we can continue collaboration. Dseer --66.104.23.234 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Status for Adi Da Article
Hi Devanagari. I apologize for my delay responding. The GA is listed under "Religion, mysticism, and mythology", which seems to be the right place. Unfortunately, no one seems to be picking up reviews in that category at the moment, and the delay continues. Putting Adi Da up for GA is a bit of a long shot, because, as you are well aware, articles like this tend to get polarized editors–devotees and the opposite. But, even though you somewhat have a COI yourself, you know what needs to be done to keep the article neutral from a Wikipedia point of view. Even so, it is difficult if you are very close to the subject, which is why Tao, with his counter positions, was an ideal foil for you. Also, the prospects for GA depends somewhat on who reviews it. Different reviewers have their own take. And even if it passes GA, it will need several editors, such as yourself, who are willing to make a long term commitment to the article, keeping an eye on it. The problem is that the article will only be as stable as the next editor who comes along. And a fervent devotee is likely to be just as great a threat to the integrity of the article as an angry iconoclast. So you do not have an easy task, and you have my good wishes. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC) ps. Assuming good faith can be a bit like a tough spiritual discipline itself sometimes, n'est pa? :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait a few days before resubmitting—give other editors time for input, make sure there are no edit conflicts, etc. Then, if you like, I'll do a final cleanup and resubmit it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Indenting on the talk page
Hi Dev, Thank you for all of your work at Adi Da. Please indent your entries on the talk page using a colon or colon(s) as necessary. It has been really difficult to follow the dialog without them and they are standard practice on talk pages. I went ahead and added them to the entire page so that I and others could follow the dialog. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

warning templates for other editors talk pages
can be found here: [] They can be a useful reminder and help to other editors if they are getting abusive. If we all help together by using these templates where appropriate, it goes a lot farther than if only one of us does. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Request Re: Adi Da page
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Mediation case name has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Mediation case name and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Tao2911 (talk)

Hey Dev
Hi Dev, no problem on the crashing of the 3rd opinion. He was being a bit of a trickster the way he worded his request. I have to ask you, are you really happy with the Bio section? I was a little bit surprised by your recent comment. you seem to agree with tao2911 that we should minimize the churches counter-suit and amplify the defectors charges. Is that what you really want? David Starr 1 (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. It's definitely been a little difficult. Am glad that you are here and have been watching your process all these months from the sidelines. I think there needs to be some consideration for this passage from WP:RS

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.


 * So it seems to me that if something is not covered in other sources, but you feel it is necessary for inclusion in the article, it could be included as long as it adheres to these points. I never heard the reviewer for the GA say that the article could not have any Adi Da sources. And if he did, then perhaps you should ask him about this passage above on his talk page. Just a thought. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible source for teaching section?
Your much better with the whole area of books and teaching and stuff. Came across this Thought you might be able to use it. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another great source
It's called Gurus in America and has 21 pages on Adi Da by Jeffery Kripal. It looks like a treasure trove for neutral but scholarly material on Adi Da. If you can't get this, perhaps I could scan it into my user workspace.

An Administrators notice has been up on the Administrators incidents noticeboard. [] I hope that something good will come of it. I may get blocked along with Tao though. I hope not. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

'Talk" is not a discussion forum
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. This is per your posting of lengthy excerpts from biased source regarding Adi Da, much of it not directly applicable to entry or potential edits. Tao2911 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AdiDaandMuktananda.gif
Thanks for uploading File:AdiDaandMuktananda.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AdiDaLA1973.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AdiDaLA1973.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AdiDa1986.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AdiDa1986.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AdiDa2000.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AdiDa2000.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AdiDaSamrajashram.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AdiDaSamrajashram.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings
Message received; Thank you. -- Diannaa TALK 05:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * uh, message received about what? No record on her talk page - more indications of conspiratorial biased editing on Adi Da page.Tao2911 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I received a message of thanks from this editor via e-mail for supporting his efforts and trying to help. I did not reply the same way since my e-mail address contains my real name.  -- Diannaa  TALK 06:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have shut off the e-mail feature for my account and can no longer be reached in this manner. -- Diannaa  TALK 07:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping him, an Adi Da devotee, in finally pushing through a series of biased edits, removing cited and sourced material, waiting to do so on the a single day I was inactive, after lying and saying that such edits would not occur. Yes, I can see the reason for his gratitude. How sweet of you.Tao2911 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da page protection etc
Thanks for your note. I'm considering extending the page protection while things are unsettled, but it's not due to expire until the 4th March so there's a little time. I'm also aware of the socking allegations (and suspicious of a couple of accounts myself); per WP:DUCK I don't actually need to wait to act until the SPI has concluded, but again I'm biding my time for the moment. I'll post something to the article talk page too. EyeSerene talk 12:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotation marks
Look at Babe Ruth; nicknames are in bold with quotes. John Mellencamp; stage names with bold but no quotes. Here's another: Andrea del Verrocchio. Two names bold but no quotes. I think the quotation marks should be removed, unless these are nicknames; the bolding should stay. I am going to make this edit. -- Diannaa TALK 06:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy edits
Hmmm, I already did some copy edits, but I will go over it again. -- Diannaa TALK 02:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK now that I have started, I see what you mean about the commas. Someone installed them with a shotgun. -- Diannaa  TALK 02:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia's headings and capitals policy
Please don't keep capitalising headings in the Adi Da article. Only words that are part of a proper name have capitalised first letters in article headings. This is a Wikipedia style policy - not my personal preference. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Tao2911. Thank you.-- Diannaa TALK 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AdiDaTeaching.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AdiDaTeaching.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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. Cloudbound (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)