User talk:Kkrystian/archive 1

Sorry I don't really know all the etiquette yet or commands. But I would like to join the Project Islam. I am a Shi'a Muslim and have been since age 13 but I have decent knowledge of all schools of thought and their practices as well as extensive knowledge of Islamic history.Dnkrumah 04:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

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

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

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

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

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

Sanathana Sarathi

Why did you remove the link?

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

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

Thanks

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

Information re Revert

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

Removed Link

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

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

“

Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).

”

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

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

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

The "poorly researched" biography that Andries himself cites when his suits his POV. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 [1]. Best to drop the issue. Now there are two well known Anti-Sai Activists to deal with: Andries and Ekantik / Gaurasundara. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Material

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

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

Ethics of eating meat

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

Too many expert requests

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

A Proposition

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

Request for arbitration

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

Assistance please?

I have some polish genealogy I'm trying to track down, but I live in Canada. Would you be willing to assist me? Alan.ca 13:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss here, I'm in a few heated debates lately and I don't want to lose this conversation in the fray. If you can send me an e-mail with your contact email it would be great so we can discuss it outside wikipedia. Thanks. Alan.ca 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks and welcome to the Religion WikiProject!

I am certain that the other members of the project are as grateful to have you join the project as I am, and am very happy that you have chosen to do so. I regret to say that my own conduct has been remarkably sub-par for the past day or so with my capacity for readily coherent speech disappearing for the first time in at least four years for a while yesterday, but such situations are thankfully rare. In any event, I am more than grateful for your recent joining, and look forward to working with you in whatever capacity and however frequently as you yourself may wish. Also, it was my intention in actually turning the group into a real functioning entity a few months ago, after it went more than a year with only a minimum project page and no members whatsoever, that it might potentially serve as the springboard for subprojects to deal with religions which are not yet included in the scope of any other projects. If that idea has particular appeal to you, please let me and the other members of the project know and we can work to see if any other parties share that interest with you. Thanks again for joining! Badbilltucker 22:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universalism in Christianity

In regards to Universalism in Christianity, thank you for your thoughtful comment—I agree with your assessment. Since I am not an expert in this field it will probably take me sometime to bring this article up-to-snuff.--GMS508 14:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Category:Sathya Sai Baba into subcategories

You seem to have renamed this category without going through the usual channels and without edit summaries. The result is a category that's wrongly capitalised (it should be "Famous anti-Sathya Sai Baba activists"), but also misnamed — the people in the category aren't famous, any more than is Sathya Sai Baba. I'm placing a request for renaming at the "speedy renaming" page, if you'd like to comment there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kkrystian, I'd like to know what rationale you are employing to create two sub-categories realted to SSB. is there a Wikipedia policy you have consulted on this? Ekantik ^talk 04:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know what grounds you had for changing my proposal at the category page without either the courtesy of informing me or joining in the discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why you thought it would be useful for Wikipedia to divide into further divisions of Sai devotees and Sai activists? Do you think that such a division is useful for Wikipedia? Ekantik ^talk 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please, (1) provide citations from reliable sources that T. N. Seshan, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Dana Gillespie, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Abdul Kalam (among others mentioned in Category:Famous_followers_of_Sathya_Sai_Baba) are followers of Sathya Sai Baba, (2) explain why this is a "defining characteristic" for these and other persons on the list ? You'll note that Sathya Sai baba is not even mentioned on any of these pages ! Perhaps it will be better to mention prominent followers (along with relevant citations) on Sathya Sai Baba's page rather than create another category or even list article. Thanks. (it may be better to post your reply here itslf in order to keep the discussion in one place for future reference) Abecedare 04:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add Manmohan Singh to that party. I have also brought up this issue at Talk:SSB for further discussion. There is also the issue of whether dividing [[Category:Sathya Sai Baba]] into sub-categories of followers and opponents is beneficial to Wikipedia. Ekantik ^talk 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis, I will tell you the real reason for my changing the name of that category. Before I changed it "Famous Anti-Sathya Sai Baba activists" was to be redirected to "Opponents of Sathya Sai Baba". If the category had been renamed to "Opponents of Sathya Sai Baba" then online anti-SSB activists would add people who have very little (or no) connection to SSB but who oppose him (e.g. Tony Blair) to that category. Therefore, the name of the category must clearly indicate that only anti-SSB activists should be included in it. Kkrystian 11:07 (UTC+1) 26 December 2006

First, this doesn't answer my question about your editing my renaming proposal.

Secondly, you're still not allowed to rename categories.

Thirdly, your new name was wrongly capitalised and clumsily worded.

Fourthly, what you say about the category, even if it's true, is not good grounds for naming; categories shouldn't be named in order to pander to one side or another in a partisan dispute.

Fifthly, it seems from Abecedare's comments that you're in fact guilty of what you accuse your opponents of — adding people to your favoured category who have only a tenuous link with Sathya Sai Baba. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, the proof that the people who I added to the Category:Famous followers od Sathya Sai Baba is described in either: 1) the Sathya Sai Baba article 2) the history of the Sathya Sai Baba article (by SSS108) 3) the articles about these people. I think there is nothing wrong with having a category page with famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba. If there can be a category page with famous Muslims (Category:Muslims) than I see no reason why there shouldn't be a category page with famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba. Kkrystian 11:14 (UTC+1) 26 December 2006

I didn't find any citations for the listed person being followers of Sathya Sai Baba either on the Sathya Sai Baba page or on the individual person's page (I don't know what you mean by "the history of the Sathya Sai Baba article (by SSS108)" )- else I would not have placed the request on your page. The only reason I ask you is because you had added these persons to the follower's category.

Secondly, AFAIK a person should be added to a category only if it is a defining characteristic (for example as would be true for, say, Howard Murphet), not simply because it is true. I know that this guideline is not alwyas followed, but that cannot be a justification for ignoring it. I have copied your message to me here, to keep the discussion in one place ThanksAbecedare 10:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you're wrong. It doesn't have to be someone's defining characteristic that they are followers so that they would be listed as followers. In the same way one doesn't have to be notable for the development of Islam to be listed in the Category:Muslims. It is enought for them to be famous and for them to be a Muslim. So it should be the same in the case of followers of Sathya Sai Baba. Kkrystian 11:49 (UTC+1) 26 Dec 2006

Thanks for correcting me on that ! I have struck out that point based on your information. Can you please address the citation issue though ? Abecedare 11:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that most of these people are or were followers. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the evidence that these people are (were) followers of SSB:

Abdul Kalam - he was an official guest at SSB's ashram many times. ~~He also participated in the inauguration of SSB's hospital in Bangalore~~.
Arnold Schulman - he wrote the book "Baba" which praises SSB
Atal Bihari Vajpayee - see User_talk:Mel Etitis
Benjamin Creme - "Benjamin Creme believes that SSB is a "descended master"" - this is what SSS108 wrote on the history page of the Sathya Sai Baba article when he added Benjamin Creme to the Sathya Sai Baba infobox as one of the people SSB influenced
Bill Aitken (traveller) - he wrote the book "Sri Sathya Sai Baba - a life" which praises SSB
Dana Gillespie - "Dana Gillespie's website divulges her association with Sathya Sai Baba" - this is what SSS108 wrote on the history page of the Sathya Sai Baba article when he added Dana Gillespie to the Sathya Sai Baba infobox as one of the people SSB influenced
Howard Murphet - too obvious to explain
Isaac Tigrett - this is stated on the article about him and he says it clearly on his websites
Manmohan Singh
Narayana Kasturi - too obvious to explain
~~Shrinivas Sugandhalaya - he owns a company producing incense sticks named after SSB. That clearly shows his support for SSB.~~
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
Sushilkumar Shinde - "Sushilkumar Shinde is a very public devotee" - this is what SSS108 wrote on the history page of the Sathya Sai Baba article when he added Sushilkumar Shinde to the Sathya Sai Baba infobox as one of the people SSB influenced
T. N. Seshan
Vladimir Antonov (scientist) - he wrote the book "Sathya Sai - the Christ of our days" which praises SSB

I'll complete this when I have a little time. Kkrystian 13:29 (UTC+1) 26 Dec 2006

Thanks again for all your effort and cooperation! A couple of comments:

Abdul Kalam, as President of India, visits, stays and inaugurates scores of places every year; for example, he inaugurated a Nuclear medicine unit at Jaslok Hopital and Research center, last saturday [2]. So we will need to provide a specific citation that he is a "follower of Sathya Sai Baba" and not just circumstantial evidence.
Shrinivas Sugandhalaya is not even a person; it is a company. FYI Sugandhalaya (Sugandha + alaya) means "House of perfume" in Hindi (and possibly even in Sanskrit).

A clarification: I hope you don't read my messages as a challenge to you to prove to me that these persons are followers of Sathya Sai Baba. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to do so. Rather we all should work to provide citations so that anyone reading the articles on these individuals can verify for themselves that the categorizations are appropriate. To do so it is necessary for the respective articles to talk about the individual being a follower of Sathya Sai Baba and support that statement. Do you think we should remove the category from pages where there is no appropriate citation (yet), till one is found and added ? Abecedare 14:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should first discuss this with SSS108. Kkrystian 15:37 (UTC+1) 26 Dec 2006

Good idea to broaden the input. I have left a message on the Sathya Sai Baba page, informing editors there of this discussion. Abecedare 15:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More comments. First, being an official guest of someone doesn't make one a follower of that person. Secondly, writing a book praising someone doesn't make one a follower of that person. Thirdly, we can't use other Wikipedia editors as sources. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that these subcategories are not appropriate and should be deleted. However, I would like to say it is a well known fact that Kalam and other high ranking Indian officials are devotees/followers. It has even been reported as such on the India 360 news show [3]. "Famous" is subjective and although a few of the people mentioned would qualify as such, in my opinion, a majority do not and the sub-categories should be removed.

I am willing to defend that Sathya Sai Baba has "influenced" T. N. Seshan, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Dana Gillespie, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Isaac Tigrett, Arnold Schulman, Narayana Kasturi and Abdul Kalam on the main Sathya Sai Baba page (as distinguished from these subcategories). If there are doubts, please let me know on my talk page and I will provide the refs again. However, I am not willing to spend additional time to defend these subcategories. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the two subcategories are removed I suggest three different compromise solutions:

Either including all the articles from the two subcategories back into Category:Sathya Sai Baba
Or creating a new article called: List of famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba (or with a similar name)
Or writing in the articles that used to be in the Category:Famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba that the people in question are followers of SSB (note: this has already been done in the case of some)

Kkrystian 21:31 (UTC+1) 26 Dec 2006 Slightly modified: 21:33 Slightly modified again: 21:34 Slightly modified again: 21:36

Most of them are simply not famous.
You still seem to think that praising someone implies being their follower; this is simply and straightforwardly false.
With regard to SSS108's comments: being influenced by someone is not the same as being their follower. As a philosopher I have published material that is very complimentary about a number of philosophers, including such diverse figures as Plato, Shankara, Mozi, and Descartes, and some of those have influenced me in certain respects; I am a follower of none of them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was originally getting at: The sub-categories should be deleted because I don't see how Wikipedia would be improved by this; should we also create categories for those who are followers and opponents of the Pope, Dalai Lama, etc? And all pertaining entries be returned to the original root category (Category:Sathya Sai Baba). In my opinion they should never have been divided in the first place, the division was unwarranted.
Using the example of Category:Muslims is inappropriate because the category of Islam is large enough to support a multiplicity of sub-categories given that articles on Wikipedia address the same. SSB just isn't that big enough to support several sub-categories. Until he does, and until WP contains a reasonable number of articles that fit under such categories, then me may revisit this matter. Ekantik ^talk 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis, I believe that is exactly the distinction I made. Although one can argue that the list of people I cited are devotees/followers, it is more approriate to say they were "influenced" by SSB. I am willing to defend the fact that they were "influenced" by SSB. I am not willing to defend subcategories that explicitly refer to them as "devotees" and "famous". SSS108 ^talk-email 04:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't put that very clearly; I wasn't criticisng your comments, but referring to them in conjunction with Kkrystian's more extravagant claim. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in hearing how and why the following:

Manmohan Singh
Benjamin Creme (he is more a follower of Maitreya than anyone else)
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (former disciple of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and guru in his own right)

are considered "influenced" by SSB. Although please bear in mind that this is more about the creation/renaming/deletion of sub-categories rather than what goes in the Infobox on SSB's page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ekantik (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am not passing judgement on the intentions, but I am not clear how either category list improves understanding of SSB, or what fame has to do with it, and where you draw the line. To take another analogous example, there are lots of celebrity Scientologists, celebrity critics of Scientology, and almost any well known group has its share of celebrtity members and critics, but how does listing that add value to understanding the groups? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the timing of this whole effort is of less importance and takes energy away from making the basic SSB article read clearer. --Dseer 05:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the pages that did not explicitly mention that the person was a follower of Sathya Sai Baba from the follower's category (in some cases I have moved them to Category:Sathya Sai Baba category instead when there was at least an cited link to SSB). Note: I am not claiming that these persons have no link with SSB or are not followers; only that the evidence for such a claim has not been provided on the page. You are free to add them back to the SSB category again, once you have added references to that effect. However I emphasize that these citations (1) should be on the concerned persons page for all to see, and not simply on a talk page, (2) they should comply with WP:RS guidelines and (3) should explicitly state that the person is a follower of Sathya Sai Baba ( i.e. it is not sufficient to have met, stayed with or praised Baba).
I recently realized (after reading your talk page) that there an ongoing dispute with regards to the Sathya Sai Baba page. You'll note that I am not a party to that dispute on either sides, nor have ever edited (or even completely read) that page. I post this background to help you assume my good faith in this effort - my only interest being that wikipedia provide verifiable and useful information to its readers. Thanks for all your cooperation. Abecedare 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Info

Regarding Dana Gillespie's devotee status, it has been reported in Indian Express [4], in the Hindustan Times [5] (IA link [6]) and if you go to her homepage, the first thing you notice is the pictures of Sathya Sai Baba in the background. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion Notices

By the way, only Admins are allowed to remove deletion notices, not editors. Hope that clarifies things. Ekantik ^talk 04:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Your Complaint

(My response copied from Thatcher's talk page, also on my talk page, and which I would appreciate you responding on my talk page instead of taking up Admin's valuable time.)

I wish to complain about Ekantik's behaviour. He is unfairly criticising and attacking me and my Wikipedia edits to Sathya Sai Baba-related articles. This is what he wrote on the User_talk:Mel Etitis:

:"Re the Category of Famous Anti SSB Activists, have you tried looking into whether such a category should even exist on Wikipedia? Shouldn't it be deleted or even renamed, given that the creator of the category (Kkrystian) has de facto admitted that he is a follower of SSB? Perhaps a COI consideration should be looked into?" Ekantik talk 04:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do something about this matter. Thanks in advance. Kkrystian 22:31 (UTC+1) 26 Dec 2006

Huh, what? Where did I "unfairly criticise" or "attack" you? I merely questioned your dividing of Category:Sathya Sai Baba (into 'follower' and 'opponent' categories) because I do not think that such a division is justified. I am surprised how you are making this frivolous complaint even after you have explained your rationale on my talk page (diff) and which I agreed with (diff) and made further suggestions about renaming. The question about your COI has been addressed there in line with WP policies and guidelines. However, it not looks like there are two other editors who are generally disagreeing with your recent category activity and your behaviour (See your talk page), and for the record, I'm uncomfortable with the way you don't take responsibility for your own edits by constantly constructing your arguments by referring to the what other editors (in this case SSS108) say. It also turns out that you have been making edits to renaming proposals and modifying my own comments on my talk page (diff), which is a strict no-no. Your activity has even led to other editors mistaking your edits for my own (See my talk page).

Perhaps you should take a small refresher course by taking the time to read WP:5, WP:T, and WP:NCH. You may also like to read WP:EQ. I'd also appreciate it if you could inform me on my talk page the next time you register a complaint or do anything where my response is required. I am copying this to your talk page and my own. - Ekantik ^talk 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kkrystian, the diff is located here. Can't believe that Ekantik, of all people, is complaing of "COI" (conflict of interest)! SSS108 ^talk-email 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Yukteswar Giri

Hi Kkrystian, you placed an 'NPOV' tag on the Sri Yukteswar Giri article without explaining on the talk page why you believe it to be NPOV. Could you explain your reasons? I would be happy to try and fix anything that might be truly non-neutral. Thanks. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I fixed the one statement you mentioned, and did some other cleanup to that section. I took the liberty of removing the tag - but if you think there's more that needs to be done to make it Neutral, please let me know. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more citations - I believe every statement that needs to be cited is now cited. What would be helpful is if there were more biographical references for Sri Yukteswar. Currently, the only two cited references are Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi and Satyananda's biography of Sri Yukteswar. Do you know of any more biographical material on Sri Yukteswar? ॐ Priyanath talk 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam by country

Why did you remove this template from the list of assessment requests on the WikiProject Islam? Kkrystian 14:10 (UTC+1) 30 Dec 2006

my mistake i have corrected it.7day 07:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Kkrystian, I saw that you have changed the title in Sathya Sai Baba page from "Oppenents, controversy and allegation" to "Criticism, controversy and allegation". Just changing the heading is not going to resolve all the problems, this is not exactly what I had in mind for improving the article. I have just started my discussion with andries and there are still alot more important issues to be resolved. I am working towards it and hoping that there will be some major changes / write ups and clean up in the article. Once this discussion is over then I will implement these changes myself in the article. Please I would ask you to revert back the title to Opposition as I don't want everybody involved in the discussion to think this is the solution to all the issues raised by me. Thank You. Wikisunn Jan 1st 2006.

Mahavatar Babaji

Generally, one consideration taken into account for Good article consideration is length. Right now, although the article has many good references and seems to cover all the important info, it might be seen to be a little lacking in the length department. Two suggestions I can think of are to create a separate section explicitly describing what little is though to be known about the subject, and maybe another additional section about other legends that have accrued around the subject. Badbilltucker 16:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw on WP:Religion that you want comments on this article. There is lots of informative material in the article and helpful links. It seems that the subject is deceased (in the view of non-Hindus, anyway), and should be written about in the past tense. If possible, right at the beginning, you should give the subject's places and dates of birth and death. Hope this helps and good luck with getting the article to GA status.Itsmejudith 17:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. In that case the article should explain that his dates are unknown and that it is not known for definite that he existed (although he nevertheless inspires people). There are Christian saints in a similar position. I liked your benevolent view of all religions.Itsmejudith 20:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some (suggested) text to the lead. See what you think.Itsmejudith 12:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Itsmejudith 13:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

Greetings, Can you explain what needs verification on the Hinduism site? It's not clear from the template you added? Is it the book reference at the end of the paragraph? Or the polytheism term? Cott12 Talk 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Are you claiming that Encyclopedia Britannica is not a credible source on Wikipedia ? Abecedare 16:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources on the topic can be found among these citation. Note: I am not claiming that Hinduism is polytheistic; rather that some aspects of Hindu theology are considered to be polytheistic - the latter is a verifiable statement unlike the first which is a POV. Abecedare 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the reference and it does in fact refer to polytheism in Hinduism as the sentence says. It also qualifies the term as most modern sources do, as gods generally being perceived as aspects of a single supreme reality. So I'm not clear what the problem is. Cott12 Talk 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that that short encyclopedia entry on Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cite any sources (so we don't know where the authors of it got the information from). Moreover, saying that Hinduism is polytheistic is too far-fetched a statement. The Gita, Vedas (etc.) do not mention in any palce that there are many gods (rather the opposite - that there is only one God) so we cannot say that Hinduism is polytheistic. Kkrystian 17:36 (UTC+1) 3 January 2007

<reset indenting>
I again emphasize that neither EB nor the wikipedia article are claiming that Hindusim is polytheistic, and of course many sources state that Hinduism is monotheistic (or monistic, or panentheistic etc). So I too don't see what the issue is. An aside: I don't know ehether you have seen the complete EB article (which needs institutional or paid access), so here is another relevant quote from the article explaing the use of the term polytheism:

"Polytheism characterizes virtually all religions other than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which share a common tradition of monotheism, the belief in one God.
Sometimes above the many gods a polytheistic religion will have a supreme creator and focus of devotion, as in certain phases of Hinduism (there is also the tendency to identify the many gods as so many aspects of the Supreme Being); sometimes the gods are considered as less important than some higher goal, state, or saviour, as in Buddhism; sometimes one god will prove more dominant than the others without attaining overall supremacy, as Zeus in Greek religion. Typically, polytheistic cultures include belief in many demonic and ghostly forces in addition to the gods, and some supernatural beings will be malevolent; even in monotheistic religions there can be belief in many demons, as in New Testament Christianity.
Polytheism can bear various relationships to other beliefs. It can be incompatible with some forms of theism, as in the Semitic religions; it can coexist with theism, as in Vaisnavism; it can exist at a lower level of understanding, ultimately to be transcended, as in Mahayana Buddhism; it can exist as a tolerated adjunct to belief in transcendental liberation, as in Theravada Buddhism."

Abecedare 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, the only reason I am quoting from EB (rather than 10s of other sources that could be used) is that there is absolutely no dispute on wikipedia that EB is reliable source (which is not synonymous with error-free). In fact, it is what wikipedia aims to emulate in terms of credibility ! Abecedare 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good point that Hinduism does not include the kind of polytheism that was found in Greek and Roman religion, and everyone agrees on this point. This view of Hinduism as having many gods like the Greeks and pagans is extremelely quaint and thanks to living sources like Wikipedia this old myth is being corrected. We all agree on this. There is no dispute. However, I think the way to go about explaining this to readers is not to impugn Brittanica (which leads down a slippery slope) but rather to explain exactly what we are all agreeing on in some section within the article. In a certain very confined sense, Hinduism includes aspects of polytheism. Yet these deities are not gods in the sense that those terms are generally understood by the West who was taught incorrectly in Sunday school that Hindus are pagans and worship stone idols. Somehow we have to address the term "polytheism" and qualify it, rather than just elimiate the word (as I myself inappropriately did) because that will only raise more questions. The issue must be addressed and not simply avoided by eliminating the term. Best to address the term "polytheism" and demarcate Hinduism from the Greek concept of gods ruling and quarelling in heaven. Cott12 Talk 17:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely ! It is hoped that the sections on Brahman, Ishvara, Avataras and Devas and Devis (and specialized articles on each) will present a more accurate and nuanced picture. However, IMO, these sections are too lengthy at present and few casual readers will make the effort to read them from end-to-end. There is an effort underway to trim these (and other) sections of the article and I hope you'll join in that. We can also move future discussion on this topic to the Talk:Hinduism. (it has already been a subject of various long, and sometime heated, debate in the past. See: here, here, here, here, here , ... ) Abecedare 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1994 says,

It is not easy to count gods, and so not always obvious whether an apparently polytheistic religion, such as Hinduism, is really so, or whether the different apparent objects of worship are to be thought of as manifestations of the one God.

Cott12 Talk 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have a doubt relating to the matter we are discussing - whether Hinduism is monotheistic or polytheistic. Could you please explain to me what is the difference between ancient Greeks worshipping Apollo as the god of music, Dionisis as the god of wine (etc.) and the Hindus worshipping Agni as the god of fire, Vayu as the god of wind (etc.) I would be very grateful if you explained it to me. Thanks in advance. User:Kkrystian 19:27 (UTC+1) 3 Jan 2007

Kkrystian, the main difference is that AFAIK the Greeks saw Zeus, Dionisis etc as distinct entities and not as different manifestations of one supreme entity; Hinduism typically takes the latter view with regards to Agni, Vayu, Indra and even Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu (although it is arguable if this view held true even for the early Rigvedic period, or was a later development). If that was not the case, it would be easy to classify Hinduism as plainly polytheistic , just as the Ancient Greek religion.

The main issue is that Hinduism is neither a monolithic nor a static religion. So it is correct to say that Hinduism has/had aspects of both monotheism and polytheism (among other isms).

One could rather argue that the "problem" with Hinduism is that it is difficult to make a statement about it that is universally true or categorically false (see neti neti) - so it is important that we represent this complicated system of thought as simply, but accurately as possible. Recall Einstein's aphorism: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Abecedare 19:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unlike Christianity Hinduism has many darshanas or broad schools. It is not monolithic as Abecedare says. Remember that Socrates was put to death (by the Greeks) partly because he referred to "the god" and it was thought that he was promoting a new religion. No such execution would occur in Hinduism. There is much more tolerance and numerous schools including a form of materialism that is considered a school of Hinduism. In a sense the idea of a monolithic religion called "Hinduism" is a foreign invention, referring to the people on the Indus River. It spans a large cross section of philosophies and never had the kind of "house cleaning" that, say, Catholicism experienced in the 4th century where one teaching was canonized and others declared aprocryphal or heretical. Cott12 Talk 19:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think although the religious beliefs of Hindus are neither monolithic or static we can state definetly whether Hinduism is monotheistic, polytheistic (etc.) basing on what the Vedas, Shastras, Gita (etc.) say. Do you agree with me? Kkrystian 15:37 (UTC+1) 5 Jan 2007

No I do not, for the following reasons:

(1) Firstly, the vedas, upansishads themselves offer justifications for the different schools with their diversity of thought. (We may not agree on this, but that doesn't really effect what we put in the article ... see the two points below.)

(2) Secondly even trying to arbiter and "state definitely" whether Hinduism is monotheistic/polytheistic (even if that could be done) would be Original Research. Remember wikipedia is not the medium for settling these debates, just for informing the reader what the different reliably sourced POVs are.

(3) Lastly, wikipedia as an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, its contents should ideally be based on secondary sources (articles/books on Hinduism) and not primary sources (scriptures of Hinduism); this is especially true when primary sources are not straightforward to interpret and secondary sources are copious. Of course primary sources can be quoted in context to illustrate an argument made by a secondary source; however we cannot argue "based on what the Vedas, Shastras, Gita (etc.) say" unless we are referencing someone who has made that argument before.

You may also want to take a look at these: WP:NOT, WP:OR, Wikipedia:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia (this is only a proposal). Thanks. Abecedare 15:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments

While I agree substantially with much of what you said in a recent comment about a UU article, I do have to think that you could have been a bit more diplomatic in the phrasing used. Remember, generally the person seeing this will be the writer of the article, and they generally don't like being put down too much. Badbilltucker 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi! Gandhi is pretty cool. :) NIRVANA2764 20:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting your userboxes

I noticed you had some problems entering headers between your userboxes, so I hope you don't mind that I did it. I agree with every one of them by the way. Hoverfish Talk 14:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Baba of Shirdi

I have taken the liberty of editing your revert to the article because your revert removed a correct and proper reference. The quotes that you would like to insert have not been referenced in the proper format and will need to be properly referenced. Your edit summary appeared to be based on something personal. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.

Please also bear in mind that I plan to work on the article and reconstruction will begin very soon. Thanks. Ekantik ^talk 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks!

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Ekantik ^talk 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Islam and other religions

Could you tell me about the opinion of the Qur'an on other faiths (monotheistic and polytheistic) --Kkrystian 11:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Kkrystian ^Talk 12:30 (UTC+1) 14 January 2007[reply]

Well :P I tried to recognize your religion from your user page but failed. :) Do you believe in all religions? :) --Aminz 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common! It is not possible to believe in all these religions. One can not believe that "There is one supreme manager in this world" and at the same time doesn't believe in that. Would you please explain.

I am a Muslim and Christian because I have tried to reconcile these two religions for myself. These two religions have much in common. I think this is a different case.

Cheers, --Aminz 08:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Baba of Shirdi and Lahiri Mahasaya

I found a reference in a book about Lahiri Mahsaya connecting him to Sai Baba of Shirdi. It's speculative and unencyclopedic, but I thought you would find it interesting nonetheless, since I noticed on your talk page that you also have edited the Sai Baba of Shirdi article. The book is "Purana Purusha: Yogiraj Sri Shama Churn Lahiree". The author, Ashoke Kumar Chaterjee says that Lahiri's diaries include references to a saintly 'Saidasbaba', who Lahiri initiated into Kriya Yoga. The author says that the only Sai Baba during that time was 'Saidasbaba of Shirdi'. Even the author says it's only speculation on his part, and the way he presents it is too uncertain to include in an article here, in my opinion, but I thought you would be interested. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be too speculative - even the author raises some doubts. But it may be ok in the context of others who were initiated by Lahiri Mahasaya into Kriya Yoga. I'm working on a few sentences of other notable people that were initiated into Kriya by Lahiri on his article page. I'll try and fit it in, but it will need to be qualified as speculation. The fact that it has a published reference probably makes it ok. ॐ Priyanath talk 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to Sai Baba of Shirdi at the Lahiri Mahasaya article, towards the end of the 'Teacher of Kriya Yoga' section. You can click on the footnote link to read how Lahiri's biographer drew that conclusion. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:A misunderstanding

Certainly, I agree.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Kkrystian/archive 1! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

Foreign language sources

From Wikipedia:Citing sources:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."

Regards, KazakhPol 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add More Devotees

Please add Maynard Ferguson and Girija Prasad Koirala to the series of devotees and supporters. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional Controversial Claim

I have added a discussion to Sathya Sai Baba talk page regarding the controversial Sathya Sai Baba sex changing claim, please give your feedback. I have also added a RFC(request for comment). As you are one of the editors in the Sathya Sai Baba article, please give your comment whether you support adding this claim to the article or you disagree to adding this claim in the article. This is for content decision based on consensus. Wikisunn 11th February 2007

Kkrystan, Could you please give your comment regarding the gender change issue. Whether you agree or disagree to adding this claim to the article. This is for consensus decision making Wikisunn 17th February 2007

Response

Kkrystian, all of the genital-change stories originate from Anti-Sai Activists (except one: initials "U.Z.") and have been published on Anti-Sai Sites in one form or another. See For Yourself. None of these stories originated from pro-Sai websites. Also, as I already mentioned on Wikisunn's talk page, I decided I am going to disengage from Wikipedia and feel that my efforts will be more worthwhile on my own websites. Take care. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 16:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kkrystian, as you can see, Ekantik (the most vicious defamer of Sathya Sai Baba: Ref) is intent to quash and quieten the voices of opposition to his smear and hate campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba. I have several reasons for disengaging. I think a few of these reasons will become clear in the coming weeks. When the time is right, I will release a statement and let you know. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of real names

You are hereby informed that I do not approve of my real name being used on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate it if you refrained from doing so on Wikipedia articles/talk-pages. I have taken the liberty of replacing my name from your comment to me at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba with my user name of 'Ekantik' (refactoring). Ekantik ^talk 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HH Swami Saibabaexposedananda, it turns out that you have been making edits to renaming proposals and modifying my own comments on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page, which is a strict no-no. Do you know where I took the sentence in italics (in a slightly changed form) from? Krystian 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get clever, it is something I told you on my talk-page. However, I have already explained that I was taking the liberty of refactoring (See WP:REFACTOR for more information) your comment because you took the step of revealing my real name without my permission. Administrator Jossi did the same thing at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba when SSS108 violated this same principle (several times). If I was to assume good faith, I'd expect you to do it yourself, but since your second comment has revealed another of my off-Wiki aliases, I am finding it hard to assume good faith and have no choice but to expect further hostile treatment from you. However, I am supplying you with the following template for your edification about revealing private information on Wikipedia:

A serious message - PLEASE READ

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.

Hope that helps. Ekantik ^talk 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kkrystian, you can, however, link and refer to Ekantik/Gaurasundara as outlined on the ArbCom Evidence Page or my section about Ekantik on my Answers To Thatcher. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auras

I'm afraid you're wrong. The view that auras are scientific is not only supported by Semyon Kirlian. It is also supported by other scientists. About a year ago I read about a Russian scientist conducting serious scientific research using the Kirlian camera. Krystian 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, then feel free to search for that information and update the necessary Wikipedia articles with that scholarly information, specifically Aura (paranormal) and Kirlian photography. That would indeed be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Ekantik ^talk 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title

Please give your comment in the Sathya Sai talk page. This is for decision making on consensus.Wikisunn 22nd February 2007

Request

I request you to revert this edit [7] and please don't add this to the article. Do you have wikipedia emailID? Check ur mail. You can reply to my email when you get a chance. Wikisunn 26th February 2007 Check your mail Wikisunn 1st March 2007

Hi!

Hi User:Kkrystian!I hope your editing of Wikipedia and the Polski version also! I too am a vegetarian,I do not eat meat!Iwould like to be your friend,so drop me a message some time if you want.Trampton 22:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you the links were very nice,but one question that confuses me,what, exactly is your religion,I see that you are a member of the Islamic Wikiproject and then Buddhist one?Cheers!Trampton 11:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban at plwiki

Released. More info by mail. Picus viridis 15:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya Yoga

Hi, I think YSS should be added. Please do so at your discretion. Let me know if I can otherwise help or if you have any other questions. --Hamsacharya dan 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YSS is the name of SRF's counterpart in India. They are basically identical, same insignia, under the same president and board of directors, they publish the same books and sell the same materials. SRF is often rendered as SRF/YSS or as Self-Realization Fellowship in America/Yogoda Satsanga Society in India. This is probably the reason why YSS was not included in the English Wiki article on Kriya Yoga. The same can be done on the Kriya Yoga article in the Indian Wiki, YSS instead of SRF. - Watchtower Sentinel 03:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many branches of kriya yoga teachers and gurus that may not be listed on one website. The kriya yoga page on wikipedia has been designed to extend to the lahiri mahasaya sub-branches and not to others. I did not design it that way, but that appears to be the adopted method at this time. That is why the others are listed under disambiguation. --Hamsacharya dan 20:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in response to your questions about kriya: yes, kriya yoga doesn't always mean the kriya yoga of Mahavatar Babaji - kriya is just an indian word and can be used in other contexts. Also, there are some teachers that trace their source to Lahiri Mahasaya whose teachings are not exactly the same as those given by Lahiri Mahasaya. Similarly, there may be teachers who do not trace to Lahiri Mahasaya, yet who give the correct and authentic technique. Kriya yoga must be learned by initiation by a qualified master or by an authorized teacher - you wont learn it online, no matter how much you read. If you are interested in finding a true teacher of Kriya yoga, I would urge you to pray from your heart to Mahavatar Babaji to guide you to a true teacher. --Hamsacharya dan 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Om shanti! Actually, instructions on the complete technique of Kriya Yoga (from degrees one through four) is freely available online and, contrary to what Hamsacharya dan, who by the way is a fanatical disciple and ordained preacher of another bogus Kriya Yoga "guru" (please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath), have said anyone who can read and understand what he reads may learn and practice it. Why do you think fake Kriya Yoga "gurus" like Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (a bunch of self-bestowed titles, the real name is Sidhoji Rao Shitole) who, due to a complete lack of any skill of trade or education, decided to set-up cults that target gullible people [like Hamsacharya dan] and who have no real lineage or connection to Mahavatar Babaji are able to learn and teach it if the technique is really that deep a secret or that hard to obtain? If you have read Autobiography of a Yogi (reading it is an absolute must, take my word for it) and is deeply convinced that it is your path then the technique of Kriya Yoga as taught in the Self-Realization Lessons can be found here while the technique of Kriya Yoga as taught by Shibendu Lahiri, great grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya, can be found here. There are many other websites but these are just a sampling of what's freely available out there. May you find this information worthwhile and may they save you from being taken by sweet-talking agents of made-up lineages and money-hungry spiritual criminals. Best regards! - Watchtower Sentinel 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as good sources for info on kriya yoga, my POV will be different from anothers. When I read kriya info, it's usually just for inspiration since I already have the technique. What are you looking for? What are you trying to accomplish? To learn kriya yoga step-by-step online? To get a philosophical grasp of kriya yoga? To get inspiration from other people's personal experiences with Kriya yoga? I can recommend sources based upon your answer to that question. --Hamsacharya dan 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Sathya Sai Baba Article

Someone named Tony O'Clery has vandalised the Sathy Sai Baba article by adding the following libelous comments to the article.

" He also admits to pedophilia but says that as he is God they are paying off their karma quickly."

I found another entry he did recently (today):

"...he also says his pedophilia is good for they pay the karma off quicker as he is god..."

I know his IP address, etc. because I am involved in monitoring his harassment of Sai Baba. The reason I am identifying him is because he has an account under the name aoclery and is trying to hide his activity.Freelanceresearch 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'Clery's Wikipedia vandalism continues. I am documenting it here.Freelanceresearch 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varuna

pl:USS Varuna - i was change that article. --Pmgpmg 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check

When you get a chance please check your mail. --WikiSunn 28th March 2007

RCC neutrality

Hi Kkrystian. Why don't you bring that issue to its talk page, and propose what you see as a solution. I would predict adding a criticism section will not be very workable, due to length, the fact that there is no propaganda section either, and due to the fact that there already is an article on such criticism. But if there is some specific language that is definitely non neutral, propose some alternatives there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hi!

Yes, I do want become your friend!Trampton 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First day (creationism)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page First day (creationism). Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. This is duplicative of a lot of other articles such as Genesis. NawlinWiki 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prema (love)

It was deleted as a WP:PROD. The word was a dictionary definition and can now be found at Wiktionary. This is fairly common and several words that are not much more than definitions get transcribed. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory link in Sathya Sai Baba

Hi Kkrystian, Regarding the named website in the external link section the following

A website defending Sathya Sai Baba from all the allegations against him

www.saisathyasai.com/wikipedia/wikipedia_sathya_sai_baba_article.html

I have made intense efforts to ensure that all criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is sourced to reputable sources. External links to websites that contain poorly sourced criticism of the public person Sathya Sai Baba is not allowed even if the website also contains reputable sources that state more or less the same.

The personal website that contains criticism of me and that I mentioned here above is 100% original research and I am not even a public person. I request that WP:BLP is applied consistently and fairly. Please get the link out of Wikipedia article name space. Thanks in advance.

Sincerely yours, Andries Krugers Dagneaux/user:Andries Andries 20:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block on pl.Wikipedia

It wasn't block "just 'cause POV", and matter this time wasn't controversial: it is well known fact that Mohan was three times arested, (you should use {fakt} temlate in this case, now it is properly sourced), but it wasn't main reason. Main reason was, again, an edit war, and you has been warned to do not "hide" a proper edits between POV to make rewert harder, and to discuss imortant change first on discussion page, you just won't search the consensus with other users (Rdrozd, Migatu, Szwedzki, and others) in controversial matter. Lajsikonik 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]