Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:07, 21 December 2006

Vandalism warning

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 13:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I am a begginer Misplaced Pages user. I thought I was allowed to do whatever I liked with my talk page. As for my removing the sentence in the article Judaism see what I wrote on the talk page of that article. User: Kkrystian 19:10 15 October 2006 (UTC+1)

I was actully going to delete the sentance also. Hinduism could definitly be described as the first monotheistic religion--Seadog.M.S 22:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We do not put references to the talk page directly in the text. Please read WP:MOS before making any future edits. Thank you. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanathana Sarathi

Why did you remove the link?

The link should be with the article about the magazine - not the title of Krishna Kkrystian 16:51 (UTC+1)

I have restored the page as per your original idea with a couple of stubs. Check it out. ekantiK 17:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edits on Sathya Sai Baba related articles that are generally good. Andries 10:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Information re Revert

Dear Kkrystian, I have been experimenting with monobook pop-ups and did not realise it would revert a change without giving me the opportunity to make an edit comment. I reverted your recent change to the Advaita page as I am fairly sure the swan is indeed a motif (meaning a repeated design) and whilst 'motive' is an alternate spelling it is a very unusual use of the word and (to me) made the text look peculiar. My apologies for not making this clear on the edit note itself. Ben MacDui Talk 17:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Link

Apparently your inclusion of a website on the Sathya Sai Baba violated the ArbCom ruling so I removed it. Just letting you know. Ekantik 07:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Per your request for me to respond here, your contribution to the links section was deleted in accordance with the ArbCom ruling for that page:

Hope that helps. Ekantik 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Kkrystian, actually, Ekantik is misreading the ruling. The website link you added is not a negative site against Sathya Sai Baba (it is a Pro-Site), nor does it consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with him. I removed the link to that page in order to maintain goodwill and to prevent others from raising a huge fuss. Although the link does not violate the ruling, I suggest we leave it off since the article is so contentious. Thanks. SSS108 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the assertion that SSB was an actor because it did not make him notable. It is like saying in the biography infobox of Hitler that he was a painter. Besides I do not think that it is an undisputed fact that he was an actor. I only read it in Kasturi's poorly researched hagiography. Andries 20:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The "poorly researched" biography that Andries himself cites when his suits his POV. SSS108 17:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The link was removed because it contained original research, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. Please see WP:NOR. Ekantik 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your claims, Ekantik/Gaurasundara, original research links are allowed as external links. The ArbCom ruling qualified the original research reference with negative information or personal accounts. Almost all articles contain external links with original research. SSS108 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of saisathyasai.com, I already expressed my view that we should not include the link because it will cause another uproar by Andries & Co. As you already know, when it comes to highly defamatory content by Robert Priddy, Andries will argue the exact opposite of what he is arguing now. Andries is a POV pusher due his former webmaster status and current "Main Representative, Supervisor And Contact" for the largest website opposing Sathya Sai Baba on the internet . Best to drop the issue. Now there are two well known Anti-Sai Activists to deal with: Andries and Ekantik / Gaurasundara. SSS108 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Material

Kkrystian, although I do understand the reasons for your recent edits on the Sathya Sai Baba article, the "Sai Krishna" and Sacha Kester material are sourced. Consensus had it (with a sole opinion from an ArbCom member) that the salon.com material is "reasonably reliable". Therefore, it all has to stay in the article until there is consensus to remove it. Since this material is sourced, it does not violate the ArbCom ruling. So I am going to revert the article to its former state and hope that you will understand that this article has been highly controversial for a very long time (even admin is afraid to touch it) and unless other editors are willing to step in and make necessary changes, we need to respect the current state of the article. Since it is difficult to weed through the edits, I will restore the controversial material to the last agreed edit by Andries. Please feel free to re-make other edits that do not pertain to these issues, which will only aggravate the situation for everyone concerned. Okay? Thanks. SSS108 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kkrystian, thanks for your comments. I believe I wrote that I did understand the reason for your edits. Although I still hold the opinion (along with a couple other editors) that stand-alone articles appearing in salon.com are not reliable sources, it appears that the vocal majority (about 3-4 editors) think otherwise. Also, despite a comment made by Fred Bauder agreeing with the reliability of the salon.com article, he refused to clarify his position when asked. Not sure why, but that is the way it happened. Since other ArbCom members did not comment about salon.com's reliability, there nothing I can do about it. The standards that must be followed are located on WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NOR. Regarding Kester, I removed her quote because it violates WP:BLP#Writing_style. However, reference to her can still be made, along with the reference. Hope this clear things up. Let me know. Sincerely, SSS108 16:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethics of eating meat

I suppose that I have no objection to you removing the sentence regarding Christianity and Judaism supporting the eating of meat, provided that the Biblical quotes remain there. It would have been better form, though, to discuss it first on the talk page. Waitak 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many expert requests

Hi Kkrystian: I very much appreciate your desire to have the Sai Baba of Shirdi article improved, but the use of 5 'expert' boxes only serves to make the article appear to be in very bad shape. Compared to other, similar articles, it is in fact, not so very bad. If you really desire the involvement of experts in all these fields, it would be much more effective to approach the individual Project groups (Project: India, Project: Islam), etc. From my own experience, there is not going to be a lot of help from any of these persons, however. It is up to those who care to improve this article. The pleas for experts just make the article look stupid, in my opinion. --Nemonoman 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A Proposition

Please read the proposition on the Sathya Sai Baba Talk Page. If you agree to it, please sign it. It is an effort to build good faith and resolve controversial issues on the talk page, rather than engaging in edit warring. Thanks. SSS108 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request here to reopen the previous arbitration case regarding Sathya Sai Baba and related articles, as I believe there are serious ongoing problems with disruptive editing and personal attacks which were not addressed in the previous case. You may wish to add a comment of your own. Thatcher131 15:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)