I notice that you have a pattern of removing additions that go against your Personal opinion
Please do not remove my addition to the page discussing the idea of Maitreya as Antichrist. This is a well accepted theory amongst many people and should be considered as part of a complete picture of Benjamin Creme and his Maitreya proposition.
If you continue to remove it I will make a formal complaint to Wiki about your conduct.
"One of his devotees - Sharada Devi - says that before his death he told her secretly that in eight years he would reincarnate in Andhra Pradesh, under the name of Sathya (what means 'truth'), what is in accordance with the birth of Sathya Sai Baba in 1926, in Puttaparthi, Andhra Pradesh who claims to be the next reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba."
Thanks for joining "Team Tantra". Maybe we can have cool mugs and tshirts made. If you know of anyone who might want to join please extend an invitation to them to do so.
Our first milestone is to bring the article to "B" status (for a good description of what this means, please see the Hinduism Project's quality page, a link is provided on the project's template).
If you have any thoughts on what the article needs for B status, please add them on the talk page, or create an action item in the to do list.
Your edits are part of a enduring pattern. I had repeatedly warned you not to do so. I will support a user RFC against you because I think that your edits are generally incompetent. I have lost patience with you. Andries16:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note. I think that the Sai Baba article could definitely be a good article with some improvements to the writing style. I may not have a lot of time to work on it, but I will try to improve it in whatever way that I can. — goetheanॐ14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you had done a lot of work addressing some of the issues I raised at the FAC. Please note, though, that the nominator isn't supposed to strike someone else's comments. The person that made the comments is the one who is expected to decide whether or not the issue is fixed, because sometimes there can be misunderstandings as to what the reviewer meant. Some reviewers tend to get pretty upset about it, which can prejudice them against the article, so be careful! Karanacs19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many Religons are related to Hinduism, depending where you are from. The Teachings of Hinduism is strictly taught to people who are related to Hinduism.
However, Hinduism has no text of any other religon in their books.
The following are some religons that are known to have relations with Hinduism from India
It would be better for both of us if you could read WP:EL and find out why those links are inadmissible on the article. Personal sites are not allowed, blog sites are not allowed, picture sites have no use for the article, and saisathyasai.com is a critical website that is forbidden by the second ArbCom resolution on the article. Continuing to re-add these links puts you in danger of vioolating the ArbCom resolution and you may find yourself being blocked, or even banned. That too, without the issue of edit-warring.
Please refrain from reversing other editor's edits without first discussing them on the talk-page of the article. Such behaviour may be taken as edit-warring and hostile as well as unproductive. - Ekantiktalk 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Ekantiktalk20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule at Sai Baba of Shirdi. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The text I removed didn't fit in the article. It was a personal opinion of an author (violating NPOV) camouflaged as a fact placed in the biography section. It means it did not fit there for several reasons
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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I disagree! I was not adding any forbidden links in that edit! What does it matter that I violated WP:3RR if my edits were correct! Come to think of it, the Ekantik probably also violated it
Decline reason:
Doesn't matter if your edits were correct; 3RR is to prevent edit warring -- in the absence of vandalism (and this does not include content disputes), 3RR must be respected. — jpgordon∇∆∇∆16:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you will be blocked from editing this site. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, includingyou.
I personally do not appreciate your posting of links that have no purpose except to intentionally defame other editors. Please strictly refrain from doing this. Ekantiktalk05:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about a property of WP:BLP many people seem to miss: it applies sitewide, including talk pages. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Avb23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop harassing Ekantik (talk·contribs) on Talk:Sathya Sai Baba. Talk pages are meant for discussing information relative to the article, not attacking other editors. Although I haven't taken a look at the offending website, Ekantik has stated it reveals private information about him. Thus, your persistent commenting on the link is unwanted and unnecessary for improving the article. -- tariqabjotu16:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Moreno's website that is pure idiosyncratic original research is a violation of my and Ekantik's rights as described in WP:BLP. Everything remotely critical in the article Sathya Sai Baba who is a very voluntarily a very public person ( including ext. links) must be sourced to reputable sources. Neither Ekantik nor I are voluntarily public so higher standards must be applied for us. In addition, Ekantik, unlike me preferred to hide his identity from the start. Andries18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sai Baba of Shirdi, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you.
I have provided an explanation on the talk-page of that article which explains why the information should not have been removed. Thanks, Ekantiktalk23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did to Sai Baba of Shirdi. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Please stop moving sections about in the Sai Baba of Shirdi article without first reading WP:MOS. There is no real justification for why the 'Miracles' text should be a separate section (given that it is very small at this point). It makes far more sense according to WP:MOS to keep it as an ancillary section of the Bio, then the rest of the article can discuss his teachings, influence in culture, and so on. There are currently no references in that paragraph. You are creating an entire section of the article to discuss one paragraph.
P.S. And in future, please discuss your edits/changes/reverts on the talk-page whenever a problem arises instead of reverting willy-nilly. I've told you this several times already. Why not try contributing some information into the article instead of jobsworth reverting other people's edits with paltry justifications?
In future, provide proof of Sanskrit or Arabic words before engaging in edit-wars, unless you are claiming a knowledge of the Sanskrit language. If you do not know Sanskrit, then do not argue as if you know. In future if you engage in these types of edit wars over needless argumentation, you will be reported to an administrator. Thanks, Ekantiktalk04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed umpteen times before that SSB is the figurehead of an NRM. This has been stated by various academic sources. I see that even after all this time, you have not been able to produce simple evidence as to why there is such a problem with categorising the Category as an NRM. If you have any, please provide it. Until then, there is no real Wikipedian reason why it should be removed. Thanks, Ekantiktalk06:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please take a look at the talk-page for a summary of my comments. I believe my arguments still stand valid. Again, if you believe that they are not, please explain why.
Mata Amritanandamayi മാതാ അമൃതാനന്ദമയി Mata Amritanandamaji/Mata Amrytanandamaji (w zależności jak się umówimy zapisywać "r" zgłoskotwórcze); Amma അമ്മ Amma; oryginalna wymowa to na pewno "Ammaći" (nie ma w tekście malajalamskim Ammachi, więc nie wiem czy "i" na końcu jest długie, czy krótkie - powtarza się tylko "Amma") Chodzi o wspólczesność więc proponuję zostawić "Ammachi".
I notice that you added a Not verified" tag some while back to the Max Müller article asserting that "this article states two contradictory statetements (about Mullers view on Hinduism) - ridiculous!!". Could you please explain what these "two contradictory statements" are. Bearing in mind that discussing two different interpretations of his views is not the same as containing contradictions, I want to have some idea what you were trying to draw attention to. Thanks. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Paramahansa Prajnanananda, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Paramahansa Prajnanananda is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Paramahansa Prajnanananda, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Przepraszam za opóźnienia w odpowiedzi na list, ale bardzo ostatnio jestem zajęty i tak będzie również we wrześniu. Skoro jednak wiem już ,że tłumaczysz, spróbuje cokolwiek pomóc lub choć doradzić. Zobacz moje dorbne poprawki , dodaj ją do obserwowanych. --Indu (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By a vote of 9-0, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:
Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.
Hi Kkrystian! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanathana Sarathi (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ∯WBGconverse13:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kkrystian. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. We would like to introduce a newsletter to Wikiproject Hinduism. A newsletter is always help to inform recent changes in the project to project members and help for effective coordination. Now we have launched a new newsletter for the Wikiproject. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Also do not forget to contribute to the newsletter. Thank you!
Sai Baba of Shirdi has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page does not reference or talk about any Shirdi Sai Baba Movement and since there is already an article about Shirdi's Sai Baba which covers his following and legacy, the article doesn't seem to have much of a purpose for existing
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if you would not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Prema Sai Baba. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Ekantik talk 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
