Talk:Sathya Sai Baba and User talk:Patrick/June 2007 - Feb 2008: Difference between pages

Revision as of 15:21, 22 May 2006

Revision as of 16:12, 21 July 2007

Line 1:

{{User:Patrick/archive index}}

{{oldpeerreview}}

{{onlinesource2004|section=August 2004 (14 articles)

|title=Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug?

|org=Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen

|date=August 4, 2004

|url=http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/5/0,1872,2147109,00.html}}

{{controversial}}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"

|-

| width="40px" | [[Image:Cscr-former.png|none|30px]]

| This article is a former [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|featured article candidate]]. Please '''''[[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/April_2004#Sathya_Sai_Baba|view its sub-page]]''''' to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index|archive]].

[[Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested)|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]

|}

== en dashes ==

<br>

{| width="100%" border="1"

!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

|-

|

*[[Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive1]] : Jan 04 - July 05

*[[Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive2]] : July 05 - Jan 06

*[[Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive3]] : Jan 06 - March 06

*[[Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive4]] : March 06 - April 06

|}

<br>

{| width="100%" border="1"

|

[[User:BostonMA/Mediation]] This article is the subject of [[Wikipedia:mediation]] by [[user:BostonMA]] and a substantial amount of discussion about this article and other SSB articles is going on there. Partipants in the mediation are [[user:Andries]] versus [[user:Thaumaturgic]] and [[user:SSS108]]

|}

<br>

{| width="100%" border="1"

|

|The [[Wikipedia:lead section]] of this article is the subject of discussion at [[User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox]]]

|

|}

WRT to your recent edit of the Dashes pages, will you please take a look at the [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dashes%29#Proposed_expanded_version_of_advice_on_hyphens_and_dashes_in_MoS|comment]] against retaining the preference for hyphens in titles, and provide a rejoinder? [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 08:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

<big>'''[http://WikiPedia.Org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&action=edit&section=new Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page]'''</big>

:My edit only fixed a broken sentence. Anyway, thanks for letting me know there is a discussion on the issue.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 09:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

== Finite ==

{{todo}}

Hi Patrick. I disagree with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finite&diff=137328989&oldid=137254659 this edit] you made. Of course an object is not a number. But do you ever say a "finite object" meaning an object of finite diameter, or do you say "finite set" meaning an object of finite measure? Because, if not, you are not talking about the object being finite, but about its diameter or measure being finite, which is indeed a number. Thanks, you can reply here. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 03:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

:For example [[Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel]] mentions a finite object. Even though [[bounded]] is formally a better word, mentioning something on this on the page [[finite]] seems useful.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

==Relevance of True Believers Syndrome==

Andries, what is the relevance of adding a section about "True Believers Syndrome"? It appears you are pushing your POV by adding this section. Explain why you insist on adding this section and how it does not violate a NPOV. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 22:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:It is relevant for the article: SSB is mentioned in the article [[True believer syndrome]]. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 05:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing your Anti-Sai bias by including an empty reference to "True Believers Syndrome". If you attempt to include it, I am going to remove it. I guess it is only coincidence that '''you''' happened to create the page for ''"True Believers Syndrome"''? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True-believer_syndrome&action=history&limit=50&offset=20040906163011 Ref] [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 11:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

::Well, the inclusion of this article in the see also section seems to be yet another subject for mediation, otherwise we'll keep reverting each other until one of us dies. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the Wikipedia policy [[WP:NOT]] states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I suspect that we have differing views regarding what this means. From my perspective, the aim of many of your edits, such as the one which sparked this subsection, appears to be to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. I would very much like for you to share your views on the WP:NOT policy and your understanding of what this policy means. --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] 15:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

:Please note that I had removed the [[true believer syndrome]] as described by [[Robert Todd Carroll]] from the main text in the article, because Jossi complained that people mentioned in this article were not notable. I objected to that by saying that everybody mentioned in this article was mentioned either by reputable media sources or scholarly sources that reported about SSB. Later I found out that the only one who was not mentioned by reputable news articles was [[Robert Todd Carroll]] who wrote entries in his book and website [[Skeptic's Dictionary]] about SSB and the true believer syndrome in which he mentioned SSB. So I decided to move the true believer syndrome from the main text to the see also section. I think it should stay there because it is clearly relevant for the article. With regards to violating the [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] policy I think that only one sentence could be relevant in this dispute and that is "''[Wikipedia is not] Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. ''" I think I would be breaking "What Wikipedia is Not" policy if I linked the word [[charlatan]] in the see also section, unless of course, SSB is mentioned in that article. Of course, it will be clear that I do not agree with the critical information being minimized, but I do not think that I am breaking the policy here: SSB is very controversial and this article should reflect that. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, thanks for pointing this out. It is apparent I need to edit the ''"True Believer's Syndrome"'' article because its mention to SSB is not referenced by reputable sources. You attempt to make your case against SSB by citing the non-reputable and original research of Tony O'Clery and Paul Holbach. Either you reference these citations by reputable sources or I'm deleting it. I am going to remove the references to O'Clery and Holbach (whose link does not work anyway). Trying to cite the ''"True Believer's Syndrome"'' article because it refers to SSB is deceptive because '''you''' were the one who made that reference to SSB on that page. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

::Hi Andries, thank-you for your response. I am glad you agree that if you created a see-also link to [[charlatan]] that this would not reflect Wikipedia policies. However, I do not understand your reasoning that seems to differentiate between a link to [[charlatan]] and a link to [[True Believer's Syndrome]]. From my perspective, it seems that a see-also link to charlatan would be innuendo that SSB is a charlatan, while a see-also link to TBS seems to be innuendo that devotees of SSB suffer from TBS. In both cases, it seems to me that NPOV is violated because controversial opinions are not presented as such. Rather, the implication of a see-also link to TBS is that Wikipedia is voicing the opinion that devotees of SSB suffer from TBS.

::In addition to clarifying the above issue for me, there is a second issue that concerns me. Although it is the aim of Wikipedia to have articles written according to NPOV, it is certainly the case that some articles suffer from a lack of NPOV. I believe that [[True Believer's Syndrome]] is one such article. Although based upon a published work, I believe that the appropriate community of researchers in the field, in this case, is psychologists. I am unconvinced that there is consensus within the community of psychologists that "True Believer's Syndrome" is an actual syndrome. However, whatever the merits of my doubts on this matter, I think that NPOV can be violated by linking to another Wikipedia article just as much as it can be violated by linking to an article outside of Wikipedia. In each case, the neutrality of the linked article should be evaluated. I would like to hear your opinion on this, as well as your opinion on the matter above. Sincerely, --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] 13:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

:: The term "(in)finite hotel" is used in a very informal way in the [[Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel]] article, and the way it is used there is clear from the context (number of rooms). I don't that is general usage.

:Yes, I admit citing Paul Holbach and Tony O'Clery in that article was wrong, but I was new to Wikipedia when I did that. However I was right to make the reference to SSB in that article, because it was also there in the original entry in the [[Skeptic's Dictionary]]. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

::Andries, you edited the article as recently as April 4th 2006 and you never removed the original research of Tony O'Clery and Paul Holbach [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True-believer_syndrome&diff=46972868&oldid=46848300 Ref] (even though this edit of yours was to remove unsupported references). So although you might not have known better when you first started the article, you should have known better 2 days ago. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to the online version of the book. It is clear that there is a difference between the online book and the published book, because people cannot click on links in a book. I will see if I can find the book with its original text. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

:: One should find better reasons for including things, rather than what you did for [[sequence]] when you added the fact that "finite sequence is the same as sequence with a finite number of terms" based on some sloppy writing of some previous editor at [[sequence space]].

==A Very Disturbing Trend==

I have noticed a very disturbing trend with Andries pushing his POV by incorrectly or deceptively wording references to say something they '''never''' did. I noticed this was discussed on the Prem Rawat Talk Page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#Disgraceful_edit Reference].

:::Are you saying that when you opposed clearing up that inconsistency you had not even followed my link to [[sequence space]]?--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed this type of deceptive paraphrasing on the article for [[true believer syndrome]]. Andries paraphrased [[Robert T. Carroll]], thoroughly misrepresenting what Carroll said (although Andries claimed he was giving a ''"more accurate"'' wording for Carroll's position). Andries claimed ''"Carroll holds the opinion that the True Believer's Syndrome fits the psychiatric definition of a delusion"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True-believer_syndrome&diff=47556950&oldid=47470632 Reference]. Carroll '''never''' said this. I asked Andries where he got this information from and he '''refused''' to answer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andries#Question_Pending Reference]. Andries made several other deceptive paraphrases on the [[true believer syndrome]] article as well.

:: As otherwise it is just too easy to add misinformation and confusion to articles. I'll cut out the mention to "finite object" meaning "object of finite diameter" at [[finite]] unless you can come up with references for that usage (and not just some obscure website). That per [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Andries also attempted to paraphrase Mick Brown (citing Brown's book written in '''English''') and thoroughly misrepresented Brown's position on the alleged resurrection of Walter Cowan. Andries claimed ''"in a 1998 book, based on evidence provided in the Indian Skeptic published by Premanand, that the claim by SSB of resurrecting, Walter Cowan, as described in the books ''My Baba and I'' by the follower John Hislop and in SSB's authorized biography by Kasturi, was untrue"''. Brown '''never''' made or drew this definitive conclusion. If I had not double checked this claim, by reading the book for myself, this deceptive information would have been left in the article.

:::See e.g. [[universe]]: it discusses whether the (theoretical) universe is finite or infinite.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Consequently, because of Andries '''repeated''' attempts to push his POV through misleading and deceptive paraphrasing, I am requesting that all references made to any Dutch Article (including Nagel's ''"De Sai Paradox"'') be translated by a neutral third party, before any more references are made to them. I am also requesting that the sections to Nagel's article, that have already been cited, be translated by a neutral third party as well. I cannot accept Andries translations because of his POV pushing, as described above. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 18:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:::: Fair enough, the word "finite" has an informal meaning too. But then its definition should be informal also. I replaced "finite diameter" and "finite measure" with "finite size". [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:I will follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but if you do not trust me then this is your problem not mine. You can ask other Dutch speaking editors to check my translations. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:I admit that I should have written in the case of Brown writing about the resurrection of Cowan by Baba "probably untrue". [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, and how do I go about asking other Dutch editors to check your translations? If you are committed to the integrity of your translations, I do not see why you are refusing to ask other editors to check your translations. I do not know where to look. You do. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 19:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:The English Wikipedia is littered with contributors who can understand Dutch language. See e.g. [[:Category:User_nl|here]].[[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

==[[Template:PD-PCL]] question==

:In my experience in working with Andries I have observed countless times the following behaviors (that I have copious evidence of via diffs)

Howdy, I noticed you created the above template and I was wondering if you could answer a question about it's application. I'd like to use some of the state maps from the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection and add references (or shading) to the various [[American Viticultural Area]] in those states. The FAQ linked in the templates says that we may "use them as you wish" so I'm assuming that we can alter them with due credit and link to the original map. You template doesn't have any reference to a map being altered so I'm wondering what additional tagging that I may need to add to the maps that I upload. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|^Cheese]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|^Wine]] 07:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

:* Selective citing. Citing a scholar's opinion that supports his POV and chosing not to cite opinions from the same scholar that does not support his POV;

:* Interpreting and editorializing text from cites to suit his POV;

:* Citing quotes from citations made by other authors without having access to the original cite;

:Given these recurring behaviors, I would say that editors of this article to be in their right to challenge Andries about his edits when quoting from sources that are not available in English. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] &bull; [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::I will not accept any extra demands regarding my edits that are not supported by policies and guidelines. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::I also disagree to a great extent with the accusations made by Jossi about my editing behavior. See [[talk:Prem Rawat]] where he accuses me of such things and where I defend myself. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 23:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::I requested evidence from Jossi for his accusations. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 23:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:It seems from [[commons:Template:PD-PCL]] that we should not use this template anymore anyway, and refer to the original source instead. If you are going to upload the image to Commons (which is preferable) you can best ask there, I am not an expert. Perhaps you need separate tags for the original and the change, where the latter could be [[commons:Template:PD-self]].--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

::::''I also disagree to a great extent with the accusations made by Jossi''

:::I love that &ndash; 'I don't falsify information...for the most part.' In politics, that's what we call a non-denial denial. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] [[User_talk:Goethean|&#2384;]] 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

== [[Rigid body]] ==

::::::I admitted that I made some minor mistakes in the article Prem Rawat lately, but they are greatly exaggerated by Jossi in this hyper sensitive subject. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:::And please do not provoke me further if you do not want me to use more Dutch language sources. I have a great repository of Dutch language sources and I can easily cite them and stay completely within policies and guidelines. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::Jossi, I also request you to ask yourself who is more dishonest in this article, Joe Moreno/SSS108 or I. Moreno repeatedly removed the word boys from this summary though I had referenced it very well. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 01:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I suggest you refer to me by my wikipedia name unless you want me to start referring to you as ''"Andries Krugers Dagneaux, the webmaster to the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet, hetnet.nl/~exbaba"''. I gave reasons why I removed the reference to boys in the introductory paragraph. If you want to add those references in the Critics section, go right ahead. You agreed to have this issue mediated but dropped it. Do you want to take it up with BostonMA? [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:yes, I want to take it to mediation again. I thought that this had already been mediated when discussing salon.com as a source. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No agreement was ever reached: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BostonMA#Mediation_Needed Reference] [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 05:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:For the record, although Andries just '''agreed''' to take this issue back to BostonMA for mediation, he reverted the article anyway! [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 05:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick. It appears that you wrote most of this article, and there is good info in there. I have a suggestion though. Do you think the article could be made more acessible? The concept of rigid body is rather elementary, but the first section in the article starts with [[configuration space]]s, which is rather technical math. Any ideas of how to simplify at least the first half of the article? Thanks. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 03:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

==Statement of Fact==

Do we need to have references for statements of fact. It is a fact that no alleged victim has ever filed a court case against Sathya Sai Baba. This is a self evident fact and I am uncertain how it can be referenced when it stands on its own merit. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:The first two sentences of section one (the section after the lead section) could be moved down; in section one we can put in that place a simpler sentence about combinations of translations and rotations. What follows is more elementary, just vectors and matrices.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 07:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:Of course, we need references for this. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 05:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:I have done that.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 07:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

in==References?==

:: Thanks, it looks much better now!

Where are the reputable references for: ''"Dr. H. Narasimhaiah who founded and chaired The Committee to Investigate Miracles and Other Verifiable Superstitions publicly challenged Sathya Sai Baba to perform his miracles under controlled circumstances"''? [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:The sentence about Narasimhaiah is mentioned in Haraldsson's book. I will provide the reference together with the re-addition. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:All is referenced in the book by Erlendur Haraldsson page, chapter "The Critics" pages 204, 205. I will revert. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:I am also challenging the reference to C. Rajghatta "Is Sai Baba on his way out?", in 'Sunday' (Madras), September 8-14, 1985. I can't find any Indian Newspaper named "Sunday". [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

::That is just a copy of the reference used in the reference. I opppose its removal. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:::The main reference in question has no reliable information to support that it was published in a reputable source. Until you can supply the information that proves there was a reputable publisher in India using the name "Sunday", I am removing it. The '''only''' place this article is mentioned is on Anti-Sai Sites. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::The reference to Rajghatta is in the book "Taylor, Donald Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement in Hinduism in Great Britain, Richard Burghart (ed.), 1987, London/New York: Tavistock Publications, pp. 130-131. ISBN 0422609102". I will revert. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to removing the above two references, it is my intent to remove ''"Annotated research bibliography in three parts collected by Brian Steel, available online"'', which is not a book. It is an endorsement of original research that has never been published and is a direct solicitation of an Anti-Sai Activist. I am also going to remove ''"Beyerstein, Dale Dr. (1994) Sai Baba's miracles: an overview available online"'', which is not a book. And I am going to remove the books of Priddy and Steel which are listed under ''"Selected Books By His Followers"''. Brian and Steel are not followers and have retracted their books, so they should not be mentioned under a section calling them SSB's followers. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:The annotated biblography by Steel has already been discussed. I oppose its removal. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:The books by Steel and Priddy were written when they were followers and have never been retracted so they belong into the section of books by followers. I oppose removing them. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 15:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:: And I have a question about the notation in the kinematics section. Does one need to write <math> \mathbf{r}(t,\mathbf{r}_0)</math> there or is it enough to write <math> \mathbf{r}(t)</math>, so dropping the <math>\mathbf{r}_0</math> (also note that now both the notation with r_0 and the one without r_0 is present). Thanks. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 14:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:I am also proposing a simple reorganization of material on the site. See [[User:SSS108/Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba_Sandbox]] [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

::The document "Sai Baba Miracles" written by Beyerstein has been published in book form by the Indian Skeptic. I oppose its removal. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 15:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, why do you insist on advertising for Brian Steel and his biased annotated biography when it is not a book? You need to explain '''why''' you '''insist''' on referencing this material and how your insistence is '''not''' POV pushing. The annotated biography of Brian Steel was and is not a book. It is an internet compilation. Your compunctual need to solicit and attempt to advertise Brian Steel proves you are POV pushing.

:::The notation was a bit sloppy, I fixed it. Since some quantities depend on <math>\mathbf{r}_0</math> and some do not, it seems good to mention this dependence when applicable. The motion of a rigid body is about the position etc. as function of the two variables.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The section ''"Selected books by his followers"'' is self-explanatory. Priddy and Steel are '''not''' followers. Period. What purpose does it serve to include their books in the section ''"Selected books by his followers"''? Why do you insist on doing this? Once again, your opinions make it seem that you have an agenda to be pushing.

:::: Thanks! [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 03:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

== Re:[[Death Proof]] ==

We already discussed Beyerstein. His article was not a book nor can you provide any reliable information that it is a book. I, on the other hand, have provided direct evidence that Beyerstein's ''"book"'' is simply a compilation of articles that were published by him in the Indian Skeptic magazine ([http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v05.htm Reference]). Mick Brown (the journalist you love to reference) referred to Beyerstein's ''"book"'' as an ''"Internet Document"''. I have yet to see Beyerstein's ''"book"'' in any other form. Give us the ISBN and I will believe you. Until you do, I am removing it. You have '''no''' reliable or reputable references to support your erroneous claim that Beyerstein published a book. Until you can back it up '''reliably''', I am '''not''' going to take your word for it, and it is going to be removed. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:#Please check the talk pages and archives for the discussion about Brian Steel's bibliography. I will revert a removal.

:#The study by Beyerstein has also been published as a book by the Indian CSICOP as I already wrote, as mentioned on the website of the Indian Skeptic. As if all the books about SSB by followers have an ISBN nr. The publication by Beyerstein is also referred to by Alexandra Nagel in her 1994 article that was published by the Free University of Amsterdam and it is unlikely that she had access to the internet then. It does not matter that it is also an internet document. I will revert your removal.

:#Priddy and Steel were followers when they wrote their books so it belongs in that section. I will revert your removal

:[[User:Andries|Andries]]

Andries, you need to provide the link or text to the "archives". You simply cannnot make your case that an internet compilation is a book and should be cited in the books section. You are promoting original research because it suits your POV. Mick Brown said Beyerstein's book was an "internet document". Mick Brown is a reputable source. The Indian CSICOP and Premanand are not different entities. They are one and the same. It doesn't matter if Nagel referred to it, it is not a book. It is some sort of collection of articles taken from the Indian Skeptic magazine. Priddy and Steel are no longer followers and are not going to be listed under a section that refers to them as followers. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:And for the record, a link to Brian Steel's site has already been provided, through which his annotated bibliography can be found. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The 120 version of ''Death Proof'' was released separately from the ''Grindhouse'' double feature. As the information that an extended version was created is already in the body of the article, it doesn't need to be mentioned in the infobox. ([[User:Ibaranoff24|Ibaranoff24]] 13:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

==Dutch Translator Needed==

I have created the following page for Dutch text in need of translating into English. If anyone knows a '''neutral''' Dutch Speaker who can translate, please have them view [[User:SSS108/Dutch_Translation_Help]] I will not accept the translations of anyone associated with Andries, Andries exbaba site or anyone promoting or holding bias against SSB. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:For those who support a translation of the Dutch text, please add your name on under the "Supported" tag on the following link: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation_into_English/Dutch#texts_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba Support Dutch Translation: Add Name] In the meantime, I am also asking other Dutch users for help. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

::I have no problem to do a translation that other, neutral, people can check. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:::I will check Andries's translation. I've skimmed through it and don't think that redoing it is necessary. I'll provide a short explanation of changes at the end of it so people can follow what I've done. I'd never heard of Sathya Sai Baba before this, so I should be neutral enough for anyone.

:::After I'm done, I suggest the translation request be moved into the recently completed translations area for the standard month so that other proofreaders can have a go at it. [[User:Kimberley Verburg|Kimberley Verburg]] 17:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, then please add your name to the ''"Supported"'' list. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 20:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:It is much too US-centered to consider non-US info too minor to put in the infobox. Please revert your deletions.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Andries's translation has now been checked and can be found (along with a short explanation of the corrections) at [[User_talk:Andries/Translations_SSB_1]]. [[User:Kimberley Verburg|Kimberley Verburg]] 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

::The article is about ''Grindhouse'' as a double feature, not ''Grindhouse'' as seperate films. In the future, please reply to my talk page rather than your talk page so I can get back to you sooner. ([[User:Ibaranoff24|Ibaranoff24]] 21:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

:::When did I '''delete''' info? The info was still in the article, it just wasn't in the infobox. There's a difference! I put in a footnote on the runtimes of the individual films that includes the runtime of the extended version of ''Death Proof''. What was wrong with that? ([[User:Ibaranoff24|Ibaranoff24]] 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

== Transformers ==

==Introductory Paragraphs==

Andries, I created a page regarding the Introductory Paragraphs at: [[User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox]] There is a section for disagreements. Please list your disagreements '''first''' before editing the introductory paragraphs. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:#the statement that the nr of devotees did not diminish cannot be written down as fact

:#The statement that the accusations that there are no legal complaints should be dated (i.e. year 2000) and the case of Sethi who filed a complaint to the police in Germany should be added

:[[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a comic book and novel that serves the story of the film. It isn't just a film: this whole new fictional universe is a major push on Hasbro's part to reinvigorate a franchise. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 13:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:There are some more issues among other the claim to be Shiva Shakti that is described contradictory in SSB literature. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

==Non-free use disputed for Image:TramStop.jpg==

:You cannot use the US state dept "unconfirmed" as if it is certain that it relates to SSB. I mean, this is not how the US state dept. statement is used elsewhere in the article and it should be treated consistently throughout the article: not treat it as a great source in the summary/intro when stating that the accusations are "unconfirmed" while treating it elsewhere in the article with great skepticism when mentioning the allegation. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

{| align="center" style="background-color: white; border:8px solid red; padding:5px; text-align: center; font-size: larger;"

Andries:

|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|Warning sign]]

*Regarding numbers not diminishing, that is why I used the word ''"appeared"'': ''"and the allegations have not appeared to impact the Guru's following"''. It's referenced. If you want me to use the word ''"seems"'', let me know.

|This file may be '''deleted'''.

*Regarding Sethi, that is already mentioned and fully discussed in the Critics section. The introduction is not a place to make the debate and start naming specifics. It is a summary.

|}

*Regarding Shiva Shakti contradictions, you need to cite reputable sources. Also, if there are reputable sources that discuss contradictions, it can be discussed in the critics section. Again, the introduction is not a place to make the debate and start naming specifics. It is a summary.

Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:TramStop.jpg]]'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]] carefully, then go to [[:Image:TramStop.jpg|the image description page]] and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

*If you do not believe that the US State Dept. ''"certainly"'' relates to SSB, then we should remove all references to it from the aricle. So which is it: Does the US State Dept. warning refer to SSB or not? If the US State Dept. warning can be cited, then its contents can also be cited. You may not want to use it that way, but I do. The fact that the warning specifically and unequivocally states the allegations are ''"unconfirmed"'' is an important fact.

I will add the date about no court cases being filed in India. But I am also going to cite Goldberg, so the year will 2001, not 2000. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 19:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

::No, if you state that no victims have filed a complaint then Sethi should be mentioned too. I won't accept otherwise.

::The not-diminishing nr. of devotees should be attributed

::Regarding the US state dept. warning it does not matter what I believe. What matters is that one sources should be treated consistently throughout the whole article.

::[[User:Andries|Andries]]

The article specifically states that no complaints have been filed '''in India'''. ''India Today'' said that Sethi filed a complaint in his country, '''not in India'''. If the statement said no one filed any complaints, then that would be a different story. The article does not say that, so your point is moot. The fact remains that no one has even attempted to file a court case or official complaint '''in India''', first-hand (where it would really matter). [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:There is a reason why Sethi did not file a complaint in India which will be clear when reading his internet testimony. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is reputably cited, then use it in the critics section. Any other complaints with the introductory paragraphs? [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 21:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

==Original Text From Nagel's Article Needed==

Andries, I am requesting the original Dutch text from Nagel's article: ''Een mysterieuze ontmoeting... :Sai Baba en mentalist Wolf Messing''. I want the full paragraph that contains the following section: ''"Sai Baba was in 1927 één jaar oud - of nog niet eens geboren (er bestaat discussie over zijn geboortejaar.)"'' I would like it translated. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 20:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

::“Terugkerend naar het begin: het verhaal van Sai Baba over zijn ontmoeting met Wolf Messing in 1937 op een station in Zuid-India kan nooit hebben plaatsgevonden. Nergens in het materiaal van Messing wordt 1937 als het jaar van een reis naar India vermeld. Messing bezocht het land in 1927. Evenmin valt in het Messing-materiaal een aanwijzing to ontdekken dat Messing mogelijk een tweede keer, veronderstel in 1937, India zou hebben bezocht. Sai Baba was in 1927 één jaar oud of – of nog niet eens geboren (er bestaat discussie over zijn geboortejaar). Sai Baba deed het voorkomen dat Messing eerst in Rusland was en Stalin benaderde en vervolgens in Wenen Freud ontmoette, hetgeen een omkering van de feiten inhoudt. “ [[User:Andries|Andries]] 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Andries. The text you just cited disqualifies it's citation in the article. We must either remove Nagel's reference to SSB's 2nd birthday being on October 4, 1929 (a claim she '''never''' made), or state that Nagel reported an ambiguous birthday in the year 1927. Which do you choose? [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:She writes that he may have been born either in 1926 or not yet born in 1927. You can state that in the article, but of course any knowledgeable reasonable person will admit that she refers to the discussion about the school register. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But is it cited in reputable sources? [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 21:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:I am removing Nagel's reference regarding SSB's second birthday [[User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox]]. Once you find reputable sources, you can re-add it. If you have no further disagreements with the introductory paragraphs, I will edit the article with the new changes. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

::At least we have a reputable source that says that SSB was may be later born than 1927. I do not accept as a statement of fact that he was born on 23 Nov. 1926 when there is doubts about it. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did Nagel get that date from? It is my opinion that Nagel's research is inferior and her reference to ''"1927"'' proves this. What is amusing about this is how you criticize SSB's traditional birth date because there are ''"doubts"'' about it, yet you try to defend Nagel's ''"1927"'' date when there are far more doubts about that date than the traditional one! Shocking how you accept this, and even worse attempt to endorse it! Where did Nagel get that date from? What sources did she use? Or did she just reach into a hat and pick a number? [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 05:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:It is basically irrelevant where she got that year from, though I think she got it from the school register. What matters is that a reputable sources says that SSB may be born later than 1927. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 16:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It is ''"irrelevant"''? Nagel did '''not''' get that date from the school register. The school register gave the date of October 4th 1929 (along with other unbelievable birth-dates). It did not make some vague reference to ''"1927"''. You have no idea where Nagel got that date from. Nagel gave '''no''' references for that date. The date she gave is entirely without merit and you wholeheartedly '''defend''' and '''believe''' it! [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 16:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:I will check it, but she copiously referred to Brian Steel's writings in her article, so I think that is where she got it from. I think that the reason why she did not mention the year 1929 is because she was not writing an article about SSB, but about Messing. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::The question of SSB's birthday is a biographical or an historical question. What is the majority opinion among biographers and historians regarding SSB's birth date? Is there a significant minority opinion among biographers and historians regarding SSB's birth date? --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:::There is no significant majority because there is not a single serious biography of SSB. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::Like professional historians and biographers, reporters for reputable newspapers are expected to check the facts which they report. Can one discern a majority opinion amongst reporters for reputable newspapers? --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::::The overwhelming majority of reputable sources say SSB was born on November 23rd 1926. Andries can cite only one source: Nagel. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::The doubts about the birth year of SSB are a few years old, so that is why older materials mention the birth year of 1926 as a fact. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:The document in question existed since the 1940's and it was rejected for a variety of reasons, as explained in the LIMF (Love Is My Form) book. Among the errors with this document are the recording of 10 birthdates (out of 12) as being on "July 1st". These types of school records are not accepted as valid documents for establishing a date of birth. [[User:Thaumaturgic|Thaumaturgic]] 19:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::The school register was not rejected with certainty by Nagel and Steel, as can be seen from their writings. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:::And neither Nagel or Steel took into consideration other inaccuracies on the school record, as can be seen in their writings. They '''only''' focused on SSB's information and dismissed everything else. That doesn't sound thorough or non-biased to me. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 07:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, Nagel did not refer to Brian Steel's article in her '''original''' paper. She referred to him on the internet version of the paper (which has not been published in reputable sources). If Nagel did cite Steel, one is left to wonder where she got the date from, considering that Steel '''never''' said anything about SSB being born in 1927.

BostonMA, Andries can only cite one reputable source for an alternate dob for SSB. The overwhelming majority opinion gives SSB's birthdate as November 23 1926. Andries cites Nagel, who apparently did not cite anyone else. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:Nagel did not write that SSB was born in 1927. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::Who knows what Nagel wrote? I am uncertain if even she knew, as she has no references to back it up. Provide us with the references Nagel used for that date. Even if she alluded to SSB being conceived in 1927, then he would have been born in 1928 (still a year away from the school record date). [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 07:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

==Recent Edits==

Andries, we already discussed Jens Sethi and you did not refute the points I made. That you are editing the article with your changes after I asked you if you agreed to the paragraphs (to which you did not respond) is entirely inappropriate. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:I found your arguments entirely unconvincing and I did not think and do not think that further discussion would have yielded something. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You expressed your disapproval and I justified my edits. After justifying my edits, you choose not to refute my comments. Even after asking you, a couple of times, if you had any disagreements with the proposed edits, you remained silent and '''now''' you forcing your views when you had every opportunity to resolve them when I asked you. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::I do not have to state more than once with a reason that and why I disagree. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::I do not consider it a detail that Jens Sethi filed a complaint in Munich. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire point of the discussion was to reach a consensus on the introduction. Expressing your disapproval '''once''' and expecting me to infer your intentions and read your mind is preposterous. I asked you several times if you agreed with the introduction (and I made edits to accomodate your disagreements). You refused to answer (as you have done in the past). This type of behavior is inappropriate and I can't help to wonder why you persist in your silent mode until an edit is made and then you start arguing you views. I gave you every opportunity to discuss the edits and I only made the edit '''after''' you did not express any further disagreements. There does not seem to be any way to deal with you rationally. If I make an edit without your consent, I am wrong. If I make an edit after asking for your consent (to which you do not respond) I am wrong. Something is very wrong with this picture. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:What you write is untrue: I did raise objections this time and I was specific where and why I disagreed. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Let us see your ''"objections"'', my response and you failure to refute my response: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Introductory_Paragraphs_2 Reference] [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::I do not have the time and energy to raise extensive discussions about every point that you make within 48 hours. I have a job to do. I wrote down where I disagreed and to a great extent with reasons, but you went ahead anyway. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been very active and vocal on wikipedia in the last 24 hours and if you had objections, you should have said so. I am not a telepath or a clairvoyant. I asked you to respond and you chose not to. Accept responsiblity for your choices and actions. You apparently have lots of time to debate me and argue in favor or your points, but you have '''no time''' to respond to my questions. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:You cannot exactly say that I have not objected to your edits and your proposal. Nearly everything that I wrote down was an objection to your edit or your proposal. Sorry, what are your questions that you are waiting for? [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They were already asked! I proposed edits → You raised some points of contention → I responded to your points of contention and amended the proposed edits to meet some of your concerns → I asked if you had any furher concerns → You stayed silent (indicating you did not) → I made the edits → Now you are objecting to them. I will be back later tonight if you want to take it up then :-) [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:Are you willing to go back to the sandbox and work on it? I will quickly update the sandbox with the latest edit and we can discuss it there (if you are willing) [[User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox]] [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:I do not see any unanswered questions by you for me except the one that you asked 5 minutes ago about the sources that Nagel used for SSB's birtdate in her article about Messing. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:May be there was a misunderstanding, because I only looked at your proposal once and wrote down most of my concerns and objections here once. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Andries. I think you are confused about SSS108's "question". The question SSS108 asked was whether you had any other complaints with the edits he proposed. SSS108 also stated that he was going to update the article with his edits if you did not express further disagreement. You did not answer his question or express further disagreement. That is why he updated the article. I think you need to be aware that when someone asks you a question and states that they are going to make an edit, either you respond or face the consequences of your decision to not give a response. One of these consequences is having the article reverted, which I have done. [[User:Thaumaturgic|Thaumaturgic]] 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::I do not agree with your interpretation, but anyway, as per the agreement made, all non-objections lose their value after 48 hours. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, let us put aside our differences of opinion. This type of arguing is not constructive. On a pro-active and constructive note, are you willing to work on the introduction on the sandbox link that SSS108 provided? From what I have read so far, I think BostonMA is willing to help mediate the discussion there. [[User:Thaumaturgic|Thaumaturgic]] 19:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To avoid further misunderstanding the following. When I have stated once that I disagree with SSS108 and explained why then I find further arguments by SSS108 unconvincing unless I state otherwise: I do not have to state again and again that I do not agree with SSS108 and provide extensive explanations within 48 hours. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 06:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:Thaumaturgic, your assessment of the situation is correct. Thank you.

:Andries, are you willing to resolve your disagreements on the sandbox link provided? Yes or no? I would like to see a public answer. If you do not agree, then tell me by which means you intend to resolve our disagreements.

:Perhaps I should follow '''your''' example: If you choose to make an edit that I disagree with, I will simply state my disagreement '''once''' and refuse to cooperate or discuss the matter further with you and resort instead of reverting the article. Does that sound fair to you? Then again you don't need to answer that question. You already have. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

::It is not that I am unwilling to discuss with you proposed changes, but do not expect an extensive discussion from me within 48 hours and if I do not provide an extensive discussion within 48 hours then do not see this as "no objection". And please understand that the agreed upon proposal about implementation of policies states change in singular, not change'''s'''. Of course when there are many proposed changes in a short time then 48 hours is not enough for me to dicuss each of them extensively. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 07:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I informed you of my intention to make the edits and even asked you if you had disagreements. You chose not to answer. If you did not agree, you should have said so. Yes, it's that simple. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 07:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:I was not exactly quiet about my disagreements and I edited your summary as per the disagreements that I voiced here. That is as simple as that.[[User:Andries|Andries]] 07:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:I sincerely cannot understand the disagreement between me and SSS108 about me making ''objections'' or ''no objections'' to his proposal for the summary (that SSS108 mistakenly calls "introduction"). I wrote the objections clearly down on this talk for everybody to see. May be some outsiders can comment? Thanks. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 07:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to square one. I am not going to repeat myself again. When you decide you are ready, the sandbox link is there for you to express your disagreement on, so that we can work on it together. I intend to work on it with or without you :-) [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 07:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, I went there and wrote down again the objections that I had already written down here. I will try to give a more extensive reason for them later. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

==Procedural matters==

First of all I would like to separate procedural discussions from discussions regarding contents. Say let's do them here [[Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Editing procedures]] Secondly I never agreed to first discuss well-referenced additions such as the Beyerstein via Matthijs van der Meer's addition to this article before making them. Discussing additions before making them contradicts the generally accepted practice in Wikipedia. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

==SSS108 Banned==

SSS108 just contacted me and wanted to let others know that [[User:FreakOfNature]] banned him from Wikipedia without warning. Since I agree with SSS108 edits, I will take off where he left and I suspect I will be banned next. It is my hope that other editors will discuss [[User:FreakOfNature]] actions when Andries actions are just as disruptive and "warring" as he said SSS108's actions were. [[User:Thaumaturgic|Thaumaturgic]] 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

::Hi Thaumaturgic. [[User:Freakofnurture]] blocked Andries for 24 hours under the [[WP:3RR]] rule. He/she also blocked [[User:SSS108]] for 24 hours for edit warring. The block of Andries was within [[User:Freakofnurture]]'s right as an administrator. The block of [[User:SSS108]] was [[User:Freakofnurture]]'s judgement call. Your judgement or my judgement may differ, but it is my opinion that the best course of action is to stay calm, and avoid taking actions which might make the situation worse. Since you are in contact with SSS108, please express to him my regrets at this turn of events, and for my failure to sufficiently warn him regarding the possible intervention of administrators. --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our [[WP:CSD#Images/media|Criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:[[Andries]] is also currently blocked.

== Sorting ==

:Wikipedia policy does not require sources to be in english.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 17:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I was not aware that Andries was also blocked. Geni, I know that sources do not need to be in English. As SSS108 pointed out, there is disagreement over the translations being used from Dutch articles. A neutral translation is being sought due to what is seen as incorrect "paraphrasing" by Andries. [[User:Thaumaturgic|Thaumaturgic]] 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:Please note that inaccurate translations and incorrect paraphrasing are two different things. You reverted my edit with the justification that the translation had to be checked first, thought there is no such policy or guideline in Wikipedia. <s>In addition the translation into English was done by Matthijs van der Meer who was also the author of the original Dutch article, so</s> I think that the revert because of language check was completely unjustified. Or may be I miss something? The source for my edit was apart from the book by Mick Brown the following: Dutch [[New Age]] magazine "[http://www.spiegelbeeld.nl/ Spiegelbeeld]" under title "Sai Baba & de waarheid het verhaal van een bevochten ontgoocheling" October issue 2000 [http://www.saiguru.net/english/media/0010spiegelbeeld.htm English translation available online] [http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/verklaringen/matthijs.html Dutch original by Matthijs van der Meer] [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:we are not short of people who speak dutch [[:Category:User_nl-N]].[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I just turned to you for a little help. I saw you have added ''Class=sortable'' to [[Tabu (actress)|Tabu]]'s filmography table. I did the same in the [[Preity Zinta]] page, cause I found it as a good idea. Now I changed the filmography style of Zinta, and the ''Class=sortable'' doesn't work properly. Could you help me please? Thanks, --[[User:Shshshsh|<span style="color:blue">'''''Shahid'''''</span>]] • ^{''[[User talk:Shshshsh|<span style="color:teal">Talk</span><span style="color:black">'''2'''</span><span style="color:teal">me</span>]]''} 10:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Geni, do you think you would be able to help get the Dutch material translated on this sandbox page — [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SSS108/Dutch_Translation_Help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SSS108/Dutch_Translation_Help]? [[User:Thaumaturgic|Thaumaturgic]] 05:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:===>'''I already made the translations [[User_talk:Andries#Request_translation_with_regards_to_Sathya_Sai_Baba|here]]'''<===. You can request them to be checked for neutrality and accuracy. I do not accept restrictions on my behavior that are neither supported by policies and guidelines nor by a more or less official verdict against me e.g. by a request for comments. Nevertheless, please do try to find people who are willing to check my translations, which I think is only very little work for one of the many persons in Wikipedia who know both Dutch and English well. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:See [[m:Help:Sorting#Limitations]].--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 10:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

==I intend to make the following changes==

Please express disagreements with reasons

:1. re-add the bibliogrpahy by Brian Steel: we cannot list all books in the article, but we can add a link to Steel's list that contains nearly all books

:2. re-add books by Steel and Priddy under the section followers

:3. re-phrase the lead section to include various rebuttals. not just anti-Hindu

:4. add attribution for non-diminishing devotees in summary

:5. add Jens Sethi in summary

:6. add statement to summary from BBC website and salon.com that it is difficult to prosecute SSB in India

:7. remove statement from US dept of state from summary

:8. rename Bibliography subsections into "books and articles"

:9. re-add Matthijs van der Meer's description of Beyerstein's study

:10. re-add statement from Mick Brown's book about discrepancy between statements by SBB about historical events and generally accepted accounts

:11. Add contradictory staments about Shiva Shakti claim to summary: the current version is now one-sided, and uses only one source

[[User:Andries|Andries]] 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So I can't display it on this king of table? --[[User:Shshshsh|<span style="color:blue">'''''Shahid'''''</span>]] • ^{''[[User talk:Shshshsh|<span style="color:teal">Talk</span><span style="color:black">'''2'''</span><span style="color:teal">me</span>]]''} 10:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:I disagree with Andries proposed edits, as they are controversial, and will revert them. I suggest we attempt to take this to mediation and have our differences of opinion resolved through a neutral 3rd party. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::Taking this into mediation is a good idea. It is better to have your differences of opinion resolved through a '''NEUTRAL''' 3rd party. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]]</font>^{<font style="background:yellow">[[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]]</font>} 17:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:I don't know what you mean by "king of table". For tables for which sorting makes sense I recommend that cells extending over multiple rows and/or columns are avoided, so that sorting is possible.[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 11:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

==This goes on and on and on (and on)==

I have never seen anything like these talk pages! But i know there are ones just as bad, and indeed probably even worse if that is possible, here on Wikipedia. I would have a nervous breakdown were I involved in this sort of mental [[trench warfare]]! Isn't there some way that both sides can come to an agreement? After all, there are standard guidelines for use of references on Wikipedia. The goal, as we all know and agree, is neither to accuse nor to defend SSB (that's what your respective home pages are for), but simply to ''report what others say about him'', regardless of whether or not one agrees with their support or criticism. e.g. The [[Howard Murphett]] books (which introduced me to SSB back in the early 1980s) and the BBC "Secret Swami" video are equally notable and their claims can equally be included, as should all other such references. Since one is simply reporting what these external sources say, i fail to understand the reason for this endless bickering, each side clawing for every inch of ground, and not wanting to give an inch to their opponent. [[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

==New Request For Mediation==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Sathya_Sai_Baba_2 New Request For Mediation] [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::My bad... I meant "kind" --[[User:Shshshsh|<span style="color:blue">'''''Shahid'''''</span>]] • ^{''[[User talk:Shshshsh|<span style="color:teal">Talk</span><span style="color:black">'''2'''</span><span style="color:teal">me</span>]]''} 12:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

==Court Records For Self-Dismissed Case==

Since it was agreed to not include links that go to either Pro/Anti Sai Sites, for those who would like to independently confirm the references cited for Alaya Rahm's '''Self-Dismissed''' court case, against the Sathya Sai Baba Society, scans to the public court records are on the following links:

*[http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-kreydick/a-scan-01.html Deposition From Kreydick]

*[http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/ Dismissal Records] [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:I never agreed with this. I only agreed that linking to the article on whe website of the original publisher is preferrable and if not available online then I did not have any problems with using a specifically designed neutral website for the references, instead of anti-baba or pro-baba websites. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

::I question the validity of the inclusion of a self-dismissed court case papers. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] &bull; [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, that is what I said. I am '''not''' trying to include a link to the scans in the Wikipedia article for SSB. I am '''only''' providing the link on this talk page for others to verify the information for him/her self. Comprehend? [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 14:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

==[[:Deceased (disambiguation)]]==

----

[[Image:Information_icon.svg|left]]Hello, this is a message from [[User:Android Mouse Bot 2|an automated bot]]. A tag has been placed on [[:Deceased (disambiguation)]], by {{#ifeq:1|1|[[User:Salaskan|Salaskan]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Salaskan|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Salaskan|contribs]]),}} another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions|speedily deleted]] from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because [[:Deceased (disambiguation)]] fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: <br><center>'''now unnecessary, this dabpage contains only two entries. An appropriate hatnote has been added at [[death]] ([[deceased]] redirects to that page)'''</center><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting [[:Deceased (disambiguation)]], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at [[WP:WMD]]. Feel free to leave a message on the [[User talk:Android Mouse|bot operator's talk page]] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.''' --[[User:Android Mouse Bot 2|Android Mouse Bot 2]] 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is too long. May be it needs trimming..a suggestion..

''Anon..Alleged Vandal of Diamirza article''

== Shortcut templates ==

---

I'm not sure this is such a good idea. Why are you replacing shortcuts with templates? Just expand the shortcut to the full link. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

===A Reply to Mr Kazlev===

:The full link is fine, but if somebody does not want to type or copy the full name, a template is a solution to keep it readable. Also on talk pages.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 23:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr Kazlev,

== Fire sale ==

For someone who is watching the whole episode from outside, whatever you have said indeed reflects the state of affairs about this page.

I inserted mention of the fire sale in the Plot section and piped the link to the explanation on the Wikipedia article. Hope that works. I did consider the "see also" template to be out of place. —[[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) - 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, you need to look at the history of this page. You can go through how the article started, you can observe the links given, the links that were given to this page from other sites etc... An observation will clearly bring about light on the way this article was placed...

== TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Cod}}]]==

You will also understand how people who try to bring about some amount of factoid to the article (forget about being pro-SSB) has been virtually banned or suppressed.

[[Template:{{ucfirst:Cod}}]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#{{{2|Template:Cod}}}|the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> — [[User talk:Sl|<big>&#9993;</big> Hello World!]] 16:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was after the entry of people like SSS108 that the article started getting shaped up.