User talk:Radiantenergy

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear this point in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites. (Unfortunately, the text you added to Lynn Canyon Suspension Bridge and Capilano Suspension Bridge appear to incorporate material copied directly from other web sites.)

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Ckatz^chat_spy 05:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have visited the Capilano bridge and Tree Top adventure in Vancover. Next time I will add more references to my edits Radiantenergy (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... thanks for replying. The problem appeared to be that the text was copied directly from other web pages, which is contrary to the copyright requirements. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying on the copyright requirements. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very controversial topic. I had followed a couple of topics in wikipedia closely since 2007. Brahma Kumari - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumari. Sathya Sai Baba and Prem Rawat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat. All these articles have been very controversial and had years of edit wars. I had followed the second arbitration on Sathya Sai Baba very closely. Unfortunately even after 2 arbitrations this article seems to be going nowhere. Its going to be the most challenging task compared to the other articles I have contributed so far. I have spent a lot of time in familiarising myself with all the earlier discussions, arbitration rulings and proposals. I firmly believe that following Jossi Proposals and arbitration commitee rulings will definitely help in improving this article.

I) Jossi Proposals for improving the article

The Second arbitration commitee recommends editors to use Jossi Proposals for improving the Sathya Sai Baba article.

The following are the sources which the arbitration commitee recommends the editors to use as reference to this article. These sources were proposed by Jossi to the arbitration commitee.

• Klass, MortonSinging with Sai Baba: The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Westview Press, ISBN 0813379695
• The Sathya Sai Baba community in Bradford : its origin and development, religious beliefs and practices, Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds.
• McKean, Lise, Divine enterprise : Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement ISBN 0226560090 and ISBN 0226560104
• White, Charles, SJ, The Sai Baba Movement: Approaches to the Study of India Saints, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 pp. 863-878
• Bann, LA Babb, Lawrence A , Sathya Sai Baba's Magic, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 116-124
• Hawley, John S. (Ed.), Saints and Virtues, University of California Press, ISBN 0520061632
• Urban, H. B. Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism, Academic Press, Vol 33; part 1, pages 73-94
• Swallow D. A., Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God-Man's Cult, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 123-158
• Sangha, Dave & Kumar Sahoo, Ajaya, Social work, spirituality, and diasporic communities : The case of the sathya sai baba movement, Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, vol. 24, no4, pp. 75-88, Haworth Press
• Kent, Alexandra, Creating Divine Unity: Chinese Recruitment in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Volume 15, Number 1.
• Kent, Alexandra, Divinity, Miracles and Charity in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Ethons, Taylor and Francis
• Spurr, M. J., Visiting cards revisited: An account of some recent first-hand observations of the "miracles" of Sathya Sai Baba, and an Investigation into the role of the miraculous in his theology, Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, Vol 26; Oart 4, pp.198-216
• Lee, Raymond, Sai Baba, salvation and syncretism, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 125-140 (1982) SAGE Publications
• Hummel, Reinhart, Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba, Materialdienst der EZW, 47 Jahrgang. available online in English
• Sullivan, Michael, C., In Search of a Perfect World: A Historical Perspective on the Phenomenon of Millennialism And Dissatisfaction With the World As It Is, Authorhouse, ISBN 978-1420841619
• Hansen, George P. The Trickster and the Paranormal, Xlibris Corporation (2001), ISBN 1401000827
• Bowker, John, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions; (Contains an entry on Sai Baba)
• Stallings, Stephanie, Avatar of Stability, Harvard International Review.

Radiantenergy (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) Important Mediation Discussions and Arbitration Rulings:

1. Mediation by BostonMA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation

• Reliable Sources: This mediation has detailed information on reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation#Understanding_the_Reliable_Sources_Policy
• Inadequately Sourced Materials: Detailed discussion on why some of the unreliable sources which are used heavily in the current article cannot be used.

• Some of the Unreliable sources which were discussed includes The Findings by Bailey - never published by reputable source.
• Site alleged videos of faked materializations.

• Use of Websites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Use_of_Websites
• Determination of Reputable Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Implementation_of_Policies#Determination_of_Reputable_Sources

2. First Arbitration Rulings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Final_decision

3. Second Arbitration Rulings.

• NPOV Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources,
• Finding of Fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced

Radiantenergy (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have created an arbitration enforcement thread, seen here. ←Spidern→ 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest issue with the article is there is nothing notable about it. I know of some stories here in hawaii (yes, I live in hawaii) that make this seem tame in comparison, but I haven't even tried to do an article on them because they don't meet the notability requirements. I'm not sure how to access the deletion log of a re-created article, but the fact that it was previously deleted and completely re-created should be enough for a speedy deletion. Add to that the fact that it is badly sourced, pushes POV, and shows no notability, and it should be fairly simple to get it speedy deleted.

This part is compeletely off topic. I've only been on wikipedia since late april of this year. It's very encouraging when I am getting requests for advice from seasoned editors. Thanks for the confidence boost.Drew Smith What I've done 00:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a copy of the deleted text from Xeno. Hopefully he can get back to me in a timely manner...Drew Smith What I've done 01:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drew. I am happy that you feel the same about the above article's notability as I do. I appreciate your efforts with the speedy deletion.

I looked at the articles you had created. Your work is very impressive. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I always forget to watch talkpages as I assume editors will message me on my own talkpage. Has anything happened with the article since we last spoke? I still haven't received anything from xeno on this...Drew Smith What I've done 04:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It looks like this may be notable as an inclusion to a parent article, so if there's anything salvageable I would put it on the parent page before the article is deleted.Drew Smith What I've done 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that he clearly has a CoI in this article. I mean, he created several separate accounts to, as he claims, ensure his anonymity while editing the sai baba page. I think that he, like andries, needs to be barred from editing if he cannot honor the arbcom's decisions. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ono, User:Dilip \ White_Adept was warned in the arbitration enforcement case in February 2009 not to restore questionably sourced material and they even added a warning in his talk page about imposing sanctions if he does again. Here's the link to the enforcement case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive36#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings

Radiantenergy (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I advised him that he is violating their warning. We will have to see what he does next. Thanks, Ono (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an email address. However, I rarely check it. If you have MSN Messenger, I am on there every day. My email for that is phathcoat@aol.com (I dont check that one ever. If you would prefer to send me an e-mail, its onopearls@gmail.com) That one is linked directly to my blackberry, so I am more likely to get the message. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the process of editing the article away from the negative manner in which he is portrayed right now. I would appreciate your help on the matter, either on the page itself, or on this page. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some reservations about Sbs108. I am assuming good faith, but I have this distinct feeling that he may be a puppet of SSS108. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Sbs108 is SSS108. Unlike an experienced wikipedian he has been struggling his way around wikipedia. Even the one where he added the information about President's visit he did not know how to add the reference. I would suggest that he should try the changes first in your sandbox rather than in the article since he is new to wikipedia policies. May be later you can move the changes if you think it is as per the wikipedia policies. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was more thinking about the similar names, similar editing styles, interests etc. I figured that anyone could feign ignorance ;) lol. I too suggested that he stick to the sandbox, so that you or I could look at his edits and fix the citations/syntax to make sure it was up to par with Wikipedia standards. He said he would stick to that. On that note, however, I believe that he is adequately adding his information to the SSB page, although he is still having a bit of trouble on the references. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just leave the see also on the top of the section. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be incredibly appreciative if you could begin moving the recently added info in the sandbox over to the main article. I would, but I will be really busy for the next two weeks, and I dont have to time needed to integrate the two articles. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have looked at all of the edits, and I approve. However, if you want to do a quick copy edit of Sbs108's edits, it may be for the best. Now that we have let the two pages get away from each other (people editing the separate pages) now there are several intermediate edits between getting the two pages to look the same. So yes, if you could look at each individual edit, including Andries edits, which I agree with right now, and move then over, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question - Do you want me to edit / rewrite Sbs108's changes? I did not understand what you meant. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of his edits are sort of hard to read. If you could edit what he added to make it easier to read, it would be less likely to be reverted. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 05:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a lengthy comment on the page, with a plenty of sources. His complete disregard for WP:STATUSQUO is disturbing, and his refusal to discuss his edits before doing this is a cause for concern. I do hope that we do not have to get another arbitration for the article, as it would certainly be a headache for all involved. I can only ask that he join our discussions for adding/removing info in the future, instead of going his own way and ignoring them. Best wishes, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too. That's his pattern. He comes after a month and suddenly starts reverting with out even discussing and reading what happened before. This is not the only article he is creating issues - he did the same with another chinese article. I had discussed with one of the editors there they pretty much went through the same POV pushing and edit-warring with Dilip like we go through in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A vote on adding the youtube videos to the Sathya Sai Baba page can be found here. Your opinion on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that all editors on the SSB page agree to no more than one revert per day. If you agree, please sign your name on the list. Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little hazy as to what you believe a moderator is. I am not a administrator on wikipedia. If you mean moderator in that I moderate discussions (try to bring the editors together to reach a consensus), I am flattered that you believe me to be that. I just wanted to remind you that I do not have sysop powers (although I hope to one day become one). I would appreciate it if you could specify as to what you believe a moderator is on the SSB talk page. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 05:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified on that in the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, and thanks for the vote of confidence. Best Wishes, Onopearls ^(t/c) 05:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, I am not going to get involved in that. I am personally shocked by the edit war today, as I thought we were making great headway toward reaching some sort of agreement on having info on the page. I hope that in the future, we can all go to the talk page first, before getting involved in yet another war on the SSB page. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a undetermined length wiki break, and I have retired from the SSB article. Don't get overwhelmed, and always go to the talk page instead of getting into an edit war. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am back from my break. I've been following the discussions on the SSB talk page, and it appears that Sbs108 is getting overwhelmed by Dilip. I think that it would be prudent for you to join the discussions and offer your opinion. If you don't, it will ultimately end with Sbs being silenced by the other two editors that he is trying to debate with, as any consensus they reach will always be in favor of the opposite viewpoint. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ono I will closely follow those discussions from now on. You have been working with all the editors and this article and you know the whole story better than everybody else. Your opinions related to this article will be greatly appreciated and respected. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your recent question at RSN:

• Could you avoid unnecessary bolding of text in your post (compare with other posts on the page) ? Though it may not be your intention, such formatting can come across as shouting.
• If you keep your questions short and to the point (on the lines of: Is source X reliable for statement Y in article Z ?) more users at RSN are likely to read and respond to the question. When messages get to long many potential responders simply skip the question.

Hope these suggestions are useful. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Evening Solace (Charlotte Brontë poem), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/bronte/poems/pbc-solace.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I appreciated that you took the time to ask a question of me. I enjoyed answering it and was glad that you found my response worthy of your support. If you ever need any administrator assistance, please don't hesitate to ask as I will be glad to help.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input at AE. As you well know, it is an enforcement case against the above on the Falun Gong articles, which are under probation. I had an inkling he was giving you guys the same treatment as we had been seeing at Falun Gong, and wanted some more examples of what happened there to illustrate his modus operandi to justify a site ban. Quite frankly, I am not surprised in the slightest that there would be a response from editors over at Baba, because the guy is a nightmare and has made my life hell at Falun Gong. What's more, I am really flabbergasted that DR has chosen two such potent battlefields to play in simultaneously, and hope the arbs will see the way to end the persistent disruption we have experienced. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I hope so too. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard for Ombudswiki
Please feel free to add any relevant info!

J929 (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the section for User ProEdits.

J929 (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_in_Sathya_Sai_Baba_page

Any input is welcome...

J929 (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Atama added new info for the proEdits COI... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:ProEdits any suggestions are most welcome.

Thanks.

J929 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep links for the discussions. Thanks!

Please keep me updated on any additions you make on the COI board (and of any other actions regarding the activist groups)

and let me know if i can be of help in anyway.

J929 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J929,

Sure. I will keep you posted on all the discussions. I just added some questions here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:ProEdits Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will post the comments on my talk page to the RS page. If i miss anything (or do not post the information you refered to) you have complete permission to use, post, quote or cut and paste anything i have written (on my page or any of the talk pages) for what ever you see fit.

J929 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added the comments...

J929 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with your views about Hedmstr1. i found it odd that the editors were so conveniently lumped together into groups and the praise so readily showered on some.
at first i thought Barry Prittard got a wikipedia acct.

as for the Daily Pioneer article, it seems secondary (although relevant) to argue about that source when the BBC documentary is a BLP violation and is still being used in the article.

all the best...

J929 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally not interested at all in this particular piece, as my having any sort of opinion on it resulted in my first ban on Wikipedia. I am also not interested in your bullet points that condescendingly explain to me why I am wrong for having reverted it again, and why it is so vital to the article that is meant to span the entire life of an incredibly controversial and important figure in India.

There was not a conclusion on the noticeboard (in part because of yours, Sbs108's, and J929's bickering with Crotalus and Ombudswiki on it, when none of you should have commented in the first place), but the editors that commented (that weren't you, ombudswiki, J929, or Sbs108) agreed that that particular piece was not appropriate, as it was not a news/feature, but an opinion piece. Opinions are not a reliable source, as they do not present the facts in a neutral manner, they present them in the view that the writer sees them.

That single article has had a ridiculous amount of discussion for it's inclusion, when it is obvious that it isn't appropriate. Instead of continuing to press a moot point, I would suggest that you and the other editors on the SSB page attempt to find another article, preferably a news article that meets BLP standards, that presents the same facts, as it will not be such a massive undertaking to have it included in the Sathya Sai Baba page. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia article on res judicata:

1. International law only includes it for criminal, not civil law

2. Different countries interpret it differently, so you can not make a blanket statement about it without an experienced international law attorney looking at the case

3. It doesn't matter to the article whether another case can be filed in the future or not.

Regarding Navin Patel:

A biochemist's opinion on documentaries is really rather irrelevant. Patel claims that the BBC didn't interview any Indian or British devotees. How does he know that? Did he talk to the producers and ask them? Or is he simply making this claim because there weren't any interviews of them shown on the show? Bhimaji (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Bhimaji:

• Bhimaji, regarding the 'Alaya Rahm' case I think its important to mention atleast the fact that the Case was dismissed "with Prejudice" meaning that the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim.
• Regarding Navin Patel: I am not interested in writing about his opinion on BBC but I think its important to mention that he had a positive experience as a student and hence he does n't believe in the BBC allegations.

With all the heavy criticism in 'BBC' and also in other printed media I think these are important to the article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Wikipedia articles should not be based mainly on primary, official sources, even if they are reliable. If we're just repeating what can be found there we could save a lot of trouble and just provide the links. Such sources may be used, but their use should be mostly for things like illustrative quotations and details. The "Statements of doctrine and beliefs" that you mention is probably a good example.

As for being a religious article rather than a BLP, it's a not a dichotomy. So long as the subject is alive it is a BLP, and after he passes on it will still be a biography. If the article also covers organizational and belief issues, and there's a conflict between covering those and having a good BLP, then maybe those issues should be split into another article.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree the article is a BLP and not a religious article. i think the article should deal with Sathya Sai Baba, not organization details. removing excess information about secondary events to Sai Baba's life ie ashram scheduals etc... may be best in order to allow the focus to be on the subject of the page, Sathya Sai Baba.

J929 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'd like to help with the clean up.
as far as sources for the biography, most of the info is fairly straight forward. i think additional sources may be good but ultimately the events in Sai Baba's life are fairly agreed upon.
i agree a more neutral and encyclopedic tone is a good place to start.
let me know what other suggestions you have....

J929 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you have a happy New Year!!! : ) all the best!!

J929 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the biblio info!!

J929 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey, just read some of the info on the sathya sai baba page and was wondering if you are concerned at the "slash and burn" approach being implemented that now leaves the article with false information such as "On 8 March 1940, while living with his grandfather, Sathya was apparently stung by a scorpion"
i thought the new sources allowed for validation of the information on the page, as well as gave concensus to various emphesised events in Sathya Sai Baba's life.

i've brought up the concern on the discussion page.

all the best...

J929 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J929, I understand your concern. At the same time this is a very challenging task of taking bits and pieces from different secondary sources and putting together to present correctly the biography as per the original. I think since we know the sources well we can help out and get this issue resolved. Its a lot of work but in the long run its good for the article as it has good backing from secondary academic sources hence it will be appreciated better by wikipedians as well as other users who read this article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey, just wondering if Howard Murphet's 'Man of Miracles' from Macmillan publishing is considered a good secondary source.

J929 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification on Murphet. and thanks for the heads up on the discussion page.

will dedicate some time to the page shortly....

J929 (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... to you too! With warm regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Babb Lawrence: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B8bMjUt6AqIC&pg=PA162&dq=%22Sathya+Sai+Baba+was+born+in+1926%22&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Sathya%20Sai%20Baba%20was%20born%20in%201926%22&f=false
• Kent:http://www.wilfridlaurieruniversity.ca/documents/6484/Creating_Divine_Uni.pdf
• Kent:Divinity and diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=26sVhUo_aM4C&pg=PA37&dq=%22Sathya+Sai+Baba+was+born+in+1926%22&client=firefox-a&cd=7#v=onepage&q=%22Sathya%20Sai%20Baba%20was%20born%20in%201926%22&f=false
• Eade:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iq1xhNpTlDEC&pg=PA267&dq=%22Sathya+Sai+Baba+was+born+in+1926%22&client=firefox-a&cd=5#v=onepage&q=%22Sathya%20Sai%20Baba%20was%20born%20in%201926%22&f=false
• Global Guru by Weiss - http://www.nzasia.org.nz/downloads/NZJAS-Dec05/7_2_2.pdf
• Larson - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vnAk9WefhfwC&pg=PA427&dq=%22sathya+sai+baba+was+born+in1926%22&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false
• Modern Miracles: An Investigative Report on These Psychic Phenomena ... By Erlendur Haraldsson - http://books.google.com/books?id=eP4b5EyAoakC&dq=sai+baba+%22Erlendur+Haraldsson%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you reverted this edit? It seemed reasonable enough to me (it's not my edit, by the way) - it looks like 'propitiated' was used in mistake for 'propounded'. The former word doesn't sound right here, hence 'sic'. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from censorship please. This [1] person is notable and sourced to an RS. This and this are deceptive edit summaries that are not cleaning but removing RS sourced information. Discuss it on talk but dont give wrong edit summaries to censor it. Hard to assume AGF thenLihaas (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lihas, You wrote the following in the article.

"Many of his devotees, some of whom had held vigil outside the hospital for many days, gathered around the hospital causing police to be concerned about a breakdown in law and order. Police resorted to lathicharging the huge crowds".

Please remember this is an encyclopedic article not a sensational article. I don't see how the Baton Charge or lathi charging adds any value to the article? Radiantenergy (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually as I have seen -a main article link is added with a summary of the issue - adding a main article link is not a reason to remove all mention of the issue from the article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to remove all mention of the issue. The content is pretty much repeated again in the link to the main article. I don't see why we need to repeat it again.

Please see the other main articles which are provided with just the link in the same Sathya Sai Baba article. 1) Main article: Sathya Sai Baba movement under Beliefs section 2) Main article: Prasanthi Nilayam Why is this an exception?

This gives a unified look to the article. I have spent years trying to bring this article to some decent shape. I don't see why you want to add a special section to it when there is already a dedicated article?

I hope we can agree and not edit war in this controversial article. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually imo - the so called dedicated article has little additional value to the content in the BLP and imo deletion of that article is an option there. As far as edit warring goes, please stop removing well cited content without consensus, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article failed the deletion proposal. It going to be there as per the proposal recommendation. That dedicated article has been there for years.

The cited content is again repeated in that article referenced to several sources. It does make sense to me to duplicate same information twice. I hope we can agree on this. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its completely usual to have a small commentary about a major issue in the main article. What is currently in the article is not undue at all imo - do other editors object to the current content? Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed in the first place because of objections from other editors. I have to dig archive. I don't think we should give undue weight to this one incident which happened several decades ago at the time of his death. We are trying to write a NPOV article right instead of a sensational article. This is how probably Wikipedia lands in to legal battles. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, I've responded on the article talk page.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, am I missing something the content appears t have been removed leaving only a link to the main article without any content at all? Is that the agreed position? Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Off2riorob, It was agreed in the talk page that a little different reworded statement will be added under the "Life" section with out a separate Subsection. I am waiting for Will BeBack to add the agreed text. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I just removed the article from my watchlist as it seems unreasonably contentious for no good reason but Will has said he is going to replace something later and I will leave it at that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiantenergy, User:Rumiton has filed a case request for a sockpuppet investigation, based on some behavioural evidence I shared with him. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikisunn. Regards, --JN466 13:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to request to have the topic ban lifted or amended (e.g. article only) by requesting this to the arbitration committee. You have to request this here. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

I think that you will have a better chance if you wait a year after the topic ban has been set.

I will not support lifting or amending the topic ban, though I think that there were unfair aspects to it i.e. false accusation of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry and misguided advice to you by several editors on the reliable sources notice board.

By the way, there are millions of other articles that need improvement. Andries (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still around? Sbs108 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have returned from a long wiki-break, and I just wanted to know how you've been? I know I abandoned the SSB article, and I see that it has changed dramatically since I last saw it. Anyway, I was just checking in and seeing if you were still active. Best Wishes, Onopearls ^(t/c) 06:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]