User talk:SSS108/archive1/June 16th 2006

Please Do Not Edit This Page: It Is An Archive. Thank You

TOP ^[1]

^ `Personal Messages` ^

COMMENTS FROM ANDRIES

If you continue to break blatantly violating wikipedia policy Wikipedia:verifiability on Sathya Sai Baba then I may start a Wikipedia:request for comment against you. Andries 01:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reference) user:Goethean is making a personal attack against me on his user page by linking to a webpage "Andries bias" www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/sathya-sai-baba-wikipedia-bias.html that contains defamatory comments about me.
  --Andries 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Reference) Andries, I noticed you said my page contained "defamatory" content. Are you aware of the definition of "defamation"? If statements are negative, but true, that is not defamation. If statements are untrue, then it is defamation. Point out anything on my page about you that is untrue, i.e., "defamatory". You are falsely accusing me of defamation without backing up your claims by citing examples. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had already stated that the comments about Hashish/Marihuana are completely untrue. Andries 17:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, where did you state that my comments were "completely untrue"? Did you email me about it? Did you publicly tell me about it? If you did, where at? I have screencaptures that prove you posted your wikipedia profile on a Pro-Marijuana site, edited it and requested the webmasters to redirect that profile back to wikipedia. It's fully documented on my page: Reference Tell me what exactly you are objecting to and what information is factually incorrect. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had already written this at talk:Sathya Sai Baba. Please remove the link to that webpage. Thanks in advance. If you do not remove it I will try to get you banned from Wikipedia. Andries 18:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, you accused me of making "defamatory" comments about you. You just said that these "defamatory" comments are in relation to my comments about your Pro-Marijuana profile. I am simply referencing the disputed page. I will not remove the link. Show me where, on the talk page (I can't find it), you disputed my article. I have every right to defend myself against your defamatory comments about me and my article. I have fully backed up my comments about your Pro-Marijuana profile. Once again, either show me the information that factually refutes my comments, or stop whining about "defamation". I would also like to note that you are the one who brought up this topic to begin with. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to prove that what you wrote about me is untrue to prove that it is defamatory. What you wrote about me shows a reckless disregard for the truth. I had already commented on your webpage about me and Wikipedia atTalk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive2 "[.. ]That is very different from writing or suggesting, as you do of me, that I am a hash user. The latter is completely unrelated to the SSB controversy and can hence be classified as an ad hominem attack. And an untrue one too, because it was just a copy of my Wikipedia user page that was automatically copied on a regular basis. Andries 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)" Andries 19:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, where did I say you were a "hash user"? I never said that. The marijuana site in question did not duplicate any other user page (except for about 10) and did not duplicate any wikipedia page besides the cannabis entry. Therefore, it was not a wiki-mirror site. Also, you requested that site to redirect your profile back to wikipedia. At the same time, the cannabis entry was deleted and all this activity traces back to you. This information has been on my site since July 2005 and you never said one word about it until January 2006. Once again, tell me what exactly you are objecting to and what information is factually incorrect. More accurate Talk Page Link Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 19:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the innuendo on in that webpage a personal attack against me and I think most people will agree with me. Andries 19:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, you are entitled to your opinion. As I said before, I can thoroughly back up my comments with factual information. You cannot. And "most people" did not agree with your complaint against Goethean [2] SSS108 ^talk-email 19:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if I see an opportunity to get you banned from Wikipedia for linking to this webpage then I will pursue it. Andries 20:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, your threats mean nothing to me. On A Side Note: I wonder if Andries and other Wikipedia users can be banned for comments they made against various Wikipedia editors on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum ? Not to mention Andries comments against Wikipedia editors on the now-deleted forum8 site (whose complaints are well known and still recorded on various talk pages). SSS108 ^talk-email 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several differences. 1. I do not link in Wikipedia to the comments that I made there at Wikipedia editors. 2. the comments there are very innocent. Andries 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editors your wrote about didn't think your comments were "very innocent". My comments about you are similarly "very innocent". They are fully documented and researched. This is further verified by the fact that you cannot factually refute the content on my article about you. Until you can provide me with factual information to refute my article, I consider this discussion ended. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting my comments about Andries Pro-Marijuana profile from my site, despite what I consider extraordinary coincidences. I decided to delete these comments for two primary reasons: 1) The comments are not very important to begin with, because Andries lives in Amsterdam where marijuana is legalized, and 2) Based on additional information provided to me by the Mediator that mostly (but not wholly) explains the activity I screencaptured on the site in question. Andries also fed the impression that these comments were true because he never denied them (in any way, fashion or form) for half a year (6 months). Andries only denied his involvement with the Pro-Marijuana site after the site was deleted and redirected. This makes it impossible for me to re-visit the site and make my case against him. Therefore, this particular content has been removed. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Non-compliant warning ^

Please note that I have again removed the non-compliant warning at Sathya Sai Baba, because I have repeatedly requested a justification for the non-compliant warning on the talk page and received none. This is the normal procedure: a warning has to be accompanied by a reason on the talk page and if there is none then it can be removed. You can re-add a warning (the same or another warning), but you have to explain the warning on the talk page, otherwise I will remove it again. Andries 16:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "repeatedly" ask for justification. You made 2 very brief comments about it and you did not discuss the removal, nor did you give a 48 hour notice before removing it. Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 17:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I admit that I did not follow procedures the first time, but the second time I removed after I had made two requests for a justification. The first one on 06:23, 16 March 2006, more than 48 hours ago. Andries 17:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Please take a look and comment ^

please take a look at User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/www.saisathyasai.com and comment. --BostonMA 23:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Mediation Schedule ^

Hi, I don't know if you noticed this question. Andries had proposed a one week period for answering questions. I notice that in your comment here you suggest a three day limit. Please let me know if Andries' proposal is acceptable to you, and if not, please attempt to negotiate this issue with Andries. If you cannot negotiate something that is agreeable to both of you, I will offer my own opinion. --BostonMA 18:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BostonMA. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I placed a suggestion and a question for you on User:BostonMA/Mediation. (Didn't know if you noticed). --BostonMA 13:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Dutch Translation Help ^

If you are willing to help translate Dutch text for the Sathya Sai Baba article, please do so on the following page: User:SSS108/Dutch_Translation_Help Thank you! SSS108 ^talk-email 23:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, thanks for your enquiry on my talk page re translation assistance request. However, my proficiency in Dutch does not extend very far beyond the rudimentary, and while I could conceivably take a crack at it I very much fear the results would be rough and not up to the accuracy which would appear to be required in this case. The topic is also out of my general area of expertise, so I may not be of much use. Might I suggest that you approach one of those available translators listed here: Wikipedia:Translators_available#Dutch-to-English, and/or list your request at Wikipedia:Translation into English/Dutch. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 02:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Apologies ^

Hi, I greatly apologize for my prolonged absense. I have read your note on my talk page, but there is much that I need to catch up on. Please let me know what is most urgent. Sincerely, BostonMA 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Translations ^

Hi, I do not know a great deal about translation from Dutch to English, and I imagine that the request you posted on the translation requests page is a good bet for an accurate translation. However, I do not know how long it might take before someone fulfills your request. An alternative is to use babelfish which will give you a sense of what the words mean separately. Note that this is generally not an accurate translation, because words often have multiple meanings, and only if one understands the words in the proper context will the right meanings be chosen. However, as long as you exercise appropriate caution, such a translation will give you an idea if certain statements are made in the Dutch original or not. I hope that helps.

On another topic, I notice that the question of certain items being "books" has been raised in your discussion. In previous discussions you (or perhaps someone else) pointed out that certain titles did not have ISBN's associated with them. As I mentioned to another editor, I have found that some very high quality books in my posession which were printed in India have no ISBN. That of course does not prove that a given title was in fact published as a book. However, the lack of an ISBN does not prove that the title was not published as a book either. I hope that is useful information to you. --BostonMA 13:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info, BostonMA. Since it is a relatively small issue, I will go ahead and include it's title in the book section. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As requested on trans requests, two people have now looked at material (including myself), & it appears to be a good quality translation, with same neutrality/POV as original (did some in detail, skimmed rest). Not to say that original did not have some bias - I do not know as I am not familiar with the subject, only the language. But trans accurately reflects originals both literally and in 'feel'. On the other side, I cannot vouch that this accurately reflects a fair selection of opinion of Dutch language material on this subject. Bridesmill 01:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Sathya Sai Baba ^

This is the strangest talk page I've ever seen. Back on topic, I've blocked both you and Andries 24 hours each for the persistant Sathya Sai Baba edit war that has been going on for several days. Please discuss the dispute, whatever it is, on the talk page after your blocks expire. — Apr. 22, '06 [17:16] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

SSS108, I was searching for your username at block log to see if I could learn more about the history behind your block, and I came across an entry which shows that an IP address that you have recently used has been autoblocked. This happens when an IP address recently used by a blocked user is used in a attempt to edit a page. I do not know if that was you, or whether you did it inadvertently, but please only edit your own talk page, and only after logging in, until your block is over, otherwise the timer on your block will keep getting automatically reset, which is something to be avoided. Sincerely, BostonMA 11:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BostonMA, I am uncertain what your post means, but during the blocked time, I did try to see if I could make a comment on the SSB Talk Page (to see if the block pertained to that page as well) and could not. Is this what you were referring to? Was the page in question related to SSB? I have not tried to edit or post on any non-SSB page. Hope that clarifies things. SSS108 ^talk-email 12:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the block log doesn't mention the page for which the attempt to edit was made from your IP. I assume that it was the SSB talk page. I believe that when a user is blocked, they are permitted to edit only their own talk page. --BostonMA 12:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know! Thanks. I must say I am relieved that someone from the Wikipedia Admin has finally stepped in and did something. It has been very frustrating for me to see what I consider a systematic attempt to undermine and bias the SSB article. The disagreements are numerous and with each edit, it seems only more disagreements fester. Do you have any proposed solution or approach to address these disagreements? SSS108 ^talk-email 12:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, actually I made a mistake in my previous message. The log which I found was Special:Ipblocklist. The entry says:

04:59, 23 April 2006, Freakofnurture (Talk) blocked #146964 (expires 17:11, 23 April 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "SSS108". The reason given for SSS108's block is: "disruptive edit warring on Sathya Sai Baba".)

--BostonMA 12:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BostonMA, yes I saw that. Can you explain what "disruptive edit warring"' means? I gave advance notice for my major edits and asked if there were disagreements before I made them. My edits, as far as I can tell, were not haphazard or any more "disruptive" than other edits that have been made on the article for over 2 years. SSS108 ^talk-email 12:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the term disruptive is not very well defined, and this gives admins a degree of freedom in their actions. I think from User:Freakofnurture's point of view, he/she saw two editors who were reverting each other and decided that both were being disruptive. He/she was most likely unaware that you had given advance notice of your intended edits and provided an opportunity for objections to these edits to have been made in advance.

What you might do is to ask User:Freakofnurture how you might avoid the appearance of being disruptive in the future. I strongly wish to impress upon you that even if you disagree with his/her decisions, please remember that from his/her point of view he/she is only doing his/her job, and is doing what he/she feels is good for Wikipedia. Of course this is only my opinion, but my opinion is that you should not raise an argument over this admin's actions against you, because is quite possible that he/she would see a 24 hour block as something that was justified even after you explain the advanced notice you have given. Rather, in my opinion, you should focus on how you can avoid such blocks in the future. Also, my suggestion is to avoid portraying Andries in a negative light, and to avoid discussing your complaints regarding the article. Instead focus on learning what you would need to do for User:Freakofnurture to find your editting behavior acceptable. It may turn out that in the course of discussion, he/she will see that you have participated in mediation, provided advanced notice of edits etc. and may change his/her opinion about whether your actions were really disruptive. But let him/her come to that opinion him/herself. Don't insist upon it. (Again, I am only giving my opinion of what you should do.)

On a practical level, you can't at the moment edit his/her talk page. You could a) wait until your block has worn off (including the IP address block), b) email him/her c) put a tag on your userpage asking for help from an admin or d) I could, if you would like, ask User:Freakofnurture to stop by and discuss this with you on your page. However, by the looks of his contributions, as well as the block log, he/she is a very busy person, and you should respect that he/she may not have time to discuss with you at any length at the moment. Please let me know what you would like to do. --BostonMA 13:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BostonMA, thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SSS108. I think you did a good job with this message. The admin's response to you mentions both the fact that he believes you to have technically violated 3RR (which is not why he blocked you originally), but also his opinion that:

Even if you had waited longer, you could still have been blocked for disruptive editing, read the introduction to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and another item further down "Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count."

He doesn't say that this is exactly the reason why you were blocked, but I think you should take this as an answer to the question of "what you can do to avoid giving him or other admin's the impression of disruptive editing. Your second communication with this admin, is in my opinion not so helpful, because it appears to be backward looking and, regardless of how it was intended, might be read as having an accusatory tone. It doesn't mention the desire to avoid being blocked in the future. It doesn't acknowledge that the statement in "Even if you had waited longer...", gives at least a partial answer to your original question, and your comments might be read, rightly or wrongly, as an expression of indignation that the admin pointed out a second reason for your block. I think it is important not to needlessly antagonize individuals who wield significant power. Remember, from the admin's point of view, he/she is doing a service to Wikipedia, and if a block was justified, it matters little that mistakes might be made in the reasons given for the block. So, my suggestion, and it is only a suggestion, is that if you agree with what I have just wrote, you either remove or reword your response to the admin's response.

BostonMA, and SSS108, I do not think that there is much merit in behavior of SSS108 of announcing his edits first and asking for disagreements and continuing with the proposed edits even though I clearly and timely voiced my disagreements and explained why I disagreed. Andries 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, could you make a proposal for how editing ought to proceed in such a way that the editors do not get blocked? Thanks for any ideas. Sincerely, BostonMA 14:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, you can conduct yourself as you choose. However, I will continue to announce my edits and ask if there are disagreements before I edit the article. I will attempt to assess if there are major disagreements with my proposed edits or not. That is the standard I am choosing to follow. If you want to follow a different standard, that is your choice. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Follow-up on edit war block ^

Greetings again, SSS108. I have looked more closely at the edit history of the article and it appears that you were, in fact, equally guilty of violating the three-revert rule (all times shown are UTC):

17:15, April 21, 2006 (Revert: Corrected reference from 2003 to 2001)
17:47, April 21, 2006 (Revert: Andries asked if intro was fine and he did not object. Only objected after edits were made. See talk.)
16:29, April 22, 2006 (Revert I Andries edits are controversial. Furthermore, we are discussing controversial material and he has not brought up these points yet.)
17:02, April 22, 2006 (Revert II: That's right. Andries never discussed these controversial edits.)

Thus, it appears you reverted four times in 23 hours, 47 minutes. Even if you had waited longer, you could still have been blocked for disruptive editing, read the introduction to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and another item further down "Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." — Apr. 24, '06 [04:56] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Freakofnurture, you did not block me for violating the three-revert rule. You said it was due to "disruptive edit warring". I read where Andries was banned for violating the three-revert rule. Kindly point out what activity I engaged in that made you arrive at that conclusion. If your ban was for violating the three-revert rule, why didn't you say so? Saying so would have given a clear and easily confirmable reason for the ban. In hindsight, you now have found a new reason to have banned me. However, I am talking about your original reason, not the one you recently found. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ not ignoring your question ^

Hi, I'm not ignoring your question, but I am waiting for a response from Andries. --BostonMA 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll wait. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ New Request For Mediation ^

I made a new: Request For Mediation SSS108 ^talk-email 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ New Mediation Request 2 ^

Since Andries said he would accept the intervention of mediation, I made another request: Mediation Regarding The Sathya Sai Baba Article SSS108 ^talk-email 20:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Re: Please Help ^

I have added Sathya Sai Baba to the list of watched pages that the CVU maintains. In the mean time, please try to resolve your disputes with these editors, and, if no solution can be found, you might consider going to WP:RFM, or requesting semi protection. Regards. --digital_m e^(t/c) 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ User:Andries ^

To give full disclosure: See my posting at Andries' talk page: [3]. And just this I'd like to suggest to you: Withdraw the RFAr at this stage and start a user conduct RfC [4]. Reasons:

ArbCom prefers that all previous steps have been exhausted and a good deal of evidence is already present. If you think Andries is behaving badly, you should better have evidence and agreeing editors at a user conduct RfC.
You can test the waters. If you see that not many editors are agreeing with your assessment of Andries you should perhaps rethink the latter.

Pjacobi 17:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pjacobi, you are obviously not understanding my position. The RFA is about the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia Articles and controversial edits that Andries is attempting to dominate the articles with. That is the primary problem. I believe the reason for this problem is Andries self-admitted Anti-Cult/Guru/SSB POV. Andries behavior is directly tied into his attempts to turn the SSB Wikipedia articles into some sort of Anti-Sai exposẽ (as he done on his personal website, whose links he continually tries to promote and include on Wikipedia). SSS108 ^talk-email 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But ArbCom will almost never rule article content disputes. --Pjacobi 17:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pjacobi, my complaints are not specific or exclusive to a content dispute. This dispute has already gone through the steps of mediation without success. Thank you for sharing your opinion, nevertheless, I prefer to wait for the decision of the ArbCom regarding this matter before I make any other decision. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Thanks ^

Thanks for spotting that. Cheers, -Will Beback 17:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Off Wiki comments ^

I've forestalled adding any evidence to the ArbCom case about off-Wiki harassment on the websites of engaged editors. It'd be just plain nicer if the attacks, derived from some ancient edit war, weren't posted in public. Then there'd be no reason to raise the issue. I'm sure we'd all prefer to focus on the future rather than the past. -Will Beback 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Response: Ref SSS108 ^talk-email 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the worst of it is gone now. Thanks for that. -Will Beback 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Sathya Sai Baba - Court Case ^

You seem to be adding material from/about the court case "as requested by GRBerry". My prior comments may have been somewhat lost in the talk page. So I will repeat them here for you:

GRBerry, actual scans to the court records have been referenced here for others to verify. These were obtained from the Court itself. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... hiding a comment by another ...

Those links are not to a reliable publisher of court documents, they are to an activist site. Look for a site like findlaw.com, Lexis.com, or a print media court record like the United States Reports that covers a wide array of cases. That is what a reliable publisher means in this context, especially since WP:BLP says to "Be very firm about high-quality references". Other reliable secondary sources could be cited, if there was press coverage. When I removed the material, there wasn't even a reliable citation to prove that a court case occurred. GRBerry 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the material is not appropriate to use until it is published by a reliable publisher that publishes many/most cases from the court. And the only portions of the material that it will be appropriate to use are those published by that reliable publisher. This is what WP:BLP and the final sentence "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." of the definition of a primary source in WP:RS means for primary court documents. GRBerry 01:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked where the RFC is/was posted. I suspect that means you don't recognize the term that RFC is an acronym for. It is short for "Request for Comment". The general discussion of RFCs is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment (shortcut: WP:RFC). Almost all the way at the bottom are listings of pages where requests can be posted. The expectation is that the request will be written in a neutral tone, ideally linking to where on the talk page prior discussion of the issue has occurred. This specific one was listed on the topical page for Religion & Philosophy, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. When I started watching that page a couple months ago, the general expectation seemed to be that a comment might or might not be received, so I don't know how many more commentators the article talk page may get. Items are purged from the bottom of the list roughly when they are two months old. GRBerry 01:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the neutral summary area on this articles talk page, so creating that wasn't done. However, I find it extremely unusual to find such a summary area to 1) exist and 2) actually have enough to discern the issue. See for recent examples that I responded to Talk:David Bautista#RFC (Request For Comments) (where they did make a neutral summary saying that they were debating about which of two web-sites was a reliable source, but didn't link to either of the two so the first thing I did was ask for more material) and Talk:Kyra Phillips#Unbalanced (where no neutral summary section was created). This is run of the course, and I recommend, especially given the arbitration results, that you view it as water under the bridge. GRBerry 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have deleted the links in GRberry's entry above where links were found to SSS108's personal webpages. This is in accordance with the arbitration policy, of course.--ProEdits 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Robert Priddy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Andries 21:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not agreeing to this mediation request as it has been resolved in agreement with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. See statement by Tony Sidaway Reference. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request for clarification Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I have to say I can't think of many examples of reliable sources hosted on Geocities. I normally expunge such sites in every purge of excessive links. Guy 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove information from the talk page without good reason please

SSS108 which of the links that I inserted on the talk page that you removed [5] do you consider in violation of WP:BLP or the arbcom ruling? I think there were none. It was only a copy of the links that you inserted on the main article. SSS108, you could and should have removed only the links that violated WP:BLP or the arbcom ruling, not all of them. Again, I do not consider this one-time inappropriate removal of information by you on the talk page worrying, but if you do it again then I will issue a formal complaint. Andries 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only one who thinks your edit was questionable. Jossie thought your edit was "very strange behavior": Ref. Tony Sidaway also expressed his opinion twice: Ref 01 & Ref 02. You removed a section from the main Sathya Sai Baba article that violated WP:BLP and moved it to the talk page. Why you did this was a mystery. You first stated that the media articles were "suitable as sources for the article" although you said (in the same sentence) that the media articles violated WP:BLP Ref → Then you argued you wanted the media articles listed on the talk page for your own convenience → Then you changed your position again and argued that you wanted the media articles listed on the talk page for other's convenience. You are duplicitous and it most certainly appears that you had no other reason to move the media articles to the talk page except for a self-serving one. Do what everyone has been asking you to do: Ask ArbCom for clarification. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby note your unwillingness or inability to show where my edited violated WP:BLP or the arbcom ruling. You are wrong that I said that the list of media article violated WP:BLP. I said that the long list of links to media articles in the article, but not on the talk page violated WP:NOT. I consider your habit of solving disputes between us not by reasonable discussion between us but by requesting mediation or arbitration very tedious, wrong, and disruptive: Wikipedia could not work if everybody behaved like you. Andries 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC) amended 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not alone in my sentiment, as already cited in my previous response. Please stop whining on my talk page. Once again: Ask ArbCom for clarification as both Tony Sidaway and I have requested of you. You are going to get nowhere with me. Why you refuse to ask ArbCom for clarification regarding this matter is beyond me. What do you have to lose? Do it and leave me alone until you have :-) And I wonder why you consider requesting arbitration or mediation "very tedious". You were the one who made a request for ArbCom of your volition. You were the one who made a request for mediation of your volition. I never requested you to do either of these things. You acted on your own and now you are trying to blame me. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.mw-parser-output .citation{word-wrap:break-word}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}^ Personal Messages ^