User talk:Eternity5090

Welcome!

Hello, Eternity5090, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 13:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent additions has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Materialscientist (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Please stop posting about Rajneesh on my talk page. Discuss these matters at Talk: Rajneesh and WP:RSN. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you not paying attention to what you're doing amounts to childish games on the part of other people.

This link shows you responding at the Teahouse, indicating that you know how to do that without starting new sections.

This link shows you continuing to start new sections after Cullen told to you go to the appropriate venue.

This link shows you posting on Cullen's talk page after he told you not to.

You said so I agreed to do this at this point but your actions say the complete opposite.

Basic problem solving would allow one to figure out "gee, maybe if I click the link that Cullen gave me, and perform the same actions there as I have at the Teahouse, I should be able to communicate in that new talk page just as I have in other pages." Whether your failure to do so was refusal or inability, that does not make you look good.

We understand that you are new, but pay attention to what you're doing and don't you dare try to blame others for your screw-ups.

Here is a guide that covers a variety of problems you've encountered. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian,

I did not understand how to reply on the Teahouse page, that is why, I replied in the only way I could see , on several peoples pages who had replied to me on the teahouse page.

The conversations were constructive , and noone complained , or told me to reply directly on the teahouse page - I had a longer conversation with Cullen, when he told me to stop writing on his talk page, this was my response:

"Ok, Cullen, I will stop writing on this page and continue this on one of the talk pages you suggested.

I am new at this and don`t know how to reply to you without opening up a new section.

As far as secondary sources are concerned, I have witness statements to the FBI from 1985 from at least two other members of Sheelas group that state that Jayananda was present at their meetings where they discussed and planned their crimes, as well as confirming Jayananda`s claim in an interview on sannyasnews that after he had refused to kill anyone for Sheela, Sheela had told the other members of her group that she wanted to kill him.

This is a matter or historical importance, and does belong on the wiki, as Jayananda was also one of the main people who exposed the crimes to Osho, after Sheela had left Rajneeshpuram, which then led Osho to exposing the crimes publicly and inviting the FBI in to investigate.

So I believe it is important to include some of Jayananda`s statements on the wiki.Eternity5090 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC) "

Then, after I had told Cullen that I would stop writing on his talkpage, and start using the places her had suggested, he replied to me again, and told me to stop writing on my page :

"Oh my gosh, Eternity5090! I asked you to stop posting about Rajneesh on my talk page and here you are posting about Rajneesh again! Are you the type of person who ignores reasonable requests? Please stop now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)"

The next day, new years eve, I discovered that someone had put a warning, not very festive, on my page, although I had already toldf Cullen that I would not write on his page again.

I actually thought it was so ridiculous he was joking- but actaully not.

The teahouse, and the whole thing actually, is not very userfriendly. I had already requested advice, as a new user, from a couple of people, before I went on the teahouse, but they ignored my requests.Eternity5090 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian.thomson ,

I can assure you, that I did not understand how to reply on the Teahouse page, that is why, I replied in the only way I could see , on several peoples pages who had replied to me on the teahouse page.

The conversations were constructive , and noone complained , or told me to reply directly on the teahouse page - I had a longer conversation with Cullen, when he told me to stop writing on his talk page, this was my response:

"Ok, Cullen, I will stop writing on this page and continue this on one of the talk pages you suggested.

I am new at this and don`t know how to reply to you without opening up a new section.

As far as secondary sources are concerned, I have witness statements to the FBI from 1985 from at least two other members of Sheelas group that state that Jayananda was present at their meetings where they discussed and planned their crimes, as well as confirming Jayananda`s claim in an interview on sannyasnews that after he had refused to kill anyone for Sheela, Sheela had told the other members of her group that she wanted to kill him.

This is a matter or historical importance, and does belong on the wiki, as Jayananda was also one of the main people who exposed the crimes to Osho, after Sheela had left Rajneeshpuram, which then led Osho to exposing the crimes publicly and inviting the FBI in to investigate.

So I believe it is important to include some of Jayananda`s statements on the wiki.Eternity5090 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC) "

Then, after I had told Cullen that I would stop writing on his talkpage, and start using the places her had suggested, he replied to me again, and told me to stop writing on my page :

"Oh my gosh, Eternity5090! I asked you to stop posting about Rajneesh on my talk page and here you are posting about Rajneesh again! Are you the type of person who ignores reasonable requests? Please stop now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)"

The next day, new years eve, I discovered that someone had put a warning, not very festive, on my page, although I had already toldf Cullen that I would not write on his page again.

I actually thought it was so ridiculous he was joking- but actaully not.

The teahouse, and the whole thing actually, is not very userfriendly. I had already requested advice, as a new user, from a couple of people, before I went on the teahouse, but they ignored my requests.Eternity5090 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

So it is now New Year. How about we forget about the recent banter, and move into the new year with the spirit of brotherly love.Eternity5090 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After you posted that you would stop posting on Cullen's page, and after Cullen posted (again) for you to stop posting on his talk page about Ranjeesh, and several hours after you were warned to stop, you posted on Cullen's talk page again, clearly within the same context. It wasn't simply "do not explicitly mention the name Ranjeesh," it was "do not post about Ranjeesh on Cullen's page." There was no other context for what you posted on his page except for responses about Ranjeesh. Seriously, if you don't own up to the fact that you posted on the talk page after you were repeatedly asked to stop and after you were warned, that's not going to make you look innocent, that's going to make it look like you don't understand what's going on.

Again, this link shows you responding at the Teahouse without starting a new section, indicating that you know how to do that without starting new sections. You say one thing but your actions (which are public record here) say something completely different. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced journalism and sources of information for the Rajneesh page

I am trying to add an edit , to the Rajneesh page, to the "1984 bioterror attack section ".

The edit is based on statements from an interview with Sannyasnews in 2011 about the crimes, planned and actual, that John Shelfer made, (Jayananda), Sheela`s husband at the Ranch and part of her inner circle for five years at Rajneeshpuram . There are at least two testimonies to the FBI from other members of Sheelas group, that confirm that Jayananda was present at the same meetings where Sheela was talking about the plans to commit murder and other acts. John Shelfer already appears on the wiki page as the purchaser of the Ranch in 1981. And these testimonies also back up another claim by Jayananda in a different 2012 interview with Swami Anand Parmartha( Clive Critchley) , one of the editors and co-founder of sannyasnews.org.

http://sannyasnews.org/now/archives/1899 .

Jayananda`s claim was that after he refused to kill anyone for Sheela, Sheela then had decided she wanted to kill him, and told other members of her group of that.

Now, you won`t find any stories like this in the main journalistic source of the Rajneeshwiki , the Oregonian.

That is because the Oregonian, and the main journalist on Rajneesh, Les Vaitz, is highly biased against Rajneesh and the Rajneeshpuram commune.

Check out this article by the investigative journalist and author of the 2013 book on Rajneeshpuram, "A passage to America". Max Brecher:

https://www.oshonews.com/2012/05/23/the-full-truth-about-rajneeshpuram-2/

Eternity5090 (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayananda, was one of the people who started exposing the crimes to Osho after Sheela left in September 1985, which then led Osho to decide to expose the crimes publicly and invite the FBI and the law enforcement agencies in to Rajneeshpuram to investigate. Eternity5090 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Talk:Rajneesh. To be honest, nothing you've argued in this section will go over well at Talk:Ranjeesh either. You are making a common mistake in assuming that any source that is not allied to a topic must be "biased" against it (while ignoring friendly bias from friendly sources). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson - no this is not talk rajneesh, this is my talkpage. I guess you spend a lot of time on wiki. I am very busy with other things and have not had time to discuss it- I certainly will when I have time- with people who have some knowledge or experience with Osho's life .

Not all of Lez Zaitz's writing is incorrect- but generally it is highly biased against Osho (or The Bhagwan as the Oregonian likes to call him) - there are many points in his articles which many people would be able to show you his assumptions and his innacuracies.

Sannynews has always been a balanced site- that is the way the main editor , Swami Anand Parmartha(Clive Critchley) intended it to be, and welcomed any contributions and articles from anyone, irrespective of whether they had a negative or positive opinion of Osho

This is very different from Les Zaitz who has a very narrow opinion of Osho that is negative. Basically he believed that Osho was a conman interested in money. Or as he puts it "A philoshpy proffesor who realised that enlightenment payed better".

Sannyasnews is a balanced source of information, some of the articles have been used to attack Osho by critics. It is a major source of material on Osho, that has influenced writers , some of whose books are already being used as citations on the Rajneesh wiki page( The Three Dangerous Magi by Mistleberger is one such example of a book very influenced by the articles on sannyasnews )

I am interested in historical accuracy. That is what the wiki is meant to be about. Eternity5090 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson - no this is not talk rajneesh, this is my talkpage. I guess you spend a lot of time on wiki. I am very busy with other things and have not had time to discuss it- I certainly will when I have time- with people who have some knowledge or experience with Osho's life .

Not all of Lez Zaitz's writing is incorrect- but generally it is highly biased against Osho (or The Bhagwan as the Oregonian likes to call him) - there are many points in his articles which many people would be able to show you his assumptions and his innacuracies.

Sannynews has always been a balanced site- that is the way the main editor , Swami Anand Parmartha(Clive Critchley) intended it to be, and welcomed any contributions and articles from anyone, irrespective of whether they had a negative or positive opinion of Osho

This is very different from Les Zaitz who has a very narrow opinion of Osho that is negative. Basically he believed that Osho was a conman interested in money. Or as he puts it "A philoshpy proffesor who realised that enlightenment payed better".

Sannyasnews is a balanced source of information, some of the articles have been used to attack Osho by critics. It is a major source of material on Osho, that has influenced writers , some of whose books are already being used as citations on the Rajneesh wiki page( The Three Dangerous Magi by Mistleberger is one such example of a book very influenced by the articles on sannyasnews )

I am interested in historical accuracy. That is what the wiki is meant to be about. Eternity5090 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be as clear as possible: if you aren't going to even try to do things the right way (as you have demonstrated that you can do and as you have repeatedly been given guidance on), there's no point in even trying. Posting here will not change the article in any way.

"Being busy" is a ridiculous and insulting excuse because it implies that everyone else who learned what they're doing are jobless losers or something. We have a lot of users here who are busy but still do things the right way because they pay attention to what they're doing.

Repeating your posts redundantly is a waste of your time and disrespectful to anyone you expect to read your posts. "Say something once? Why say it again?!" Just edit the original post (as long as no one has replied to it) instead of posting it a second or third time.

Your reply here once again shows that you know how to reply to existing sections instead of creating new sections for every post. You have demonstrated the ability to do things the right way, so the only reasonable conclusion is that you are refusing to consistently do so. While new discussion at Talk:Rajneesh should go into a new section, replies should go in that same section.

You do not have the excuse that no one has told you how to do things the right way. Doing things the wrong way doesn't make you look busy, it just makes you look like you're not here to help. It makes you look like you're just using this talk page as a blog to complain on. It makes you look like you were just trolling Cullen earlier. If that's the case, the only thing left to do is block you indefinitely.

Even if you really are trying to help, if you are "too busy" to go to the right page, as you have been instructed over and over, you are too busy to help with the article.

Post about the article at Talk:Rajneesh. Not here, not on some other user's talk page, not the Teahouse. Make your next post about the Rajneesh article at Talk:Rajneesh. If you post about Ranjeesh elsewhere, I will only be able to assume that you care more about some sort of childish power-battle than actually improving the article and no one will provide any further help.

Although before you do that, you should review WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson , I get the feeling you are really just arguing for arguments sake.

Yes, I a really am too busy to edit or discuss anything right now- don't worry, I will when I have time

You put "Being busy" is a ridiculous and insulting excuse because it implies that everyone else who learned what they're doing are jobless losers or something."

That is not what I meant, but it looks like you are offended or angered by this presumption It is not what I meant, I can see that the wiki is a hobby for a lot of you , that is all

You appear eager to create a conflict. I was not "trolling" Cullen's page at all, I was simply discussing editing with several people, as I have pointed out several times, it was not obvious to me how to reply on the teahouse page, so I replied the way I could see how

Noone complained, and I told Cullen that I would indeed discuss the issues on the links that he provided- yet he wrote on my page again

None of this is trolling.

If you want to disbelieve me, and accuse me of pretending not to know how to reply at the teahouse page, it is not my problem

It looks like paranoia to me

I said before, I would like to leave any banter behind from last year- but you are still hassling me.

I did make some mistakes, I did understand copyright requests, but there is no need to keep going on the same things over and over. Eternity5090 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Eternity5090! You created a thread called Edit query. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]