User talk:Jalal

If you leave a message here, or ask a question, then I will respond here.

If I left you a message on your talk page, then I will be watching there for an answer.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MoolaMantraCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MoolaMantraCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war
Jalal, let us not get bogged down in an edit war, but rather use the talk page and perhaps an WP:RfC (Request for Comment) or WP:Third Opinion. Cheers, Jayen 466 18:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea. However, SemiT seems rather disinclined to any kind of consensus. The guy is a true fanatic... :) jalal (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll place RfCs for bio and reli. -- Jayen 466 18:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Jalal,Jayen466 - Guys, I dont understand why you guys keep removing the 3 links to Osho's literature and audio that I've been posting on the wiki page. It's not copyright violation at all. www.oshoworld.com specifically mentions that it does not believe in any sort of copyrights rather subscribes to a copyleft policy, which can be viewed at http://www.oshoworld.com/copyleft/copyleft.asp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.63.205 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Claiming that you don't believe in copyrights doesn't automatically mean that copyright law doesn't apply. It's the copyright holder that needs to agree to a change of copyright to copyleft, and in this case the copyright holder is Osho International Foundation. I agree that it is an interesting twist on copyright. I could put up all of O'Reily's computer books on my site and claim that they are being released under copyleft. And, if I live in India, I may get away with it for a while. But as far as the Wikipedia is concerned (and most of the rest of the world) the copyright is in violation and Wikipedia is linking to that site. So I removed the links. I'm happy to discuss this further, but until we have some indication that copyright on Osho's works has passed over to Osho World, I think the links should be removed. jalal (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bully?
bully?? thats laughable coming from tag team charley. I've done my utomst to discuss sources fairly and squarely but you insist on pissing all over it, I have no issue with refraining from discussion of source matters in future. We can let admin decide on the outcome. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

mirror mirror. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * possibly true. should you ever be in my neck of the woods (S. Germany) let me know and I'm sure we'd enjoy a beer together. jalal (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI Notice
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. Thank you.Semitransgenic (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. When I saw the title my first thought that it was about you, not from you. jalal (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh Jalal, you wonderful man, such humor doth I derive from you! ; ) No, it's even more great stuff about you and Jayen, but I doubt you will loose any sleep over it : ( Semitransgenic (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MoolaMantraCover.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:MoolaMantraCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

feel free to contribute to the article, especially if you feel it can be improved.
thanks

as far as improving it goes it would help if I knew the purpose of the article????

it looks like there has been a lot of dispute over the article ... complaints,accusations of bullying and so on and on. this is what I meant by 'resistance' to me the article looks over complicated and riddled with 'spoutings' why not just simplify it? (Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Well, there are some people here who are extemely against 'cults' and 'gurus' (such as Cirt and Rick Ross) and would like the biography to make clear that he was a charlatan, a criminal, destructive and an all round bad guy. Other, such as Spidern and Semitransgenic, who have a similar POV but not so strongly, that anyone who writes positively or sympathetically is obviously brain-washed. So, there is a certain dynamic with creating an article on Wikipedia. It's not limited to Osho of course, take a look at articles on any contentious subject. And Osho is, as he always was, controversial. Wikipedia has to deal with this a lot and has setup lots of guidelines on how editing should happen, on the whole based around making use of published, academic literature and not allowing 'original research'. Note that this has nothing to do with truth or facts, it is to do with aggregating existing material into an encyclopedia entry. Which leads into your first question, what is the purpose of the article. The purpose is to create a biographical article about a person known as Osho, that is, as far as possible, fair and balanced. There is lots more information on all aspects of Wikipedia (or WP) over at the Community Portal (menu on left).jalal (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for that.

I don't see anyone else there, have people like jayen 'given up' or had enough of the squabbling? I did find comments from cirt and ross a bit right wing. I have read other stuff from ross and I would say he is on some kind of religeous crusade. semi seems to be a bit more on the middle path so I left him a message asking if he is still involved. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Umm, not given up. But once an article is in a stable state, there is no need to make changes just for the fun of it. The Osho article was once (last year I think) a candidate for "Good Article" or somesuch. Since then it has remained reasonably stable, give or take a few changes. The subject of the bio, Osho, is dead, so there is not likely to be a lot of new information to add, unlike current affairs or BLP articles, which change by the week. jalal (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2008 (UT

so there is no longer a neutrality issue? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

the article was refused good article. and a talk page was created for discussion. since then the article has been tagged for a neutrality review. I would hardly call this stable. is your policy to let the article 'lie low' I would like to see these issues resolved and the article accepted as good and the talk page removed. stagnant with issues is how I would describe the article right now. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC))


 * If you have ideas for improvement, go for it! If you are not sure about a change, ask on the Talk page and get input from the other editors.jalal (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

osho talk
hello jalal. yes I'll have a look at the editing page. thanks would you please comment as to your standpoint on the comments my myself and semiT on the osho page in the section move to america again.. thanks (Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC))


 * You mean like this.

(Off2riorob (talk)) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Move to America: I'm not sure what to say. But basically nothing can be changed on the page without SemiT's approval, which is one reason why jayen422 and redheylin have moved on. jalal (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm new here so help me out, is it his page?

why does he qualify for these 'rights' it can be changed but he will just change it back.....is that correct? Imo as I have said I think he is aggressive towards the article and has no intention of improving it! I have found a lot of complaints about his aggressive editing! I have left a request for the neutrality issue to be resolved on the neutrality talk page! I think too go forward he (semiT) needs to be dealt with. his purpose here is not to improve the article it seems to be to actively disturb it. was he the person that nominated the neutrality issue? what is the best way to deal with him? would it be possible to remove him and replace him with someone less aggressive? just a few of my thought on how to move forward. as I see it semiT is blocking progress on improving the article. let me know a few answers and ideas perhaps if jayen takes a back seat semiT would be prepared to as well? what about pulling the whole article and starting a rewrite? just a few thoughts thanks (Off2riorob (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC))


 * is it his page? well, no. pages don't belong to people. but SemiT has issues around Osho that he needs to work out and this is where he does it. It's unfortunate but that is the way the Wiki works. SemiT tries to bully people and threaten them, whether you want to be bullied or threatened is your decision. He has basically tried to control the page for the past year, mostly successfully, sometimes not. He signed up last January and spent a vast amount of time over the first couple of months in trying to rewrite the article in the way that he felt it should be. Originally anyone who was positive on Osho was a "brainwashed follower of the Bhagwash" but he's toned down his rhetoric recently. Currently his attitude is that if he can't rewrite it to his satisfaction, then no-one else can rewrite it either.
 * On the neutrality issue. this page will always have a tag about neutrality or conflict of interest or similar and that seems to me quite appropriate. Osho was always controversial ('a disruptive element') and there will always be controversy around him. So, lets tag him as such.
 * replacing SemiT. Ummm, not quite sure what that means. People aren't assigned to articles. So they can't be unassigned. I've always seen it as a bit of game really.
 * where should the article head? well, I'd like to see it simplified, but I'm not sure how to go about that. One idea that has been suggested is to pull out the Teachings section into a separate article and I support that. Also there is a tendency for issues around Osho to get mixed in with the article. There is a bunch of stuff that is better moved out to the 'Rajneeshpuram' article for instance. This is essentially a biography of a person and that is something to keep in mind. jalal (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks. where can I see those comments from january? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC))


 * you can go to the article, click on the History tab and then put the date that you want to start with in the box at the top. You are probably looking for here jalal (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

hello jalal thanks I have started reading the history of all here to get to know you all a little better. would you please comment what occured with the accusations regarding semitransgenic and sock puppetry? I'm refering to the comments on his and my talkpages. regarding turning up on 2 january 'fully trained' (Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC))


 * My experience of SemiT is that he wouldn't bother with sock-puppetry. He's not that kind of guy. jalal (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue about being 'fully trained' I wasn't aware of. I think the surprise then was that there was this anonymous guy who spent all his evenings editing the Osho article and claiming to have no special interest in Osho. It seemed strange. But that isn't the same as sock-puppetry. jalal (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ok. sock puppetry was perhaps the wrong wording. what I meant was that he turned out of nowhere fully conversant with wiki editorial ways and proceeded to edit away.. I immediately thought he had been posting under a different name previous to 2 jan and was hiding his other identity for reasons that would expose his anti osho agenda? would it be possible to ask admin where he was before 2 jan and who he was? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC))


 * not really. privacy is paramount here. he is who he is and i don't think there is anything suspicious about it. he clearly has an agenda, but so do we all in some way or another. he prefers to keep his motivation private and he has every right to under the WP rules. jalal (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for these rules ! where are they? sometimes I find that finding your way around here is not easy! (Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC))


 * not, it's not easy. the wikipedia is a whole sub-culture that has a lot of guidelines and different ways of doing things. it needs to in order to survive. some useful starting points are the Community Portal, over there on the left menu. At the bottom of that page are a list of guidelines, help and resources. at some point you will need to read them all, but Article Standards and Working With Others sections may be a good starting point. SemiT has also put in some links to what he feels may be useful to you. May I add WP:BB and don't be worried about making mistakes. anything can be reverted if needed and mistakes can be forgiven :) jalal (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

hello jalal I have been looking at the old archives in a attempt to improve the osho article and here is one of the users for semitronic previous to jan 2 2008 there is some contensious stuff there about his involvment in more anti cult posting. have a look and see what you think I would appreciate some feedback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:143.117.78.169 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No Page about Osho Commune
There is no page about Osho Commune...why not make it...Jon Ascton (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect the anti-cultees would remove it as being commercial advertising. Although Osho Commune doesn't technically exist any more (it is now the Osho International Meditation Resort) so it could be a historical article. But then it would be better to use the term Rajneesh Ashram, as that was probably far more famous than Osho Commune. Currently there is an article Osho Movement which mentions the Osho Resort and that could be expanded on. jalal (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility
Jalal, I would most appreciate it if you could tone down your comments, and avoid comments like these that fail to assume good faith:,. Let's stick to discussion of the reliable sources. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No disrespect intended. You are proposing changes that, outside of the esoterica of academic book titles, would appear to be pointless without an understanding of the background of issues between you and Jayen. I felt it useful to provide that background. It is not a question of assuming good faith or attacking you. It is simply an aspect of the discussion that is better brought into the open. Be in peace. jalal (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your use of poor sources in a BLP
Please do not use poor sources in WP:BLP articles, as you did here. This source fails WP:RS, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31 Cirt (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect I've responded to this in the Sheela talk page. Having read the book, I feel it is a good source once one has sifted the opinion from the facts. But that's just my opinion of course. Having read through the rather convoluted section you link to above, I'm still not clear why it is considered a poor source. It's one of the only sources that has interviews with lawyers and judges involved in the process. jalal (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a POV source that promotes fringe conspiracy theories from a non-reputable publisher. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ok jalal (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)