Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Townshend

Whats the point of having this one person here in at all.I mean the mans just one follower and frankly is of no interest to many Baba people I have meet. Its not required to have some quasi famous person here to validify Baba. And anyway his life is not what I would like people to exemplify.

Previous comment by User:Liam7. - I agree that the mention of Townsend should not become a big deal here, but so it is that up to this date Pete is one of the very few publicly known people honoring Baba's memory in concerts and articles. Historically his music and Tommy have made Baba known to thousands of people around the world. So it's not just "of no interest", encyclopedically at least. Also no one (including Pete) is suggesting that his life is an example of anything, and surely his mention isn't intended to validify Baba. Hoverfish 08:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I also reverted the deletion. It should be first discussed here and if a consensus is reached, it can then be deleted. As it is done by User Liam7, it can be considered vandalism. Hoverfish 08:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also for the note added, some acceptable citation is needed. I will not mark it with a "citation needed" template in the article, as this does start making a big deal out of it. Why not ask for a vote instead? Hoverfish 09:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, thousands of Baba followers don't even know Townsend. However, some other thousands do, whether they make much of it or not. Many Baba lovers do follow Pete's concerts (some travelling big distances to attend) and the atmosphere in the concerts is no more as it once was (reactionary and noisy), but one of love and harmony. I still think the best way is to rephrase the section, or integrate the section in another one, without a heading for itself, so that it doesn't sound more important than it is. It should neither dissapear as completely irrelevant nor include unencyclopedic footnotes. Respect for Baba, yes, respect for Wikipedia too. Most important would be an effort to bring this article to GA status. Hoverfish 09:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that the section on Townhend is already a nice compromise made after much discussion and after reaching a consensus of several editors. Originally Townhend was mentioned in the lead paragraph. This bothered some people as it made it appear that this was what Baba was known for. So after discussion the section was moved to the bottom and given its own heading for a good reason. To show that it is a seperate side-issue. It is also last for a reason. To revert this and integrate it into the article might have the reverse affect as intended. I went ahead and reverted the phrase that the section was an "abomination" as it seemed to insult the article (in the body of the article no less) and that seemed to be rather non-encyclopedic. It 'might' be an abomination. But it would be hard to call that claim a 'fact' about Meher Baba. Also, 'what most Baba people think' is also hard to give citation for. I hope this can be worked out here in the discussion page. It is a very good article generally and has recently been nominated for peer review. Abronkeeler 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just did the request/nomination a few minutes ago. I hope I am not second to another request. I found no template or mention of any previous request. About the Townsend section, I accept that it stays as it is. I have a feeling that if we call for a vote, there will be no consensus against it. I have not studied the edit history yet, so I take it what we see here today is indeed the result of much effort, compromises etc. I am also ready to contribute here, whenever a peer review defines the points that could be refined. Hoverfish 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it would be a good idea to hold off on any important revisions until the peer review is heard. The impartial reviewer will likely point out problem areas that will need to be improved for consideration for GA status, and then that would make clear the places to put most emphasis. So I am for holding off on major changes until we see what the reviewer thinks. Chris 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is how the article appeared when Townshend was right up at the top, before a consensus agreed to move him to his own side-area near the bottom. [1]. You can see some of that discussion above. Abronkeeler 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well thousands of flies think shit tastes good too. Numbers arent everything. If you look at Babas life and then place Townsend in perspective, where is he. Does he rate up their with so much stuff thats been left out. Think about it, but not with your ego. Think of all the important stuff not here and then look at the Townsend space. His section is a squatter. Liam7 "when vandalism is just"

Liam7 Ive read the five pilars of wiki and disagree with hoverfish in some of his appraisals. Townsend is a grain of sand on the Baba beach. People who want Townsend in this page may feel odd about Baba and need some quasi famous figure to say "hey look its not odd knowing Baba is God, because look Townsends in with us" Get over it. Make this site representative of Baba life not have some bisexual ex drug user with a whole title. Baba is God, he dosnt need false Americam marketing. We all know thats doomed, shallow and on the out. Liam7

Liam7 to the peer reviewer. You need to understand that this process is being instigated to justify the current content of Townsend. For you to review this process properly you would need to read books, lots of books and uuderstand Babas life as much as someone like me does who has been to India six times, spent years on all three places of pilgrimages, meet many mandali and been a Baba lover for coming on the third decade. In all thsi time Townsend has been as a nothing. Yet here he is occupying a significant percentage of the page, guarded by people who want him there. Their warped motivation does not concern me. He should be a few lines in the followers section at most. While more needs to be made of other stages in babas life i.e. the Book. edited out by someone, or Avatars Abode. Lots of stuff.

Again unsigned Liam7 above. Who it is that has an ego problem and warped motivation is up to the reader to decide. What is up to us to do is to decide what to do with a user who has for the third time messed up the article without any consensus. Hoverfish 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC.

Hoverfish: I started this discussion subject with a straight forward query. You are the person who mentioned vandalism, while wikipedia guidlines for editing call it editing. You are the person who deleted these edits because you stated they needed a consensus. Not so according to Wikipedias five Pillars. You are in an editwar and are attempting to claim the high moral ground. The trouble is you are wrong. You may have been here first, but thats no justification to subvert the editing process. You are not some sort of gatekeeper. This is not American style tainted democracy. My guess is you are American. Wikipedia is a more real democracy. Have your say, but dont get up yourself and call anothers editing messing up. --Liam7 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For your information, please, read here: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Hoverfish 08:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is not a democracy in the sense stated in the above link. If you read what I said I stated that wikikpedia is more of a democracy than the American one with its inherent corruption. The point is that people are allowed to edit. But some people may bring their tainted views of fairness, shall we say, gained from the processes they are used to (democracy) and apply it here, and for instance undo others edits. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Liam7, but some of your edits do appear to be vandalism. [2]. And a few paragraphs up you wrote, "when vandalism is just" at the end of your comment. Also you are not in a conflict with Hoverfish. There are several who have expressed similar concerns about your edits. Please do not make this personal. Let's all calm down and wait for a peer review. Otherwise take this up with arbitration. Chris 14:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would I have written that if you had not labelled me as such? Have you the sense of humour required for the spiritual journey, pilgrim? I still hold that Townsend as a percentage of this article should be a line at most. If you dont like my way of expressing it. Too bad. I woundnt have to come in hard if sense had prevailed and Townsend had been culled years ago. Baba wants this site sorted out. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Look, here is a calming down paragraph. I am new to Wiki. Its a learning curve. I am a University Honours recipient. I am a fast learner. I will learn more as time goes by. Life is short. If you are rational about this state what deternmines Townsends high percentage of space here in relation to Baba life. If one wants to find out about Townsend go to the Wiki Townsend site. this site is about the Avatar of the Age. If you cant see Townsend should be a line, you just dont get it, and therefore you dont get me. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing worth considering is the long term stability of the article. This is exactly why consensus is needed. If all editors and other interested users can settle this here, in the discussion page, then any modification of the article agreed will have much better chances of surviving in the future. If the disputed section is simply deleted by one editor, others will be encouraged to treat the article likewise. The one will add a section, the other will delete it and the only loser will be the quality of the article. Hoverfish 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats a fair point. What about applying critical reasoning? Are you familiar with the model? In this model everything would be examined objectively. I await the objective reasoning for the % of Townsends content. Also if you are not a hypocrite you would not edit out little additions I have added that increase depth and breadth where it is lacking. Is that you doing this? See below, edit title. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish to take back my word "messing up", as I understand that from the editor's point of view, it was not so intended. "Vandalism" (even unintentionally done) is a technical term here, implying that an editor, without giving prior mention of his intentions and waiting three days for a reaction (if I remembering it correctly), has made a deletion of a part of an important article, especially on an issue already debated and settled between previous editors. I have not the slightest personal bias against user Liam7 or the part of his opinion that a mention of Peter Townsend should happen under a more general section of publicly well-known personalities (philosophers, writers, poets, actors, musicians, etc), who have contributed culturally or in any other way. I am also not biased against Townsend for his past with drugs, or whatever "sins". In my opinion, when one leaves his/her past bad habits, out of confidence for Baba's message, blaming or disliking him/her for his past "sins" is poinless. I accept the term "he is a nothing", only in the philosophical sense of "we are all nothing(s) - One only IS". Yet, none of this entitles Townsend to a more extensive mentioning than others. There may be other, encyclopedic reasons that I may not be aware of, since I'm not all that long a wikipedian. Also IMO, a peer reviewer doesn't have to read all the literature of Meher Baba, or even agree with his message, to give us his/her assistence. Hoverfish 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, if a techincal term, needs to be stated as such, to allay the significant cultural position this word has. I am new here and have never seen any previous debates. Life evolves and on Wiki if its here and now, its relevant. Past resolutions will change as different people move on. The past is frozen. This is evolution in some respects. You are quite welcome to mention past debates, but I think discussion, to mention these relics, before acting on the past debates is warranted. Hence I opened up this discussion for the now debate. yes a peer reviewer is limited by time. But he can decide if something is unbalanced, gets too much space, is unbalanced. I dont really care if he/she gets it right. I know its wrong. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment as class B article

According to assessment standards, the article is useful to nearly all readers and includes a good treatment of the subject. It should be peer reviewed, as it may reach GA status with some refinements. Hoverfish 10:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets Hope

that this peer review locates the correct percentage that Townsend had in the scheme of Baba vast and busy life and that this miniscule percentage be reflected in the content of the article. That is one line at best. Even as a percentage of Baba followers there should be tyhe briefest mention, only to placate the.....the....Who groupies. In my view he shoundt even get a mention. Its pathetic. --Liam7 08:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On Editing

I have been putting in material under various titles using my 23 years experience as a Baba lover and my research skills as an honours student. Its an ongoing work. References will be supplied. However someone is deleting this input. This is my latest contribution to Wikipedia:

Baba has stated there is either a 700 or 1400 year incarnation period between Avatars. In the current cycle of time, which began with Zoroaster 10,000 years ago, there appear to be several Avatars who have slipped into mythology or whose role has escaped historical ducumentation. Speculation about who was a past Avatar will continue amoung the Baba community in lieu of definitive answers. Baba's mandali were no exception in this debate i.e. Francis Brabrazon, Babas poet, queried whether Odysseus from ancient Greece, was an Avatar.

If this discriminatory editing continues I will be requesting a block on that person.

--Liam7 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Replies to recent previous posts embedded in text under Townsend title

It will not be necessary to request any block. Blocks are against vandalism, not against editors trying to keep an article free of POV (point of view) and original research. Any caring editor with enough experience should do this part. If valid references are offered and the additions fit and are properly integrated in the wider context, the article will benefit. If they are debated, corrected or moved to a more appropriate section, it's all part of wikipedia's processes. The above statement on avataric incarnations and Barbazon's querry have offered me a new point I didn't know in my 30 years of contact with Baba's messages and related literature. It may however prove to be harder than it seems, to make this information encyclopedically valid. Hoverfish 09:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"As mentioned above, thousands of Baba followers don't even know Townsend. However, some other thousands do," This line is one of yours and seems to sum up your support for the % of Townsend (TS) content. Can you reference this please, and explain just how this supports the high content of TS over say Kitty Davy, Elizabeth Patterson, Francis Brabrazon, Wendy Haynes, Joe Blow. Also I'll update my time with Baba's messages to 40 odd years. Hoverfish, you seem to take the bait readily, as your username implies. But you need to slow down and answer the above request and also critically justify your support for the % of TS content in the Meher Baba article, which I requested days ago. Dont be a hoover fish, sucking up online time without rigour. Justify your inclusion of TS with a rationale, encyclopedically valid response, with references --Liam7 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Liam7 refrain from personal attacks in your messages. It is considered uncivil. If you have noticed, I am rather in support of the idea that Townsend is simply mentioned along with all the personalities you have mentioned, so I don't feel any need to provide references on Townsend's audience %s. I am sure there must be somewhere a box-office record on his concerts, but I do not wish to waste time researching it. The editors who wish to keep the section may need to do this, when a consensus to remove the section is reached. However since some of the respectful people attending the concerts may be among those who read the article or the discussion, I find it uncivil calling them names here, which is the reason I gave the above mention. Also this will be my last posting here until more editors step in for a stable decision. Hoverfish 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Look since you asked nicely I'll play the civil game which I will remind you, you didnt play first up. If you live in a glasshouse....OK enough lets move on now as we may have the beginnings of resolution. Now here is how a lot of talk can be quickly settled. Lets take these step like points to arrive at a result. 1/ TS may have been, is?, an influence on many Baba lovers. Just because I Havnt meet anyone who said so to date, dosnt mean its not possible 2/ Baba lovers have a lot of things that are a big influence on their Baba lives. Everyone has their life moments, unique to them. 3/ for some these are personal i.e. the day they went to the tomb, India, got the first job, fell in love, had a child, came out of the closet. The point is that Baba (faith, belief) plays a big part in so many day to day things. 4/ People feel Baba was there for them, at certain key events, times. Its special, personal. 5/ for some this may have been a TS concert or TS thing. Fine. 6/ some of these people may have created the article here, with this big TS % 7/ For them its special, a Baba moment 7/ They fight for it, taking affront at edits, deletions. 8/ At what point do we take out the personal in this article and make this site reflect Baba's life more accuratly? i.e.in terms of followers, is TS deserving of so much space? More than ...(name a follower). Can he not have a line and a link to where he has his own page in Wiki? 9/ I think sense will prevail in time and this will occur. 10/ whats the delay? Who is out there ready to say exactly why TS % is soo big? --Liam7 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request

A peer review has been requested to help locate any refinements or changes needed, so that this article may attain class GA. Any comments concerning the request, should be given here: :Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review. Hoverfish 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The peer review is in. I thought the suggestions were good. Would anyone like to volunteer to start making these changes? Chris 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC). See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Meher Baba

I will do my best, which may not be enough without help and feedback. Are you volunteering too? I think we have to call in a team of several experienced editors. Hoverfish 14:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I made a couple minor alterations in line with his suggestions already, but didn't want to go too fast on my own. In response to his suggestion, "The lead could be a bit more expanded" I thought maybe the opening pargraph could be merged with the first paragraph under "Meher Baba's life" which seems like an extension of the general overview. That might help also with the chopiness that he mentioned. Do we really need a subsection called "The Early Years?" There is no correlating section called "The Later Years." So perhaps a merged first paragraph could be followed by the heading "Meher Baba's Life" followed by the paragraph that begins "Meher Baba was born in Pune..." Also, I liked his suggestion of shortening Cosmology and adding

Further information: God Speaks

I will try what I mean in the opening. Let me know what you think. Chris 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think a most helpful hint of the reviewer is the creation of a subpage on the Townsend issue. It will relieve the main article from the impression that Townsend is needed to "validate" Baba (which I don't really think was so meant) and will not disappoint the people who use the concerts as an additional pastime in Baba's memory. The reason Townsend would fit as a subpage, while all the other famous personalities can do perfectly well with a whole article to link to, is that Townsend's past as a rock star is mostly irrelevant to the main title. So a subpage concerned specifically on PT's Baba-related works and activities, is a much better link as to the general article on PT. The reason even the reviewer thinks we should expand (in a subpage) rather than just delete, is something that we cannot avoid in an encyclopedia. It has to do with public notability, which none of us can change. What we can do is give it the right perspective, connect it with the message Baba passed to the young generation at the time and not let Townsend appear as more significant than so many other notable personalities who have lined themselves with Baba's spiritual work. I will not start with the subpage, however, until I hear several editors or users (especially ones in favor of the Townsend mention) agree or at least give consensus opinion to this suggestion. Hoverfish 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead section is now much better and in proportion with the overall length of the article. Removing the Early life subheader is debatable because of the structure of the whole section. At the index box, it looks like Meher Baba's life starts from Silence. I will put it back right after the heading, but if it is not acceptable (suheader right after header), please remove it and we can find another way around it. The other changes I also find good. I cannot express opinion on external links due to lack of experience. Hoverfish 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes a subpage would do it for TS, at a minimum. It would help take away the "TS needs to be there to validate Baba" issue. Heaven forbid. I must say however that the referencing on this article is way below the standard required in Universities. Its abyssmal. To have book titles in the body of the text is very unprofessional, amateurish. Its not even high school level referencing here in Australia. Universities use either the Harvard system or a modified version. The reference list is of a low standard, its practically non existant!. The in text references are very clumsy and should appear in brackets as the author(s) date and and page number, if a direct quote, or no page numbers if paraphrased. Heres an example. (Smith and Jones, 2004, pp. 223-225) or (Smith and Jones, 2004). Then one looks in the correct reference list at the END of the article, to find the extra details, that are currently appearing in text i.e. Titles. The end of the article is a missmatch, hodspodge mess of material, poorly categorised. I concede its probably too much to ask here for the correct referencing to appear on the gathering place online of so many who KNOW they are right. Yet the errors need to made clear so that Wikipedia is put in the right perspective and not overrated. Wikipedia is full of average writing, not good writing. In this case, that is, these articles do not meet accepted University standards. Marking of the references would be about 2 out of 10. I would like to see this page better reflect Baba, hence the TS battle. In doing this I have to say that Wikipedia appears to be a battle ground for big Egos, who use the anonyminity of the internet to express their firmly held views, which they appear unprepared to accept are sometimes a load of codswallop. I have taken an abrassive approach, I will concede, as it gets results in a short time frame, however unpleasnt the process may be --Liam7 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Call for a Vote on Townshend Issue

In keeping with what Hoverfish just wrote I'm going to posit a vote, just so we are sure anyone who cares to be counted is. Let's give this at least 3 days before counting. Chris 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, consider Wikipedia's following guidelines on consensus and straw polls before voting. To vote, please start with # ~~~~ - Hoverfish 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you want the Pete Townshend section to be moved to a sub-page and expanded, with a reference to it within the artilce, add your name below this line.

1. Hoverfish 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) - I am for expanding on it in a subpage, while including Townsend within a new section after "Followers" for some notable (to the "West", since this is the English Wikipedia) persons who have contributed to Baba's message.
2. Liam7 02:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Yes, go with the sub page as an exercise in compromise and commonsense.
3. Imogen4 08:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Yes farewell and goodbye noname. I am voting also for the get Townsend out of here. It is in wrong place. I dont care one bit who this Townsend is, Baba site is for Baba.
4. Waylander.one 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Ive got nothing against Townsend or his particular fancies, whatever. If the mans a tailgater I dont give a toss. This is about organisation man. Ive been to India, mostly its a trainwreck, but not Babas place. Oh no. This site here should reflect that. Townsend must go. As for the whinging about what Wikipedias editors accept or not all Ill say is User:202.150.34.8 get a real problem

• If you want the Pete Townshend section to remain basically where and how it is now (In the body of the Meher Baba article) put your name below this line.

1. Chris 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) I'm for basically leaving the section as it is, or possibly reducing the parts that seem to be original research (interpreting "Tommy") unless those sections can be referenced to some source. I don't think there's enough for a subpage.

202.150.34.8 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC) [Refrained from voting] I'd like to remind everybody involved of a golden Wikipedia rule, namely "Do NOT write nonsense". As Meher Baba "dropped His body in 1969" and the next Avatar will take another 700 to 1,400 years to appear, writing or claiming that "Baba wants this site sorted out" amounts to nonsense. 202.150.34.8 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

--Liam7 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) You fall into the same nonsense trap yourself User:202.150.34.8. First you claim the 700 to 1400 year span for an Avartaric advent "As a Fact". Then your saying that because hes not here, having you say "dropped His body in 1969" so he right now cant say what he wants done with this site.

Oh boy where do I start to unravel this nonsense. Well from a non Baba follower point of view this is just plain nonsense. I can hear them laughing about the 700 tp 1400 year thing, from here. Real Wacko. You could only be making a little sense from a Baba followers perspective. But if you are taking this approach you are very basic, limited and arrogant by assuming that everybody is like you and has no inner contact with Baba, who I might add, has unlimited powers and can do anything, including establishing an inner contact with even a knuckle head like you, if he so wished. --Liam7 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note: There is currently an ongoing administrator investigation for Liam7, Imogen4, and Waylander.one under Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. The vote should not be tallied until after this investigation is complete. Chris 16:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re this investigation: Look Ill save you some time Chris. They will find several people have established an account recently and are voting from their computers, predominantly at work. They are entitled to vote. Your gripe, OH Townsend groupie (ex partner?) is that your ploy to limit the pending cull to the TS content on the Bab page, by going for this redundant subpage thinyg is looking tenuous. You remind me of our devious Prime minister who scuttled Australias chance at a Republic by giving a choice that was no choice. Because of your LIMITED straw vote options, I proposed an amendment. This is your real gripe. That saint Pete will end up with a link to his own page. Is that such a crime? No. --Liam7 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Imogen4 and Waylander.one appear to be sockpuppets created on December 2, 2006 for the purpose of voting. [3] [4] If so this is a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy. An investigation by a check-user clerk will be proposed at the close of the vote on December 4 as per Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry in voting under the terms of Situation Code D. Chris 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the check-user investigation, this is a serious matter. Hoverfish 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a sock puppet issue. I do know the person Liam. We talk. So What. I agree with his views and he pointed me to this site. Is this crime? I havnt joined up to Wikipedia before, hadnt sen the point till this vote. You will see my computer is about 7 kms from his place. What is problem --Imogen4 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IP user 203.26.122.12 is editing since 10 December 2004, mostly on articles on Australia, and has even some history of vandalism warnings and two blocks. The former comment was done by this IP and then the signature changed to Imogen4. Hoverfish 07:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) User talk:203.26.122.12, is registered to Southern Systems (South Australia Government). Hoverfish 08:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Imogen is using a computer that has been used by other people. She told me she forgot to log on when she wrote the first message, then logged on, clicked Edit again, and changed the numbers that had appeared when she clicked the 'your signature with timestamp' previously when she hadnt logged on. She is very bright, but very busy. Oh she is real, tall, slim hips, green eyes, graceful but strong too. Yes Imogen exists. The reason the IP user 203.26.122.12 has a history is that as I said whoever this was used this office at some previous time. --Liam7 09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As for Waylander, well he is an old soul, who trys his hand at anything and usually does very well. We meet, us three and discuss matters over a good red wine. So he's entitled to vote. I would call him a 'Baba liker'. Not a man to cross Im afraid. Big man. Im here in defence of my esoteric wayfarers to defend against these outrageous allegations. Esp since I got them involved, sort off. --Liam7 09:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Waylander just called me to say that he tried to fix the numbering of Imogens vote, as it wasnt reading correctly. He wisely gave up this attempt, being somewhat computer challenged. Having read the above fuss he thought this might be important. --Liam7 10:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Appearance of a fraudulent reference

Liam7, Please explain this citation you've added to your information about this cycle of time and Zoroaster. "In the current cycle of time, which began with Zoroaster 10,000 years ago, (Lord Meher, vol. 3, p. 944)..." Here is a link to that page: http://www.lordmeher.org/index.jsp?pageBase=page.jsp&nextPage=944 Please explain. Chris 02:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is in the wrong place, thats the reference fo 700 to 1400 years, well done. I put this hear to get the ball rolling on poor references. Read above my notes on poor referencing. Im glad you picked this up.Someone is alert. Now, most of the references are incorrect i.e. titles do not appear in text etc . Is a vote required on whats correct referencing? --203.26.122.12 09:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To clear up any confusion I wrote this on Imogens computer after we discussed some of the issues in her office. I will try to post new stuff from my computer from now on --Liam7 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New Straw Vote

I am starting a new straw poll. If this new vote wins then it superceeds the above vote, but only in solutions not the spirit. That is if the above poll votes for a sub page for TS then the voters are essentially saying they want TS out of the main article. This new poll is about what is the best way to get TS out, once it is decided to remove this large content that TS has. If the above poll votes TS out on a sub page, this new vote is a choice between a subpage and just having a standard link in the Baba article to the Townsend page already on Wikipedia. Rationale? Read on. (forgot to sign this earlier) --Liam7 10:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC) P.s Not only did I forget to sign on earlier (fixed now) but the time limit for the new vote wasnt posted. Its three days from the end of the above vote. --Liam7 10:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Subpages were used on Wikipedia during most of 2001. A long debate then took place over whether they should or should not continue to be used. Larry Sanger, then editor of Wikipedia, took the position that they should be removed entirely. He wrote: "I think we've discussed subpages quite a bit--certainly enough to air the issues and give people a chance to state their views and change their minds--and in view of this, I've decided to get rid of them. (...) Finally, and probably as importantly as anything else, my well considered opinion is that the arguments in favor of getting rid of them are much, much stronger than the arguments in favor of keeping them. I predict yer gonna thank me in a year. (Maybe not all of you. :-) ).His prediction turned out to be true, as subpages were then increasingly weeded out and replaced with redirects to standard article titles or deleted entirely. Many Wikipedians now have a strong aversion against subpages, so please do not be surprised if you see comments like "AAAHHHHHH SUBPAGE!!!! KILL KILL KILL" in the recent changes comments. However, due to inertia, some subpages still linger on Wikipedia, and new ones are occasionally created".

Ok lets vote.

After the allocated time of three days for the above poll on TS and a sub page is over, if the poll, as looks likely, votes for a sub page I do want the subpage to be replaced by a standard link to Pete Townsends Wikipedia page.

1. --Waylander.one 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC). Yes I support having a standard link in the Baba article to Townsends own site in Wikipedia. I do not want a sub page as the arguments for getting rid of them are very strong.
2. --Imogen4 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC). yes I agree. just a standard link to own TS page, no sub page.
3. --HectorTroy 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Yes I vote for this.
4. Yes I support just a standard link to the Townsend site to be placed in the Baba article NOT for a subpage to be used. They are redundant. --Liam7 10:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, After the allocated time of three days for the above poll on TS and a sub page is over if the above poll, as looks likely, votes for a sub page I do not want the subpage to be replaced by a standard link to Pete Townsends Wkipedia page. I want a sub page.

Please note: There is currently an ongoing administrator investigation for Liam7, Imogen4, Waylander.one, and HectorTroy under Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. This vote should not be tallied until after this investigation is complete. Chris 16:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My vote: No subpage (and no section either): Can't believe this requires a vote. The following lines will suffice:

Meher Baba achieved additional fame in the West through the work of Pete Townshend of The Who. Parts of the rock-opera Tommy were inspired by Townshend's study of Meher Baba, to whom the album was dedicated.

The other information properly belongs on the Townshend page, not a Meher Baba subpage.

I personally think a section "Baba in the 60s" would be helpful: the explosion of Meher Baba followers during the 1966-1969 time period. Tommy and Townshend would be highly relevant in that regard; also the numerous publications, meetings, communes, etc., and the last darshan. IMO. --Nemonoman 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should include in this section "God in a pill" ? Hoverfish 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also one argument for getting rid of all the research/pov is that in the article Tommy, no such analysis exists, not the slightest mention of Baba, so here it is completely out of place. Hoverfish 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I like both suggestions, the one by Nemonoman and the one by Hoverfish. The Townshend section reduced to: Meher Baba achieved additional fame in the West through the work of Pete Townshend of The Who. Parts of the rock-opera Tommy were inspired by Townshend's study of Meher Baba, to whom the album was dedicated. Then moving any other information to God in a pill?. I also like Nemonoman's suggestion of creating a Baba in the 60's section. It seems worthy of mention due to his close associations with Timothy Leary, Baba Ramdas, and Pete Townshend, all of whom have Wikipedia articles so are considered noteworthy. "God in a pill?" was historically very relevant, as it was mentioned in Rolling Stone in 1970. There ought to be an article on Meher Baba's extremely unique reaction to the 60's counterculture movement. Chris 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

--Liam7 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC) The first straw vote was over on the 4 Dec at about 1800 hrs. It was decisive. What people are saying now in the discussion above validates the need for the second vote. That is a sub page is unpopular and was not a good choice. People want the TS issue sorted, but a subpage is dumb. I like the single line written above and reproduced here.

Meher Baba achieved additional fame in the West through the work of Pete Townshend of The Who. Parts of the rock-opera Tommy were inspired by Townshend's study of Meher Baba, to whom the album was dedicated.

If the second vote wins I support this as the solution. --Liam7 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is for the paronoid Chris. look Chris at the end when I sign off. its me Liam and my user number is not the one you say it is in the stupid argument you have re sockpuppetry. Its not 203.26.122.12 with its history of vandalism its 203.221.55.142 02:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Liam7 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)As per protocol I am discussing this here before editing takes place. The first vote is clearly won, despite the apparent sour grapes of Chris who propsed it and lost. This Chris is not it appears even a Baba follower. What is it about Wikipedia that people get so a--- retentive? So a sub page is agreed initially. That means the TS content in the article can be removed. Chris is trying to delay the result with a sockpuppetry delay tactic. No go, the backlog is months long. He knows this. The next vote is even more decisive. If you people out there do not respond to this discusion, thats your loss. The other vote ends tomorrow at about 1800. After that I will be waiting for agreement on the above proposal, that is insert the single line above. Jai Baba!

Hi all, lets cool this down. I am Hector.Troy and I have an extensive history. I will sign off using the IP number that I have always used. Liam dosnt know me. I decided to log on an account to Vote as I am a Baba Follower. Sorry for not explaining this. I do know Imogen. She works in this complex. Lets sort this out with manners. 203.26.122.12 03:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to be courteous

While editing, please remember: 
*No personal attacks: be upset with the contributions, not the contributor 

Certainly we can discuss our different opinions and concerns with respect. --Nemonoman 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please notice that Cott12 (Chris) himself took the Townsend section away and replaced it with Nemonoman's suggested line on the 4th of December and all the lattest comments were completely unnecessary. Hoverfish 06:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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 08:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting the changes till the second vote is finished. This is fair. Cott12 has committed vandalism by preempting a vote he voted against. 203.26.122.12 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is indeed fair. By the way Im from Scotland, and my slang is celtic laddie. Waylander.one 10:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes what is wrong with no vote. Has someone got ice in a private place Imogen4 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Votes are not required for editing. I agree that it would have been good form to wait for the outcome of the vote once it was initiated. But it is up to individual editors to edit, and not subject to majority rule or even consensus. (The controversy over this vote should explain why so few edits are made through votes.)--Nemonoman 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this is better. But there is a smell of hypocrisy re reverting edits and calls of vandalism. Some want votes others want edits with discussion. Well we have both now so TS is to be edited. Liam7 07:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism by 203.26.122.12 (User "Hector"?)

The blanket changes made by 203.26.122.12 (User "Hector"?) are basically vandalism. The "Hector" changes remove many individual edits entered over time. Each of these edits was documented, and most were based on the Peer Review the article recently underwent.

I don't particularly like or endorse these edits, but the fact is that they were made by a thoughtful editor in plain view with clear reasoning. A blanket reversion by 203.26.122.12 (User "Hector"?), calling these changes 'vandalism' and threatening 'measures against' the editor -- this is the opposite of thoughtful editing.

Please Assume good faith.

If you feel that my RVV is wrong, then follow good Wiki manners. Revert changes one by one if you feel the need. Explain your edits. Get a username. Use the discussion page to discuss your edits. --Nemonoman 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism by Cott12

Look I dont know Hector, he has a user name, but I read where people said he had no wikipedia history, was a sockpuppet and that it seems is why he didnt log on. But he made this clear. I have a query. How can the undiscussed edits made by Cott12 before the vote was finished have been changed without affecting all the othet edits he made AFTER the edit to Townsend.? Cott12 should have left this undisscussed edit to Ts last or not done it at all. That is the problem. Cott12 knew that his edit was wrong and tried to make it unchangable by putting a lot of legitamte edits after it. Very low behaviour. Hector acted in a straight forward way. Its Cott12's fault Liam7 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Liam's Revert

Let's not get into an edit war. Please. If you have problems with individual edits by Cott12, please edit them individually, and provide some explanation, if not justification, for your reverts. If you don't like the Townshend edits, it's easy enough to change that without affecting the rest of the article. --Nemonoman 04:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Nemonoman Revert

Good point. But lets wait till three days afetr the first vote ends 18:01, 1 December 2006 which is the start of the second vote. This is up at 1801 hrs today. Fisrt one on after this gets to cull TS. Not before. Liam7 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you have a hair up your ass about the Pete Townshend section. I have retained your prefered verion of that section, and returned the rest of the article to the improved version based on the Peer Review. If you have problems with an individual section, I suggest you edit the section individually. I am not very pleased by your attitude, and ask you kindly to please act in cooperation and good faith with your editing colleagues. The changes to this article are viewed by many individuals. --Nemonoman 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: There is NO provision for a waiting period based on a vote or any other deadline, absent the intervention of a moderator. I am trying to accomodate you, since you are acting in a childish and malicious fashion. I will not respect any additional arbitrary rules you decide to establish. This is not YOUR article, nor YOUR wikipedia.

--Nemonoman 05:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are being a hypocrite re malious behaviour. See the policy on a vote when required. The vote is over now and the decision by those who voted is no subpage but a standard link to TS own page as suggested by the above discussion. I assure you I do not have a sinus. I care not a jot what you think of my attitude. Now as agrred by the vote TS will be replaced with a standard link. Fell free to teak this. Did you notice you have -- before your name? Watch out Hooverfish knows this means you are a sockpuppet Liam7 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your previous edits. The Ts section is now replaced by a single line, as discussed above. I believe you even had input neoman, well done. Never ever accomadate someone who is being childish, its a failed policy that ends in tears. You are in truth being a passive aggressive as evidenced by your PS which is not accommadating. Hmmmm I suggest you rethink your position so its no flip flop. You may find a strong stance as I am taking is a good idea. Its assertive, but gets interpreted as aggressive by those who are uncertain what they need or want. Liam7 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Needs a Full Rework

I have a confession. Today I read the first half of the article for the first time. Oh Boy. Its a long way from being good. There is hope. I put in where citations are needed. The worst paragrapgh from the top is Automobile accident in India. Needs a grammar and syntax workup. Below average, its a fail. No referencing at all. People are not born with knowledge. We aquire it, and if writing it we need to say where we aquired it, so others can check the source. To do othrewise, well who says its not made up. One needs to prove it isnt. Thats the writers responsibility. Liam7 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than cramming this article with doubtful elements, I have placed and unreferenced template at the top of the article.

Every statement in the article does not require a specific footnote. I don't know where Liam got this idea. The idea is that a reasonable person readin the referenced books, articles, etc., should be able to validate the facts in the article. The Biography group that peer reviewed this article offers suggestions and good examples. See Linus Pauling, one of the articles that they recommend, for an indication of how and when to use footnotes and references.

In fact, I sincerely hope that Liam7 will review the prefered style for these sorts of articles, and of his own will remove the unreferenced template. As is the article is in reasonable shape for a b-class article. If Liam7 would actually improve the content, instead of just noting how bad everyone's work sucks, I'm sure I would be joined by others in applauding the change.--Nemonoman 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good CallWaylander.one 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Liam is correct and your Pauling article has citations in text as he used them, and also there is many more references in best places in text in Pauling article. More than in Baba article. Liam is talking about a good University standard, not USA college standard which is lower. I have seen someone else put shit load of citation neede on Liam work. Nemonman you have a hair up your arse re Liam. Imogen4 07:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant good call Liam. Its not enough to say 'I have placed and unreferenced template at the top of the article'. The intext citation needed is specific and points to te fix required. Its accurate. This article is ONLY a B grade. Its one up from the start. Do you know why Nemonoman? In part its tied down in mediocrity and subjectivity. Your taking it personally man. Detach oneself. Its a piece of work that is in need of an upgrade. When? When people get time, but lets call a spade a spade. Waylander.one 09:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope that I can learn from my betters. I certainly look forward to seeing how really good editors like Liam, Imogen, and Waylander will improve this article. The first step, apparently, is to insult those who have gone before personally, and to grouse about their work, and to invite them to butt out! Good going, guys! Mission Accomplished. You're doing a helluva job! --Nemonoman 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all eyes too, by the way. Hoverfish 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For answers to your post to me re -- see the evidence used to try to nail me as a sockpuppet. Speak to Hoverfish.

For other uses of 'citation needed' see what someone did to my edits. Speak to Hoverfish.

On where I learnt to use citations. Well in your note to me on my page, you didnt reference where you got your views on citations. I can tell you this now. University standards if applied to the Baba article would get it evaluated at the top level. Thats the Gold standard. Thats where I learnt mine. As for if its me who will fix it? Cant say, there are certainly more people out there than those involved in this discussion. Some may have more time than others. I be watching to Hooverfish Liam7 01:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nemonoman when are you quitting for a rest like you said on your messages?. Are you masochist, and do you like a thrashing? Mmmmm. I have a good whip.--Imogen4 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)