User talk:Dazedbythebell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Avatar Meher Baba, 1922

Help request[edit]

Hello, I need help. There are two articles about the same person. Baba Tajuddin of Nagpur is the same person as Baba Tajuddin. What is the right way to proceed to correct this? Thank you. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave the "helpme" for someone to give more detailed advice, but start by reading WP:Merging. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the {{help}}, as it looks like you've got things under control. DoriTalkContribs 01:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Dori. Yes, it appears under control. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Miracle[edit]

Thank you for your relentless paring-down of The Miracle (1912 film), it's looking much better already. I still have to fix a few refs etc. > MinorProphet (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it's turning into a very good article. You have done an excellent job. Dazedbythebell (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi Dazedbythebell. If I understand it correctly, hatnotes should only be placed at the top of an article? I didn't know; I've so often seen hatnotes at the top of a paragraph. I guess a proper way of using "important" links is by using them in the paragraphs themselves? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I like your recent changes to Spirituality, and wish you would do more. Hat-notes over sub-sections are meant to lead to "Main Articles" by the same heading, not "See Also" which is subjective and leading. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There are actually two types of section hatnotes, template:main and template:see also. What you're describing is the former, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a "see also" hatnote as long as the appropriate template is used. - SudoGhost 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In this case it does appear like like some of the "see also" templates appear too soon, just under the subheaders. I am not sure I understand how Dazedbythebell means "leading" but if he means "suggestive", I find they are so, being positioned in a place before the content of the section is read. Hoverfish Talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, what a lot of responses! Very happy to see so, after the turmoil of the last days. I'll work through the article again the coming days or weeks, trying to integrate the links into the main body of text or the "See also"-section. Greetings to all of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you here, Hoverfish. As I said, Joshua, I like your recent changes and think you are doing a good job. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the Spirituality discussion page. There are a couple of things I have in mind. By leading, I meant pointing the reader to articles that might be considered subjectively (to the point of view of the editor) vitally related, as opposed to objectively so. For instance another editor might find that particular 'See also' as not exactly the same thing in all contexts, or too exact to a particular point of view. So I mean subjective or bearing an opinion. One thing I think the article suffers from is that it can come off as anti-religious, to to bypass religion too quickly or dismissively, as if the religious use of the term is no longer in current use. This would not be so. Encarta defines spiritual as

  • spir·i·tu·al adj
  • 1. relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things
  • 2. relating to religious or sacred things rather than worldly things
  • 3. connected by an affinity of the mind, spirit, or temperament
  • 4. showing great refinement and concern with the higher things in life

The Free Dictionary defines spiritual as:

  • 1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
  • 2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
  • 3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
  • 4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
  • 5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural

These are not outmoded or outdated uses, but current. The article would lead one to think these are not current usage. Certainly the mystical experiences of, for instance, Teresa of Avila are considered by the Church to be 'spiritual experiences.' I simply would love to see the article have as little bias one way or the other. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think all the 'See Also's can be incorporated better, as you suggested, and that they all are valuable in the bottom See Also list. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Copied to Talk:Spirituality#Hatnotes Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for monitoring! Face-smile.svg By the way, I just notice that I forgot an "i" in the header. Makes it soemthing like "Spritzuality" - check "Herman Brood" as well. Which would be a nice name for a Wiki-policy against the annexation of religion-topics. See also diff. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua, for bringing my attention to this agenda: Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I hereby decorate you with this Tireless Contributor Barnstar for all the work you have done, and keep doing, to Meher Baba and all the articles of the related category. Talk 23:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hoverfish for this very appreciated Barnstar. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If I guessed your intentions right, you should place <br clear="all" /> after all the existing userboxes, and underneath it copy this barnstar. You can also place <br clear="all" /> before the three userboxes to have them all in a line clear of the other images and tempaltes. Hoverfish Talk 15:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again. (: Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo help[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can an administrator or someone knowledgeable help me to put File:Mani irani.jpg on Commons? It has ORTS permission. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read here and reply. Gryllida (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Gryllida. I will do it manually. I see now how to do it. Thank you. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation question[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I deleted a long section from the Wikipedia article Happy Birthday (Pete Townshend album), and explained the change in the Discussion page. However, it was a very gross violation of copyright. Thus as I understand Wikipedia policy it ought to also be cleared from the article history. See Discussion Page there. However, I do not know how to do this procedure. So I am asking for an admin who can do this, or knows what ought to be done. Thank you. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the copyright violation! Nothing else needs to be done since removing it from the article history would also remove the attribution for non-infringing edits that happened in between. Huon (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Huon. Dazedbythebell (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Names of God, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion confusion[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Dear someone. I tried to propose an article for deletion on August 12. The article is here: Carol Weyland Conner. However, I think I did something wrong. For it shows up in no AfD list anywhere I can find. Can you check and see I did everything right? I myself created it, but it was an old name (Sharnak) I no longer use or remember the login for. Thanks. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You have proposed deletion, which is a different from Articles for Deletion. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Mdann52. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Baba (disambiguation page)[edit]

Hi, my edit of 19th September (which you have reverted) was not spam, there are numerous disambiguation pages with stock ticker codes, see and for examples. Alibaba holdings came to the market on 19th September, see, hence the edit. Clivemacd (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right. My apologies. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Five Perfect Masters[edit]

Yes I copy and pasted, and Yes I am a follower of meher baba as well, and I believe including the perfect masters section in narayan maharaj article is no harm. I can change the sentence construction accordingly, so that it wont become subjective. But it would only become additional information, which is always useful for an encyclopedia. Please check the re-edited content by me Danice thrall (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Danice, yes it is useful information about what Meher Baba taught. And it is in the correct place in that page on that subject, where it can be found by those wanting to know what Meher Baba taught. But to put Baba's teaching on the pages of other masters, with their own disciples, of different traditions, with different teachings, is simply to proselytize. It will not last in those articles, which are meant to be on the lives and teachings of those particular masters. So "spreading Baba's message" on other articles is not going to hold up on Wikipedia. Also you must discuss a radical change like this (on four pages no-less) on the appropriate Talk pages, and reach some consensus. Simply reverting without discussing is not the way to work on Wikipedia. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Danice thrall: Please don't edit war. If you think there is a case to make for your addition, make it here. You seem to be promoting a particular viewpoint without reaching a consensus with other editors. I don't have any axe to grind either way with this topic, but if editors seem to be pushing a particular line rather than establishing an agreed version, I will take appropriate action Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Danice thrall: Hi. Wikipedia is a good concept, but we have to talk to each other Danice on the bigger edits, otherwise it falls down. I'm sure you meant well, goodwill and all that. Back yourself if you like, but discuss before edits. It actually reads well, what you wrote. Its referenced OK, but the cut and paste let you down. Vary it a bit and go to the talk page of each article to explain what you are doing. Dazedbythebell I think she has a point, being these five Sadgurus are linked by Baba. She could write it in a way that its not Babas so called teachings being inserted but is what he stated. Its certainly a key concept how all five were linked to the Avatar (loads of refs around) and all had their Ashrams not far from Babas seat. I see some merit, but it needs reworking a bit. BTW I checked edit history, I dont think there will be much input from devotees of the Sadgurus. SaintAviator lets talk 23:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Doing a U turn on the devotees of the Sadgurus. Did a deeper check and I now think this will be seen as an attempt to proselytize. SaintAviator lets talk 02:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Saint Aviator. I agree. Luckily several people have been working to clean some of this out. Meher Baba's very respectable teachings definitely are appropriate in Meher Baba articles, as that is their subject, but not in articles of other Sadgurus and Qutubs. Baba said a lot about Saint Francis. But it doesn't belong on the Saint Francis article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)