User talk:Jason Riverdale

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jason Riverdale, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Geronimo20 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

Hi Jason. Unless Goethean is an administrator, which he is not, he has no business issuing a "final warning" to an established editor. Read don't template the regulars. Warning messages are designed to point out policy and consequences to new editors who are not aware of them. Wikipedia is always having problems with tenacious editors encamped with opposing POVs, and will probably always have these problems. However, in the interests of balance, the article should not reflect only the views of Adi Da devotees. You might examine whether some editors here have had close personal relationships with Adi Da, and therefore have some conflict of interest. The way to proceed is, firmly keeping the policy of assuming good faith in mind, to try and negotiate a position, on the talk page, that further revisions will only be made when consensus has been reached on each revision. If this proves unworkable, then you have further remedies offered at dispute resolution. Good luck :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, a third opinion should be sought when the dispute is between two editors only. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can only point you to the guidelines. It may be reasonable for an editor to quote the term "Messianic Proclamation" if he has a reliable source where the term has already been applied to Adi Da. But if the editor is just applying the term on the basis of his own authority, then he is carrying out original research. A key principal is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about truth. You might also study neutral point of view, which says "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." These three guidelines, just referred to, are the key guidelines for resolving disputes. If you follow them in your own edits, and respectfully refer appropriate sections to other editors when they don't follow them, some stalemates might be broken. Also, be civil, be cool, and don't use Wikipedia guidelines as a battering ram. After all that, if you still get stuck, you can post the problem to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Dispute resolution offers further options. --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Question On My Talk Page

I see you are new to the Da article, welcome! I do not edit there much anymore but I have knowledge and documentation on this subject and will edit if I am concerned about NPOV and factual errors. Regarding your question on my talk page, I have explained this before and here is what I mean. A large number, estimated at around 20,000 people, became members of Adidam at some time from 1972 until now. Of that, let us say around 2,000, or 10%, remain members today. Of those current members, a majority were not members then and were not in the U.S in the 1980s and so could have no direct knowledge on the dissident issue and must hear it from other devotees as history and not necessarily from all sides of this issue. Of those who were involved during the dissident period when certain activities came to light for the first time, a large number are no longer involved today, for a variety of reasons, from lack of desire to conform to the changing requirements to qualified support to outright disillusionment. From 1977 after the end of the wild indoor summer demonstration when Da ended being widely accessible and he retreated into privacy, until 1985 when the dissident charges became public and much was confirmed, most line members and public supporters may have heard gossip but were specifically told falsely that Da lived a renunciate and ascetic lifestyle he in fact did not. The revelations of this had a significant impact on the organization membership and supporters over time, particularly in the U.S., where at least some the evidence behind allegations, excluding the more extreme aspects of the B.M. lawsuit which everyone realizes was a legal ploy, could be personally verified. Obviously those who remained members after this adopted a common perspective and those who did not share that perspective tended to leave over time. Given known attrition, you should be able to see logic does not support presuming the perspective of the limited number of members from that period still involved accurately represents what happened and the motives of the dissidents, or reflects the majority view of all those involved at that time who moved on intead. To illustrate this, there is in fact another perspective other than the legal posturing and extortion claims. That is that B. M. was as all sides admit a long time abused spouse seeking divorce at a time when the "culture" was admittedly more openly tolerant of such abuse, thus contributing to the divorce, whose resources had for 10 years gone to support Adidam. And that M. M. was a loyal member from 1976-1984 who gave up a fiance and lucrative career offers out of faith, and was told the same false renunciate story all those years, but became disillusioned after he confirmed accounts of the activities around Da and the ongoing deception of himself and many others, earlier knowledge of which would have influenced his (and some others) membership and contributions. Legal posturing and public relations moves on both sides aside, the compensatory monetary settlements given the role of Adidam could be considered perfectly reasonable and not extortion under these circumstances, and both sides understood then that avoiding Da having to appear in court and avoiding more adverse publicity given the situation was a significant motive behind the settlements and gag agreements. I hope this helps you understand why the article can't simply adopt the media circus position as fact just because that is the current Adidam position. And thank you for the opportunity to clarify positions on these issues and hopefully build more tolerance for diverse views. Rest assured, I intend to be fair in my edits. --Dseer (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification DSeer. By the way I don't think there were ever 20,000 members... that seems really huge :)Jason Riverdale (talk)

Not really that huge, if you go back to 1972, since they were not there all at the same time. :-) There were surges of dropouts after the Garbage and Goddess period, after the Indoor Summer period, and after the dissident period, as well as constant attrition. There were already close to 1,000 active members attending events at MOA by 1980, and large numbers of them have left since. The membership growth slowed after the 1985 controversies in the U.S and since much of the growth has been outside the U.S. A number of observers in and out of Adidam consider 90% attrition in membership over all that period a reasonable estimate. The point being that even if it was lower than 90%, the views of a large number of former members are not represented by the Adidam position. --Dseer (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: edit summary

Below the box where you type your edit, there's a box which is labelled "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)". Type your edit summary in that box. — goethean ॐ 17:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Da GA review

Hi Jason. If you look at the very top of the Adi Da talk page, you will see where Devanagari made the nomination way back on 30 October 2009. The actual nomination is here, and as you can see, there is a considerable backlog. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Please check your e-mail. Thank you. --JN 466 02:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting on the talk page

Hi Jason, Thank you for all of your work at Adi Da. Please indent your entries on the talk page using a colon or colon(s) as necessary. It has been really difficult to follow the dialog without them and they are standard practice on talk pages. I went ahead and added them to the entire page so that I and others could follow the dialog. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jason, I think the easiest way to go is just hit the edit link on the talk page of one of the older sections that have a lot of indentation. You will see the use of colons in the editing window where the wiki format shows up. For every colon that you add you get an additional tab. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

warning templates for other editors talk pages

can be found here: [[1]] They can be a useful reminder and help to other editors if they are getting abusive. If we all help together by using these templates where appropriate on each others talk pages, it goes a lot farther than if only one of us does. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please don't cherry pick information

Please discuss the edits you wish to make in talk - the one line or phrase mentions that Jones' had parents and that Rudi was an art dealer are peculiar things to remove. They are sourced, and relevant. I added the parental mention after reviewing dozens of other bios in WP. This is quite standard, and of interest. The art dealer mention is interesting because they met outside his store, Nina worked there, and they met for meditation/kundalini yoga there for two years. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Request Re: Adi Da page

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Mediation case name has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Tao2911 (talk)

Mediation

Hi Jason. Hope you are well. Please sign up for the mediation or it will be rejected. You will find the page here: [[2]] If you have any questions, hit me up at my talk page. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement to mediate

Add your agreement to mediate here. It is a section towards the bottom on this page.--Epipelagic (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Adi Da.

For the Mediation Committee, Seddon ^talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Please address points

Please address my (quite thorough and repeated) arguments against your assertion that there were only two lawsuits against Adidam, or concede the point and stop bringing it up. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your note...

I thought it might be helpful if I posted something here to perhaps clarify the editing process. In general for most articles, discussion is important... but only where an editor is making changes they believe (or are informed) might be controversial, such as a large-scale copyedit, introducing new content that contradicts current content, etc. Editors are otherwise encouraged to just "be bold" and go ahead. Of course, leaving a courtesy note on the talk page is good practice but by no means always necessary.

Then we come to the more controversial articles like Adi Da :) Here a common-sense reading of the situation clearly indicates discussion is desirable (though still not required). One recommended cycle is bold-revert-discuss (BRD). To illustrate: editor A boldly makes an edit without discussion; editor B reverts the edit, indicating there may be a problem with it; both editors then move to talk-page discussion. The success of this method depends on the edits and editors involved - if, for example, editor A takes offence at their edit being reverted and reverts it back (with or without discussion), then we have the start of an edit war. One revert is not normally edit-warring; the second normally is. BRD also isn't a licence to revert every new edit - this would be seen as tendentious behaviour and sanctioned accordingly.

The only way to impose discussion on an article is to apply protection, which is really a short-term last-resort measure because it goes against our open editing philosophy, or to ask for some sort of community-sanctioned editing restriction (such as WP:1RR). This can be done by proposing the measure at WP:ANI, but obviously a clear case would need to be made. I hope this clears up what I felt to be some misconceptions in your post. If you need anything further, you know where my talk page is :) EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the late reply - I missed your post because it was one of a number of updates to my talk page that day and I only saw the last ones (I should really check the page history). You can find out more by browsing the Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines or by asking a question at the Help desk. The main Help contents page is searchable. EyeSerene^talk 16:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Tao2911. Thank you. --Diannaa ^TALK 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason, just letting you know I've replied to your message on my talk page. Sorry it took so long. Norm Declavier (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]