This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Nice job! -- Nemonoman 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The maya sub search thing already exists: Maya (disambiguation).-- Commander Keane 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
You may consider joining this project on Wikipedia. Thanks -- Gizza Chat © 12:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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. — 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)
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:
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)
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 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)
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)
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... — Hanuman Das 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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
Eti 05:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Testing here
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'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.
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... — 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. — 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)
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:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
|
|
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)
This is a great article - nice work! Lupin| talk| popups 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
For high quality contributions and especially the Gabriel Pascal article Tyrenius 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
Cool! Thanks! Chris 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Would you like Image:Gab pascal0001.JPG deleted? If so, please add {{db|Reason to deleted image}} to the page. Thanks. ~ MDD 46 96 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
moooooo
it's already merged.-- Dangerous-Boy 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, — Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
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)
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:
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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
This user is a participant in the WikiProject Hinduism. |
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)
{{ 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?
|
|
|
Someone seems to have decided to change the references at whim. Can you take a look? Hoverfish 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
|
|
|
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)
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)
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)
By the way, I just found this: Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
See Perfect Master (Meher Baba) Chris 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you request the check? It shouldn't get old. Hoverfish 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I figured it out and added the heading template. You have to go to Wikipedia: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)
.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Nice job! -- Nemonoman 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The maya sub search thing already exists: Maya (disambiguation).-- Commander Keane 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
You may consider joining this project on Wikipedia. Thanks -- Gizza Chat © 12:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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. — 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)
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:
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)
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 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)
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)
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... — Hanuman Das 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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
Eti 05:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Testing here
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'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.
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... — 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. — 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)
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:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
|
|
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)
This is a great article - nice work! Lupin| talk| popups 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
For high quality contributions and especially the Gabriel Pascal article Tyrenius 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
Cool! Thanks! Chris 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Would you like Image:Gab pascal0001.JPG deleted? If so, please add {{db|Reason to deleted image}} to the page. Thanks. ~ MDD 46 96 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
moooooo
it's already merged.-- Dangerous-Boy 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, — Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
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)
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:
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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
This user is a participant in the WikiProject Hinduism. |
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)
{{ 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?
|
|
|
Someone seems to have decided to change the references at whim. Can you take a look? Hoverfish 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
|
|
|
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)
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)
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)
By the way, I just found this: Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
See Perfect Master (Meher Baba) Chris 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you request the check? It shouldn't get old. Hoverfish 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I figured it out and added the heading template. You have to go to Wikipedia: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)
.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)