Talk:Nirmal Baba/Archive 2012-2019

Wrong allegation

There is no hotel to date and the purchased property is a office location.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/guru-or-fraud-the-holy-man-who-fell-from-grace-8201212.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GayleStorm (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 

Some Reliable sources

The topic can be controversial, so lets treat it carefully with adding content only from trusted and reliable sources. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC) some links that editors can use are . Will add some more later -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

1. http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/retired-professor-held-on-charges-of-blackmailing-nirmal-baba-115122800001_1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyanipundit (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
2. http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/JM-who-is-nirmal-baba-3098664.html?LHS- (published on 13/4/2012)
3. Http://www.nirmalbaba.com
4. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/guru-or-fraud-the-holy-man-who-fell-from-grace-8201212.html
5. http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/plea-against-nirmal-baba-reveals-no-cognisable-offence-cop/54622/
6. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-11/delhi/33762225_1_nirmal-baba-nirmaljeet-singh-narula-cognizable-offence
7. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2137522/Nirmal-Blah-blah-Negative-media-coverage-dent-godmans-popularity-high-income.html
8. http://nvonews.com/2012/08/29/seeking-curbs-on-magical-cure-ads-delhi-tells-court/
9. http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/09/10/317--Can-t-book-Nirmal-Baba-over-complaint-cops-tell-court-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastongi (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for giving these links but the first article and another one by India Today are actually plagiarized from this Wikipedia article itself. I've been following them up since I started creating this article. Noopur28 (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Name of the article

I think the older name Nirmal Baba was correct following wp:COMMONNAME, yash any comments ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Saw few examples like jay-z, lady gaga and felt that you are right so  Done Yasht101 06:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Never Mind, I could have reverted myself, but wanted you to do so, for future reference also, regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nirmal Baba's comparison with Paul Dhinakaran and the Hindu context is useful??

I am not sure why is it required to mention what a politician said about Nirmal Baba's arrest that too under the section Backlash,[1] not sure what the user Noopur28 meant by Nirmal Baba's comparison with Paul Dhinakaran and the Hindu context is useful --sarvajna (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

---

I had removed / cleaned up that part........--Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yuvraj singh duped

I came across some news articles [2] on Yuvraj Singh being duped by nirmal baba. being a high profile case. I feel this can be included into the article, any thoughts ? --DBigXray 21:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Elderly people and relatives can have blind faith.... There is no need to entertain this in Nirmal's profile which already provides enough info about HIM and his business.....--Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please delete this statement, it is inaccurate.

I would like to draw you attention to this statement "He is currently under investigations by police of various states after several of his followers registered cases of cheating against him in numerous cities of India.[2][3]" I have revised both the references. 1) In both references, it is clear that Nirnal Baba is the victim of forgery and so called disciples of Nirmal Baba had tried to forge Nirmal Baba’s signature to withdraw money from Nirmal baba’s account. 2)The police is investigating the people who forged these signatures. 3)I think inference drawn from these 2 references is incorrect. Please remove this statement as there is not police investigation against Nirmal Baba but against those who forged his signature. -Maverick14620 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The information is properly sourced and neutral enough. It is a fact that such cases have been registered at multiple places. and its properly sourced--DBigXray 19:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I am not talking about neutrality of the statement, I am saying that what you are infering and concluding from the references is not correct. In both the references it doesn't say that there is a police investigation against Nirmal Baba.

(talk) 20:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, people have indeed registered cases against him and if you see the references under "arrest warrent" section, you will also come to know that his advert tv shows are also stopped airing following these complaints....this is beyond doubt that there are police investigations against Nirmal Baba---- --Adamstraw99 (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Any updates please. The references you provide should be relevant to statement you are refer to, else you are cooking up a story and

Thank You Adamstraw99 for your response. The references with respect to this statement are not apt. In these references Nirmal Baba himself is a victim of forgery. Secondly, police investigations and legal cases of allegations are 2 different things. It has been mentioned about the legal case in the preceeding line. There is not a single police investigation currently unless you have reference that can prove otherwise.Maverick14620

Any updates please. The references you provide should be relevant to statement you are refer to and these references make no sense with respect to your statement..Maverick14620 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

“Self Proclaimed Godman” is controversial

I find the use of “Self Proclaimed Godman” used in the begining of article as a controversial phrase for the following reasons: I have been researching media and lot of articles, but there is no reference where Nirmal Baba claimed himself to be a “Godman”. Apparently, there is just one interview of Nirmal Baba. The following is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2psfvvseBk. Even in this TV interview, he has not claimed himself to be a “Godman”. Looking at the sensitivity of this topic and being biography of living person, the word “self proclaimed Godman” should be replaced by “Spiritual Guru” or “Spiritual Leader”. Please let me know. Regards, Maverick14620 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

1. This ref terms the subject as a Controversial godman.
2. Self-proclaimed godman, Nirmal Baba
3. This report calls him self-styled Godman

He was indeed "self proclaimed" and an alleged "godman" who is also "controversial" nowadays. the lead is neutral and factual enough. Calling him a "Spiritual Guru" will be the WP:POV of his followers and calling him a fraud guru will be the WP:POV of his opposers. Wiki articles have to follow a neutral way following the factual sources--DBigXray 19:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done

Sir, Can you please provide any reference where he described himself as god ? Maverick14620 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Added another ref above at 2.--DBigXray 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sir, Thank you. But even this article is accusation. Is there an interview or his actual words he claimed himself as god ? Maverick14620 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

SIR, THIS IS FIXED NOW--Adamstraw99 (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Adamstraw99, Thanks, but "self proclimed" has to be removed. There is no factual evidence. If its "self proclaimed" the person himself has to say however, Nirmal Baba has not made any such claims. Maverick14620 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I think all of this phrase " controversial self proclaimed godman" should be removed. As discussed earlier, regarding "self proclaimed godman" is controversial as Subject has not claimed himself as godman and its not verifiable. Secondly, all these are allegations and no court has given any decision yet. As per wikipedia guidelines for BLP, we should not be suggesting our opinion in this scenario. Let readers decide. So the "controversial" phrase needs to be removed as well. Please let me know. This should not sound like an attack page. Maverick14620 (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already said that this part is properly sources, see the sources i have given above. Your actions tantamounts to WP:ICANTHEARYOU--DBigXray 16:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is really interesting debate, seems there are no sources which quotes Nirmal Baba calling himself a godman, all we have is media reports calling him godman. This is somewhat like the caste debate where it is expected that the subject should reveal his caste himself else it cannot be included on the wiki page no matter how many source we have.--sarvajna (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well this is sourced, he was indeed self proclaimed, there is no record of anyone el giving him the title of Godman.--DBigXray 17:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you did not get my point, we have sources which says that he is a "self proclaimed" god man but do we have any source in which he says that he is a godman? You might have observed in the biography articles a source giving his/her Cast would not suffice for the inclusion in the article unless he/she has identified himself/herself.--sarvajna (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing in “Nirmal Darbar” section is controversial.

A Mumbai based junior artist has recently claimed that baba pays money to his people for asking questions who sit in the crowd as his followers during the "Nirmal Darbar.[13] I have investigated this matter through several sources. There is no specifics about who this Junior artist is ? The news source seem to be defamatory and made up with no actual person named “Nidhi” junior artist. Unless you can provide more information about the person who claimed this, this statement should be removed.Gyanipundit (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyanipundit (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Triplicate Content

Allegations of Fraud Section: A non-bailable warrant was issued against Nirmal Baba by a local court in Bihar on 19th May, 2012 in connection with a cheating and forgery case.[24] Arrest Warrant Section:On May 20, 2012, A Bihar court issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against Nirmal.[32][33] The court also issued an arrest warrant against Nirmal and asked authorities to arrest him.[36] Please note these 3 contents are one and the same and they are triplicated across 2 sections can you please remove two of them ? Gyanipundit (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Factual error & author describes personal intent rather than facts

Hubpages verdict Ref 1.

hubpages verdict Ref 2

Section: Allegations of fraud

“Following the media uproar and fall in popularity, Baba moved the Delhi High Court against a website called Indijobs and an unknown hubber. The court ruled in his favor and ordered for the defamatory content to be pulled down till the next hearing. It also asked to reveal the hubber's identity.[18]”

The Delhi High court decision was delivered on Mar30th and reported in the news on April 2nd. This case was filed in high court atleast 5-6 weeks before the judgment day March30th 2012. By stating “Nirmal Baba had moved to High court following media uproar”, which started around April 14th is incorrect and by deducing such statement the author/editor is showing personal intent rather that facts as required by the guidelines of BLP. Please remove this link & statement immediately. Also this gives an idea how media manipulated the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick14620 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Arrest Warrant section

Adamstraw99, Please refer to the WP:BLPCRIME. I am stating the same below. A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[5] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[6] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

Well sourced doesn't cut it. You need to have content that conveys event or fact. Arrest warrant in first place was not admissible, since there is no conviction. Secondly, it is quashed and sited as trivial. If Wikipedia carries this content it would definitely be an attempt of vitcimization.Raj9272 (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

comments

I am aware of that section's guidelines....However arrest warrants were indeed issued so were they mentioned here... If something is very much in news and the general public of the nation is discussing the issue (of his arrest warrants) then it was certainly very obvious to be written on his biography... anyways .. things should not be taken personally here.. I also respect his remedies and feelings of his wise followers ...Kindly avoid name-calling in wikipedia.... thanks :-(--Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To some extent I can understand your views. But, if you are creating a different section for Arrest warrant altogether to highlight this aspect, when the court had quashed the warrant portray wrong intend. Even though this section clearly violates the BLP guidelines, I am not sure why you are insisting on having this as separate section from your neutral view point. You seem to be a experienced contributor to Wikipedia, your wisdom will be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj9272 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

With out conviction, court related info even after warrant in quashed looks obsolete. I think this section has to be removed ... Yes it clearly violated BLP guidelines .. Gyanipundit (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is rediculous, as per guidelines court proceedings should be avoided. Even after the the ruling is overturned, maintaining this record sums up to defamation. Both the sections should be removed...Rajanbala (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you allow some needed additions?

I'm a big fan of the work being done at Wikipedia, totally understand that we all are volunteers here but...

"Baba used to organise..." The post is mentioning all that could so very conveniently be seen in media, but sounds very one sided and unfounded when the writer failed to notice that the meetings (Samaagams) are still being held!!

Its alright to mention all the law suits that are still underway, and all the media 'allegations' but not right to mention publicaly available video recordings as source of what actually happens in these meetings?

Is it alright if the writer takes the media allegations as final authoritative word and fails to add "alleged" where it's due? I modified the text, thankfully you allowed at least those changes to stay. Really thankful.

"... who has some following in many parts of India and Nepal." Is it alright if the writer of the post is adamantly sticking to his opinion that Baba has followers only in India and Nepal, and feels no need to mention any proof or reference for that conviction? It takes watching just a couple of recordings online or attending a meeting or two (I've attended 8, can provide ticket stubs as proof), to know that followers come from as far as United States and for that recordings can be provided as reference and as proof.

The post is not in keeping with Wikipedia's unbiased stand, as it discusses all that's being talked 'about' Baba and little of Baba himself. I'm sympathetic to the problem that all that Baba says is available only as Video recordings, not available as text and that the videos are not in English, but if I offered to provide you the translated textual form of part of what Baba says to his followers, would you let me put it in the post? Ankur Surendra Verma (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

comment

Surendrav, in addition to india and nepal, you are free to post names of as many countries you like.....only condition is that you are required to provide "third party" independent sources( not self published source or material copied from nirmalbaba.com....as its against wikipedia policy)....Also, as you are accepting urself that you are his devoted follower and have attended several of his "samaagms".....I will leave it to other editor and administrators to decide whether you will be able to follow "neutral POV" Or not..... I can just tell you that you(or snyone for that matter) are not allowed tp post anything which is not supported by third party sources and does not pass General notability......Please don't copy-paste stuff from nirmalbaba.com (or don't just transcribe the audio recordings of the samagam as they are copyright protected)as this is in violation of Wikipedia's very basic structure and guidelines....thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

PS.- And yes, just read your response in your usertalk,you are asking "now how do I factor in the the fact that I attended these meetings, and I know whats happening"...

To that, I would say that if you post what you saw or went through in meetings will be considered as "original research" in wikipedia....sadly, that is also against the guidelines....And if you just transcribe the meeting conten or recordings.. it will be considered copyright violation and again sort of copy-paste stuff from official website or organization...unfortunately that's not allowed too...coz if everyone copy-paste stuff from their own websites into wikipedia then this project will be in danger --Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please consider

Thanks for being so forthcoming...

• Alright references do need to be mentioned, but check this out "Improving intro and adding Nepal as followers insist on adding it". Followers insist? Devotees and followers are being accommodated on Wikipedia now? Your statement applies to you as well, and indeed I should mention references, but you need to mention references too as to what makes you so sure its only Nepal and India. Or is it that some special kind of followers, that you approve of, have only to 'insist' while I have to '...to provide "third party" independent sources...'. Since when what happens on Wikipedia is about personal approvals?
• "...Baba used to organise gatherings for his followers..." You are yet to explain how come you are still reporting these meetings as a thing of past, are you allowed inaccuracies? Meeting are still being held. Only telecast has been stopped.

There is not a single source on the entire web saying meetings are being held.His own website saying everything is "Closed" 9not clear what is closed..bookings or meetings(or business)..well If you can provide citation for meeting being held currently, please go ahead and add it in the article--Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, BUT did YOU care to mention citations when you ASSUMED that meetings are NOT happening??? "Thou shalt follow all the conventions, that I exempt ...meself from, thus spake Adamstraw99", is that it?? :) Ankur Surendra Verma (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Surendrav...I am really saddened to know about your failed attempts here-->> Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nirmal Baba...the reasons are same...original research..personal opinions..no third party sources and FAN-CRUFT... I hope you will try to understand that these are the same things I posted in my first ever message on your user talk page ...I don't know what you are upto by being so desperate in posting your stuff here....Again please read about NPOV if you can because your first statements in attempted article violates it(nirmal baba jee)...Wikipedia has worldwide readers, does jee or ji make sense? you can write this in hindi wikipedia....Please read the guidelines and try to understand the meaning of "original research", NPOV and third party sources so this not happen again -->> Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nirmal Baba --Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. You are also seems to be unaware that, before creating an article in wikipedia, you are first required to search whether any article on the subject is already present or not....In this case an article is present but its clear that when your edits didn't stand in current article you went all the way to create a new article which has also failed to pass Wikipedia standards for the reason I have already told you in my first post in your talk page.....I would suggest you create a personal blog to promote your idol..no one will object then....thenks Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

sorry, didn't get this language- "Thou shalt follow all the conventions, that I exempt ...meself".... but still saying wikipedia is about notability ...I had provided several sources saying the subject's all bank accounts are frozen or are empty and telecast of the show is stopped and the darbars are closed.... i suggest u try googling...sources are still present confirming that.... but i never reposted it once deleted and I never posted "arrest warrent" section back after you protested here....thenks--Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not posting the arrest warrant section again. And no, there is nothing on the web that says Darbar has been closed, bank accounts were reported closed, but not Darbar. Ankur Surendra Verma (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

and why you are after what i care to mention or not??? do you understand this what I am saying now---->>>"If you can provide citation for meeting being held currently, please go ahead and add it in the article"--Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Getting baffled by what 'Closed' might mean or not being able to follow language has not been my problem here, its been yours. Your plight is being heard by the source itself it seems as they have changed "Closed" to "Full". Ankur Surendra Verma (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• You are yet to explain why you wont let me mention that Darbar is active since 1998 while many of the media reports being used in the post mention the same.

IF you can provide third party independent sources for the darbaar's starting date...please go ahead and post it in the article--Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• You still haven't cared to back your contention that the stuff was copied from NirmalBaba.com or from any other site for that matter. NirmalBaba.com has nothing except videos on it and a small write up about Baba which is very personal in voice and what I wrote had more to do with teachings, which the write up doesn't talk about. Not a word I wrote was taken from any site. Please stop calling it copy paste, or back your words with something other than what you think, I do take offense. Funny you call something 'original research' and copy paste at the same time. It seems to be an auto response kind of thing, for regardless of what I ask you to explain, you preach me in response to stop copy pasting.

You had sort of written an essay about the "teachings" and "remedies" provided by the subject"....nirmalbaba.com has videos of those meetings and if you had written such long lists of his "philisophy", "remedies"....or teachings.... then it was certainly a transcription of the videos bcoz you had also written here in article that "for more details visit 'nirmalbaba.com".indicating you were just showing a teaser and you asked people to visit this business's website to watch the whole picture in nirmalbaba.com

A transcription it was not. These are meetings we are talking about. What I wrote was set of teachings. Two very different things. But I've told you this like a million times already, it seems you are never gonna get it. If chose to think it was a teaser, it was to counter your overtly negative hate mail of a post. To show you what happens when people use Wikipedia to express their opinions and not state the facts. If you'd stayed unbiased, I would've stayed every effort to stay unbiased myself. I needed to draw your attention and convey to you that its NOT OKAY what you did there.Ankur Surendra Verma (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please, please, please,try to understand all these things...peace.. KOTI KOTI PRANAM--Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not acceptable that you are changing my comments, write you own. You are kinda loosing it man, Koti Koti...??? I have a few suggestions for you later on this page.Ankur Surendra Verma (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

....You have still not provided independent sources for followers from western countries! and i still don't understand what you meant here-->>" "Thou shalt follow all the conventions, that I exempt ...meself"."

--Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Adamstraw99......A rough translation for...-->>" "Thou shalt follow all the conventions, that I exempt ...meself".".......-->>> "You(other people) will follow all the rules which I(in this case you)exempt myself from"....hope this helps.....Geniusgeek2012 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

.I am really saddened to know about your failed attempts here-->> Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nirmal Baba...the reasons are same...original research..personal opinions..no third party sources and FAN-CRUFT.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand the issues with my writings falling into the category 'original research' etc. the post, however, as it stands currently looks highly lopsided for it reports everything being said about Baba but Baba himself. If time is being spend on following, reading and reporting media's stand on it, some time must also be spend on the source.

I'm taking some time off this issue. I'd sit aside and wait for you to do the right thing.

As far as you thinking I'm a devotee is concerned, the least you can do is report the things as they are. Because that's how you deal with devotees and followers in general and not only on Wikipedia, for you know, you can't, just can't be selective when reporting an issue as sensitive as this, you must mention all that's out there on it, or remove the post all together if you think you cant handle it.

It looks odd that amidst so much of noise the post didn't or CAN'T have a thing on the source itself, despite the fact that it's an ongoing phenomenon and not a prehistoric thing for which one would have to but rely upon what was said about it by others. If Wikipedia in its bid to stay unbiased, finds itself hindered by its own regulations, than perhaps a relook at things is in order.

Thanks

Cant get my head around some (not all, he is most likely a volunteer, and his work at Wikipedia is much appreciated ) of the activities of Mr. Adamstraw99 Ankur Surendra Verma (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ankur, Please do keep participate in topics you can ...Rastongi (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been some Wikipedia editors who are not neutral and have a personal agenda or animosity towards the subject. In some cases these editors are working for vested interest parties. This has been an issue with Wikipedia and Wikipedia owner has also acknowledged this flaw. One can file complaint against such editors with Wikipedia or in some countries even file criminal complaint against them. Looking at History of Adamstraw99 in this article it is evident that his point is not neutral. I see him telling others not to get personal but his views against subject have very personal negative tone. Geniusgeek2012 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

sources suggesting followers in nepal are either expired or deleted now.... so its ok to delete this now.....As I said earlier, you can add as many countries as you like if they are backed by third party sources--Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Geniusgeek2012.. regarding the article I also feel some of the editors are very biased to promote the subject's business(not to mention incident of fake and paid facebook followers of this business still fresh in mind)...Also i would suggest not to resort to name calling in wikipedia... as you are doing here... I also felt that secret agenda of some editors was to project the subject as a hero,holy figure or even GOD WITH A THIRD EYE... but I would avoid name calling(again incident of fake and paid facebook followers of this business still fresh in people's memory)... thanks--Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is not a single source on the entire web saying meetings are being held.His own website saying everything is "Closed" 9not clear what is closed..bookings or meetings(or business)..well If you can provide citation for meeting being held currently, please go ahead and add it in the article--Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Adamstraw99 .......I totally agree there are subject's followers who are extreme positive and also agree that there should not be any name calling specially by editors. But you keep saying no name calling at the same time you keep doing it yourself. Please find below few examples where you have made up your mind about subject though none of below have any proof yet. Just because it is written in media does not mean it is a proof till it is proven in court. Few examples below in quotes where I feel you have shown negative frame of mind instead of being neutral towards subject ....... ″Elderly people and relatives can have blind faith.... There is no need to entertain this in Nirmal's profile which already provides enough info about HIM and his business.....--Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)″ ″I also respect his remedies and feelings of his wise followers ...Kindly avoid name-calling in wikipedia.... thanks :-(--Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)″ ″but I would avoid name calling(again incident of fake and paid facebook followers of this business still fresh in people's memory)... thanks--Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)″............ No hard feelings, just stating facts. You should not use words like "His Business", "wise followers" and "fake and paid facebook followers - fresh in people's memory" this amounts to sarcasm and name calling which is not neutral, also let people decide whether their memory is still fresh........Peace......Geniusgeek2012 (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

not calling names...but i actually thought some followers are really not only "wise" but even "intellectual"....Govt. officers.. even doctors...m.tech. MD...etc. didn't saying it sarcastically...RIP...koti koti pranam--Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

PIL dismissed

Please find several references of PIL Quashed by High court. Please find the links. This section will be deleted from Article.

http://www.ptinews.com/news/2955543_-Plea-against-Nirmal-Baba-reveals-no-cognisable-offence-

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_plea-against-nirmal-baba-reveals-no-cognisable-offence-cop_1739126

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/plea-against-nirmal-baba-reveals-no-cognisable-offence-cop/1000601/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/No-crime-made-out-against-godman-Cops/articleshow/16345072.cms

Raj9272 (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Removing this section makes sense, if a person is not found guilty then any cases filed should not be mentioned as these cases were false to begin with. Keeping them would count to defamation.Geniusgeek2012 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Factual Errors and poor Journalism:

UNDER SECTION "Allegations of Fraud" A couple from Ludhiana, Baba's home town, also filed a police complaint against him for duping them financially.[10] On April 16, 2012, the couple and three others were arrested for using forgery to steal 1.7 crore (US$307,700) from Baba.[11][12]

Please read all the references listed for the above content. Other than misleading headline on one of the refrences, it is clear that Nirnal Baba is the victim of forgery and so called disciples of Nirmal Baba had tried to forge Nirmal Baba’s signature to withdraw money from Nirmal baba’s account. I think inference drawn from these 2 references is incorrect. These statements need to as they are wrongly implicating Nirmal Baba & are irrelavant. This is a case of grave factual error and bad Journalism. Moreover, please find additional links to same story that verifies that the couple who tried to forge Nirmal Baba's signature and swindle money are charged with forgery and arrested. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ludhiana/Nirmal-Babas-disciples-booked-for-forgery/articleshow/12688532.cms -- http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120318/ldh1.htm -- Forgery case no reference as Nirmal Baba Devotee Gyanipundit (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement you just quoted makes it very clear that Baba was accused of fraud, and that his accusers were themselves arrested for defrauding Baba. You are free to change the wording if you think this is not clear enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why should the reference exist if Baba is a victim in this case and this is under "Allegations of Fraud" section which throws a negative light on this subject. I think both these statements should be removed. Also the section name should be changed to "Allegations" since there no fraud committed. These are the examples of casting a negative spin on subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajanbala (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Being a victim of Fraud, these statements are casting an negative twist and the heading needs to be changed as well.Raj9272 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the subject

Adamstraw99, My initial Grammer corrections were to address the Subject as addressed in the source only. Even though Wikipedia is in english, the subject and all the relevant info is Indian. So addressing the subject as per the context makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj9272 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Normal naming conventions should be followed.Gyanipundit (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect allegation

Under Allegations Section, please make a note of following statement:

Investigations by TV channels, has revealed that on 15 April 2012, Nirmal Baba had invested the donations collected in his samagam and daswant into buying a hotel worth 30 crore (US$5.67 million) in Greater Kailash area of New Delhi.[7] 1. Nirmal Darbar is not a trust. Nirmal Baba 's earnings and tax records are reported in various articles and has been rectified in wikipedia as well. If it were a trust, Nirmal Baba wouldn't have paid huge taxes. If it is not a trust, where is the question of discussing the personal property in public. 2. Also the property reportedly purchased is for office use. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/guru-or-fraud-the-holy-man-who-fell-from-grace-8201212.html If all the process is legitimate where is the wrong doing or scope of allegation. --Gyanipundit (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is not a trust then public domain should not exist. Looks like subject is known to his followers this way and they don't seem to have objection to it. Moreover, the purchase is legal and is used as office space, it shouldn't be a matter of controversy at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick14620 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If the hotel or space is purchased for office usage from the donations and samagam amount and there is no alleged financial wrong doing, I cannot see any scope for allegation. I guess the newspaper article jumped to conclusions.Raj9272 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If its reported in media, its credibility has to be looked into. If its frivilous in nature and falsely hurting someone's image editors should refrian from posting. --24.181.178.233 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur..will get rid of this allegation and proceed further.Rajanbala (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Self-published source

"Simple prayers with utmost devotion, refraining from 'UPAYA' and superstition, honest source of earning livelihood, strong moral values are some of the fundamental points of advice to his followers." This references to any of the videos of Nirmal baba. This advise will be found in almost all of the videos. As per wikipedia guidelines section "Using the subject as a self-published source" this is perfectly acceptable.--Geniusgeek2012 (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Something about the subject what he says and why people follow him should be mentioned. Otherwise, the whole article will not make any sense. Rastongi (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Last and final explanation on the reverts

To whomsoever is involved in this edit war and is constantly reverting back to the slanted WP:POV Pushing and WP:Tendentious_editing version, here is my last and final explanation of why your versions are problematic:

>>> Please mind your language. You have iniatiated edit war. All the explainations are given below. Please bear in mind the wikipedia aricles are ever evolving and there are significant contirbutions and developments from the version you are suggesting. Just cant come back and do a blanket change. Please read the explainations below. Rastongi (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

@Noopur28 - What you are doing is VANDALISM, people have been painstakingly taking time to discuss points and come to a conclusion based on facts and Wikipedia guidelines, what makes you think you have the RIGHT to undo all that laborious work based on your whims and fancies. Like everybody else you should come to talk page to discuss any major changes you want to make and not revert to older versions without any disreagrd to what others have to say - BTW this is the Wikipedia guideline. Wikipedia Admin take note please.Geniusgeek2012 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism. It's an edit-war. ALL sides need to stop with using that term. Please read through WP:NOT VANDALISM. Both sides here are edit-warring and talking past each other and it needs to stop. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Section: Lede

"Simple prayers with utmost devotion, refraining from UPAYA and superstition, honest source of earning livelihood, strong moral values are some of the fundamental points of advice to his followers."

This information is not fit for a Wikipedia article. Words like 'simple', 'utmost', 'strong' and 'fundamental' are peacock words/weasel words and adjectives. They show Nirmal in an unnecessarily positive light. Also, you CANNOT use his own website as a reference for that information. Is this statement a fact or an opinion? If it is a fact then please provide 2-3 references from secondary sources to prove the same.

Please find the section " Self-published source" under the talk. All the references to BLP guidelines are provided.Rastongi (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Section: Early life

"Baba's grandfather was childless, they took an oath that they would convert their children to Sikhs, after which they were blessed with four sons (who were made Sikhs). His grandfather's name was Lala Thakur Das, he was a renowned zamindar from a well-to-do family."

• Please provide secondary sources as references for this. BLPs have stricter requirements for references and please DO NOT use his own websites and fan pages for the same.

  Baba's family migrated to India from Pakistan after partition.

  S.S. Narula, Nirmal Baba's father expired when Baba was just six months old. He was brought up by his mother

   with a lot of love and affection. WP:Peacock - lots of love? Who cares?

• After coming from Pakistan the family was given land and orchards in Samana and Delhi, as claim.

This is NIRMAL'S OWN WEBSITE! Stop referencing it for any chronicle you make up. Give me newspaper, books as sources!

• Nirmal Baba was successfully involved in mining of Kyanite from Jyoti Hill, Jharkhand in 1998-1999. - SUCCESSFULLY? Really? as to how it was successful and for whom.

Again, Please read BLP guidleines. If its a biography of living person, Subjects personal info can be referenced from Official website of the subject. Rastongi (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You did note the restrictions on using the subject as a self-published source, correct? Specifically, points 1 and 5. Some of the claims being made should be attributed to Baba, not stating as fact in Wikipedia's voice. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagged the section as needing cleanup. I can barely follow some aspects of that section. I removed a lot of the puffery (lot of love and affection? So?). It's still promotional in tone but just so garbled. Straighten that out THEN work on getting the promo tone out. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

>>> Stating the simple events is not puffery. I am not sure where you are getting the tone from ? Rastongi (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

After my edits, it's a lot closer to stating simple events. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Article has two dates for kiln business - 1974 and 1981. Which one? Also, suffered losses meaning the business failed? I'm going to assume that's what is meant and edit accordingly. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that - need to get date question resolved first. Also, need date (if possible) for business failing, date for taking over the cloth shop and when he returned control (plus other details about why). 65.197.19.244 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Going with 1981 per secondary source (just about always preferred over self-pub sources). Also, secondary source mentions working with his brother-in-law in a limestone business, not cloth. Timing sequence isn't clear which doesn't help. Also, source mentions his enlightenment which isn't covered at all in the article. Instead, we go from mining to organizing gatherings. Huh? Some key information is missing here, folks. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Section: Allegations of Fraud

BLANKED OUT!

• Allegations DO NOT mean conviction. Were there allegations against him? YES.

Were they proven right or wrong? I don't know. If you know and have newspapers and books as references, UPDATE this section. Don't DELETE content.

>>>>> This section was edited by admins. Please follow the talk section. Each and every edit has been given proper explaination. Many of the edits were baseless and admins have removed it. Rastongi (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

>>>>> Also from the version you are aware of, it was pointed out that most of the allegations were repeated not properly sourced, and falsely represented. Please follow the previous talk sections and you will find all the relevant information and discussions Rastongi (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• "It was said that Baba is suggesting eating certain things like rabdi, pani-puri, ras gulla, samosa etc. as solutions of serious problems. However, many including professionals seems to be strong believers in his extra-sensory perception or insight."

>>> Please refer to reference. There are several interviews provided in the article which convey these facts. Rastongi (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Grammar, punctuation errors and opinions of professionals. Also, this is not notable information.

>>>> Noopur28, this is your personal opinion. Definitely in the section this information is notable and neutral Rastongi (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Amidst the controversy, Baba's followers alleged that the media was failing to report the truth." - You removed SOME OF BABA'S followers from my version. Please prove that ALL of Baba's followers believe so. The previous version has a credible reference to prove only SOME believe so.

>>> Looking at it there are more than on reference to this section. Please read. It is not saying "all the followers" or "few follwers", it is saying "follwers". Isn't that Neutral ? Rastongi (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Section: Court Cases

BLANKED OUT! This is blatant POV pushing. All the information pertaining to actual factual statements on his legal proceedings have been blanked out for no reason.

>>>> Please follow the talk section all the relevant info and discussion is available. Don't draw your own conclusions and don't think its your way or the highway. Rastongi (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• However, this new version: "A cognizable offence is a criminal offence in which police are empowered to register an FIR, investigate the offence and arrest the accused without a warrant issued by court" - Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

  UPDATE this section with Nirmal's charges or acquittal, do not blank it.

--End--
Noopur28 (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

>>> Please follow the talk page. Arrest warrant was quashed. Relevant proof and references were provided. As per BLP guidelines, any court related matter without convictions should be avoided at all cost. There was a discusion along with admins. Also Police and city of Delhi had given clean chit to Nirmal baba and found no wrong doing. Several refrences were provided in tha talk section as proof. Please refer to all the previous talks, you will find proof for eac and every edit.

Rastongi (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

>>>>> Again don't draw your own conclusions about how an article should be. All the — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastongi (talk • contribs) 18:59, 20 November 2012‎

Sourcing

One issue I'm seeing in this article is sourcing, especially independant reliable sources. The http://direct2nirmalbaba.com/ site is absolutely not independant and I've got serious doubt it meets the RS requirements. It's probably okay for basic, limited information but I think it's being used for more than that. Larger than that are the unsourced elements. Most of the Nirmal Baba section is unsourced with specific claims. Source them. With reliable sources. The official site doesn't cut it for that. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

>>>>> Again, the facts about his life are only taken from the official website and which is perfectly fine as per BLP guidelines. Rastongi (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

POV

I've added a POV tag. The version preferred by Rastongi is not NPOV. See specific concerns raised in previous sections. Address them by changing the article, not ignoring them. Also, the overall writing is absolutely atrocious. I believe that for some editors English is not their primary language but please, you need to improve the language. Look at the version that you're reverting blindly - you may not like it but the language is better in places. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

>>> Please read my responses in the previous section, I have replied to all of your concerns.Rastongi (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. There's a lot of information that seems to be left out or glossed over. Several of the sources mention that Baba purchases the TV time slots - that should be mentioned, along with the boost the channels see in ratings. No mention of his wealth or questions that have been raised about (which should also include responses from Baba and/or supporters). No mention of WHY IBF and courts directed stations to stop broadcasts. That's after a really short time looking. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the "Nirmal Darbar" section you will find all relevant answers Rastongi (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? I will? Oh good - I'll do that. Just a second. Nope. Not there. Which is why I asked the question. Please stop ignoring the questions and concerns and actually address them. Continuing in this way suggests that you've got a conflict of interest with the article subject. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

>>>>> Don't try to cast aspersions, please follow the talk and follow the history. You seem to be the situation which you are accsing me off.. Rastongi (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to directly answer your veiled question - I do not have a COI with the subject. Haven't heard of the guy before. Don't really care one way or the other about him. I'll directly ask you - are you connected to the subject, his organization or a supporter/believer? Also, kindly respond to the questions I asked. They are not answered in the section you mentioned. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know hat should I refer you to. I do not belong to any organization/supporter  ? Please try and understand, there has been lot of effort and revisioning gone into this with Wikipedia admins. Just blank reverts are not acceptible. Please follow the Talk section and edit notes, you will see the transformation with proper process in place. Almost all of your quetions you will find relevant answers. Editors can't jump in and say everything that has gone into it has to be reverted.. its absurd. Specific poinst can definitely be revisited Rastongi (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I am NOT finding relevant answers, just apparently flippant responses from you to my questions that frankly do not help. Yes, I've read through the talk page. Despite your repeated assurances, the answers are NOT there. That's why I asked the questions in the first place. Your comment about reverts goes both ways - you are also reverting. A better way would have been for both of you to work on combining the versions. Both versions are, as was noticed on ANI, a mess. You both use the term vandalism incorrectly - see WP:VANDAL and remember that you both are making good faith edits. It's an edit war on both sides.

Shrug - but hey, I'm just a neutral party here. I'm planning on reviewing the sources used in both versions over the next few days to see if I can start to make some sense of this mess and turn this into some semblance of a balanced, informative article. As much as possible, all self-published sources will be replaced with independent, reliable secondary sources, notable events covered including the "whys" as much as possible and we'll see what happens. I suspect the end result will be a bit of version A, a bit of version B and a whole lot of new. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just blatantly Saying its not there is doesn't help. Yes all your relevant answers are there. Please see these sections under talk

8 Triplicate Content

9 Factual error & author describes personal intent rather than facts 10 Arrest Warrant section 15 PIL dismissed 17 Factual Errors and poor Journalism 19 Incorrect allegations

There are some edit notes with actual edits too. Don't just come out with your conclusions when all the facts and discussion are provided. It clearly shows that you are not reading through the content and pus your own agenda.. Rastongi (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? Okay. Let's go over my questions again. "Several of the sources mention that Baba purchases the TV time slots - that should be mentioned, along with the boost the channels see in ratings. No mention of his wealth or questions that have been raised about (which should also include responses from Baba and/or supporters). No mention of WHY IBF and courts directed stations to stop broadcasts."

Now the sections you mentioned.

• Triplicate Content - Deals with arrest warrants. Nothing directly in there touching those questions. NO DISCUSSION IN SECTION
• Factual error & author describes personal intent rather than facts - Nothing about television in the section. No direct mention of wealth. Indirect mention of questions. NO DISCUSSION IN SECTION
• Arrest Warrant section - No mention of television, wealth or questions that have been raised. NO DISCUSSION IN SECTION
• PIL dismissed - same as above
• Factual Errors and poor Journalism - No mention of television. Some content on wealth and questions but focusing purely on specific fraud case. Nothing on larger picture. Useful discussion on that specific point, not helpful to answering my questions.
• Incorrect allegations - Hey - it mentions TV! Oh, wait, only that these were investigations by television reporters. Not quite what I'm asking. The discussion does highlight the POV pushing nicely though - "If its reported in media, its credibility has to be looked into." No. If it's from a WP:RS, it's reliable. It does illustrate some questions that have been raised.

So yeah, one sorta useful section, one minorly useful section and the rest offer nothing. Minimal discussion on most sections and the last one illustrates some POV pushing. I'll not push you again for answers that I don't think you want to give, so no worries about that. I think you're trying to be helpful but you're not understanding what I'm looking for. There's a lot of "why's" missing from this article that are needed. Time for some digging and searching. Also the elusive enlightenment and how he went from miner to spiritual leader that's totally missing from here. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Appears to have covered most of the topics between the versions.Sam224 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Source titles

Rastongi, when an article is used as a source, you must include the actual, correct title of the article in the reference. You do not change it, as you're doing, if you don't like the title. That's deceptive and false. Please stop. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And Geniusgeek2012 reverted back to the deceptive title. And asked for a guideline for using the correct article title. Okay, show me a guideline saying you can lie in a reference please. Where you can change a title you don't like to something else completely different from the gist of the source. Sorry, you want to see POV pushing, that's a really solid example. We say what the sources say. That's it. Anything else is simple not permitted. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are loosing it, dear Editor. Why did you do destructive edit in the first place ? Can you explain ? Rastongi (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I want to ask you that question. Why are you pushing your POV in that way? Why do you want to have a deceptive title for the source? NPOV says you don't do that. The article reflects what sources say. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Editor, It was not me, might be some one else. I just checked your last edit. peace out... Rastongi (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, I had prior changed them to the accurate title. You then reverted my change here [3] and [4]. I'm curious why you would have made that reversion back to the deceptive title when clicking on the URL to verify the title would have take a few scant moments of time. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You know in your heart that was an destructive edit, come on now ... its not fair calling it appropriate Rastongi (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, I do believe in my heart that your edits were destructive. Using deceptive titles in an article is incorrect as you well know. If you wish for others to be accurate in their edits, you must also be accurate in your edits. Whether you agree or disagree with something, you must accurately portray it with your edits. 65.197.19.244 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My contentions - the problem I have with all of your edits - Rastongi, Geniusgeek2012, Raj9272 and Rajanbala is that I believe you are one person or a group of people with multiple accounts trying to do WP:Sock Puppetry. I see that none of these accounts have made any edits to ANY other articles except Nirmal Baba. The overall tone of your writing, the constant edit warring on only one article, adding of slanted POV pushing information and your absolute negligence of what others are saying prompts me to believe you/your group has a strong COI and I suggest you stop this immediately or this will be taken to arbcom and can result in blocks for all of your accounts.

RE: information in the article - if the case was quashed, update that section. DO NOT blank out the history of the case. Also quashed may not be NPOV. Use a neutral word. Similarly, in other case, DO NOT make up stories of his life. Noopur28 (talk)

Well if its an allegation and some unproven/quashed case then it has no place in a BLP. May be you need to check out the guidelines first before going trigger happy reverting someone else's edit --sarvajna (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. If the allegations are sufficiently notable, they should be included in the article with the details, including why they were ignored/dismissed/whatever. Take a look at WP:BLPCRIME, which I'm assuming you're referring to, and you'll see an important qualification there. Here, I think the question is how much coverage/notability the various allegations had in reliable sources. 76.205.1.40 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess, if there is no intention to show the subject in negative light, then quashed warrants or court proceedings should have no place in BLP. The courts themselves remove the records from public view when an allegation is not proved, then why should wikipedia maintain a log. This will be clearly wrong from all view points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.124.71 (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack Page

Please Don't make this as attack page Noopur28, Don't treat this page as your own and edit at your own will. Many changes were being done even from a POV view point with consensus, but your total revert to attack page version nullified them. So please avoid doing blanket changes. All you questions were answered too. It is highly inappropriate to revert all the changes done over several months by various editors. Can you please go ahead and rollback you changes.. If you need to add sections. please do with appropriate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.124.71 (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so sentimental... please don't get frustrated with editor, remember noopur28 had created this page and she is just trying to neutralize it, so don't take it personally and control your emotions...--Adamstraw99 (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but please don't comment on the editor. Noopur28 is doing what is appropriate and I completely agree with her reverts. I see that what Noopur reverts is either clear vandalism or edits by Baba's fans to suppress the things which are against him or things that sound bad about him. Such things are well sourced using WP:RS and can be WP:V easily. I also saw some edits where the title of a ref was changed to "following" citing POV reasoning. Now, this was wholly inappropriate. We really cannot help if press keeps such titles like that and we have to use exactly the same title without any difference even in a single word. Can you provide me the links where you find Noopur pushing any POV so that I can clarify the doubts? Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Following and Devotion

(need sources for "Following and Devotion" section to address attack page concerns)

After some obervation about the subject's notability(no matter positive or negative) I feel the attack page concern above is somewhat acceptable... so, just to make the article look more neutral and of an unbiased view I just created this section "Following and Devotion" where I have put statements which I know are true but till date I am unable to find any reliable source to back them up....So, I request editors to please come up with some reliable sources in support of my statements posted under newly created section "Following and Devotion"... Thanks....--Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

removed section "Following and Devotion" - as there are no reliable sources to back the claims like millions keep photos.....for spritual protection.....etc. As per Wiki guideline, such statments, should be verifiable or better not mentioned in article. Thanks.Jethwarp (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sensitivity called for

What do you call it when an editor 'wants' foul language to stay on Wikipedia? Just refer to my user page before the last edit. An editor here seems to have foregone the conventions and values that Wikipedia is all about to settle his 'imagined' personal grudges.

Talking about Adamstraw99

My request is that, if possible, this user be kept out of any discussion of faith and religion or any articles that deal with any sensitive matters. Other editors are doing a pretty decent job.

It didn't need to be, but it is a war zone out here. Certain thing people might not notice right off the bat is that he has been 'editing' (and not just responding) the text of some of the queries that he didn't like or found asking him things he didn't have an answer to.

There is a level of sensitivity called for when one is handling issues of faith and religion, which this user lacks to the core.

September last year was when I last responded to one of his kiddish attacks. But this he seems to have lost it, he seems to have lost perspective of the fact that he might have just graduated from 'cute' to juvi.

He has assumed that I'm Nirmal Baba's devotee, an assumption I have no problems with, but then he chooses to post on my user page a derogative video and suggests me that I use it as a reference. Now thats super bright and uber sensitive of him.

But the fallow has to be informed that he has now crossed the grounds of simple kiddish banter and stepped clearly over to the wrong side of the law.

A comedian seen in a video wont be held as hurting anybody, but this kid Adam...99 posting a link to that video on my page leaves no confusion in the minds of the practitioners of law as to what his intentions are.

I simply can't keep up with this hyper active Wikipedia old timer, and he seems to know this. He has been filling up the spaces with his hyper activity when he finds answering questions difficult, one latest example is adding an orphan section to the article and asking people to add references to it. He named the section "Following and Devotion", even somebody as new to Wikipedia as I am knows there is no way you can find references to a section like that, especially when asked by a person like him. Wikipedia is his play field it seems.

More recently an 'anonymous' (there's only an IP address for the name) who added a pretty foul statement on my user page, which was edited out by another editor. But Adamstraw99 jumped in quickly and undone the revert, giving no bright reason's for that. It is easy to guess who this anonymous 'contributor' might have been.

Up until now I have been quietly seeing the kid that this Adamstraw99 is, but I don't think I can look the other way anymore. It just doesn't seem right, more so because if people like him stay onboard and keep enjoying their imagined dictatorial impunity, they do so at the expense of Wikipedia the beloved site and its users.

Ankur Surendra Verma (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed someone has again reverted the article to an earlier version....I am still waiting for the references for the "Following and Devotion" section...if anybody can help in sourcing Thanks...--Adamstraw99 (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

and Ankrusurenverma, lets stick to the article... Had you listened to me or other editors earlier, this would not have happened -->> Deleted image failing copyright violations... I have never seen So many failed attempts at Wikipedia ever... So many people have told you to abide by the guidelines but it seems you won't listen to anybody..numerous times you have tried and failed to turn the article your way but your desperation doesn't seem to subside even after so many rejections,failures and multiple warnings you will keep copy-pasting and transcribing stuff and images from nirmalbaba.com again and again....keep it up... All the best...--Adamstraw99 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Nirmaljeet Singh Narula

The name of the person is Nirmaljeet Singh Narula. So I suggest to create the article by this name and to redirect this article to that. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't move the article to a different name, you simply copypasted the content of Nirmal Baba onto the redirect Nirmaljeet Singh Narula. Please don't move articles in that manner; see Wikipedia:Moving an article. They lose their history when you do. I've repaired Nirmal Baba. What you must do if you want to move it is put a request on the page Wikipedia:Requested moves, and an admin will move it if s/he agrees with your reasoning. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen

[[--180.211.107.50 (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)|thumbnail--180.211.107.50 (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)--180.211.107.50 (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)บบบบบบ'Bold text''''Bold textItalic text''']] ]] | talk 10:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC).

P.S. And you also doubled the content of this talkpage by more copypasting. So that's why it was so long... Bishonen | talk 10:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC).

Promotional bullshit

@Atirikta:, you reverted my edit with the summary "attempted vandalism". I don't think my removal of unnecessary false bullshit was vandalism. I see you've been editing this single article since 2013. I have suspicion that you're single purpose on Wikipedia is to whitewash this article. I'll be reverting your edit, please discuss the issue here. TryKid (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)