User talk:Sharnak/Archive 1

Gabriel Pascal Article
Nice job! --Nemonoman 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Maya helpme
The maya sub search thing already exists: Maya (disambiguation).--Commander Keane 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

R.W. Emerson
Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I've responded to your last comment on the Talk:Ralph Waldo Emerson page. You can respond there or on my talk page. I think we can work this out. Hydriotaphia 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism
You may consider joining this project on Wikipedia. Thanks --GizzaChat  &#169; 12:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lyn2.jpg
Hi, even family photos like Image:Lyn2.jpg are automatically copyrighted the moment the shutter is snapped. However, it's quite likely that you inherited the copyright in this case, so you're in the position to donate to Wikipedia using GFDL, CC, or simply by putting in the public domain. But the image description must specify one of these options so that WP is legally covered. Stan 13:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto for Image:Baba.jpg. Stan 13:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Helpme
Someone keeps making one disambiguation entry (for "Godman") go directly to his article. I have tried over and over to correct this but he just puts it back. How can I get arbitration on that entry? He spells his version a little different (without a hyphen) and puts it on the disambiguation page but also makes sure that it links right to his article. The word has more than one meaning. He seems to have a beaf with a bad guru he knew and wants to keep a flag for what he fears are gullible people who could believe in certain beliefs. This is not what Wikipedia is about. I just corrected it and it is okay at this moment, but I would like to know what to do if he changes it back again.


 * Certainly don't edit war. This is about Godman (colloquial) right? Well I see you have tried to have a discussion, good. If the other user thinks that the page shouldn't exist, then WP:AfD is the correct process, not just redirecting the page elsewhere. --Commander Keane 19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Need Help Again
A page I did had a capitalization error in the header and I didn't know how to delete the page. I just cleared it off and explained in the Talk page. If anyone has the priveleges to eliminate it I'd appreciate it. It is just taking up space on Wikipedia. Page to eliminate: Eruch jessawala


 * In a case like this the correct procedure is to use the "move" button (to the right of the "history" button) to move the page to the correct title. Never perform a cut and paste move as you have done (we need to preserve the page history to maintain GFDL licensing - but don't worry, in this case it was ok since you were the only author). Instead of deleting Eruch jessawala I redirected it to the correct article - to help people in searching.--Commander Keane 16:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

hello
Hi Chris,

How are you? I wanted to commend you on the edits you're making on topics of spirituality. Thanks for the contributions. I also went to USC by the way, and am currently in a PhD program in Neuroscience. Are you a devotee of Meher Baba? Do you have a meditation practice? -- Hamsacharya dan 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

certain problems with pages..
Hey, how long can someone keep an NPOV tag on a page, after their points of contention have already been addressed? See Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page for context. This guy Hanuman Das and his sockpuppet Baba Louis keep causing trouble... And on the Gurunath page as well. Not sure what to do.. Any suggestions? Hamsacharya dan 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jon 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for context - the usernames "Aditynath" "Hanuman Das" "Baba Louis" and "Chai Walla" are all confirmed sockpuppets. I think 999 is part of this group as well - they all parrot the same opinoins over and over again.... Somebody using multiple computers to gain majority view... Hamsacharya dan 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I checked all this out and you have a real problem. These guys are out to get you. One has been blocked indefinitely. I did what I could do. Just wait and see. Jon 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamsacharya Dan
I'm sorry, but I will not directly communicate with Hamsacharya dan as he is both unreasonable and has wikistalked me and repeatedly violated my privacy. I have also asked him not to post on my talk page. I currently have a complaint open against his behavior here. I certainly won't respond to posts on his talk page. &mdash;Hanuman Das 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, will you let me intermediate? I have no bone to pick for either view. I would simply like to keep Vedantic and Buddhist terms on par with Brytanica. So would you let me intermediate? I will talk to you and hear you out and I think he will listen to my suggestions. He doesn't need to post on your page. I will talk to you on your page and him on his -- or both of you here. Whatever you like. .Jon 13:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I've responded to you by email. &mdash;Hanuman Das 17:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, take a look at dispute resolution which lists various ways to try and avoid conflict and resolve disputes, from informal options to the more formal such as requests for comments. --pgk( talk ) 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

God speaks as a source
I noticed that you use Meher Babas' God Speaks as a sources for various articles. Please note that this book may not be a reputable source as per Wikipedia guidelines with the exception of the articles about the book or about Meher Baba himself. Andries 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do you not like the use as a source. God Speaks is a 50 year old source published by a reputable publisher, Dodd Meade. It is particulary good because it devotes a lot of text to syncretizing and defining terminology. If you have a better more authoritative source on Vedic and Sufi terms, let me know what it is. I'd love to have it in hand -- hopefully published and not just a website. Thanks. Chris 14:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Note too that I am only quoting from the glossary of God Speaks on non-Meher-Baba-oriented sites. The Glossary was not written by Meher Baba but was compiled by qualified English speaking editors, including Ludwig H. Dimpfl, using the system of the U.S. Library of Congress as described in their Cataloging Service Bulletin 64, dated February 1964. Also Dodd, Mead and Company was one of the most reputable US publishers of its era (1876-1990). If needed, contact me for a list of all editors. Chris 16:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The following is excerpted from Wikipedia's article on Reliable sources:


 * A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon. To say of a  sentence or proposition that it is  true is to say that it refers to a fact.
 * An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion.
 * A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See No original research and Verifiability
 * A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.
 * I do not know enough about Meher Baba, his book, and Sufism to have an informed opinion about the question whether it can be used as a reputable source for general articles about Sufism. Here is an analogy that may give you some understanding regarding my doubts. Some books about my former guru, Sathya Sai Baba, were also published by a reputable publisher, but I have my doubts whether it can be included in general articles about Hindu subjects. Andries 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the "God-man (mystic)" site and saw what you meant. I have improved it a lot. However I was careful to say "According to..." with the Meher Baba quote. I really want to be on your side about all this. I have no quarrel with you. The only thing I didn't like was that the word Godman was direct and didn't go through the disambiguation. I totally defend now your use of this idom as it turns out to be true. I would not worry so much about the Sathya Sai Baba site. It is self-destructing on its own. It's up there with 2012 and Crop Circles as far as contention.

Please don't equate Meher Baba with Sathya Sai Baba. If you look at the Sathya Sai Baba site or the Rajneesh site you see lists of litigation over crimes. At the Meher Baba discussion the most heated discussion you will find is over whether to list him as Iranian or Persian. I grew up around Baba followers and have a degree in philosophy and am a free thinker. They are pretty normal people (in that they would agree that they are a little nutty and have a sense of humor about themselves) and pretty much agree on things. Also Meher Baba didn't claim to do any miracles and any attributed to him he passed off as mere coincidence. This is just a whole other category. Anyone with money and connections can get a book published through some "reputable" publisher. Dodd Meade was on a different level. Meher Baba was also not Hindu or interested in any of these quarels. Rather he is meticulous to find analogous terms to explain subjects. Meher Baba was more of a philosopher. His work is considered reputable in the areas of content in which he talked, mostly about evolution of consciousness. Chris 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Apart from the miracle mongering by Sathya Sai Baba, he is also a gifted speaker about Hindu religious subjects. I agree that there is a problem in the Wikipedia policies. That is that sometimes completely unreliable information is knowingly published by reputable sources, only because there is a market for it. I do not know what to do about it and how to change the policies in such a way that they exclude such sources. Andries 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The godman set of articles are and will be problematic, because there are several definitions that are overlapping. For example, there is an overlap between the God-man (mystic) and Godman (Hindu ascetic) article. We could decide to merge all and treat everything in one article. Andries 17:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The problem with that is that the Sathya site will then try to use the "God-man (mystic)" term to gain respect. But that is not very defensible because really speaking "God-man" with a hyphen is a Christian theology and Christian mystic term. But if you would like we can do that. My fear is the Sathya people thinking that our site confirms Sathya's claim to be an incarnation of God. Chris 17:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have checked it out and there really is a difference in the spelling (with and without the hyphen. I fear the Sathya people will just start adding a hyphen. Here is another suggestion. Why don't we remove "Godman" from the disambiguation page for "God-man" altogether and make it a direct link from Sathya's site. Chris 17:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is a difference between a god-man with hyphen and godman without hyphen. It is just different spelling. I have a book about Sathya Sai Baba that uses the term god-men with hyphen. Andries 17:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any good way to merge them, for there is no way to make a topic sentence that is inclusive. What about on the disambiguation page having "God-man (eastern usage)" and "God-man (western usage). I seriously reduced the Meher Baba mention on the mystic one -- as it did not have good nPOV. Chris 18:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a source that tries to make a connection between these to concepts. Andries 18:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime I quoted a piece of your article on the mystic version and also linked to your article. Chris 18:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a minor change (and the one you made to the link) but I like it. It makes an occidental/oriental distinction I think keeps things clean Chris 18:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC on User:Hamsacharya dan
I've opened an RfC on User:Hamsacharya dan. I know that you looked over the situation enough to understand it since we've discussed via email. Could you contribute to RfC in some way? I know it is fairly weak b/c the pattern is huge and I don't even know where to begin to document it. Please help. At the very least perhaps he will understand how he is seen by neutral third parties and start to self-correct... &mdash;Hanuman Das 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Chris, I put in a rebuttal on this page that Hanuman Das has created.  Perhaps you can add comments on your own dealings with me and your own opinions on this matter.   Best, Hamsacharya dan 19:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome, Sharnak, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, we will keep you updated about the results. Because you are a new member, you are not able to vote in these elections, but you will be more than welcome to take part in the elections in June.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial written by one of our members. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

I Lov  E Plankton 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. My new signature: N E ti 05:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Test
Testing here
 * yezs? :-)  Tom e rtalk  00:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Lucas
lol, no need to explain the question. George Lucas isn't Jewish, he was raised a Methodist and is now a Buddhist. His ethnic background is something like Scottish/Swiss (see his article for more details). Of course, if you watched South Park, you could actually hear him say he wasn't Jewish in one episode. :) (in-joke there) Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 20:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where I got that crazy idea. I actually worked for him indirectly in the early 80's. I've told everyone that he's Jewish for years. Maybe others had this misconception, and perhaps that's the root of that South Park inside joke. Thanks for clearing that up for me at long last.

Dhuni
The Dhuni is not, as far as a know, Zoroastrian in origin. The Zorastrians have a much more elaborate fire ceremony. The dhuni is a Shaivite tradition, as far as I know. More later... &mdash;Hanuman Das 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this article, and you could ask Chai Walla about the history. He most likely knows more about it than I do... He might even contribute to the article. &mdash;Hanuman Das 04:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sharnak, The article Hanuman Das pointed to is valid in general. The dhuni as stated in the article is actually the cleft in the ground. The Zorastrians, as far as I know, worship the actual fire itself. This is more commonly called "homa", though they may have there own specific name for their worship. I'm leaving the country soon, but will attempt to contribute to the article in April.--Chai Walla 18:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I got enthusiastic about your Dhuni article and edited it a bit. I forgot to log in, but corrected that. Thanks for starting the article as the subject is very interesting. Best Wishes.--Chai Walla 18:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this and so much appreciated the improvements. Chris 18:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chur_ott.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chur_ott.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Can anything be done about a twice-in-two-days vandalism? See this History 70.173.22.18. Chris 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea is to warn the user each time they vandalise. If there are a few warnings an admin can consider blocking. This is explained at Vandalism--Commander Keane 18:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi Chris, here is a little something in appreciation for your general contributions to WP, and for your well-meant and invaribly cordial intervention at Homa (ritual). You have many excellent qualities: intention, temperament and courtesy; I am sure you will prove an asset to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work and not be disheartened by anything that comes you way. Regards, ImpuMozhi 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel Pascal
This is a great article - nice work! Lupin|talk|popups 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

samadhi
Cott - your explanation of nirvikalpa samadhi is fantastic. Great great job!! I didn't even know it was you that wrote that until I looked just now. I applaud your accuracy. The whole page is excellent. Hamsacharya dan 06:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I mostly only cleaned up the samadhi page. There was a lot of good information but it was disorganized and unclear. I actually learned a lot doing it. Chris 10:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, most people don't get these very esoteric concepts, so it's always refreshing for me to see them expressed with lucidity. Are these things that Meher Baba spoke in detail about? Did you ever meet Meher Baba or did you only read his works? Hamsacharya dan 11:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamsacharya dan, My parents met Meher Baba when I was 5 years old, but I was too young to go to India. Yes, I write with his opus "God Speaks" in front of me a lot of times. But also, having met all his disciples in India and listening to them I have absorbed feeling for what these concepts mean. I also studied Adi Shankara a bit and Nisargadatta. But I am not very knowledgable about the Hindu religious practices as they are taught in India... but the underlying concepts are pretty clear now. Meher Baba does talk about Nirvikalpa Samadhi in "God Speaks" but only briefly in various places. But he also gives words from other traditions like Sufism and western Mysticism for the same concepts a lot of times so as to help everyone to get it. One of the best things about working on Wikipedia is I learn from people like you who seem to have real first-hand knowledge of traditions that I am only grasping from a western point of view. Chris 11:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way I read what you said about Yoga on your front page and this is what Meher Baba says too about Yoga and Samadhi. We turn our attention, consciousness, as you say well, from the outer more and more toward the inner and real to the Soul as you say, which of course is all One with all souls. And there are so many words for this and practices, but I agree you have said it in a nutshell -- moving from the false to the Real.


 * Well I have to admit that meditation has really shown me, to a small extent, the truth of that statement on my page. I still have a long way to go, but I can definitely attest from personal experience the truth of that statement.  It's so beautiful, the human potential.  I'm glad to read about Meher Baba - it's funny that I never heard much about him before - but there are so so many saints in India.  You might consider finding yourself a living satguru - they are such invaluable resources of wisdom, inspiration and shakti.  Trying to go it alone is much more difficult and much more frustrating, I've found. Hamsacharya dan 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi Chris, I think your work deserves some more recognition, so this barnstar is a symbol. Thanks for your input of high standards and research. Tyrenius 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Cool! Thanks! Chris 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Meher Baba
Chris, I've responded to your email and comments on Investigating the Sai Baba Movement in situ. Hope you manage to get hold of the book soon. BW, Naqshandy 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll order it today through interlibrary loan. Perhaps we could create a third category under "Bibliography" for books pertaining to subjects that include Meher Baba and give context, and maybe also those publications that are critical such as Paul Brunton's "In Search of Secret India." I don't know. It's just a thought. In the meantime I'll read Shepherd's book on Sai Baba. Chris 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Huma, Homa
Hi there, thanks for creating Huma but an earlier article already is under name Homa. We Shoulde merge them. Amir85 08:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I'm currently out of decent sources (Unfortunately It's damn hard to find books about Persian mythology in India..) so I can't prove or disprove Huma = Homa, but will search for it. About the Zoroastrian question you asked: I'm no reliogious nor believe in any however I have a intrinsic mythical interest in Zoroastrianism and Sufism. By the way, just out of curiosity, what has driven you to Eastern mythology? Best wishes Chris jan. Amir85 18:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I researched and made the Huma (Meher Baba) article, and then I got curious about what the name "Huma" was derived from. Also I have been to a dhuni in India and that led me to learn about Homa rituals. And one thing leads to another.

Berkeley, etc.
Hi there -- Thanks for the starter links. Now that I'm learning how the heck to use this system I might try to do some other entries sometime...

I noticed you mentioned liking Berkeley -- there's a new book coming out soon that looks interesting: http://www.fordhampress.com/detail.html?session=0088e625047af17f144ac27496e201ac&id=082322693X%20/%209780823226931

Have you ever gotten into Whitehead & process philosophy stuff? I've often wondered if there's any coherent way to minimally correlate Baba's stuff with something like Berkeley + Whitehead + Bohm, at least as far as a metaphysics of science would go (since the real devotional aspect of things is ultimately beyond explanation anyway)...I'll have to look into your book sometime. Thanks, --Hdtnkrwll 19:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think Whitehead and Berkeley are very important. I recently checked out a lot of books by Whitehead. My master's thesis was on Berkeley. Both Berkeley and Whithead come eerily close to Baba. It is sad that Whitehead and Dewey who were so close to guessing much of God Speaks are no longer recongized as timely and vital. Perhaps this will soon change. Berkeley does make some mistakes -- but he is right that "matter" is neither necessary nor intuitive when examined properly and with a clear head. Email me from my main page and give me an email address and I'll send you a free file of my book. Chris 23:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gab pascal0001.JPG
Would you like Image:Gab pascal0001.JPG deleted? If so, please add to the page. Thanks. ~MDD4696 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

moooooo

maya
it's already merged.--Dangerous-Boy 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
As it's been a while since you signed up for admin coaching I wanted to check that you were still interested in receiving it. If so add your name to the "Unassigned" section of the coaching box, and I'll assign you a couple of coaches as soon as they become available.

On another note, in some ways connected- please keep archives of old messages on your talk page. Archiving is strongly recommended (though not actually an official policy), as it makes it a lot easier for people to find previous messages, find out what people have spoken to you about etc. Sometimes previous situations need to be referred to again. For things like admin coaching and any possible future RFA talk page archives provide a very useful idea about what the user is like. Removing messages without archiving can also be seen as trying to cover up things (note that I'm not accusing you of doing so!). See WP:ARCHIVE for a how-to guide, and let me know if you have any questions about this or admin coaching. Cheers, Petros471 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:AndyPratt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AndyPratt.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Copypasting Userboxes
Hi here too, Chris. What do I do, if I like someone's userbox (like the one on religious pluralism) and wish to display it in my user page? I tried copying the code but it didn't seem to work. Is there anywhere I can learn about the rules of the game? Hoverfish 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a complicated one. Check the code for this one below. Don't worry, you'll figure it all out in time.

Fair Use
I tried a go into it and my head is spinning. What is the permissible limit of a "low resolution image"? Hoverfish 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me know what you are trying to upload. I'm not sure the context here.Chris 21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It just happened that two of the images in the discouses were not there for a while. Followed the empty boxes' links and came to a warning about copyright and fair use, which I tried to study. But then the pictures were back, so no problem there. Hoverfish 07:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably some dummy being helpful. In the US version it's okay to upload book-covers. But apparently not so in some countries. It might be some doubt about having the Spanish and German versions-- maybe German law is different. I noticed on the Dutch side they don't have that license option. But glad their back. Chris 11:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Need administrative help
help

Please see table experiments at bottom of page at User:Sharnak/Sandbox atęcja. Is it okay to use regular HTML for a table in an article?

Nondualism - what's going on?
Someone seems to have decided to change the references at whim. Can you take a look? Hoverfish 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What if
Isn't your Philosophy of Perception a book? Can't we make an entry about it? Hoverfish 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is out of print. Also I hate to admit it, but I don't think I could take the ridicule if anyone objected. So much for being macho, huh? But thanks for the thought. By the way, thank you for linking my rock pigeon. Chris 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Karma
If you get a chance, please provide your thoughts on the debate over the wording of a paragraph on karma on the Hinduism discussion page. The debate is not over doctrine, it is primarily over wording and clarity. Thanks! HeBhagawan 20:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, Chris! We seem to have resolved the disagreement. The people involved in this debate were much more reasonable and cooperative than in the last debate we had on that page. It is nice to work with reasonable people. HeBhagawan 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way of karma
One thing that we have left very uncovered is some paragraph on karma. I mean in the Discourses. It had been a thing I wanted to get into from the begining, but got set aside. I have to think of it a bit more before I have some suggestion in text. Hoverfish 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do whatever strikes you. I recently reread the whole page and I was impressed with your writing once again. Keep in mind though also that there is a pretty good Karma article that you can link to, and Baba's view on karma is not particularly unique. It's pretty well captured in the conventional sense. But if you don't agree, of course follow your instinct. Chris 17:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

An article of interest
This may not be new to you, but since I just bumped on it: Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Hoverfish 20:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well written article. Thank you for pointing it out. I have always felt very comfortable with existentialism, both Heideggar and Sarte are on the ball in my opinion. Chris 01:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead section and Cosmology
I know I am going to be treading on debatable areas, but I could attempt to write a lead section as was indicated. I could attempt to summarize contents a bit. There is an emphasis on some points and complete absence of some others. Also about what the reviewer said about the Cosmology, I have various thoughts. You? I noticed the references you gave. That's great work you did! Hoverfish 20:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think he was calling for some content improvements and I think you are the best person to start that. As we have usually worked, I find it best when you do the bulk of the writing and I follow along and comb it for anything I can add, etc. So please do. The references seemed like were on the list to wikify. I agree it's a big improvement. So I'm very glad you asked for the review. Chris 21:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll copy sections in my Sandbox and start working there. Hoverfish 21:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll keep an eye on it. Chris 21:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm not sure I agree with the reviewer's criticism that the sections are short. I suggest only expanding or merging if you feel it is warranted, not just for visual proportions. Chris 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which sections you mean. For the lead section I did say something about "proprtion" (inlength), but what I actually have in mind is from reading Lead section. Hoverfish 22:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I get it. Chris 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Master
We are indeed weak here. One idea is to create sub-sub-sections in States of Divine Consciousness, one of which is Perfect Master and to send there instead of the confusing article. Of course in there I would make it a bit more clear or pronounced. Do you think this would satisfy what the reviewer indicated? Hoverfish 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid if we send them to the God Speaks article for that definition they will get lost and irritated. Is there a simpler way we can define that term? Is there some way you can simply refine my parenthetical remark? Because, really speaking, anything we say on "perfect master" ought to be covered under "satguru" already. I really think it is merely Baba's syncretizing the word "satguru" and "qutub" to not leave us westerners out of the fun. Chris 22:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, instead of being in parentheses, perhaps we can simply write a coherent sentence after the word "perfect master" first arises. We could say something like what I said in parentheses but give it a full sentence and thereby define it within the body of the article. Others have complained about the word left hanging as it was even before the reviewer brought it up. That's why I had added the useless link to Perfect master which is really only a disambiguation page. I don't see any need to send them searching. It will only irritate them further. Just add something where it belongs. That's my opinion. BTW, the link to syncetism doesn't work for some reason. Chris 22:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My side the link works and sends to the right section... Can you try again? Yes, a good sentence would be the best solution. I hope we don't reach the length of some of Gurdjieff's sentences. Hoverfish 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please add in my sandbox approx. date of when Sai Baba of Shirdi had hailed Baba as "Parvardigar"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoverfish (talk • contribs).


 * Done! Chris 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --- Thanks!! Hoverfish 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It goes without saying, you can modify any time the "Perfect Master" sentence, or its next versions, if you find a better or shorter way. Also don't hesitate another testing. Through my short film project edits I start feeling about edits like Ed Wood about directing. Hoverfish 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Another one of my favorite films. Chris 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just found this: External links, which is to consider about the reviewer's notice. Hoverfish 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

By sub-article, I think he actually means basically another new article, not a sub-page, but I'm not sure. Hoverfish 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely think this is what he meant, like the articles under Category:Meher Baba. Chris 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also about the Cosmology section, all I can think is that God Speaks IS Baba's cosmology, to the extent of the first 8 chapters at least. So the sections I have added there contain it to the full. It's not like linking as "for more about it", it's like linking to a part of the article which contains some sections. This would not be irritating here. It would be what the header implies. We could keep some of your edits that are not a repetition and send there as main article, or something... Hoverfish 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) --- One idea to this would be to turn my sections in God Speaks into subtitles and make as header of section Meher Baba's Cosmology. So we link to a section that covers it. What do you say? Hoverfish 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Cosmology part is not by me. I only corrected some really impossibly wrong aspects that someone inserted on a spree of misguided grandiosity. I really have only fixed false stuff, never really written anything but those pieces in the articles we did together. At one point recently (the other day) I nearly eliminated all the Cosmology section and referenced the God Speaks article instead. Then I thought that was too bold, even though that's what my heart says to do. I didn't want to do something that radical without others. But my feeling is that the God Speaks article is much better than the Cosmology section in the Meher Baba article, and that it should only appear in the God Speaks article. So my feeling is still to toss out much of the stuff on the Baba article and if there is anything good or that we missed move it to the God Speaks article. Also, if there is quarelling over these issues in the future, it won't reflect as badly on the main Meher Baba article as it will be a side article. So that's my vote. Sorry I haven't contributed much yet. I find myself pretty shy when it comes to writing. I mostly just try to keep out stuff that is utterly silly like that sanskaras "adhere" to the soul. Chris 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to the section's topic: I have tried to place the sentence in the first mention and integrate your note, but it doesn't fit. It would be like a footnote in the middle of article. Then I looked up Satguru and there one has to read too many other issues. I also noticed the stub Qutub and thought if we could make a stub on Baba's unique explanation of the term. Hoverfish 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see this was your edit too (I shouldn't be surprized). Maybe then we can explain in Qutub how Baba defines it and link only there, with a see also for Satguru. Hoverfish 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a bold suggestion, one you've hinted at too. You and I create something like a "perfect master according to Meher Baba" (e.g. "Perfect master (Meher Baba)") article, and link to it from the disambiguation page. There we can explain the sub-cagegories of "perfect one" "perfect master" "akmal" etc. This seems legitimate because Meher Baba's explanations of this term have no exact correlary as you point out. He "clarifies" it for his purposes. In that article we could also explain the sense in which Baba syncretizes this Mystic term with Sufi and Vedantic equivolents. It occurs to me that at the time of Jesus and Mohammed the part of the world that now speaks English (England and America, and perhaps the Germanic regions too) were nearly stone age in their philosophy compared to the East. Thus it sort of makes sense that right after the appearance of Existentialism (especially the heights of Heidegar, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc.) the Avatar would come and include 'the west' which have finally arrived at a point of their evolution where they can begin to play fast catch-up with the East. So he has given us new syncretic terms from our own tradition that correlate so we can get on board. English seems an appropriate 'western' representative for the time he was born into (since western philosophy roughly goes, Greek, Latin, German, English). So an article nailing down this English term "perfect master" might be very fitting and timely. Chris 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See Perfect Master (Meher Baba) Chris 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Holmes and Watson
Did you request the check? It shouldn't get old. Hoverfish 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks difficult, but I'll try. Chris 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also trying to figure out. Here is what I see: 1. You must bring it up to the top, not the bottom of the list. 2. Follow the template instuction. I still can't figure out how to mention multiple puppets. Hoverfish 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved it up like you said. Yes, I think that is right. I think the admins put in the other info, because if you go to "edit page" you see everyone else just put it in the list like I did. So the other info must appear later. Or I might be wrong. I can't find the "template instructions." Chris 16:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I got the 'evidence' part pretty good, as good as anyone above it seems to me. But I need your help with the template stuff. Chris 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I figured it out and added the heading template. You have to go to Suspected sock puppets/Liam7 and replace your text name with your signature (over mine) Hoverfish 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Chris 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou
.
 * The lead could be a bit more expanded per WP:LEAD.
 * "The events of Meher Baba's life are well documented". Such a declaration is redundant. Inline citations are needed. Bibliography or references are not enough.
 * What exactly is a "Perfect Master"? The link takes me to an article with a variety of explanations.
 * Avoid short one-sentence paragraphs.
 * "Manzil-e-Meem and Meherabad" and "Prem ashram" are stubby. I would suggest merger or expansion.
 * "I am never silent. I speak eternally. The voice that is heard deep within the soul is My voice...the voice of inspiration, of intuition, of guidance. To those who are receptive to this voice, I speak. [1]" Not the best way to link external links. After all quotes need inline citations (where you can cite an external link).
 * For quotes, in general, check WP:MoS. Quotations (where you have "someone said:" and then the quote) should use s.
 * You must think if the long quotes like the one in "The New Life" are absolutely necessary.
 * I think the 5-6 last sub-sections of his biography should be rewritten. They are stubby and listy. Again think about what needs expansion, merger etc.
 * I think you could create a sub-article about Baba's csmology and make a summary of it in this article. The cosmology section is quite long and could stand as an article itself.
 * "For more information on Meher Baba's concept of the planes of consciousness, one may refer to his book God Speaks." You have already linke the book; this is unnecessary. You could also do somethin like that at the top of a section or sub-section.
 * I read something about expanding "Influence on Pete Townshend". Is there more material? Could possibly a sub-article be created?
 * "See also" looks long to me. If there are links made in the prose there is no reason to re-link them here. If you can incorporate some of these links in the main article, do it.
 * Too many external links. Are they all necessary? In any case they should be better organized and categorized.--Yannismarou 10:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You have committed Vandalism
You Have No Right to Edit Without Discussion and while a Vote is Taking Place

The changes you made to the Meher Baba Article are to be reverted until this vote is in. Tomorrow at 1800 hours. This below is from the discussion Page Well this action of Chris's surprises me a little. Liam has been berated for making changes, quite correctly, without discussion. Liam now discusses any edits here. Now Chris, an experienced Wikipedian, does a major edit before the second straw vote is in. This second straw vote has not been declared null and void. Now since I voted in it I would like to see it finished, tomorrow time is up I believe. Chris previously had some high ground in my opinion but he has blown it. Im a little saddened by his undisscussed action. Courteous behaviour extends to deeds as well. Thoughts Words and Actions. Baba spoke about this. Baba also spoke about the nature of the ego, how it goes from one position to another, striving to gain ascendancy. Chris may be caught in such a battle. Wasnt it him who voted to keep the Pete Townsend sectionas is? Now he doing the editing to remove it without approval from a vote. Hector. 203.26.122.12 08:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology
I see you keep working on the cosmology section. Do you really think such a long section sould be in the article? What do you think of the reviewer's opinion? Hoverfish 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you could create a sub-article about Baba's csmology and make a summary of it in this article. The cosmology section is quite long and could stand as an article itself.

I agree with the peer review (quoted above). I have never liked the Cosmology section within the Baba article. I don't remember what I changed on it that you mention. The section has always embarrassed me as out of place, long, and slightly inaccurate. As I said before, a few days ago I actually ommited a big chunk, but put it back as I was afraid it had not been discussed enough. In spite of how it might appear, I have never run over others' writing, unless it was nonsense or violated some policy. Or at least that was my intention. Chris 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I see now what you are referring to in the history. I was just going through everything and wikifying the references and wasn't even paying attention to what section I was on. Chris 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at what I just came across: Religious cosmology. Have you ever gone throught it? Yes, about the lead section and cosmology we have to get ready and when you think the quality, refs and all is as good as we can make it, I will make a proper announcement, linking to the work, we will wait for a stated amount of time (min. 3 days but I would rather give it a full week) and if there are no objections (or reactions) I will do the change. Then we can see about the other points of the review. Give me some feedback please on the lead section. Is it missing anything, is it too long? Hoverfish 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I really like the lead section. Chris 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:AndyPratt.jpg
Hi Cott,

you uploaded this pic, and its remark says: Picture supplied by Andy Pratt to the article originator with explicit written permission for use..

Do you still have a copy of this permission? Does it include permission by the photographer? According to GFDL small print, we have to credit him.

kind regards, TeunSpaans 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But you know me by another name...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312325487

PS You know me. Check out the picture; maybe you'll recognize me.--Nemonoman 03:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You look like a friend of mine named Jay, but I probably have that wrong. Sorry, can't recall your face. Chris 11:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That friend of yours must be one outstanding hell of a guy!!! You must be one lucky guy to know him!!! He must have lived just a few houses down from you on Southgate Road!!!! --Nemonoman 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Noticed you are editing and popped in to say Hi! (will email soon)Hoverfish 13:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Followers' mention
I noticed that Timothy Busfield and J. M. DeMatteis don't have any backwards mention of Meher Baba. To link or not to link? Hoverfish 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good question. Not sure. Maybe not worry about it. The sections of modern people were added by User:58.105.115.58 Here's the history page for that addition.  Seeing the appearance of good intentions and not wanting to thwart those kinds of efforts, I tried to develop that aspect with some organization. But I'm completely non-attached to this, except to encourage others to develop the page, which has been happening. My original intention for this page was specifically for people who met Meher Baba, but it has turned out to serve a dual purpose. The point you raise is good. Links should be reciprocal. If people want to hide their affiliation to Meher Baba, then they are not really worth of inclusion as "followers" but have higher priorities. But we could try making a reciprocal link and see what happens. What do you suggest? Chris 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody asked me, but: in the case of articles, it is not the subject of the article but the editors who decide the relevance. So T.Busfield might have a 90-foot statue of Baba in home, but if the editors decide it's not relevant, the link will be out. Why not just create a CATEGORY of followers, rather than a LIST. Editors are much easier about adding categorization. --Nemonoman 17:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm only a few months deep in Wikipedia's conventions, but from some learning process I'm going through via Film Project, lists are for presentability whereas categories are rather tools. For example in a list one can connect information to the entries, so a reader can get some additional info. Also a list can contain entries without articles (non linked names), whereas in categories we should have stubs for everyone we want to get "listed". Hoverfish 18:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)