User talk:Demes

Welcome!

Hello, Demes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

August 2008

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Paramahamsa Hariharananda, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing. – Shannon Rose (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Paramahamsa Hariharananda, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Shannon Rose (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Paramahamsa Hariharananda. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Shannon Rose (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Paramahamsa Hariharananda, you will be blocked from editing. – Shannon Rose (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Bengal Renaissance. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Shannon Rose (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa Hariharananda

Hello! The three "references" you have provided were all written by Paramahamsa Harirananda himself. They are not reliable, third-party, published sources and are, therefore, unacceptable. You should provide published references written by other people, and those "other people" should not be connected to Hariharananda, his teachings, or organization in any way. This will guarantee the impartiality of their reports.

You also keep on removing the citation, wikify, and neutrality tags even though the article is still a far cry from one based on reliable references, wikified, and neutral. For example, claims that Hariharananda "was instrumental in reviving the bhakti movement in India," was "God-realized," "had already memorized all the puja mantras of Hinduism at age four-and-a-half," etc. etc. don't belong in an encyclopedia, unless you are able to source them using reliable third-party materials.

Lastly, Hariharananda's claim of being a disciple of Sri Yukteswar is rejected by just about everyone else except his own followers. It is generally regarded as a lie in the entire Kriya Yoga community (in which followers of Hariharananda are viewed as outcasts due to Hariharananda's bad reputation), in fact books and websites like this one abound. Self-Realization Fellowship and Ananda Sangha, the two biggest Kriya Yoga organizations in the world maintain that Hariharananda only came to the scene in the 1940s (when Sri Yukteswar was already dead) and that he was a brahmachari of Yogoda Satsanga Society, who also never met Yogananda in person (have you seen any photograph of them together?), that later broke away. I suggest that you read Swami Satyeswarananda Giri's Kriya: Finding the True Path and Sriyukteswar: A Biography, the latter has notes of Swami Satyananda Giri's testimonial regarding the claims of Hariharananda.

If there are no reliable, third-party, published sources on Hariharananda then it could mean that he is not notable to merit an article in an encyclopedia. The tags have been there for a long time and the article is still a shameful mess, if you can't come up with any reliable, third-party, published sources in the following days I may have to nominate it for deletion. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some advice, since you are a new editor. I haven't studied the material at issue and the references in depth, but some general comments may be useful. Articles should try to be neutral about their subjects, and mainly rely on "reliable sources". Fighting over tags is usually less useful than working on a consensus for neutral content, which is what many tags are supposed to help do anyways. If Hariharananda or his followers make disputed claims, we must report both sides, using the best sources we can find. Reporting extraordinary claims like feats of memory at age four and a half as facts do require very high-quality sources. But on the other hand, using books written by an author as further reading in an article on him is always OK, and even as unattributed-in -the -text sources for facts in the article is sometimes OK. External links to his site or those of his followers would be generally OK. An external link see WP:EL need not be a "reliable source." I am sure that both of you know much more about the subject than I, but Shannon Rose is also a fairly new editor, and the first paragraph above is too strict and not supported by policy. Usually trying your hardest to be neutral and unoriginal and using common sense about sourcing and links will lead you in the right direction. If you have the energy, I recommend looking at the relevant portions of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP (even thought he is not living, it's worth reading, as I noted in the deletion discussion.) In any case, welcome to Wikipedia! John Z (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John Z. You wrote: "I haven't studied the material at issue and the references in depth." If that is the case then commonsense should tell you to shut up and refrain from voting or making comments unless you have a working knowledge of the situation. You also said that, "the first paragraph above is too strict and not supported by policy." That is wrong, the first paragraph is completely supported by WP:RS and WP:V. You have been an editor for quite some time but you still don't know anything. The subject is dead, WP:BLP does not apply to him. But even if it does there is absolutely nothing there that would support any of your arguments in favor of keeping the article as I have already shown you in the AfD discussion. I have read all of them. - Shannon Rose (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Paramahamsa Hariharananda

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paramahamsa Hariharananda, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Hariharananda. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]