To fix this article, please see my comments on the bottom of the sai baba talk page. My idea is to find the relevant information, post it in my sandbox, and work together to get it to the point that we can add it into the main article without removing a ton of info from the current article. Thanks, Ono ( talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I think President visiting Sai Baba is a notable event. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=291486589&oldid=291297571. Please also provide the news link in the reference. In wikipedia reference source is very important. Yes. This article is in bad shape. If you have questions you can reach me at rad0909@yahoo.com. Radiantenergy ( talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with you, I do not believe you are taking the correct approach to fixing the article. You will run into harsh criticism when trying to add "his own words". You must be able to back up what you add with Reliable sources. Before you add the reference, be sure to check and see if they are considered reliable. If they arent, you would not be helping the article, as the info would be disputed and ultimately removed. Might I suggest you edit the paragraphs here first. Then we can collaborate on how to best move forward (and I can edit the writings to make sure they are easy to understand.) I would also be happy to help you find sources for the info. Thanks, Onopearls ( t/ c) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Here's the link to the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip_rajeev. Radiantenergy ( talk) 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
It's usually considered in bad taste to edit another editor's posts. I doubt JS29 will care, but some editors get rather hostile about people editing their posts. Just a friendly tip ;). Thanks, Onopearls ( t/ c) 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the wikinews link to SSB being accused of pedophilia. I disagree that it is "highly POV" as it is merely a link to a news article. I would love to hear your rationale behind removing it on the talk page, as I personally believe that it is a neutral redirect to a relevant story on the subject. Thanks, Onopearls ( t/ c) 04:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on your editing patterns and user name, it appears that you are the same person as User:SSS108. You were banned from Sathya Sai Baba by the Arbitration Committee, and I have requested enforcement of that ban. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed your editing history and that of the banned user SSS108 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a couple of things appear clear to me. First, when you registered this account you were not a new user to Wikipedia. Second, judging by the edits you have made (which are restricted to defence of Sathya Sai Baba) it is very likely that your former account was SSS108, currently under a site ban for harassment and outing and a topic ban from your sole area of interest. I have therefore blocked this account indefinitely. If you wish to appeal the site ban and/or topic ban you should do so from your original account following the procedure for appeal to the arbitration committee in WP:APPEAL. Guy ( Help!) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sbs108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Admin claims I am banned user SSS108 which I am not
Decline reason:
The similarities between your username, edits, and other mannerisms are too similar for me to believe you are another user. Since this conclusion is endorsed by several independent administrators and users, I am declining this request. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sbs108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not SSS108
Decline reason:
Regardless of who you are, you were just using another account to evade your block. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If I were SSS108, why would I come back with almost the same user name. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only reason anyone is being suspicious is because my user name is close to his. This is a travesty of justice here. If I really were him , I would be a sick individual that would keep perpetrating this lie. Look at the article the Desert Fathers of which I am the main contributor. I am a woodcutprint maker and have uploaded one of my prints of St. Anthony. As St. Anthony as my witness, I am not SSS108. Sbs108 ( talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the admins finally coming to their senses to realize I am not SSS108. Sbs108 ( talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sbs108, You might have seen the clean up discussions in the talk page. The concerns raised so far are mainly about the 'Biography' section which uses the primary sources. In the RS discussion it was agreed that the official Sathya Sai Organisational Websites could be used. I think more than the sourcing the style of writing in the Biography should be made more neutral in tone and more encyclopedic with out too much emphasis on miracles etc. That's going to be a challenge. It might be easier for us to fix this section as we know this article and its sources well. I will appreciate your help. I am also planning to start working on this. Thanks. Radiantenergy ( talk) 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sbs108,
User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis ( talk) 07:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
To fix this article, please see my comments on the bottom of the sai baba talk page. My idea is to find the relevant information, post it in my sandbox, and work together to get it to the point that we can add it into the main article without removing a ton of info from the current article. Thanks, Ono ( talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I think President visiting Sai Baba is a notable event. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=291486589&oldid=291297571. Please also provide the news link in the reference. In wikipedia reference source is very important. Yes. This article is in bad shape. If you have questions you can reach me at rad0909@yahoo.com. Radiantenergy ( talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with you, I do not believe you are taking the correct approach to fixing the article. You will run into harsh criticism when trying to add "his own words". You must be able to back up what you add with Reliable sources. Before you add the reference, be sure to check and see if they are considered reliable. If they arent, you would not be helping the article, as the info would be disputed and ultimately removed. Might I suggest you edit the paragraphs here first. Then we can collaborate on how to best move forward (and I can edit the writings to make sure they are easy to understand.) I would also be happy to help you find sources for the info. Thanks, Onopearls ( t/ c) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Here's the link to the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip_rajeev. Radiantenergy ( talk) 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
It's usually considered in bad taste to edit another editor's posts. I doubt JS29 will care, but some editors get rather hostile about people editing their posts. Just a friendly tip ;). Thanks, Onopearls ( t/ c) 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the wikinews link to SSB being accused of pedophilia. I disagree that it is "highly POV" as it is merely a link to a news article. I would love to hear your rationale behind removing it on the talk page, as I personally believe that it is a neutral redirect to a relevant story on the subject. Thanks, Onopearls ( t/ c) 04:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on your editing patterns and user name, it appears that you are the same person as User:SSS108. You were banned from Sathya Sai Baba by the Arbitration Committee, and I have requested enforcement of that ban. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed your editing history and that of the banned user SSS108 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a couple of things appear clear to me. First, when you registered this account you were not a new user to Wikipedia. Second, judging by the edits you have made (which are restricted to defence of Sathya Sai Baba) it is very likely that your former account was SSS108, currently under a site ban for harassment and outing and a topic ban from your sole area of interest. I have therefore blocked this account indefinitely. If you wish to appeal the site ban and/or topic ban you should do so from your original account following the procedure for appeal to the arbitration committee in WP:APPEAL. Guy ( Help!) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sbs108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Admin claims I am banned user SSS108 which I am not
Decline reason:
The similarities between your username, edits, and other mannerisms are too similar for me to believe you are another user. Since this conclusion is endorsed by several independent administrators and users, I am declining this request. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sbs108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not SSS108
Decline reason:
Regardless of who you are, you were just using another account to evade your block. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If I were SSS108, why would I come back with almost the same user name. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only reason anyone is being suspicious is because my user name is close to his. This is a travesty of justice here. If I really were him , I would be a sick individual that would keep perpetrating this lie. Look at the article the Desert Fathers of which I am the main contributor. I am a woodcutprint maker and have uploaded one of my prints of St. Anthony. As St. Anthony as my witness, I am not SSS108. Sbs108 ( talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the admins finally coming to their senses to realize I am not SSS108. Sbs108 ( talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sbs108, You might have seen the clean up discussions in the talk page. The concerns raised so far are mainly about the 'Biography' section which uses the primary sources. In the RS discussion it was agreed that the official Sathya Sai Organisational Websites could be used. I think more than the sourcing the style of writing in the Biography should be made more neutral in tone and more encyclopedic with out too much emphasis on miracles etc. That's going to be a challenge. It might be easier for us to fix this section as we know this article and its sources well. I will appreciate your help. I am also planning to start working on this. Thanks. Radiantenergy ( talk) 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sbs108,
User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis ( talk) 07:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)