That's a tough question. Print magazines are generally preferred over Internet ones, but as Internet magazines go Salon is one of the best. Getting printed isn't the only indicator of reliability; Salon is certainly more reliable than supermarket tabloids. I hope that helps. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Examples Of Salon.com Articles That Could Be Cited IF Deemed To Be A Reliable Stand-Alone Source:
In other words, anyone can justify their bias (particularly if you are a liberal) on Wikipedia by citing Salon.com [1]. Happy day. Just the type of information one would expect to find an encyclopedia (sarcasm implied). SSS108 talk- email 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I filed a request for arbitration regarding the article Sathya Sai Baba in which you are involved. You have been named a party in the dispute. [2] Andries 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. 20.11.2006 17:55 Kkrystian
Sorry. I read somewhere that salon.com was not a reputable source. That's why I removed it. I also read somewhere that all criticism of SSB coming from people with little geographical or cultural connection with SSB should be removed. That's why I removed the statement of Sacha Kester (Sacha Kester comes from Germany and has no geographical or cultural connection with SSB). As for the information about "Sai Krishna" I removed it from the Miracles section because I thought it didn't belong in that section. By the way, why did you write you didn't understand the reasons for my edits? Kkrystian 15:03 (UTC+1) 02.12.2006
Thank you for clarifying the problem and the misunderstanding. Kkrystian 18:24 (UTC+1) 02.12.2006
SSS, please at least take responsibility for your own edits. It's relatively frustrating when you revert with no justification for your actual edit and instead claim that it is someone else who should be blamed because they added the original text ("lease seek agreement with Andries first: his edit."). Anyone should be able to improve poorly worded text. In this specific example, you keep bloating the text with meaningless clauses, which has the effect of dilluting the section to the point of making it unreadable.
Compare the following:
The second wording should always be inferior, no matter what the variables stand for. Instead of reverting for purely procedural reasons ("This very issue was already discussed before and has not reached any consensus.") why not work with me and try to find a better wording. savidan (talk) (e@) 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
SSS108, please do not continue to violate Wikipedia:privacy by revealing the real name of user:Ekantik. As per arbcom decision in this respect, I will however keep on using your name because you yourself keep revealing it. Andries 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What about his stalking of me on the internet and creating a blog specifically attacking me on Wikipedia? I said I would respect his wish as long as he doesn't attempt to portray himself as a netural editor who does not have a POV to push and that he is somehow not connected to the Sai Controversy. He is. He chose to engage in debates with me first, which led to my discovery of his sockpuppet. That isn't stalking. SSS108 talk- email 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.
ekantiK talk 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In accordance with the instructions on this template, please remove your offences at the following locations:
diff1,
diff2,
diff3,
diff4, and
diff5. You were asked to stop violating privacy by
Administrator Zscout370 and
Administrator Jossi has already attempted to refactor one of your privacy violations before you proceeded to continue (
evidence).
ekantiK
talk
04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, please stop using my talk page as a forum to push your venom and whine (just as you do on your blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia). You have shown nothing except your attempt to deceive others that you are a neutral editor who does not have a POV to push (despite the fact that you are the most vocal critic and opponent of Sathya Sai Baba on the internet). Your thousands of defamatory, vulgar, sexually-explicit and grotesque posts against Sathya Sai Baba stand in testament to this fact (as I have stated before [4] [5]). Any Google search for "sathya sai baba+gaurasundara" ( [6]) will bring up the relevant results.
Your edit history is public domain Ekantik ( talk · contribs) / Gaurasundara ( talk · contribs) and anyone can view it. By posting on Wikipedia, all of your edits are accessible to anyone at any time. Contrary to your assertions that I am "stalking" you (a mantra you have parroted numerous times on other forums), it is clear that you are stalking me. After attacking and defaming me all over the internet (and creating a blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia), you "innocently" appear on the Sathya Sai Baba article, engaged me in debate incognito and made edits all in exclusive association with the Sai Controversy. When Jossi asked you if you considered yourself a POV editor ( [7]) you said "no" ( [8]) even though you know full well that you are a Sai Critic/Ex-devotee. You continually and unremittingly accuse Sathya Sai Baba of being a "homosexual paedophile" and "faggot" despite the fact that he has never been convicted of any crime, has never been charged with any crime and has never had even one single complaint lodged against him first-hand by any alleged victim in India.
And my sockpuppetry claim against you has not "collapsed". To the contrary, you confirmed it by admitting that you are Gaurasundara ( [9]). As long as you edit on the Sathya Sai Baba article, you will be held accountable for your extra-Wikipedia status as a critic, defamer and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. Get used to it.
Even on Wikipedia, Ekantik/Gaurasundara said about Sathya Sai Baba (so much for the neutrality and NPOV claim):
If you want this discussion to stop, I suggest you bring it to an end. SSS108 talk- email 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you catch up: [10] [11] SSS108 talk- email 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
SSS108, so should we or should we not include your website into the Sathya Sai Baba article? By the way, you are the webmaster of http://www.saisathyasai.com , aren't you? Please tell me if by writing this I am stalking. 15:05 (UTC+1) 10 Dec. 2006 Kkrystian Modified: 15:09
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 [12]. Best to drop the issue. Now there are two well known Anti-Sai Activists to deal with: Andries and Ekantik / Gaurasundara. SSS108 talk- email 18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, the link you want to include on Robert Priddy's page is not his "homepage". It is an Anti-Sai Site exclusively attacking Sathya Sai Baba. And I am not alone in my opinion. You were warned against including that link by admin [13]. As I said before, you will argue hard and long to push your Anti-Sai Agenda because you are a POV pusher, self-admitted critic and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba and former webmaster and current "Main Reresentative, Supervisor And Contact" for the largest Anti-Sai website on the internet [14]. SSS108 talk- email 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You will revert what? And by the way, I am not aware of any ArbCom ruling on the George W. Bush or Michael Moore wiki-pages that prevents linking to critical and negative sites, as outlined by the ArbCom ruling on the Sathya Sai Baba article. You can't use other pages to make your arguments. There is now an ArbCom ruling that must be taken into account. SSS108 talk- email 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, Andries and ProEdits (Robert Priddy) are all collaborators and belong to the very same Anti-Sai Group that systematically attacks Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. I do not have to explain myself to you, of all people, Ekantik/Gaurasundara. Admin has already spoken about this issue [15] and that is all I need to say. SSS108 talk- email 04:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You see the link in my previous post. Place your cursor over it and left-click on it. Please direct your questions to the Admin who made that comment. SSS108 talk- email 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding? Right? Keep babbling. You are going to be ignored. SSS108 talk- email 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Update: Admin has spoken again regarding this matter. Please see the final warning given to Andries about including links to websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba on Robert Priddy's wikipage. SSS108 talk- email 17:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on Sathya Sai Baba: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ekantik talk 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to stop. File a complaint. And I would like to see my off-Wiki posts attacking you and your involvement on Wikipedia? And your diff from Jossi [16] was not directed to anyone in particular. Stop distorting other's words. SSS108 talk- email 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep playing Admin. I am not scared and will not be bullied by you of all people. SSS108 talk- email 05:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
A section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba has been started in response to the posts on my talk page. Thank you, Banyan Tree 07:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think your proposition is a good idea because it will greatly limit Anti-Sai POV pushing. Kkrystian talk 22:04 (UTC+1) 20 Dec 2006
On Talk:Robert Priddy you are changing other user's (i.e. my) postings and you are using misleading edit summaries. You are near 3RR violation at Robert Priddy itself and using misleading edit summaries there, too.
This behaviour may result in temporary blocking your write access to Wikipedia. Of course, as an involved party, I won't block you myself.
Pjacobi 22:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion. Cite the relevant sections and have ArbCom verify your opinions to me. Instead of pushing forward with whatever agenda you are pushing, I suggest you follow a civil path and not the one you are currently treading. SSS108 talk- email 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You should give your advice to the Admin who spoke in this matter and to ArbCom instead of arguing with someone you perceive as being inexperienced. As an experienced editor (as you claim to be), one would think you would have acted with more civility and grace than what you have shown with thus far. Pity. SSS108 talk- email 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
One was a mistake, caused by too much haste; the article doesn't need the "fact" template" twice, though. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
and discussing the quality of edits. May be you can start doing it. It does not mean extensive discussion about editing procedures. Thanks. Andries 19:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Kkrystian 19:29 (UTC+1) 26 Dec 2006
Thank you again. Kkrystian 09:24 (UTC+1) 29 Dec 2006
If you make personal attacks on other editors, such as calling their edits duplicitous, you will be blocked from editing. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't know what "duplicitous" means. I suggest that you look it up, understand what it implies about the person whose edits you're calling duplicitous, and not use it again. This isn't a playground game of name-calling; you will be blocked from editing if you make personal attacks on other editors. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have added a discussion to Sathya Sai Baba talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba sex changing claim, please give your feedback. Wikisunn 9th February 2007
That's a tough question. Print magazines are generally preferred over Internet ones, but as Internet magazines go Salon is one of the best. Getting printed isn't the only indicator of reliability; Salon is certainly more reliable than supermarket tabloids. I hope that helps. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Examples Of Salon.com Articles That Could Be Cited IF Deemed To Be A Reliable Stand-Alone Source:
In other words, anyone can justify their bias (particularly if you are a liberal) on Wikipedia by citing Salon.com [1]. Happy day. Just the type of information one would expect to find an encyclopedia (sarcasm implied). SSS108 talk- email 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I filed a request for arbitration regarding the article Sathya Sai Baba in which you are involved. You have been named a party in the dispute. [2] Andries 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. 20.11.2006 17:55 Kkrystian
Sorry. I read somewhere that salon.com was not a reputable source. That's why I removed it. I also read somewhere that all criticism of SSB coming from people with little geographical or cultural connection with SSB should be removed. That's why I removed the statement of Sacha Kester (Sacha Kester comes from Germany and has no geographical or cultural connection with SSB). As for the information about "Sai Krishna" I removed it from the Miracles section because I thought it didn't belong in that section. By the way, why did you write you didn't understand the reasons for my edits? Kkrystian 15:03 (UTC+1) 02.12.2006
Thank you for clarifying the problem and the misunderstanding. Kkrystian 18:24 (UTC+1) 02.12.2006
SSS, please at least take responsibility for your own edits. It's relatively frustrating when you revert with no justification for your actual edit and instead claim that it is someone else who should be blamed because they added the original text ("lease seek agreement with Andries first: his edit."). Anyone should be able to improve poorly worded text. In this specific example, you keep bloating the text with meaningless clauses, which has the effect of dilluting the section to the point of making it unreadable.
Compare the following:
The second wording should always be inferior, no matter what the variables stand for. Instead of reverting for purely procedural reasons ("This very issue was already discussed before and has not reached any consensus.") why not work with me and try to find a better wording. savidan (talk) (e@) 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
SSS108, please do not continue to violate Wikipedia:privacy by revealing the real name of user:Ekantik. As per arbcom decision in this respect, I will however keep on using your name because you yourself keep revealing it. Andries 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What about his stalking of me on the internet and creating a blog specifically attacking me on Wikipedia? I said I would respect his wish as long as he doesn't attempt to portray himself as a netural editor who does not have a POV to push and that he is somehow not connected to the Sai Controversy. He is. He chose to engage in debates with me first, which led to my discovery of his sockpuppet. That isn't stalking. SSS108 talk- email 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.
ekantiK talk 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In accordance with the instructions on this template, please remove your offences at the following locations:
diff1,
diff2,
diff3,
diff4, and
diff5. You were asked to stop violating privacy by
Administrator Zscout370 and
Administrator Jossi has already attempted to refactor one of your privacy violations before you proceeded to continue (
evidence).
ekantiK
talk
04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, please stop using my talk page as a forum to push your venom and whine (just as you do on your blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia). You have shown nothing except your attempt to deceive others that you are a neutral editor who does not have a POV to push (despite the fact that you are the most vocal critic and opponent of Sathya Sai Baba on the internet). Your thousands of defamatory, vulgar, sexually-explicit and grotesque posts against Sathya Sai Baba stand in testament to this fact (as I have stated before [4] [5]). Any Google search for "sathya sai baba+gaurasundara" ( [6]) will bring up the relevant results.
Your edit history is public domain Ekantik ( talk · contribs) / Gaurasundara ( talk · contribs) and anyone can view it. By posting on Wikipedia, all of your edits are accessible to anyone at any time. Contrary to your assertions that I am "stalking" you (a mantra you have parroted numerous times on other forums), it is clear that you are stalking me. After attacking and defaming me all over the internet (and creating a blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia), you "innocently" appear on the Sathya Sai Baba article, engaged me in debate incognito and made edits all in exclusive association with the Sai Controversy. When Jossi asked you if you considered yourself a POV editor ( [7]) you said "no" ( [8]) even though you know full well that you are a Sai Critic/Ex-devotee. You continually and unremittingly accuse Sathya Sai Baba of being a "homosexual paedophile" and "faggot" despite the fact that he has never been convicted of any crime, has never been charged with any crime and has never had even one single complaint lodged against him first-hand by any alleged victim in India.
And my sockpuppetry claim against you has not "collapsed". To the contrary, you confirmed it by admitting that you are Gaurasundara ( [9]). As long as you edit on the Sathya Sai Baba article, you will be held accountable for your extra-Wikipedia status as a critic, defamer and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. Get used to it.
Even on Wikipedia, Ekantik/Gaurasundara said about Sathya Sai Baba (so much for the neutrality and NPOV claim):
If you want this discussion to stop, I suggest you bring it to an end. SSS108 talk- email 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you catch up: [10] [11] SSS108 talk- email 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
SSS108, so should we or should we not include your website into the Sathya Sai Baba article? By the way, you are the webmaster of http://www.saisathyasai.com , aren't you? Please tell me if by writing this I am stalking. 15:05 (UTC+1) 10 Dec. 2006 Kkrystian Modified: 15:09
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 [12]. Best to drop the issue. Now there are two well known Anti-Sai Activists to deal with: Andries and Ekantik / Gaurasundara. SSS108 talk- email 18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, the link you want to include on Robert Priddy's page is not his "homepage". It is an Anti-Sai Site exclusively attacking Sathya Sai Baba. And I am not alone in my opinion. You were warned against including that link by admin [13]. As I said before, you will argue hard and long to push your Anti-Sai Agenda because you are a POV pusher, self-admitted critic and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba and former webmaster and current "Main Reresentative, Supervisor And Contact" for the largest Anti-Sai website on the internet [14]. SSS108 talk- email 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You will revert what? And by the way, I am not aware of any ArbCom ruling on the George W. Bush or Michael Moore wiki-pages that prevents linking to critical and negative sites, as outlined by the ArbCom ruling on the Sathya Sai Baba article. You can't use other pages to make your arguments. There is now an ArbCom ruling that must be taken into account. SSS108 talk- email 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, Andries and ProEdits (Robert Priddy) are all collaborators and belong to the very same Anti-Sai Group that systematically attacks Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. I do not have to explain myself to you, of all people, Ekantik/Gaurasundara. Admin has already spoken about this issue [15] and that is all I need to say. SSS108 talk- email 04:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You see the link in my previous post. Place your cursor over it and left-click on it. Please direct your questions to the Admin who made that comment. SSS108 talk- email 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding? Right? Keep babbling. You are going to be ignored. SSS108 talk- email 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Update: Admin has spoken again regarding this matter. Please see the final warning given to Andries about including links to websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba on Robert Priddy's wikipage. SSS108 talk- email 17:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on Sathya Sai Baba: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ekantik talk 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to stop. File a complaint. And I would like to see my off-Wiki posts attacking you and your involvement on Wikipedia? And your diff from Jossi [16] was not directed to anyone in particular. Stop distorting other's words. SSS108 talk- email 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep playing Admin. I am not scared and will not be bullied by you of all people. SSS108 talk- email 05:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
A section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba has been started in response to the posts on my talk page. Thank you, Banyan Tree 07:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think your proposition is a good idea because it will greatly limit Anti-Sai POV pushing. Kkrystian talk 22:04 (UTC+1) 20 Dec 2006
On Talk:Robert Priddy you are changing other user's (i.e. my) postings and you are using misleading edit summaries. You are near 3RR violation at Robert Priddy itself and using misleading edit summaries there, too.
This behaviour may result in temporary blocking your write access to Wikipedia. Of course, as an involved party, I won't block you myself.
Pjacobi 22:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion. Cite the relevant sections and have ArbCom verify your opinions to me. Instead of pushing forward with whatever agenda you are pushing, I suggest you follow a civil path and not the one you are currently treading. SSS108 talk- email 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You should give your advice to the Admin who spoke in this matter and to ArbCom instead of arguing with someone you perceive as being inexperienced. As an experienced editor (as you claim to be), one would think you would have acted with more civility and grace than what you have shown with thus far. Pity. SSS108 talk- email 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
One was a mistake, caused by too much haste; the article doesn't need the "fact" template" twice, though. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
and discussing the quality of edits. May be you can start doing it. It does not mean extensive discussion about editing procedures. Thanks. Andries 19:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Kkrystian 19:29 (UTC+1) 26 Dec 2006
Thank you again. Kkrystian 09:24 (UTC+1) 29 Dec 2006
If you make personal attacks on other editors, such as calling their edits duplicitous, you will be blocked from editing. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't know what "duplicitous" means. I suggest that you look it up, understand what it implies about the person whose edits you're calling duplicitous, and not use it again. This isn't a playground game of name-calling; you will be blocked from editing if you make personal attacks on other editors. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have added a discussion to Sathya Sai Baba talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba sex changing claim, please give your feedback. Wikisunn 9th February 2007