User talk:Andries/Werdnabot archive

Opus Dei: introvigne and schonborn

Hi Andries, I shortened the quote from Schonborn and added the following to the cult response part of the article.

As regards former members, Dr. Introvigne, in his presentation to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the House International Relations Committee in Washington DC, states that disgruntled former members who dramatically reverses their loyalties "are but a minority of the larger population of ex-members of any given religious minority, and should not, without further investigation, be considered as representative of ex-members in general." [1] Cardinal Schönborn states: "It is, however, unjustified, to present personal difficulties within a community as if they were a general experience."

Kindly check if you think it is fitting and fine with you. At least, this statement no longer generalizes on the "unreliability" of apostate testimony. It merely states that these testimonies are not representative of ex-members in general. This is an echo of the Schonborn statement from the sociological point of view. Marax 04:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

ANDRIES !!

Will you please join in at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Willmcw#Come_on , Willmc confirms that 64.81.88.140 is Jossi. Thomas h 08:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Well now he relativated it a bit, but in his eyes the entry done as an answer to me about UNA was from Jossi Thomas h 10:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the edits by Miljoshi...

Dear Andries, I have replied to your comments at [Talk:Guru]. Best Regards. Miljoshi 08:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Reender Kranenborg

I created a stub article for Reender Kranenborg. I could not find much info in English, so maybe you can expand. Just please do not add books that are not in the English language (these are listed in nl:Reender Kranenborg. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sergei Torop

Hi Andries, I changed your "merge from" tag to simply a "merge" tag. I would say both names Sergei Torop and Vissarion are equally known. So it might be better to use a "merge" tag first. But of course, I might be wrong :) Tell me what you think! 199.111.230.195 20:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point

Your now semi-hidden Wikipedia cult is just great for different reasons. Unfortunately it prevented me from pulling this card at Talk:List of purported cults, as a re-make wouldn't be that funny. My other two evidence URLs would have been [2] and [3]. --Pjacobi 23:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm

I'll wait a bit, maybe things will cool down, if they don't I'll unprotect it, but will be watching it closely to see if things get out of hand again. For now that's the best anyone can do. Happy editing!

Johann Wolfgang 23:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sant Mat

i recommend to read this [4], it is about the history of Sant Mat and sheds some light on the guru/god issue which is in it's definition not as common in India as purported by Cultists and supporters but reflects the "Guru is really God in person" behaviour as portrayed by ex-followers of Rawat Thomas h 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Truce

Peace is not something you wish for; It's something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away.

The holiday season is coming, let's get off each others back until after the New Year, shall we? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Another POV fork

You know, that the "outsourced" criticism articles on "cults" drive me mad. Whereas I've failed on other subjects, as the sheer amount of stuff strengthened the "splitters", I've trageted a new one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy.

Care to comment? Do have any reputable sources for criticism?

Pjacobi 15:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Wat mij betreft geen probleem. Opruimen was routine (alles ouder dan een maand krijgt sowieso niet heel veel aandacht op RFC). Radiant_>|< 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't have time for a lengthy analysis on a subject that I know little about. If RFC doesn't give additional opinions, try WP:3O or WP:RFM. Radiant_>|< 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your question

cp from User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters Andries needs to slow down with his advocacy against gurus andl leaders new religious movements. He finds a certain joy in grouping gurus and leaders of new religious movements with Hitler to the hope to assert the fallacy of guilt by association. This is at the core of the discussion at Charismatic authority, no more, no less. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not exactly the only one who recognizes the similarity from personal exerience. So does Eileen Barker (in an interview) "I remember when I first saw Reverend Sun Myung Moon. I was watching with some other people while he was talking and gesticulating in Korean, and it really reminded me more of Hitler than of anyone else." [5]But do not worry. I have no intention to write that in the article though because it is just an interview, not an article in a scholarly magazine. Andries 16:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes we all know how you feel. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. Read WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please specify where I broke that policy? Andries 17:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

You may have not "broken the policy" but you are surely using Wikipedia to advocate your point of view, as stated by you several times including recently on your own user page. The no advocacy policy of Wikipeddia is not designed to be navigated around to "avoid breaking it". WP:NOT is to be embraced as a concept, together with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. There is a big difference between these two. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

opposing an uncritical attitude towards cults and new religious movements within policies is not advocacy. Andries 20:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is time that the de facto project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cults_and_new_religious_movements is formally declared. At least we will then have a centralized place of discussion, and debate, especially about sources and Wikipedia:POV forks, list of cults etc. Regardless of the impression of what you have of me, it was and is never my intention to depict cults, gurus, and new religious movements more sinister that they really are or more sinister than supported by the sources. Andries 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have stated the obvious as depicted by your actions. It is all very transparent. As for the Wikipedia project you mention, I am not interested. Thanks anyway. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei: Validity of testimonies of former members

Dear Andries, I am trying to synthesize the different versions proposed so far regarding this topic:

• Your first one: Adherents of Opus Dei point in response to the accusations to the fact that several sociologists and religious scholars, like Wilson, treat the testimonies of critical former members with skepticism. In [6]

• Irmgard's (which you ok'd): Sociologist Bryan R Wilson discredits reports of former members as [apostates testimony], a view which is disputed among scholars and sociologists. See Apostates#Opinions about the reliability of apostates' testimony and their motivations.

• Thomas S. Major's development of Irmgard's: Reader Emeritus of Sociology of the University of Oxford, Bryan R. Wilson, a scientist admired by scholars world-wide but also opposed by some others, studied the phenomenon of a type of adult former members who "shows himself to have been first a victim" then "a redeemed crusader" and "whose personal history predisposes him to bias." Wilson states: "the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem." These, he says, "learn to rehearse an atrocity story,"

• Your latest version: Some prominent sociologists advocate in general skepticism towards the testimonies of critical former members of controversial religious movements while other sociologists disagree. See Controversy about the validity of the testimonies of critical members of religious movements

My latest proposal: While the topic of the validity of testimonies of former members of religious organizations is controversial, some prominent sociologists like Reader Emeritus of Sociology of the University of Oxford, Bryan R. Wilson, puts in doubt the testimonies of a type of critical former members. Wilson goes so far as to say, for example, that some of these adult members who are "prone to bias" sometimes "learn to rehearse an atrocity story." See Controversy about the validity of the testimonies of critical members of religious movements

My proposal tries to put together proposals. I think that Thomas' attempt to provide a quote is ok given the NPOV policy:

Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. [7]

Although I do agree that the quote has to put in proper context and nuance as you said in [8]: that Wilson although prominent and a very "reputable source" is quite extreme. Thus, my rendering: "he goes so far as to say."

I placed "put in doubt" rather than "generally advocates skepticism" because he specifies the type. He does not advocate skepticism for all apostates. There is more nuance in his statements, I think.

What do you think? Lafem 05:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-english sources

There is already an official Wikipedia policy about sources: WP:Verifiability: I quote:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources. For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper.

In cases where the original source material is not in English, and there is no English-language equivalent, there is a tension between accessibility and verifiability. Readers may not be able to read source materials in other languages, and therefore require translations into English so that they can read them. Editors need this too, so they can check that the source has been used correctly.

However, translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. Readers have to be able to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

• Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
• Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, they should include next to it the original-language quotation, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
• The original source in the original language should be cited, so that readers and editors can evaluate the reliability and credibility of the original source, can determine whether the original source was peer reviewed, and can verify that the article content is supported by the source material.

So, non-English sources are OK, within these parameters. If you want to change that official policy, the best way to do this is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with this policy that was only recently changed in this respect by Slim Virgin. Andries 09:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Policies are approved by the community at large, not by a sinmgle editor. If you disagree with any policy, you will have to go back to the community to raise your ooposition, not to start an advocacy group to push a POV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and charisma

The Charismatic authority page you linked to Adolf Hitler has text missing - you can see the gap where footnote 2 is marked. Perhaps you could fill the gap.--shtove 11:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Rodney Stark

I had never heard of him until I read the TNR article; and it does not encourage me to want to know more. But it belongs in any article. A URL for it can probably be found through http:\\www.thenewrepublic.com

Good luck, Septentrionalis 03:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Arnoud Engelfriet

Thank you for your note on my talk page. --Edcolins 14:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Witness accounts

If you have a problem with a witness account such as Mr. Singh's as it pertains to WP:V, please let me know so that we can then proceed to remove all personal accounts from the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. Ah, and when we are at it, let's proceed and delete all the witness accounts against your guru posted on anti-SSB websites such as the one you are a webmaster of, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

Hi, I am responding to a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Sathya_Sai_Baba initiated by Jossi (talk • contribs). The parties to the mediation would be SSS108 (talk • contribs), Thaumaturgic (talk • contribs) and Andries (talk • contribs). This would be an entirely voluntary mediation. I have no official status with Wikipedia, and I am not an admin. My only aim would be to assist in dispute resolution. Please let me know if you are willing to have me play the role of mediator by commenting at User:BostonMA/Mediation. --BostonMA 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for accepting me as a mediator on a trial basis. The other two editors have already raised a number of issues about which they have concerns. It would be helpful if you started a section on the mediation page which expresses some of the things you hope might come out of mediation. If you don't feel inclined to express your hopes for mediation, that is OK too, but in that case please let me know that it is OK to proceed without a statement from you. Thanks again. --BostonMA 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I added the following comment to mediation page. I am repeating it here, because I did some major reorganization, and I don't want this to get overlooked in the shuffle.

I am more interested in the answers to the two questions than I am in arguments that might be raised to support the particular numbers chosen. I am at fault for conveying the impression that I am more interested in the arguments which support those numbers than is the case at the moment. I think the arguments are important, but I really want to see the numbers soon, even if they are high and low limits that you have chosen merely because your gut says they are OK.

--BostonMA 23:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Because the main mediation page has grown so large, I have added a new page User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Nagel as source. Please use the page only for discussion of using Nagel as a source. I have given some of my opinions on the page already. Please give yours. It is my hope that editting work on the main article can proceed at the same time that specific issues, such as using Alexandra Nagel as a source are discussed. --BostonMA 03:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jossi is not officially a party to the mediation. However, Jossi appears to have strong concerns about the content of the SSB articles. It would seem formalistic to me not to include Jossi. Do you object? --BostonMA 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for moving the Nagel page. I hadn't noticed that I created it in the wrong space. --BostonMA 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a new page User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Use of Websites. Please continue to discuss matters on User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Nagel as source as well. --BostonMA 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have added two new pages. The first page is a Mediator Reminder Page. Occassionally, I will lose track of things to which I ought to respond, or upon which I ought to take action. This page is the place to give me reminders of such things. Please do not use this page for discussion. As I respond to the item of which you are reminding me, I will delete the reminder. So don't place anything on the page that you want kept. The second page is a Reminder Page for the Editors. Please put this page on your watchlist, and review it from time to time. Just as I do, editors may also lose track of items. Questions may be asked which are forgotten or the answers to these questions may not be clear to readers such as myself. I will place such questions on this page. Please do not edit this page at all. Just look at it. If I have included an item that you believe has already been addressed, just let me know on the Mediator Reminder Page. I've added larger links below for your convenience --BostonMA 03:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andries. It has now been 2 weeks. Please express whether you a willing to have me continue as mediator, by responding on the main mediation page. Thanks. --BostonMA 02:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andries. I have just left a note on SSB108's talk page which you should read. --BostonMA 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a new mediation page User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Implementation of Policies. Please express your agreement or disagreement to the opinion expressed on this page. --BostonMA 20:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a new question to User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Implementation of Policies. --BostonMA 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a new page User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Premanand as a Source. Please respond to the question(s) raised there. --BostonMA 17:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also added a new question at User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Implementation of Policies --BostonMA 23:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've added more to User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Premanand as a Source. --BostonMA 03:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a number of new questions, which can be accessed by clicking on the appropriate links at User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Reminders for Editors. If it is alright with you, I will just update the timestamp for this message whenver I add something new. --BostonMA 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dutch language Talk

I believe a message directed at you is waiting for an answer.

19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome and your work on Jim Jones! Ecto 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Hi Andries, I could have sworn I replied to your message — I remember exactly what I said — but either I forgot to click "send" or the server ate it. (I wonder which is more likely.) Thanks, anyway! I was very pleased to see your informative edit to the Lead of Prem Rawat, about the groups that the criticism came from. "Oh, look, great Lead now", I thought. "Everybody's gonna be happy." Ha ha, yeah. I guess I forgot to count those archives. Bishonen | talk 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

The Blondin Award

Charles Blondin

For your tireless efforts to introduce more balance in Prem Rawat, I hereby present you with the prestigious Blondin Tightrope Award, represented by this image of the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! bd2412 T 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to you

Hi Andries, I'm short of time these past days and so have not been able to reply to your message. Sorry but I'll get back to you. Hopefully next week. Best wishes. Lafem 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Andries. Here is an initial response to your note:

a) Wikipedia says we should report in proportion to the credibility of the expert. I think it is almost beyond dispute that Wilson is one of the most credible experts on this topic (0pus Dei is under the category of religious organization). Duheim and Zablocki could be mentioned only if their credibility is proportionate to Wilson, and if there are no limitations of space and due proportionality. But their position is not altogether absent in the article. John L. Allen, Jr., another highly credible writer, says that the differences in interpreting the same religious data "depends on one's basic approach to a religious vocation, family life, etc.". And in terms of space proportions, Allen's space is greater than Wilson's. b) General scientific statements of an expert in a field which has greater extension, and by the very philosophical definition of extension, general and science, could be applied to specifics. This is done in these specific subjects, as to Keynesian economics [9], John Dewey [10]. I am sure these experts did not specifically refer to these subjects but their theories are applied to them, because they meant their general scientific statements to be inductions from specifics and later applied to other specifics. c) I read Wilson's paper (but it was not from Scientology but from a human rights or freedom group). Wilson does not brand all defectors as producers of atrocity stories. It is only specific individuals who are. And I am sure you are not one of them. But I think it is important that the people learn from a world expert about these type of individuals, who are few but destructive. It will also protect you and me, if somebody who leaves Wikipedia, for example, one day portray us in a very bad light.

Let's see if this has helped. Lafem 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious anos

a suspicious anonymous edit. Should we roll back this invisible linkspam? ;-) -- Zanaq 13:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you verify this, please?

I received this via email by someone I do not know. Could you please verify that this is accurate? You have access to that book, right? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that Kranenborg wrote in 2002 that after the family rift, Maharaji continued independently, abandoned the divine trappings and claims about himself and began to present himself instead an humanitarian leader? Source: Kranenborg, Reender "Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland : een encyclopedisch overzicht", Kampen Kok cop. (2002), p.178 ISBN 9043504939. "Zij [Mata Ji, Prem Rawat moeder] onterfde hem spiritueel, in feite werd hij de beweging uitgezet. Maharaji ging zelfstandig verder, zij het met minder pretenties dan voorheen. Zo sprak hij sindsdien niet meer in goddelijke termen over zichzelf, maar noemde zich 'humanitarian leader'" (translation: "She [Rawat's mother, Mata ji] disinherited him spiritually. In fact, he was expelled from the movement. Maharaji continued on independently, with less claims than in the past, not speaking with divine terms about himself, but calling himself instead an 'humanitarian leader'"

So, did you manage to confirm this? The email stated that it was you that posted this reference in the former followers chatroom. If that is the case, then I am surprised that you chose not provide that information in the article itself. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I do not believe that you would forward only these cites from Kranenborg that support your POV, and hiding others that don't, and then accuse fellow editors of double-standards. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable

I will not tolerate personal attacks in which you accuse me of hypocrisy. If you don't like my edits, discuss them civilly. This is my last warning. Any further personal attacks from you will be reported to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Join me in opposing incivility and personal attacks

Please join me in keeping discussion within the civility that is expected and strongly opposing disparraging comments about editors either in our outside of Wikipedia. .

For example, these comments by Jim "Either this woman's an a**hole who's just trying to distort reality for some stupid reason or she's ignorant yet pompous to boot." and "As far as I'm concerned, Daniella's fake until proven otherwise.� She's certainly ignorant and offensive." are undoubtedly personal attacks and not acceptable. Period. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right that Jim did make this comment. I had not used the search function well. I will talk to Jim about this. Andries 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries your comment on the anti Prem Rawat forum (http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/3540.html) that "Wikipedia editors assert that 'Guru Maharaj ji is God' can refer to his father", is untrue and should be retracted.Momento 02:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to mediation questions

Hi Andries, please take some time to respond to the questions that were raised in mediation. The currently open questions may be easily found by clicking on the appropriate links here. --BostonMA 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

When are you going to provide arguments in the mediation instead of reverting a statement you can't fight normally, by debating? Are you somehow incompetent to this behaviour?

Read the above.

Sander 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

SSB Mediation

Andries, not to pressure you or anything, but I am interested in pursuing the mediation. You began to answer the questions on Premanand as a Source and then abruptly stopped. You have not given a reason for not answering the questions. If you are busy or delayed, I think it is only fair you let us know. If you don't want to answer the questions, just say so. The unanswered questions have been there since February 27th and we cannot move forward unless you participate. Thanks SSS108 ^talk-email 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andries. My working assumption is that you are still weighing your responses. However, it occurred to me that you might have missed my comment here. My own watch list is often busy, and I have more than once realized that something went by without me noticing at the time. If you have anything you would like to talk over with me, please feel free to let me know. --BostonMA 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please note that linking on your user page to "Andries Bias" webpage may be seen as a personal attack against me.

Anything can be seen as anything by dishonest people. Are you accusing me of mounting a personal attack against you? If not, you are wasting my time. — goethean ॐ 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to link to text backing up your accusation. — goethean ॐ 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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 03:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Defamatory" comment addressed: Talk Page: Personal Messages SSS108 ^talk-email 18:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

==Arbitration request==

I would like to inform about the Arbitration request concerning the long discussion on Talk:Dutch language.

[The link to the Arbitration request will follow soon, as I have to inform you before posting]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Sander_on_Talk:Dutch_language

Sander 10:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Andries. I'm sure you read the contributions of SSS108 and perhaps have my talk page on your watch list. So, it is not really necessary for me to tell you that SSS108 is considering filing a request for arbitration against you. I have noticed that your recent edits on SSB seem to be mostly in the right direction. I'm reluctant to put pressure on people when they seem to be trying to do the right thing. However, to be honest, there are several things that I would have brought to your attention eventually, and the fact that SSS108 is considering arbitration makes it seem appropriate to bring them up now, despite your recent good edits.

I have been somewhat disappointed that you have been so slow in responding to comments that I have made directly addressed to you. In the event that mediation continues, I hope that you will try to keep in touch more frequently.

There is a larger issue, however, that I would like to share my feelings about. I would like you to reconsider the answers that you gave to the questions about Premanand's article about inappropriate influence upon the judiciary. Neutral point of view is an a basic policy of Wikipedia. Good editors must be able to distinguish partisanship from a neutral point of view. The ability to recognize what constitutes credible evidence that a crime has been committed from cases where no such credible evidence has been presented, and the ability to recognize when authors are hiding insinuations by phrasing them as questions, these abilities are basic and essential for distinguishing a partisan source from a neutral source. There may be other editors who share your opinions of the Premanand article. However, I think a great many editors would take your answers as a sign of an inability to properly judge sources. I do not want you to be dishonest. If you are truly convinced of what you wrote, please let it remain. However, if on reconsideration you see your answers as unconvincing, I strongly urge you to strike out the comments you made and to change your statements to agree. Sincerely, --BostonMA 02:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Harold Klemp

As you've done some work on Eckankar articles, you might be interested in the suggestion at Talk:Harold Klemp. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Should I then add this?

• www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/sathya-sai-baba-wikipedia-bias.html Wikipedia Bias: Anti-Sai Bias On Wikipedia] Essay by a proponent accusing Wikipedia editors of bias.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to link to Moreno's main website as is already the case. Andries 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is critical of editors of Wikipedia by a non notable individual. It does not havfe a place in this encyclopedia and that same applies to your addition of Finch's essay. I am deleting it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please take a look at User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/www.saisathyasai.com and comment. --BostonMA 23:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Hiding talk 20:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies. Hiding talk 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Prem Rawat article

Andries, your bias is indisputable. Your postings on the anti Prem Rawat forum criticising Wikipedia editors are evidence enough. I will always correct your POV editing.Momento 04:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Old version of SSB article

Andries, could you explain why you reverted to a version of the SSB article that did not include the various changes that had been made during mediation (including changes made by you)? Thanks. --BostonMA 20:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC) My mistake. I apologize. --BostonMA 00:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jan van der Lans

I can't find record of the draft you speak of, but rewrite the article or head to deletion review. Good luck. Harro5 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Reminder of open question

Hi Andries, please remember that there is still an open question from 2 April 2006. --BostonMA 01:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Question Pending

Please answer this question SSS108 ^talk-email 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, I greatly apologize for my prolonged absense. It will take a bit for me to understand discussions which have taken place. Please let me know if there are issues that you feel are urgent to which I should attend first. Sincerely, BostonMA 22:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Request translation with regards to Sathya Sai Baba

THE FOLLOWING TEXT NEEDS TO BE TRANSLATED FROM DUTCH TO ENGLISH FOR THE SATHYA SAI BABA ARTICLE:

Please make corrections here User_talk:Andries/Translations_SSB_1

Welkom bij de club der rouwenden', e-mailt ex-Sai Baba-devotee (vereerder) Leo, aan nieuwe lotgenoten. Hij wil zijn naam niet in de krant. ,,Voor mij is het nu een week dat ik ex ben, en dat na elf jaar. Naar aanleiding van alle geruchten die hij hoorde, nam hij ondanks Sai Baba's verbod een kijkje op internet. ,,Schokkend was het. Ik kon het niet meer afdoen als een complot van negatieve krachten en teleurgestelde devotees. Hij is nu in de rouw. ,,Baba was niet alleen mijn vader en moeder maar ook de grondlegger van mijn wereldbeeld. Ik heb al zijn foto's verscheurd.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): Welcome to the club of the mourners, e-mails ex-Sai Baba devotee (worshipper) Leo, to his new fellow-sufferers. He does not want his name in the newspaper. "It has now been a week for me that I am an ex, and that after eleven years. Because of all the rumors that he heard and in spite of Sai Baba's prohibition, he took a look at the internet. "It was shocking. I could not dismiss it anymore as a conspiracy of negative forces and disappointed devotees. He is now mourning. "Baba was not only my father and mother but also the founder of my world view. I tore up all his pictures.

From Dutch original in Trouw newspaper, 6 September 2000 under the title "De ondergang van een goeroe, Sai Baba"translation by the Dutch American Ella Evers is here The Downfall of a guru, Sai Baba

---

Honderden Nederlandse gelovigen hebben net als hij de afgelopen maanden hun Sai Baba-foto's van de muren gescheurd en zijn boeken weggegooid. Het aantal getuigenissen op internet groeit, van gewone aanhangers, maar ook van 'hooggeplaatsten' die Sai Baba goed kennen. Steevast trok de swami hun broek omlaag en betastte hun geslachtsdelen. Sommigen werden gedwongen tot orale seks. Wie Sai Baba onder vier ogen mag ontmoeten is een geluksvogel. Duizenden moeten genoegen nemen met de vluchtige aanblik van de godheid wanneer hij de zegen geeft.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): Hundreds of Dutch believers have, just like him torn their Sai Baba pictures off the wall and threw away his books. The number of testimonies on the internet is growing, from rank and file adherents, but also from 'highly placed persons' who know Sai Baba well. Invariably the swami pulled their trousers down and felt up their genitals. Some were forced to oral sex. Whom can meet Sai Baba in private is a lucky one. Thousands have to be satisfied with a brief sight of the deity when he gives the blessing.

From Dutch original in Trouw newspaper, 6 September 2000 under the title "De ondergang van een goeroe, Sai Baba"translation by the Dutch American Ella Evers is here The Downfall of a guru, Sai Baba

---

De mythisch-sociologische connectie tussen Sai Baba en de god Shiva is hiermee voor een belangrijk deel uitgelegd. Rest de erotische component van Shiva in relatie te brengen met Sai Baba. Swallow wijst o.m. op Sai Baba's artistieke verschijning in het verleden (Baba danste en zong) en zijn uiterlijk. Baba's voorkomen vertoont eerder vrouwelijke dan mannelijke trekken, en zijn uitstraling is een mengeling van erotiek en ascetisme. Over de wijze waarop Sai Baba het nieuwe tijdperk in gang zal zetten, meent Swallow dat Sathya Sai Baba dit middels eigen rituelen doet, maar dat daarbij "de sexuele beeldspraak verborgen is en aangepast is aan de gevoeligheden van zijn vrij preutse toehoorders."

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE):The mythical-sociological relation between Sai Baba and the deity Shiva has been explained with this to a great extent. What remains is to relate the erotic component of Shiva to Sai Baba. Swallow points among others at Sai Baba artistic figure in the past (Baba danced and sang) and his looks. Baba's appearance shows more female than male traits, and his aura is a mix of eroticism and asceticism. With regards to the way by which Sai Baba will get the new age going, Swallow holds the opinion that he will do this through his own rituals, but that in addition "the sexual metaphors are hidden and adapted to the sensitivities of his rather prudish listeners."

from Dutch original by Alexandra Nagel under the title "De Sai Paradox" from "Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland", 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29 published by the Free University of Amsterdam press Not translated into English until now.

---

Middels deze laatste opmerking wordt aannemelijk waarom Sai Baba's sexuele handelingen zoals Brooke en Ord ze naar voren hebben gebracht, grotendeels onder de oppervlakte zijn gebleven: het merendeel van zijn devotees is niet open genoeg om de symboliek te kunnen begrijpen of te accepteren. Totaal onduidelijk is evenwel of Swallow kennis heeft genomen van Sai Baba's handelingen met jongemannen en zijn tweeslachtigheid. Uit de wijze waarop zij Baba als een incarnatie van Shiva heeft geportretteerd, zou afgeleid kunnen worden dat ze het niet meer dan normaal of passend zou vinden dat die gebeurtenissen plaatsvinden. Want Baba toont in de privé-omgeving zijn kant van 'opperste geliefde' en combineert dit bovendien met Shiva-Shakti, de man-vrouw vorm. Baba is letterlijk de levende lingam in de yoni. Aan de buitenwereld toont Baba zijn andere kant, die van 'asceet', van de goeroe die sexualiteit als een functioneel gebeuren uitlegt om als soort te blijven voortbestaan.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): With this last remark it becomes plausible why Sai Baba's sexual acts, as Brooke and Ord told them, have been largely remained under the surface: the majority of the devotees is not open enough to understand the symbolism or to accept it. It is totally unclear whether Swallow knew about Sai Baba's acts with young men and his hermaphrodism. From the way in which she portrayed Baba as an incarnation of Shiva, one could infer that she would have found it normal and appropriate that those events take place. Because Baba shows in his private surroundings his side of the 'supreme lover' and in addition combines this with Shiva-Shakti, the male-female form. Baba is literally the living lingam in the yoni. To the outside world Baba shows his other side, that of the 'ascetic', of the guru who explains sexuality as a functional thing to persist as a species.

from Dutch original by Alexandra Nagel under the title "De Sai Paradox" from "Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland", 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29 published by the Free University of Amsterdam press Not translated into English until now.

---

Bij elk nieuw stuk kwam een net iets ander aspect met betrekking tot de goeroe naar voren. Vroon verwees bijv. naar de Indiër Basava Premanand, die al jaren druk doende is Sai Baba te ontmaskeren als avatar. Twee dagen na het verschijnen van de IKON-documentaire vertelde Premanand in het praatprogramma van Karel de Graaf, dat Baba betrokken is bij duistere praktijken als goud- en juwelensmokkel en belastingontduiking.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): With each new piece a slightly different apect with regards to the guru emerged. For example, Vroon referred to the Indian Basava Premanand who has been busy for years to expose Sai Baba as an avatar. Two days after the appearance of the IKON documentary Premanand told in the talk show of Karel de Graaf that Baba is involved in shady affairs, such as gold and jewellery smuggling and tax evasion.

from Dutch original by Alexandra Nagel under the title "De Sai Paradox" from "Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland", 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29 published by the Free University of Amsterdam press Not translated into English until now.

---

Na dit Gurupurnima festival steeg Sai Baba's aanzien en bekendheid verder. Tempels werden voor hem gebouwd in Bombay, Hyderabad en Madras. Er trokken Engelsen, Australiërs en Amerikanen naar hem toe. De boeken die van hen over Baba verschenen zorgden tezamen met Baba's reis naar Oost-Afrika ervoor dat hij mondiaal gezien naam begon te maken. En nog altijd lijkt het aantal mensen dat naar hem toegaat toe te nemen. De schatting van de huidige omvang volgelingen, veelal 'devotees' genoemd, loopt flink uiteen.23 Ruwweg wordt het geschat op 50 miljoen, uit allerlei lagen van de bevolking en verdeeld over de hele wereld, doch het merendeel afkomstig uit India zelf. Het Nederlandse Sathya Sai Baba Nieuws heeft een oplage van circa 2800 bladen; in alle grote steden in ons land worden Sai Baba-erediensten en studie-bijeenkomsten gehouden en jaarlijks reizen groepen naar Puttaparthi om een poos in zijn ashram te verblijven.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): After this gurupurnima festival Sai Baba's standing and reputation increased further. Temples were built for him in Bombay, Hyderabad, and Madras. English, Australians, and Americans went to him. The books that appeared by them about Baba led, together with Baba's journey to East-Africa to a world wide reputation. And the number of people that goes to him still seems to increase. The estimate of the current size of his followers, who are often called 'devotees', vary quite a lot. 23 Roughly it is estimated at 50 million from all layers of sociey and dispersed over the whole world, though the majority from India itself. The Dutch Sathya Sai Baba Nieuws has a circulation of 2,800 magazines: in all big cities in our country Sai Baba services and study circles are held and yearly groups travel to Puttaparthi to stay some time in his ashram.

from Dutch original by Alexandra Nagel under the title "De Sai Paradox" from "Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland", 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29 published by the Free University of Amsterdam press Not translated into English until now.

---

Beyerstein (1992:3) schat het aantal op 6 miljoen; Riti & Theodore (1993:31) op 30 miljoen, Sluizer (1993:19) heeft het over 70 miljoen en Van Dijk (1993:30) over "tussen de 50 en 100 miljoen."

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): Beyerstein (1992:3) estimates the number to be 6 million; Riti & Theodore (1993:31) to be 30 million, Sluizer (1993:19) writes about 70 million and Van Dijk (1993:30) about "between 50 and 100 milllion."

from Dutch original by Alexandra Nagel under the title "De Sai Paradox" from "Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland", 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29 published by the Free University of Amsterdam press Not translated into English until now.

---

Voor een scepticus is het beschreven gedrag van Baba juist een bewijs dat Baba nìet alwetend is.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): The described behavior by Baba is for a skeptic evidence that Baba is not omniscient.

from Dutch original by Alexandra Nagel under the title "De Sai Paradox" from "Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland", 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29 published by the Free University of Amsterdam press Not translated into English until now.

---

In feite zijn de visies pro-, anti- en neutraal-Baba door de publiciteit meer gemeengoed geworden. De tegenstrijdigheden van en rondom Baba zijn extremer aan het licht gekomen, want in wezen bestonden ze voordien ook al, zij het meer gevoelsmatig. Degenen die niet in wonderen of iets dergelijks geloven, trokken bij voorbaat Baba's kunsten in twijfel, maar hebben nu troeven in handen gekregen in de vorm van daadwerkelijke bewijzen en namen van mensen die Baba's bedrog trachten aan te tonen.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): In fact, the views pro-, anti-, and neutral-Baba have become more common by the publicity. The contradictions of and about Baba have emerged more extreme, because they were already there in essence, though more instinctively. Whoever does not believe in miracles or something similar questioned Baba's tricks in advance, but they are now supported in the form real proofs and names of people who try to prove Baba's fraud.

from Dutch original by Alexandra Nagel under the title "De Sai Parodox" from "Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland", 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29 published by the Free University of Amsterdam press Not translated into English until now.

---

Alexandra (30) heeft haar bedenkingen, maar ze zou het vervelend vinden wanneer haar ervaringen alleen maar negatief zouden worden uitgelegd. Aarzelend komt het er uit: in '89 was zij drie maanden in de ashram van Sai Baba. Zij kwam er ook onder de indruk wat zij daar meemaakte en voelde zich zelfs een devotee worden. Maar uiteindelijk ging zij er geheel in de war vandaan en had zij enige tijd nodig om haar evenwicht te hervinden. Hoewel zij het niet graag vertelt vindt ze ook dat ze niets te verbergen heeft: een vriend met wie zij in de ashram is opgetrokken heeft heel vreemde ervaringen opgedaan met de godmens. Ja, inderdaad, op seksueel gebied. We kunnen het hem beter zelf vragen.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): Alexandra (30) has her objections, but would be unhappy if her experiences would only be explained in a negative way. Hesitant she tells her story: in '89 she was three months in the ashram of Sai Baba. She became impressed by what she experienced there and she even felt that she became a devotee. But finally she went away totally confused and she needed some time to find back her balance. Although she does not like to tell so, she also thinks that she has nothing to hide: a friend with whom she was associated in the ashram has had very strange experiences with the godman. Yes, indeed, related to sexuality. We had better ask him himself.

from Dutch original by Piet van der Eijk under the title "De Wonderdoener" in the magazine HP/De Tijd, dated 31/1/1992, pages. 46-50, not translated into English until now.

---

Keith, (26), vertelt dat Sai Baba hem zei, toen hij was uitverkoren voor een persoonlijke ontmoeting, dat hij teveel aan de meisjes dacht. Maar op een volgende gelegenheid ging Baba verder. "Onverhoeds trok hij mijn broek naar beneden en probeerde hij mij seksueel op te winden. Hij nam mijn hand en legde het op zijn geslachtsorgaan. Toen merkte ik dat Sai Baba tweeslachtig was: niet dat hij half-vrouw half-man was, geen hermafrodiet, nee, van het ene ogenblik op het andere veranderde hij van man in vrouw, compleet met de geslachtsorganen die daarbij horen. Vraag me niet hoe dat kan, maar ik heb het zo ervaren. Het moet ook een soort wonder zijn. Kennelijk leeft Sai Baba toch op een ander niveau dan gewone stervelingen." Dit is wat Keith Ord ons vertelt en wij geven het maar door.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): Keith, (26), tells that when he had been chosen for a personal meeting, Sai Baba said to him that he thought too much about girls. But on a next occasion Baba went further. "Suddenly he pulled down my trousers and he tried to excite me sexually. He took my hand and put it on his genitals. Then I noticed that Sai Baba was a hermaphrodite: not that he was half-female half-male, not a hermaphrodite, no, from one moment on the other he changed from male into female, completely with the genitals that belong to it. Do not ask me how this is possible, but I have experienced it this way. It must be some sort of miracle too. Obviously Sai Baba still lives at a another level than mere mortals." This is what Keith Ord tells us and we only convey what he said.

from Dutch original by Piet van der Eijk under the title "De Wonderdoener" in the magazine HP/De Tijd, dated 31/1/1992, pages. 46-50, not translated into English until now.

---

Keith Ord: "Toen Baba mijn ontsteltenis zag zei hij dat ik niet hoefde te schrikken, want dat ook dit goddelijk was. In grote verwarring ben ik toen naar mijn kamer teruggegaan. Het heeft drie weken geduurd voordat ik er met enkele vrienden die ik daar had ontmoet, onder wie Alexandra, over durfde te praten. Een van de vrienden vertrok na mijn verhaal hals over de kop: hij had exact hetzelfde meegemaakt, inclusief de opmerking van Baba dat dit goddelijk was." Keith ging op onderzoek uit en kreeg van een tiental mannen en jongens te horen dat zij erover konden meepraten. Ze hadden het aanvaard vanuit de gedachte dat ook een godmens niets menselijks vreemd hoeft te zijn, inclusief seksualiteit.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): Keith Ord: "When Baba saw my dismay he said that I should not be frightened, because this was divine too. In great confusion I then went back to my room anyway. It took three weeks before I dared to talk about it with some friends that I had met there, including Alexandra. One of my friends left after my story in a hurry; he had experienced exactly the same, including the remark by Baba that this was divine." Keith then started to investigate matters and heard from about ten men and boys that they knew a thing or two about it. They had accepted it based on the thought that a godman can be a mere human too, including sexuality.

from Dutch original by Piet van der Eijk under the title "De Wonderdoener" in the magazine HP/De Tijd, dated 31/1/1992, pages. 46-50, not translated into English until now.

---

Maar zelf is Keith door die gebeurtenis wel uit het lood geslagen. Hij geloofde in Sai Baba, ook in het feit dat hier sprake was van een god in mensengedaante. En dan ineens die nogal agressieve, ongewenste seksuele intimiteit. Hij kon het niet rijmen, "Na enkele weken van innerlijke strijd heb ik met Sai Baba gebroken. Ik realiseer me dat hij huichelt. Hij predikt dat seks alleen mag dienen voor de voortplanting en dat al het andere energieverspilling is van energie en alleen maar de lagere instincten voedt. Dit is wat hij zegt, maar achter gesloten deuren doet hij dan zoiets. Hij spreekt met dubbele tong en dat kan niet voor een godmens. Bovendien maakt hij misbruik van zijn positie."

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE): But Keith himself was thrown off his balance by this event. He had faith in Sai Baba, including in the fact that here we are talking about a god in human form. And then suddenly this aggressive undesired sexual intimacy. He could not reconcile it. "After some weeks of internal struggle I broke with Sai Baba. I realized that he behaves hypocritically. He preaches that sex should only be for procreation and that everything else is a waste of energy and only feeds the lower instincts. This is what he says, but behind closed doors, he does something like this. He speaks with a double tongue and this inappropriate for a godman. Apart from this, he abuses his position. "

from Dutch original by Piet van der Eijk under the title "De Wonderdoener" in the magazine HP/De Tijd, dated 31/1/1992, pages. 46-50, not translated into English until now.

Seeing as this is your talk page and not an article, should I make my corrections to your translation here or somewhere else? Kimberley Verburg 13:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Kimberly, many thanks for your offer to correct the translations for neutrality and accuracy. Please make corrections here User_talk:Andries/Translations_SSB_1 Andries 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sincere Apology

Andries, I sincerely apologize for my absense from Wikipedia and the mediation process. Unfortunately, other obligations have been pressing me. I feel that this point I should state that I cannot promise a return to the process in any reasonable time frame, and I will have to suggest that the parties seek another mediator or some other means of dealing with the remaining issues. Although I believe that progress was made through the mediation, I also understand that the conflict has not been fully resolved, and I apologize for what feels to me as abandoning the parties. I wish it could be otherwise. Sincerely, --BostonMA 16:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

New Request For Mediation

Andries, please see the new Request For Mediation SSS108 ^talk-email 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please take a look At This. If you are still considering editing the Sathya Sai Baba Article with your proposed edits, which I find unacceptable, then you need to let me know if you are willing to accept mediation or not. I will have to relist it, as the previous request was removed because you did not agree to it by signing it. Leave your response on my talk page. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

I can only say that I managed to do a lot of work in Wikipedia (and not on the Prem Rawat article) while you were gone, and that I enjoyed that quite a lot. Hope that your return finds you rested, and that your contibutions to Wikipedia will be not only on that article and the article about your ex-guru. I can assure you that there is a lot of pleasure to be derived from editing other articles as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link question

Hi Andries,

I am fairly new to Wikipedia.

I received the following message from you: "Please read the policies and guidelines for creating a new article, otherwise you may be creating another article that may be deleted. Andries 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to say that all books by or about Prabhupada have no place in Wikipedia. For example, I voted to keep the Bhagavad Gita As It Is which is a notable book. Andries 11:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)"

I created a page for the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, because I feel that it adds a valid perspective on some of the issues associated with succession in the Hare Krishna movement.

I am not sure if it is the content of my page that is not okay, or if there is something in the wording that is not seen as ok.

More info on the book can be found here:

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html

My goal is not to make an "advertisement" for the book, but rather to add information that I think is important for understand the issues of succession and initiation.--AlexandreJ 11:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, thank you for the further clarification, and the information about Amazon ranking. For the Wikipedia Google test, is there an approximate minimum number of yielded results that would, in your view, be sufficient in this instance to strengthen the case for possible notability?--AlexandreJ 12:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, if I modified the page in such a way that it would be about the Prominent Link (henceforth PL) model of initiation...the general paradigm...as opposed to specifically about the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, would this make a stronger case for allowing the page to remain?--AlexandreJ 12:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, thanks for your response. One of the reasons that I see the book as important, is that it provides an additional perspective on initiation/succession, rather than "Ritvik" vs. the ISKCON organization. The book also includes contributions from a number of persons who are, or were, in positions of prominence within the ISKCON organization. In addition to this, it is the first time that I have come across a major statement on initiation/succession in Srila Prabhupada's movement presented as exploratory rather than as supposedly conclusive.--AlexandreJ 16:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on my experience and observation of the followers Srila Prabhupada, over the past 10 years, issues and controversies related to initiation and succession seem to be one of the major sources of conflict. The book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link seems to me to provide a different way of looking at a number of these issues. The book includes contributions from persons who are, or were at one time, in positions of prominence in the ISKCON organization. In my ten years of reading, it is the first time that I have seen a major statement on initiation/succession in the tradition of Srila Prabhupada presented as exploratory rather than as supposedly conclusive. I believe that being aware of the additional perspective that the book presents will allow readers to draw a more informed and complete understanding of the issues.--AlexandreJ 16:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Andries, the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (PL) has created substantial waves. The Governing Body Commission of ISKCON, directly and through it's Sastric Advisory Council (SAC), has devoted much energy to addressing it, including a major paper dealing with the issues raised in PL. The SAC's paper can be downloaded here:

http://www.dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads/SACRespo_FINAL.doc

There is an active, dynamic PL conference sparking much thought on issues of succession in Srila Prabhupada's movement. Thousands of persons associated with the ISKCON organization, and with other parts of Srila Prabhupada's movement, are affected by the ideas in PL.

I'm not sure who first suggested that the PL Wikipedia page be deleted. I'm not sure if it was you, or if it was someone else, perhaps a member of the ISKCON organization. I am open to the possibility that whoever first suggested that it be deleted was not doing it for any political reasons. Based on ten yeas of contact with the ISKCON organization, and based on my experience of how the leadership of the ISKCON organization has responded to the book, I am also open to the possibility that some devotees who post on Wikipedia might wish to silence the ideas presented in the PL book.--AlexandreJ 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Below is a list of articles related to the book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, taken from a number of Vaisnava websites:

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0208/ET15-7499.html

http://www.vnn.org/world/WD0202/WD05-7141.html

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0303/ET29-7938.html

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0302/ET05-7782.html

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0303/ET27-7933.html

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0302/ET07-7790.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun11_06.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succMar23_03.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succMar08_03_01.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/BMJun06_06.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succNov05_03.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/BMMay30_06.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun18_03_03.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun10_03.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succMay10_03.html

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succMay31_03.html

http://harekrsna.com/sun/sunblogs/archives/00000051.htm

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=2729&pid=29291&mode=threaded&show=&st=&

http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/03/023.html

http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent1.mp3

http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent2.mp3

http://www.b-i-f.com/Letter%20from%20Dhira%20Govinda%20Das.htm

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:hKAc8p6vTbMJ:acaryopasanam.blogspot.com/2005/01/he-is-living-still-in-sound.html+%22srila+prabhupada%22+%22prominent+link%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=39

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/07-06/editorials552.htm

The following excerpt, available at a cached link, gives one an example of how some leaders within the ISKCON organization have responded to the PL book, seemingly misrepresenting it, and painting the book as something hostile and/or subversive:

"The covert ritvik propaganda presented in the book 'Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link' by Dhira Govinda dasa. Much energy is required by this ministry to combat the erroneous philosophy being presented by a person highly placed within ISKCON leadership. This is further compounded by the fact that Dhira Govinda widely conducts seminars which supposedly teach psychological and spiritual well-being but ultimately result in anti-ISKCON mentality among the students. One can observe the mood of Bhaktin Miriam as she publicly condemns the GBC for disapproving of The Prominent Link. And she is in charge of organizing Dhira Govinda's seminars in New York."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:4jrdjCz8P4MJ:vaisnavacaledar.info/iskcon_ministries/9+%22srila+prabhupada%22+%22prominent+link%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30

--AlexandreJ 04:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some excerpts from a section of the PL book, entitled 'Support for PL and Apprehension to Express It', written by Dhira Govinda dasa:

"Typical comments that I’ve received, at places like ISKCON leadership meetings and Sunday Feast programs, from devotees serving in all capacities within Srila Prabhupada’s movement, including top-level leaders in ISKCON, include statements, delivered in hushed tones, such as 'I really liked your paper, The Prominent Link. You wrote just what I’ve been thinking for many years.' Concurring with the statements of Ambarisa Prabhu and Balavanta Prabhu in the Foreword and Preface, many Vaisnavas emphasize the straightforward common sense of the concepts in PL."

(...)

"Many devotees have expressed disappointment and sadness that these principles have been neglected and overlooked by the leadership of ISKCON.

"Tones tend to be hushed in such conversations due to an apprehension that expression of such views is discouraged in the organization, and that such expressions would incur the disfavor of members and leaders of the institution. There is a perceived culture of fear and repression in the ISKCON organization, masked by a pretense of openness to frank discussion of issues.

"Ostensibly ISKCON wants innovative, thoughtful members who boldly apply their intelligence, within the framework of guru, sastra and sadhu, for gaining a deeper understanding of devotional principles. In practice, as experienced by many, if one does not conform to the organizational line on issues such as those addressed in PL, then the institutional leadership, without rational discussion or genuine attempt at understanding, often condemns the dissenter and discourages members of the organization to honestly look at issues from unorthodox perspectives. The implied message is 'We have already thoroughly considered these issues. So you needn’t apply your intelligence here, because we’ve thought it through for you.' Such a stance is unlikely to attract and retain independently thoughtful members. There is in the organization a veneer of broad-mindedness, accompanied by an implicit assertion that views such as those espoused in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link are not to be found amongst persons in good-standing in the organization. If someone in the organization advocates such convictions, they are then branded and condemned, and pressured to leave the institution. Once they have left, it is again safe for the leadership to declare to the members that no one in good-standing would hold such views as expressed in essays such as The Prominent Link, and anyone who thinks that way is deviant, and so you’d do better to not even consider thinking in that way.

"Authoritarian dynamics, wherein the leadership is fearful of permitting subordinates to analyze and discern for themselves, may be somewhat prevalent in today’s religious institutions, but they are not conducive for Vaisnava society or relationships. Such reluctance to allow members to fully utilize their cognitive faculties may stem to a substantial degree from a benevolent desire to protect. The ISKCON organization may also benefit, however, from introspectively looking at other motivations for this authoritarianism, such as fear that members, upon analysis of facts from an alternative perspective, may realize that they are being, in some ways, misled.

"We understand that this imperious leadership style is not extant throughout the organization, but it is manifest with sufficient regularity and pervasiveness that many, perhaps most, of Srila Prabhupada’s followers, both inside and outside the institution, feel alienated and stifled. Thus, for the purpose of attracting and maintaining satisfied, intelligent members, it is, we believe, imperative for ISKCON leadership, especially at the top levels, to seriously assess its mode of addressing issues and concerns. As Balavanta writes in the Preface to PL, spiritual matters in Srila Prabhupäda’s society must be resolved through 'open and frank discussion amongst mature devotees whose voices are not suppressed.'

"Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link provides an opportunity for the movement to integrate and incorporate a new, attractive, and sastrically sound paradigm for carrying Srila Prabhupada’s legacy deep into the future. It is the opinion of many, including this author, that ISKCON needs to reexamine its paradigms, with fearless detachment, on issues including the guru issue, to avoid remaining a relatively insignificant cult, and to become a substantial player in the institutions of society at large. We understand that there are many fears, ranging from loss of important personal relationships to loss of legal battles, associated with implementation of the PL model. We contend with confidence that Srila Prabhupada’s movement possesses the strength to handle the challenges that will arise with the PL paradigm, and that the movement will undoubtedly be strengthened by accommodating and encouraging the PL model." --AlexandreJ 05:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

New Mediation Request 2

Since you said you would accept the intervention of mediation, I made another request: Mediation Regarding The Sathya Sai Baba Article SSS108 ^talk-email 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Talk:Sikhism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

This block will expire in twenty-four hours. To contest the block, add {{unblock}} to your talk page (which I will have watchlisted) or e-mail me. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Recent Edits

Regarding some of Andries recent edits:

Ref: POV Pushing On The Guru Article

Ref: Citing Original Research Even After Mediation Resolution

Ref 3 Revert Rule Lie

Ref Complete Distortion Of Facts Regarding Deutsch Reference

SSS108 ^talk-email 00:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediaton Request: Sathya Sai Baba 2

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case relating to the above article. First thing that we need to decide is what format the mediation should take. I would recommend carrying out the mediation on Wikipedia, specifically [[11]]. If you have any objection to using Wikipedia, then please let me know. One other thing, if you plan to take a Wikibreak in the next week or so, or know that you will not be around much could you pleaes let me know. --Wisden17 12:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well technically yes and no. The parties may reject the mediator but if it is a member of the MedCom then this can be taken as the mediation as having failed and the case can then be taken to RfAr. Obviously a mediation cannot take place if parties do not agree to the mediator. However, it is my understanding that no member of the MedCom has ever been rejected as a mediator in a case. You don't appear to have answered my initial question about what format you would like the mediation to take. Is Wikipedia ok for you? --Wisden17 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel I need to explain my position a bit more as you appear not to understand my role. I am a member of the Mediation Committee and as such am an official mediator on Wikipedia. I am not filling the same role as a mediator who takes a mediation thorugh the Mediation Cabal, or who simply volunteers. With this in mind it is important to understand how the mediator's role in Wikipedia. Whilst you may not wish to have me as the mediator this will lead to a lengthening in what appears to have been a long-running issue. I hope I can work with you in bringing this matter to a state where both parties are happy with the outcome. If you need to contact me you may e-mail me as well as leaving a message on my talk page. --Wisden17 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I much rather we waited until you've finished your wikibreak to begin the mediation. I shall ask Essjay to move to back to pending. If this is seen as a delaying tactic then the case may well be classed as having failed and a RfAr may be filled. --Wisden17 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries contribs proves he has been very active on Wikipedia and is not on a wikibreak. I see this as a delaying tactic. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Should I spend all my time and contribution on mediation? I do not think so. Again, I have never been a single purpose contributor and refuse to become one. Andries 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify two things:a) how long will you be on a wikibreak, and b) what is the nature of this wikibreak as you appear to still be editing? --Wisden17 16:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wisden17, it is abundantly clear that Andries is not interested or dedicated to the mediation process despite his former commitment to participate in mediation (he even signed the request within a few minutes of its submission: Reference). Although Andries was willing to agree to mediation, he is now refusing to state whether or not he accepts you as a mediator and refuses to state why he is not giving an answer. Now Andries is claiming that he does want to contribute his time to mediation and is on a wikibreak. Wisden17, you specifically asked both parties (Andries and myself) to inform you if either of us were going on wikibreak and Andries did not give you an answer. Now, however, after repeatedly asking Andries to give an answer regarding mediation, he is claiming he is on wikibreak. From the 16th (when you informed Andries that you were the mediator) to today, Andries has made no less than 76 edits (mostly on the Guru and Sathya Sai Baba articles) and refuses to answer why he won't accept you as a mediator. I think this type of behavior proves that Andries is not committed to mediation and I would like for you to inform me how to proceed with arbitration. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your "type of behavior," SSS108 is controlling and out of line. You don't get to make demands on people just because you feel like it. Who died and left you boss of the article? What's with you Wikipedians, anyway? You browbeat someone like Andries, who is always civil and polite, and then you further set forth rules, regulations, and time limits on them as if you can actually control others' lives. If Andries wants to take a break from the mediation of the SSB article, that's his right to decide, even if he decides he wants to edit other articles. And you have absolutely no right to smear him on his own talk page like this, making accusations. this is a website, after all. And someone ought to block you for the personal attacks against Andries, or hasn't any administrator noticed this yet??? It also wouldn't hurt the "mediation process" if you knocked off your snottiness, too, SSS108, because that isn't showing any real willingness to be rational and level headed, plus, it obviously rude and shows your distain for Andries. A lot. Sheesh, have a little patience, the SSB article has been there and will be there a long time. Apologies to Andries for my little rant here, but something needed to be said.  :-) Sylviecyn 13:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a dispute between these two people that obviously have been having a really hard time moving forward with this long dispute. It does not need your commentary, as it does not help it whatsoever. In fact, I would argue that it does not help Andries a bit, if that was your intention. Please let the dispute resolution take its course, without pouring more oil on the fire. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is amusing that Sylviecyn (i.e. Cynthia) comes forward to defend Andries. Sylviecyn (i.e. Cynthia) vehemently attacks Jossie on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum and ceaseless sucks-up to Andries. Far be it for Sylviecyn, of all people, to give me advice against rudeness and disdain! Sylviecyn, your words are worthless :-) SSS108 ^talk-email 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jossi (you're so predictable!) :-) is there a rule somewhere that I broke? If not, I'm quite sure you'll write one very soon just for me. You have a habit of changing the Wiki policies to suit the goals of your subject's advertorials here on Wiki. Meanwhile, please mind your own business Jossi, this isn't your talk page and I wasn't addressing you and you're not my hall monitor either. Again, please stop stalking me around this website, it's getting downright creepy. SSS108, you're still being quite rude, but your reaction to me is pretty funny, too. Do you actually think that by mentioning my real name here with a link to an off-Wiki forum, that your attempt at intimidation is actually scaring me? Do you and Jossi email each other while you stalk Andries and myself around the internet looking for excuses to block us if we write things you don't like about your Gurus/Teachers/Avatars?

Your response to me is inappropriate and mean-spirited, SSS108. Are you calling me an ex-premie, an ex-cult member?  :-) I cannot believe you get away with this behavior here. Well, it's obvious now that Wikipedia has become a free-for-all for "NRM" leaders and their adherents on Wikipedia That's thanks in part the rewrite of the Living Bios article. Based on that, Wikipedia ought to now simply put up a welcome notice on the main page: "Calling all NRM Leaders! Free Advertorials for you here on Wikipedia now! Write whatever you want about yourselves, we'll allow it, publish and link to it! No critics need apply." But, SSS108 What you've really done is try to make me "guilty by association" and that's definitely not NPOV or civil or a decent thing to do to anyone. Btw, (lol!) I've never once sucked up to anyone in my life, except Prem Rawat -- definitely not Andries. (I've got a big smile on my face over that remark!) Actually, I'm one person who's been confrontational with Andries on the forum which you linked here (not me, and I hope everyone reading notes that). Talk about being polemic and extreme. But, Andries is always a very civil and fair-minded person, and that should be noted by any Wiki mediators, administrators, and other Wikipedia-big-wigs, because anyone writing those living bio articles, e.g. Prem Rawat or Sai Babba, etc., that are pro the subject, will talk till they're blue in the face trying to convince others that they have no POV. That's great laugh for the end of a wonderful week for me. Hey all, have a good weekend. I'll leave you all to this very serious business of yours.  :-) Sylviecyn 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, I do not know whether your real name is "cynthia" or not. It happens to be the name you use on the Prem Rawat Forum, which is the reason I mentioned it (so others can see the type of posts you make there). It appears that the only person talking herself blue in the face is you. Reread my last post and place particular emphasis on the last sentence. Have a nice day :-) SSS108 ^talk-email 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! bd2412 T 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RFA

An RFA involving you has been filed: Here SSS108 ^talk-email 17:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andries, despite I judge some of your moves rather strange (i.e., the citing policy incident), I consider you to be one of most constructive and sober members of the "anti-cult-fighters" here. If the RfAr passes I can testify to this. But perhaps we can just scale down this to a user conduct RfC. --Pjacobi 10:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

English draughts

As you indicated a year ago at Talk:English draughts/to do, the article English draughts needs a discussion of notation. In fact, it currently uses notation ("the White Doctor (10-14 22-18 12-16)") without first defining it! Are you able to supply this missing information, please?—msh210℠ 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 on Robert Priddy page

hi Andries.

What are the options regarding SSS108 on Talk:Robert Priddy. He said:

"If my link goes, not only will Priddy's Anti-Site link go, I will begin deleting Anti-Sai critical links on other pages."

I suggested contacting a Wikipedia administrator and, surprisingly, he agreed and said I should do this (the reason seems to be he thinks his attitude will be vindicated), and suggested I contact you about organising this (as I am not familiar enough with how Wikipedia works). So could you tell me how I could go about doing this? Thanks! M Alan Kazlev 05:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

For the full reference (not the selective one used by Alan), see the Robert Priddy Talk Page. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that the same link? (just to be sure i opened both in my browser; i got an identical page) M Alan Kazlev 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Tony Sidaway 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of religious freedom in Canada Re-write

I did a Re-write couldn’t make the sandbox thing work kept resetting so I put it on my user page it mostly the same article as beforeUser:Ansolin/Status of religious freedom in Canada if you have time tell me what you think.original pages Status of religious freedom in Canada.Ansolin 17:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was more interested in your view on abortion and whither people interpretation of religious view over the official view has reverence in regard to these articles but either way that page you mentioned looks interesting thanks :)Ansolin 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: List of charismatic leaders

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of charismatic leaders, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of charismatic leaders. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Konstable 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people.

Thanks, for the warning, but I disagree that I broke WP:BLP at talk:Prem Rawat. The negative information that I posted there was well sourced and related to the person's notability. Andries 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Andries, please re-think your current strategy for getting your content into articles. You are unlikely to gain support for your position if you keep doing things like reporting admins on AN/I for a simple content dispute. Perhaps you should take a break from editing this article for now. Find something enjoyable to do for the rest of the day. Take care, FloNight ^talk 23:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Copy Your Contribution Tree

Andries, please copy your Contribution Tree with the instructions provided so I can use it as evidence in the RFA. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

About Your "Tabloid" Appearance

Andries, it is my contention that your statements on the Dutch TV show "Tabloid" do not support your claim that your Anti-Sai article ("Calumny Confirmed") reflects your comments made on that Dutch TV show. Since you have made that claim (Ref) I ask that you provide the ArbCom with a full English translation to (only) your words on the "Tabloid" show. Since you did not speak for more than 2-3 minutes on that show, I don't think asking for a translation to your words is an inconvenience. Especially when you are trying to defend your position by referencing the Dutch TV show to support your "Calumny Confirmed" article. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I stated in the TV show that SSB sexually abuses young men and that this in combination with psychogoligcal problems of these men may cause these men to commit suicidide or come close to committing suicides. I did not mention fake rings in the TV show, but this was already reported by Priddy on Norwegian TV. Nor did I mention the sex change but this was already reported among others by Nagel in her university article. In other words, my internet testimony calumny confirmed mentions little if any original research compared to what reputable sources had already written or shown. Andries 18:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Andries, then you should no problem providing the transcript to your appearance on the Dutch TV show. What do you have to hide? SSS108 ^talk-email 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The transcript should include the whole show, not just my appearance. Andries 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You said, out of your own mouth, that your appearance on the Tabloid show reflected the content in your article Calumny Confirmed. Therefore, the transcript to your words should be provided to support this claim. That you refuse to provide a transcript to support this claim leaves me with the distinct impression that you have something to hide. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point but I have a lot of backlog with making translations, see e.g. Paul Schnabel, List_of_known_opiate_addicts (i.e Goering), Anton Mussert, and The Possibility of an Island. Feel free to ask another Dutch speaker. In addition it is important to keep in mind that what is said by others in the TV show is based on what I told them about my experience. Andries 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Typical escapist reply. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lousewies

Beste Andries,

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Trivia are not encyclopedic. If one ads references to trivia, they become overemphasized. The next step is giving references for the place and date of birth. It doesn't add anyting to the article, so therefore I oppose having this lengthy references. Electionworld (talk 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of trivia

Trivia can always be deleted.

You quoted "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections" from Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Here's another quote from the same guideline: "Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed". I emptied the trivia section (what was not too trivial was already included in the body of the article), and then deleted the "trivia" type section title, per the guideline. --Francis Schonken 13:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Lousewies van der Laan

I accept your apology. But I would like to point out that you also broke several wikipedia rules, most importantly civility, and to a certain extent autobiography, and are as likely as me to banned for that (that is not, because these are only minor infringements).

happy editing,

- C mon 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 23:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

• Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).
• Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)
• Andries and SSB108 are forgiven any offenses they have committed by introducing unreliable information into the article and encouraged to edit in compliance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

For the Arbitration Committee. 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you should remove the link to the Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba Website that you were the former webmaster for and are currently the "Main Representative, Contact and Supervisor" for. You are violating ArbCom's ruling by soliciting your personal website, critical of Sathya Sai Baba, on your userpage. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC: The discussion took place here

Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive10#Intermediate_sources Andries 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 19:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning that some actions are in violation of the arbitration ruling

Hi, as a matter of courtesy I advise you that your insertion of a certain link to Robert Priddy [12] is, in my view and that of other administrators, in violation of the arbitration ruling Sathya Sai Baba. I advise you to avoid re-inserting that link on articles or talk pages. The arbitration ruling is actionable; repeatedly defying it may result in your being blocked for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy

Hi Andries,

the request for mediation link you gave is a redlink. When the page is set up i'll look at it. Thanks! M Alan Kazlev 22:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unappropriate statement

Your comment at Talk:Sant_Mat#This_article_contradicts_what_I_know: "I would advise readers not to believe what is written in this article" is not an appropriate comment for an experienced editor of Wikipedia. If you dispute an article's content, please do some research and provide material that can improve it. Making such statements are a poor show of WP:AGF, and irrespectful of other editor's efforts in creating and maintaining articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of assuming good faith. Scholars can be wrong. Sources can be selective by accident. Sources can be wrongly assessed. Serious mistakes and blunders do happen even if everybody is in good faith. Andries 18:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But saying that "I would advise readers not to believe what is written in this article" is different than casting such doubts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Goedensmorgens

Just wanted to say hi as one Dutch Wikipedian to another in the jungle that is en: ... Met vriendelijke groet :P jaco♫plane 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI

• You may wish to voice an opinion/vote over at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Yours, Smeelgova 06:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
  • On a related issue, What is your opinion regarding the "non-compliant" tag that User:Jossi placed on the article Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous ? Yours, Smeelgova 07:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

Cults in Our Midst

I have updated the Cults in Our Midst article entry. Take a look and let me know what you think, on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Combatting Cult Mind Control

• NOTE: to Wikipedia Administrators: I am NOT "recruiting" I am asking for User:Andries's opinion and advice. Thank you.

• User:Andries, what do you think of the new article I created on Steven Hassan's best-selling book, Combatting Cult Mind Control ? Do you think it is notable according to Wikipedia standards? Why or why not? There are also some interesting changes going on on the Steven Hassan page relating to Wikipedia:No original research. Yours, Smeelgova 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

• NOTE: to Wikipedia Administrators: I am NOT "spamming". I am not placing this message on any other editor's pages, except actually User:Jossi, who is of opposing opinion. I am merely asking for User:Andries's advice and opinion. Thank you for noticing. Yours, Smeelgova 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Another question

• NOTE: to Wikipedia Administrators: I am NOT "recruiting" I am asking for User:Andries's opinion and advice. Thank you.

• What would you think about the potential notability of a Wikipedia Book Article on the book, L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman ? It's gone through a few revisions and reprintings, and interestingly enough the entire text of the book is available online. The fact that the book survived numerous attempts by Scientology to block its publication should also seem to yield weight to its notability. Also, I added an infobox to the stub, on Bare-faced Messiah. Let me know what you think. Yours, Smeelgova 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

• NOTE: to Wikipedia Administrators: I am NOT "spamming". I am not placing this message on any other editor's page. I am merely asking for User:Andries's advice and opinion. Thank you for noticing. Yours, Smeelgova 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Category Idea

What about this idea for a new category? Category:Scholars and groups accused of cult apologism ? I took the text of the new name directly from the article on Cult apologist. I figure if it's already there, and the apologists are already named as such in the article without objection, shouldn't be a problem...right? Yours, Smeelgova 09:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

I have created the category above. It pretty explicitly states people/groups can only be included if they're defined in the cult apologist article, which means it's not POV but based on sourced material. Let me know what you think. Smeelgova 15:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

I am not sure. I had and have an extensive e-mail correspondence with Barker about one of her books. I think that I have a conflict of interest when editing that article. Andries 15:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Well, The Making of a Moonie is an example of a poor article for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason not to have a table of contents is it looks ugly. An article about a book should describe its contents, sure, but taking the table of contents right out of the book is a bit of a poor way to do it. It's lazy, and it might well be a copyright violation. Besides, if you look at numerous other articles on books, you'll find that it's not done by other editors. Consistency in appearance is a big plus too. FrozenPurpleCube 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Question for you on Talk:Recovery_from_Cults_(book)

I had inserted the quote reg. traumatized ex-cult victims and I do not understand why the quote is incomprehensible or what context could possibly be missing. Talk:Recovery_from_Cults_(book) Please explain. Thanks in advance. Andries 09:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on that page. -- Beland 13:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

General reading on cults

Beland, I fing your comments on the book recovery from cults moving to a general discussion of the subject which I think is off-topic there. You can have a look at the article cult, sect, post-cult trauma, guru new religious movement etc. You can also on-line read excerpts of the book by Dr. Len Oakes that I think is quite good though somewhat speculative, but his speculations are never implausible, I believe. [13] Andries 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, but I'm not really interested in learning more about cults. I'm just commenting on the article because I got an e-mail from Smeelgova that said, "Could use your help over at the Landmark Education page. Employees of Landmark Education are making a concerted effort to both personally attack myself, as well as to summarily remove all of my hard work involving cited/sourced citations." While I was there I happened to notice that some related articles were in poor shape but this had not been pointed out or the articles tagged. -- Beland 20:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If people keep creating articles about books with little notabilty then there will always be many article in poor shape. Andries 20:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Disengagement Redirect

I never saw a talk page so I didn't know a vote had been taken. However, I do not know of any other uses of the term Disengagement, save the situation with Israel. Has there ever been a case of a country willingly giving up their sovereign land in hopes for peace? When the Sudatenland, Rhineland, Austria, Chechoslovakia, etc were given to Hitler during appeasement, those were not necessarilly done with the consent of the countries. Only Israel gave land unilaterally to its enemies. I ask you to give me other examples of Disengagement and, if possible, please direct me to the talk page you are referring to. Thanks, Valley2city 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cults

• I have changed the formatting of Template:Cults, so that it can now run down the right side of an article, like Template:ScientologySeries, and virtually all of the other templates within Category:Religion navigational boxes. Check it out please and let me know what you think. Yours, Smeelgova 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Disillusioned

• Just come back after a break. Andries 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not likely, but thanks for the interest and support. It is disheartening to say the least the way that certain editors with an agenda can band together and push out a specific POV on their particular issue. A good example of this is the number of biography articles where there is virtually no positive information at all, and the article reads like an outright negative attack on this person. This is usually due to the fact that certain administrators and editors collaborate to maintain and control these articles. Smeelgova 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Recovery from Cults

Andries, Thank you for your insightful edits on Recovery from Cults. It really helps individuals and in my humble opinion should be read by anyone considering counseling former members of Cults/NRMs/Sects. PEACETalkAbout 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Clarification

Please follow proper procedure and inform other involved parties as to your ArbCom requests on his/her talk page and the talk page of the article in question. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Leo J. Ryan award

• I am going to create a new category, Category:Leo J. Ryan award recipients, and populate it with those who received this award in honor of the assassinated congressman, Leo J. Ryan. Please let me know what you think. Yours, Smeelgova 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

Indian Buddhist Movement

Hi,

I'm writing to you because I noticed that you contributed to the article and talk section of "Indian Buddhist Movement". I saw the article on the RFC page, then read the article and the talk page. I posted a lengthy analysis of the article on it's talk page and have watched it since.

I would like to invite you to read my analysis and post your opinion. This is a noteworthy topic, but it's currently incomplete and needs reorganization. The effort to improve this article has boiled down to two editors, dhammafriend and hkelkar, who are both engaging in edit wars and attacks on one another. There has been no substantial progress on this article since I first came upon it, so I'm hoping that you and other folks can come back an engage in a refocusing.

I greatly appreciate in advance anything you have to offer.

Sincerely, NinzEliza 03:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Hassan website section

Hi, I wonder if you are concerned about this section because you suspect that the edits there are from cults such as Scientology? I am not a member of any cult group, but I am interested in cults like you. I do think the Hassan website is worth describing, as is his attitude to cults, which I think in academic terms is somewhat out-dated, since much recent academic analysis of NRMs suggests that in some cases they are less harmful than is sometimes claimed. Also Hassan does appear to label organisations "cults" and this labelling is then widely disseminated on the internet - yet Hassan is citing organisations as cults entirely on his own view. To be honest, your removal of cited and referenced material is easy to see as a bad edit, but I wanted to find out if we couldn't discuss this sensibly. MarkThomas 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. It was not my intention to remove criticsm of Hassan from the article, but only to remove off-topic information. Andries 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have to say I find it very difficult indeed to see how a discussion of Steve Hassan's website and the criteria he uses to label a particular organisation a "cult" are not something to do with Steve Hassan. MarkThomas 18:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop Violating ArbCom Ruling

Stop reinserting Robert Priddy's Anti-Sai link on his wiki-page [14] in violation of the ArbCom ruling Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. You were warned specifically about this by Tony Sidaway [15]. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:TRI

Have you considered WP:TRI? Ekantik 17:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re

No problem. It equally gets me when (extremely) controversial pieces of information often go uncited. I happen to be from the former Armenian SSR and so have all volumes of the Soviet Encyclopedia which prove to be useful references when it comes to finding information about specific divisions (namely Armenians however). The figure on the German side, especially the aircraft, seems far too high so I can take a look in the article on the battle of Berlin in my volumes and see if they even correspond to whoever came up with those numbers.--MarshallBagramyan 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Shirdi Sai Baba (reliable sources)

http://www.saibaba.org must be trusted because it is one of the most reliable sources about Shirdi Sai Baba you can find. The statement "Why fear when I am here" used to be here: http://chavadi.saibaba.org:8080/index.htm. It was in the Macromedia Flash animation. I don't know where the admins of http://saibaba.org have put it now. 22:07 9 Dec. 2006 (UTC+1) Kkrystian

Andries, but do you know any more reliable sources about Shirdi Sai Baba? If so than use info from them for the article about Shirdi SB. If not, than we have to trust http://www.saibaba.org. 11:31 10 Dec. 2006 (UTC+1) Kkrystian

Again, the book by Antonio Rigopoulos seems reasonably reliable. The website http://www.saibaba.org may be fine to describe beliefs and practices but it is not suitable for a serious biography. If there are no good sources for an extensive biography then there will not be an extensive biography in Wikipedia. Andries 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds are you saying and do you think that http://www.saibaba.org is not a reliable source? 11:53 10 Dec. 2006 (UTC+1) Kkrystian

Why do you think the book by Hemadpant is good for supplying sources? 12:41 10 Dec. 2006 (UTC+1) Kkrystian

Because it is the Bible for the followers of Sai Baba and according to the book, the book was authorized by Sai Baba. Andries 11:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that I can write about all his miracles in the Wikipedia and write that they are facts? 15:15 10 Dec. 2006 (UTC+1) Kkrystian

I meant to say that the book by Hemadant is probably fine to desribe beliefs and practices. And may be very little from the book could be included as biographical information. Andries 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I agree with Kkrystian that you may be off the mark here. Primary Sai Baba sources are limited in the west and in English. saibaba.org provides a resonable source for Sai Baba sayings. Anyone who has visited Shirdi has seen these sayings plastered over all sorts of souvenirs, banners, boodks, etc. They are very much attributed to Sai, and so far as I know, no one disputes that attribution. There is no particular controversy that Sai didn't say these things, at least none that I am aware of, and I think based on my 20+years interest I would have run across this sort of controversy if it existed.

I don't know that any source about Sai provides 'objective' or 'verifiable' information in the Wwstern academic sense. But it would be foolishness to begin to cherrypick from a book (like Hemadpant) as a 'good source', and to disallow cherrypicking from website (like saibaba.org). There is certainly no evidence to suggest that saibaba.org is any way a conterversial or deviant site run by some sort of wingnut fringe group. It seems to be very mainstream in its approach.

As the WP states: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. This as opposed to straight-up opinion or original, nonpublished research. You can look these quotes up. You can find then decide whether or not to trust the reference source. So I think they pass this test.--Nemonoman 15:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop Violating ArbCom Ruling

This is your second warning. I warned you once before [16] about including the link on Robert Priddy's wikipage. You have also been warned about this by admin [17]. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree for reasons that I have stated many times. Andries 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This this your third warning. Stop violating the ArbCom Ruling: [18] SSS108 ^talk-email 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This this your fourth warning. Stop violating the ArbCom Ruling: [19] SSS108 ^talk-email 18:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You know that I do not think that I violate the arbcom ruling. Andries 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin thinks it does [20] SSS108 ^talk-email 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Arbcom accepted your case. You need to wait for their verdict. What clarification is required? KazakhPol 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand, but if you re-add the dispute I will not remove it. KazakhPol 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris

Please discuss your proposed changes in the talk page before making changes. This is a policy which editors have agreed before you came. Thank you. Best, avyakt7 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the need to discuss well-sourced new additions unless they constitute a substantial change. I think that your agreement contradicts generally accepted Wikipedia practices. Andries 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries,

Yes, I do have Lawrence A. Babb's main work (awaiting some others to arrive) and Part Three does cover Sathya Sai Baba and THE LESSON OF TRUST in chapter 7 (Sathya Sai Babb's Miracles) & 8 (Re Reenchantment of the World). Babb's seems to be a source that other academics rely on due to the thorough work, interview, collaboration with other academics, regional universities and sources work. It would appear that he traveled to India to do most of the research and reviewed vast amounts of documents.

I also now have volumes of encyclopedias on cults, academic works on cults, so if you want to ask for a section just call me the "Cult Librarian". You should see my office! Well, there goes my vacation money, but I wanted to be prepared. lol PEACETalkAbout 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I activated my e-mail on my preferences for the items you may request. I will be doing a full list of the book on my main page as soon as all the others arrive. PEACETalkAbout 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear TalkAbout, You may be surprised to hear that Dr. Babb believes that his work about BK is as follows: "it's quite dated at this point." (quote) SO, may need more current stuff. Best, avyakt7 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Explicitly mentioning the year of publication is commendable, I think. Andries 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop Violating ArbCom Ruling

This is your second warning. I warned you once before [21] about including the link on Robert Priddy's wikipage. You have also been warned about this by admin [22]. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree for reasons that I have stated many times. Andries 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This this your third warning. Stop violating the ArbCom Ruling: [23] SSS108 ^talk-email 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This this your fourth warning. Stop violating the ArbCom Ruling: [24] SSS108 ^talk-email 18:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You know that I do not think that I violate the arbcom ruling. Andries 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin thinks it does [25] SSS108 ^talk-email 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Please stop violating the ArbCom Ruling [26]. They have not ruled that you can include the link you are trying to include on the Robert Priddy page. Until such a time comes, you need to comply with Admin's statement. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Please take a look at this thread. Since you expressed a willingness to engage in mediation with Peter, please accept the proposal on his talk page and we will proceed from there. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal comment

moved from article talk

Andries, your presence here - the effort that you have applied over a period of more than 2 years, arguing with others and attempting to insert negative information into Wiki's PR articles - is your entrance fee to the ex-premie forum. You know as well as I do that they would quickly dump you if you ceased to represent their interests over here. I have seen Leason and Lyng's negative comments about you, and observed the way Heller pulls you into line whenever you ask questions that upset the prevailing group think. In other words, Momento, Jossi and others have spent probably hundreds of hours of valuable time responding to your banal and unhelpful offerings so that you can continue your forum participation. You claim to have an interest in cults. The group you are currently involved with was called the "Jim Heller Cult" by Jeff Leason[27] (A.K.A. Roger eDrek), a former member who has apparently been given the boot. It must be very painful for him not to be able to log on for his daily fix of malice and angst. Of course, I'm just speculating. Maybe you could go over to your user page and tell us how you would feel if they gave you the flick. --Gstaker 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Final warning on Robert Priddy

Warning: Per the final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba, this link [28] is unacceptable.

Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)

Furthermore, this issue is not subject to mediation, despite the good intentions of User:Wizardry Dragon. You have been warned before. This is your final warning. If you add this link again I will block you for 24 hours for intentional disruption and further ban you from any further editing of Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thank you. Thatcher131 16:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked: I have blocked you for your recent edits to Robert Priddy. It should not even have to be said that if a biased personal web site can not be directly linked, it's contents can not be described without a link. After your block expires, you are banned from editing Robert Priddy for one month, or until the request for clarification is acted upon. If you edit the article in violation of this ban you will be blocked again. Thatcher131 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I should note that you can edit your own talk page while blocked, and you can post {{Unblock}} if you want your block reviewed by a third party. Thatcher131 19:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, Thanks for re-submitting the request for clarification and this notice. Though it will be clear that I find the block unfair, I will not requested to be unblocked because the block lasts only 24 hours. I have not violated policies on the article Robert Priddy (except for edit warring). Information can be sourced to the subject's own homepage, so I do not think that I have used unreliable sources. Andries 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A Proposition

Please read the proposition on the Sathya Sai Baba Talk Page. If you agree to it, please sign it. It is an effort to build good faith and resolve controversial issues on the talk page, rather than engaging in edit warring. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Followers" of Sathya Sai Baba

Well, there's no mention of Sathya Sai Baba in Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Dana Gillespie, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, et al. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rereading your comment on my Talk page, I realise that I'm not sure whether you really meant what you said; did you in fact mean that you have doubts that all those other people are followers?

With regard to the quotation from The Times: it's possioble to say admiring things about someone (especially in a speech given at an event honouring them) without being one of their followers. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Times explicitly described Vajpahee as a follower. I have doubts about all other people. Andries 10:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts

I would suggest that you discuss the subject, rather than revert again and again the edits made by others. Momento has provided new substantive arguments for the deletion of that material. It would be better to engage rather than quote a BLP noticeboard discussion that has not yet been closed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not get dragged to these re-hashing of previous discussions, but, for the record note that I find your behavior in the talk pages to be utterly unbecoming. Hiding behind a narrow interpretation of policy just to make your point and add these comments to talk page is kind of ugly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that what I do is only re-hashing of old discussions, but that is because you told me to respond to the talk page instead of just reverting. I do not understand what you mean when you say that I violate WP:Point. Andries 16:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are quite intelligent, and that you can understand that for yourself without my help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 17:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Yes ,the Washington Post did reproduce Mishler's claim. But an exceptional, sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employer who died in the 70's is unacceptable in a biography of a living person. That a newspaper reproduced this claim doesn't excuse it from failing every other test for inclusion.Momento 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that it is exceptional (which you admitted yourself here)or uncorroborated. It is corroborated in reputable sources in Sophia Collier's book and another inner circle members i.e. Dettmers made statements quite similar. Andries 08:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at my previous paragraph you'll find me saying "You're right, it is Brown claiming Mishler claimed. But either way, Mishler's claims or Brown's claim that Mishler claimed, are both exceptional claims that should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable source. They are not". To which you sarcastically reply ....... "Yes, of course, if you really think that Prem Rawat is a Perfect Master bringing peace then this may sound as an exceptional claim"..... To which I reply that I don't consider that Mishler's claim is exceptional for that reason.Momento 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For Wiki purposes exceptional claims are "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known".

Mishler's claim is suprising and not widely known. And Wiki policy is that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people". And none of the scholars who have studied PR or the journalists who have written about PR corroborate Mishler's claim. Melton was well aware of Mishler's interview and chose to ignore most of it. Sophia Coller does not support Mishler's extreme view and Dettmer's has directly contradicted Mishler on many occasions.Momento 20:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

From Collier's book 1978 Soul Rush who stated that Mishler told that Maharaji got sloshed during Millenium '73 http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/s_rush13.htm (As I discovered later, we were not the only ones for whom some alcohol was the festival's high point. Bob Mishler told me Maharaj Ji got "sloshed.")Andries 21:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Andries. Collier is merely quoting Mishler, not corroborating him.Momento 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

May the new year bring you peace, happiness, love, and hope for all things you wish for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, Happy New Year! Check my talk page under the Babb's question. :-)PEACETalkAbout 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ron Geaves paper

Hi, Andries, and a happy new year to you! I was thinking of you when I read Ron Geaves' article "From DLM to EV and Beyond", published 2004 in Nova Religio. Perhaps you already know it, but in case you don't I'm ready to send it as a pdf. to you, if I knew your send-address. Cost me 12 Dollars! (That's why I think not too many people have actually read it. The "Der Spiegel"-bit was only 50 cents). Makes pleasant reading, too. I found it especially intriguing how he describes the "sant"-concept. Best wishes --Rainer P. 14:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rainer P. (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Your editing of Prem Rawat

Let me remind you once again that It is not my responsibility to provide you with a scholarly article that supports your claim. I say they don't exist. You find one. Wiki policy is The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.Momento 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

re: mistakes

I was thinking also of edit warring. 3RR vios are almost always a mistake. 67.117.130.181 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please prove your claim

You have claimed on my talk page and in an article talk that I reverted three times in 24 hours. Please provide evidence or apologise.Momento 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will provide evidence, but I do not see this a my duty. Andries 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:Where is the evidence Andries! You are editing Wiki but still haven't proved your claim.Momento 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And while you're at it - you say "re-insert Mishler, corroborated assertion voiced in a reputable source". What corroboration?Momento 10:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice and Advance Warning

In the article Criticism of Prem Rawat, it will soon become an issue that the section regarding Reender Kranenborg contains a translated quote of the author. I predict that this section will likely require a direct quote of the Dutch language original in order to preserve the translated quote as given. As you seem to be the "go-to" guy (or gal) on this sort of original language matierial, I'm going to you. If you would be able (and so kind as) to provide this information, either into the footnote directly, to the relevant article talk page, to my talk page, or here it would help with future preservation of this part of the article. I would be more than happy to assist with its incorporation. Thanks in advance. Mael-Num 02:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding find on that source, and so quickly! I've got to ask...how do you know/have access to all of these quotes and resources? Mael-Num 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I own the book by Kranenborg. I had gone to University library to find the article by Wim Haan. Andries 21:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your contributions and determination in preserving the information in the article. Good for you, and good for us all. Mael-Num 21:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andries, Just getting back like a turtle. I did read the book and will place the items in the talk page first before adding to the article. I found some other information regarding the sect which I will discuss once I have looked over it. Which Reender Kranenborg are you speaking of as I have an English copy of one of his books.PEACETalkAbout 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Robert Priddy

The finding in the proposed decision doesn't say that you added unsourced criticism of SSB to the article; it says that you added a description of the contents of Priddy's site to the article, and that those contents contain unsourced criticism of SSB. Perhaps you're confusing it with some other proposal in the workshop? Kirill Lokshin 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you've misunderstood both my comment and the motion itself. The assertion is not that you added any unsourced criticism to the article; it is that (a) Priddy's website contains unsourced criticism and (b) you added a description of that website to the article. Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of that particular finding (and the sense in which it was proposed, I suspect) is that it's just background information on the dispute; it's not really intended to "prove" anything. Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(It should be pointed out that Thatcher's ban of you from the article has to do with the ruling of the previous SSB arbitration case, to which you were a party; it's not something that's a general policy.) Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Andries, Just getting into reading and researching. Hope you are well. PEACETalkAbout 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2:your support for rather contradictory motions

Well, did you miss the first part of that finding ("Andries has editwarred extensively and repeatedly inserted links to an attack site maintained by Robert Priddy") and the next two ("Andries has sometimes used such material inappropriately..." and "Andries runs an attack web site")? The fact that many of your edits are acceptable is fine; but that doesn't really excuse the unacceptable ones thrown into the mix. It's my opinion that it would be best for everyone involved if you (as well as a number of other parties) were no longer editing this particular set of articles.

(Obviously, you might not agree with my assessment of the situation; but there's not much we can do about that, unfortunately.) Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:

• Regarding Priddy: it's my opinion that the two cases cannot be adequately separated; the only reason Priddy's article was the locus of a dispute is because of his connections to SSB. Banning you only from Priddy's article would be pretty pointless; the same situation will occur again once we get an article on a different critic.
• Regarding specific edits: I don't have time to go through a great many edits here, but just to give a few examples: there are problems both with edits using primary sources to give undue weight to the assertions of particular individuals (e.g. [29]) and with edits that introduce allegations that are irrelevant to the topic being discussed (e.g. [30]).
• Regarding websites: it's my contention that your leading role in an anti-SSB site creates an unacceptable impression of a conflict of interest with you editing of articles in this area. (This is similarly true of the other involved editors who run anti- or pro-SSB sites, of course.)

Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding Rahm: "interviewed" is not really the same thing as "prominently featured"; an interview transcript is not really sufficien to give Rahm's particular allegation a sufficient level of notability that it should be presented as his particular allegation. (In other words: he's not the topic, but merely an example of the broader topic.)
• Regarding the material: my concern is actually more about the "claims that Sathya Sai Baba can change into a woman instantaneously" part than the teachings part; they're largely irrelevant to the sexual abuse allegations, per se.

(But, again, this is not meant to be a comprehensive combing through—and argument over—every edit you've made to the article. My point is that you have made problematic edits; this fact, combined with the Priddy issues, the website issues, and the fact that you were already warned as part of the previous arbitration case, justify, in my mind, not permitting you to edit the SSB article.) Kirill Lokshin 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

1. But those allegations (credible or otherwise) have nothing to do with the allegations of sexual abuse. It's basically an unrelated topic that you've inserted into that section for no apparent reason.
2. You've violated the previous ArbCom ruling, for one; and, in any case, common practice is to avoid linking to attack sites unless they're themselves notable.
3. Obviously, we're not going to get anywhere on this point. I remain convinced that your highly prominent role in an anti-SSB group suggests a conflict of interest insofar as writing a neutral biography of him is concerned.
4. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been here. I didn't mean that you were issued a formal warning by the committee; rather, I meant to say that the case would have doubtless made you aware that your editing on the article was problematic. (After all, an amnesty wouldn't be meaningful if there wasn't anything to forgive.)

Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the issue is not really a question of whether or not you have your own experiences here. The question is somewhat simpler:

1. Is your objective here the creation of a neutral article on SSB, or an extension of your off-site anti-SSB activities?
2. If it's the former, how do we reconcile that with your prominent role in anti-SSB activism on other sites (and, in particular, the resultant entanglements when other people who are Wikipedia editors wind up being the targets of attacks by those sites)?

Obviously, reducing or eliminating your external activism would be a factor in your favor, in terms of demonstrating that your purpose here wasn't essentially activist in character; otherwise, it is somewhat difficult to reconcile having you actively campaign against SSB off-Wikipedia and yet write a neutral biography of him on-Wikipedia. Kirill Lokshin 23:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What he does off Wikipedia shouldn't be relevant. A large part of Wikipedia is people who have strong beliefs on the subject off Wikipedia working together on Wikipedia to produce a good article. --Prosfilaes 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct...

In a sense, about Rawat's claims to divinity. As I understand it, the basic gist of his proclaimations on the subject was that God was essentially abstract and unknowable, but can be understood through a medium. I've even seen interviews with Rawat to this effect, where he likens God to energy, which cannot by itself be observed, with the implication that we can observe its effects, such as light and heat radiated by a light bulb. In this context, Rawat placed himself as more relevant than God, because his teachings were knowable, where as God is hopelessly beyond comprehesion. Is my understanding in this respect accurate? Mael-Num 00:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that it is accurated regarding Rawat, but the reasoning sounds very familar, because it used be my own for Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll continue to look for the interview with the quote from him, but in any case let's look at the problem as it relates to the article. As I see it, because his basic message is "God is all-powerful and unknowable, except to me so I can tell you what God wants" there is a vague distinction there. That is: God's one thing, and Rawat is another, but Rawat is in perfect sync with God, so you may as well revere the god you can relate to because the actual God is inaccessible to everyone else but Rawat. To me, this is semantics. All the same, it leaves enough wiggle room for those who would prefer to downplay this element of old-style Rawat's message in favor of the more recent "button-down" version of Rawat's message that he is, essentially, a lifestyle coach. That is, people who want Rawat to be acceptable by appearing to be a Dr. Phil sort of new millenium lifestyle coach don't want anyone to be aware of the fact that he used to be a 70's guru, which may seem outdated, alientating to the religious, kooky, or all of the above. Am I on the right track still? Mael-Num 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost positive I saw a video clip of Rawat saying this quote, but if you look here, about halfway down the section, there is a Q & A where Rawat's response is the God = energy, Guru = lightbulb analogy (which I thought was a very clever way of expressing an abstract idea). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mael-Num (talk • contribs) 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Your comment - "you may as well revere the god you can relate to because the actual God is inaccessible to everyone else but Rawat" - is in direct opposition to what Rawat says.; He says everyone can experience God, that's the whole point.Momento 12:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed Khan

Thanks for removing the vandalism that I missed when I reverted. Stizz 14:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed's forks

The problem is, he's on arbcom probation for doing just that. FeloniousMonk 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

His motivation, POV, whatever is not what the arbcom ruling spoke to, but the disruption caused by his actions. And his recent edit warring while inserting pov at intelligent design is clearly disruptive. FeloniousMonk 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

estimates

well, whatever, it is not acceptable to cite a range of "6-100 million" and dump a bunch of references. You should say "typically estimated around 10 M (adherents.com), with high estimates ranging as high as 100 M (some source)". Otherwise, the numbers are just worthless. A single biased "reference" may shoot it to "6 to 500 million" leaving with no idea as to the range of reasonable estimates. Please fix it. dab (𒁳) 20:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

adherents.com has 10M. we use that source in many articles on religions as an unbiased authority, so it might be worthwhile singling that number out in the article text. Saying "6-100" is of no use to anybody unless you specify who says what. regards, dab (𒁳) 20:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try but there is little place for attribution in the lead section. 20:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

by the way, can you shed light on why the guy's name is spelled Sathya? That appears to be a blatant misspelling of satya (that is, the deity in question is called satyanārāyaṇa. Is the spelling with th due to some vernacular sound change, or did it originate as an honest mistake? dab (𒁳) 20:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know the reason for the different spelling, but I am certain that the name "sathya sai baba" is by far more common than "satya sai baba". Andries 20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Purple Heart

		The Purple Heart
		I, Smee, award this barnstar to Andries for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. Thank you. Smee 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

• Feel free to migrate this to your user-page if you like, or keep it here, whichever you prefer... Yours, Smee 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Maharishi addition

Thanks for your addition! Great find. Please hang around the TM pages all you want. Sethie 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Banning policy

I would like to know the following. Is it okay to ban a person [from a set of articles] indefinetely for?

1. Off Wikipedia affilations, such as my self-addmitted affiliation to exbaba.com? If so, then would you advise new editor not to edit under real names and not to reveal affilations?

Well, I certainly think so; but the rest of your question seems somewhat slanted. I would rather advise not editing those articles where one's off-Wikipedia affiliations could be an issue; the question of revealing them thus becomes quite moot. Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Repeatedly linking to one of the homepages of the subject in question in complete accordance with WP:EL and generally accepted Wikipedia practices, such as I did on Robert Priddy?

Not in of itself, no. Doing so when (a) the page in question is an attack site and (b) the issue has already been the subject of an arbitration case, on the other hand, is pretty much pushing your luck. Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Editing responsibly as you described my edits on Sathya Sai Baba?

Nope; but note that even here, your edits have been "generally responsible" (emphasis mine). Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, thanks for your answers, though I think you are making some mistakes

ad 1. I do not have a conflict of interest due to my affiliation with exbaba.com on the article Sathya Sai Baba; I will not edit any differently when I disaffiliate. Following your way of reasoning I should not edit the article house, because I may not be able to edit there NPOV due to my off-Wikipedia affilations. (I live in a house.)

ad 2. The article Robert Priddy was never treated in the previous arbcom case. I had requested a clarification from the arbcom but that was ignored. I could not reasonably have done more.

Andries 05:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's be realistic here: living in a house isn't a meaningful conflict of interest. If, however, you were to be running a site for concerned former residents of houses with the purpose of documenting how houses abuse people, then, yes, I would say you shouldn't be editing the house article. (It is difficult, admittedly, to neatly answer the obvious philosophical question: is the issue here caused by running the site, or is running the site merely the most obvious symptom of the issue? Frankly speaking, I think either option leads us to the same practical result—that one oughtn't edit articles on topics that one runs such sites about—making the debate interesting but moot.)

It's regrettable that we obviously don't see eye-to-eye on this point; but I really don't know how else to explain it to you. Kirill Lokshin 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, I want to thank you for your time to reply to me, though it will be clear that I think that you are wrong on all points. I intend to list other people who are in a similar situation as I (e.g. who maintain websites critical of Scientology) on the Wikipedia COI noticeboard to enable the Wikipedia community to make a fair, and consistent ruling about such cases. Andries 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Such banning as you discuss here is based on disruption due to use of Wikipedia for advocacy. Fred Bauder 14:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Editwarring vs WP:DR

Andries, may I suggest that you desist from using editwarring as your default modus operandi? It is not so difficult, you know. Revert once, if you must to show disagreement with an edit, but then please pursue WP:DR. Editwarring accomplishes nothing beyond getting dinged for 3RR and creating a toxic environment that is not conducive to editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

okay, I will do my best. Sorry. Andries 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. You can start doing your best by self-reverting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the dispute resolution process for the article is broken. The article has been listed dozens of times on RFC and hardly anybody responded. Andries 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not an excuse, Andries. If you believe WP:DR is broken, you should abandon WP now, or work to make it work. Lack of belief on NPOV or any other policy are no grounds for dismissing them. Note that WP:DR is official policy, not just a nice to have thing, and you need to abide by these like it or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, and the official policy is unrealistic and does not work in the case of Prem Rawat. I do not understand how you can deny this. Many RFC are not responded to, not just in the case of Rawat. I cannot make the policy work because I have limited time, access to sources, and knowledge. Andries 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some RfCs are not responded to (that is not unusual) but others are. We can always ask for third opinions from editors we trust, for example. If there is a will, there is a way, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How about maintaining a list of unresponded versus responded RFCs? At least we will make the problem, if there is any, visible to the community. Andries 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be not helpful, Andries. If RfCs are not responded to, we need to find other ways to deal with disputes. The first one is to ask for third opinions, and if that does not work request informal mediation, and so on. You know the drill, don't you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think that then why didn't you request mediation long ago? Andries 21:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is a step that should be approached if previous steps have been exhausted. We have used RfCs extensively with little success, and at times we have asked for third opinions, with some success. IMO, the article is well sourced and we have made some progress with a merge (that we did not know it was possible), and recently adding new scholarly sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to message on my talk page

What should I have done on Robert Priddy when all dispute resolution was not responded to? Simple answer...walk away for as long as needed. Maybe forever. There is not a topic that any one of us needs to edit. The earlier that an editor in the course of editing at Wikipedia understands this concept the better it is for them, the community, and the encyclopedia. (This is also a response to the above situation about 3RR issues related to Prem Rawat as noted in the above topic on this talk page). When ArbCom looks for solutions to disputes, in the final analysis we are not going after fair to the editor. We are going after what is best for accomplishing our goal of writing the encyclopedia. Take care, FloNight 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You described my edits on Sathya Sai Baba as responsible. So logically this implies that my edit make the encyclopedia better. If you think otherwise then please explain. Andries 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN

Your recent edits to WP:BAN and WP:COI may reflect a misunderstanding on your part. First, you have not been banned as yet, as the case has not closed and there is no majority vote for the ban. Second, from what is available at the findings of fact, COI is not the basis for the proposed ban. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, the perceived Wikipedia COI is for Kirill and and James Forrester the basis. Andries 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, you are mistaken. Krill and James responded to your off-ArbCom process comments. There are nine ArbCom active members, and the ArbCom response as a committee is at findings of fact. and I do not thing that your off-process pleading is helping you. On the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not mistaken. Kirill and James explained their motivations for their support to ban me and they clearly stated that one of the reasons was what they see as my conflict of interest due to my affiliation with exbaba.com . See e.g. here User_talk:Andries#Re:_Banning_policy, User_talk:Andries#Re:_Banning_policy and here User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba_arbcom_case_2:_banning_of_Andries_for_one_year Andries 22:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That and all the rest: The previous ArbCom case in which you were graciously extended amnesty and quickly got dragged back to another case; the editwarring pattern; the violation of a previous arbCom case remedy; two botched mediation attempts, etc. You keep insisting that the proposed remedy is because of your COI, but that is certainly not the case, and in doing that you are digging your own grave, so to speak. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only COI, but it is for Kirill and James a main reason. Andries 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Or do you think that they banned me from Sathya Sai Baba because my edits there are as they described "generally responsible". Andries 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

or do you think that I was banned for repeatedly linking to an external link maintained and authored by the subject in question, such as I did on Robert Priddy? Andries 23:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have said enough, Andries: I do not think that you are helping yourself with your recent actions. I do not know, but maybe showing a bit of regret, some humility perhaps, making a public commitment to 1RR, or other such actions, would be more helpful to you than WP:POINT at BAN and COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No point. I am serious. I will not repeatedly revert there. Andries 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should I show humility when my edits are described as "generally responsible" and get banned anyway? That is a violation of Wikipedia:banning policy. Andries 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely surprised

That Jossi was able to reverse the sockpuppet finding with regard to Momento by merely raising his voice. It's this sort of thing that's given me the impression that Wikipedia is a joke. Mael-Num 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not reverse anything. He provided evidence showing that he could not have been a sockpuppet. If you believe that Wikipedia is a joke, you can stop editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, why do you think your opinion is needed everywhere in Wikipedia? Are you so interested in me that you must track my every move and respond wherever I do? Mael-Num 19:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't think that... even for a moment... Andries and I go long ways and his page is in my watchlist. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is. Oh, and please refrain from telling me how to think. That sort of behavior is repulsive. Mael-Num 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category rename

So you know, a category you created has been proposed for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8#Category:Psychics. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Techniques of Knowledge

Please let me know exactly what you find objectionable about the compromise version I crafted and proposed. If you think it is unacceptable, please let me know why. Only if you express what you find lacking in it can I rewrite the draft to accomodate any concerns. I am trying to make a version acceptable to all parties, including you. Thanks. Vassyana 04:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I will ask a third and final time that you explicitly state what is unacceptable about the compromise version to you. If you fail to do so, I cannot take your concerns into account and they will not be reflected in the final version. Vassyana 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Techniques of Knowledge. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Be cautious and consider your actions. Vassyana 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on the GAC list

I have deleted your comment about dharmic religion on the GAC list. It is not the appropriate place for debate and discussion. If you object to the term take it to the appropriate talk page. Vassyana 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

One-time request

I will only ask once that you stop your disruptive and inane comments on Talk:Taoic religion. If you object to the term Dharmic religion, you may take it up on the appropriate article. I am not replying to your demands on the Taoic religion page, outside of the two last replies I provided. Vassyana 23:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Striking out rude comments. Please see my talk page. Vassyana 07:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Category: Charismatic religious leaders

There's a guy out there re-writing this category definition because he says it was written by a noob or non-expert, and he knows better, so he'll just fix it. I don't think he's even heard of Weber. --Orange Mike 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My friend, the entire theory/idea of charisma is not based entirely on Weber as it pre-dates his life by many-many centuries (please see the etymology of charisma on its page; it's a word with ancient Greek roots). Also, please see the reference/further reading list that I've been compiling at the charisma article and then get back to me. --WassermannNYC 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sai Baba of Shirdi

Could you please quote the exact fragment from the book that says that there are several other gurus claiming to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba? Krystian 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I will check. I may have included Bala Sai Baba in the counting. Andries 14:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding at List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority

The list is only used for charisma in a Weberian sense of the term which differs significantly from the everyday loose use of the word. There is no inidication that any of the mentioned sources for Louis Farakhan use the term in a Weberian sens of the word. Andries 14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the references again (and please don't rashly remove them), and then notice this sentence in the charismatic authority article: "As such, it rests almost entirely on the leader; the absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority's power dissolving." Some of the references refer to the Nation of Islam dissolving w/out Farrakhan's charismatic leadership. Also, other than a sentence or two, would you please care to lay out Weber's exact 'theory' of charismatic authority as you have read it to be? (and please quote the PRIMARY source[s] either here or on the TP). As of now it all seems rather arbitrary, with you all just adding/deleting whomever you feel is most 'appropriate.' I'll also remind you all (again...) that Weber was not the first person to write about charismatic authority/charisma; he was just one of the first people that attempted to 'systematize' it. --WassermannNYC 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder why you aren't fretting so much about the new (entirely unreferenced) "In business" section that someone recently added to the page? --WassermannNYC 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I had read the references before I removed them. Andries 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maharisihi Mahesh Yogi

Appreciate your input at the article and talk, I am at impasse dealing with standerd TM talking points, have reported apparent COI at noticeboard.--Dseer 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

BKWSU

andries............you have to appreciate we have already gone 16 rounds of crap with BKs who know fine about the truth of their history , activities and beliefs.....or have it at their fingers tips to find out

so you come along a year later and start doing exactly what they did or trying to removed items by slapping citation marks on them........citations marks simply because some of them did not even know their own history and some of them were trying to cover up what they did not want to make public

ok........so how many of the reference have you actually read to know if that is true and verifiable or not?????????????????

this is what we had the last time.........they had obviously not read the material.......or thought it did not exist...................and demanded each and every line to be a copy and paste exactly from some academic journal , in my humble opinion and on the good evidence of all their attempts to defuse matters via administrators to cover things up

there is not even any point me doing the work and spelling things out to you if you are going to start up with the same attitude...........look at the contrary dates and figures from their own publications , and give me a break but it is not original research to suggest that 1932 and 1936/7/8 are not the same nor is the decent of god into an indian man at the ages of 51, 54 or 60..........depending on which material you take that from

so........either the topic becomes 3 foot long address each and every piece of punctuations , or the editors sit down and do their homework first and see that all the references have already been given ,and the material has been edited into a readable fashion Green108 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Note that WP:BLP reads (my highlight):

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

The comment was a BLP violation by that user. He was not referring to a source, but his personal opinion in violation of policy. And if such application of policy irritates you, so be it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If you know that something is stated in a reputable source on the talk page even if the contributor does not mention the sources then your removal of this statement under the pretext of WP:BLP shows only that you want to inappropriately censor statements. I will complain about your behavior. Andries 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is an attempt to provoke me, Andries, note that it will be below my dignity to respond to your baiting. You are doing yourself no favors with your attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

{{User Former Christian}}

Please

Please participate in discussions productively. Forum shopping and non-constructive criticism will not help you attain your article building goals. Instead, it will cause a loss of good faith and reinforce the perception that you are a disruptive editor. Civilly identify specific problems with the article and briefly propose specific solutions. If you feel your opinion is overruled by the loud voices of others, there are acceptable ways to solicit outside opinions. Feel free to ask for help at the appropriate WikiProjects. File an RfC about the differing versions to draw in more editors. Your input is most welcomed, but you need to be more conscious of the impression you leave upon others. Be well!! Vassyana 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw and see no merit in making exhaustive constructive criticisms on an inaccurate re-write. Why make exhaustive constructive criticisms when all I have to do is to revert to an old version to solves all the inaccuracies? Andries 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to the questions. It is appreciated. Vassyana 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

• New article created, sourced at present to (11) reputable citations. Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. Smee 03:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
  • The work seems like quite a reputable source in and of itself - I shall have to leaf through this at a library some time... Smee 03:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
• All Gods Children: The Cult Experience - Salvation Or Slavery?, new article written/created, sourced to (11) reputable citations (so far...). Yours, Smee 20:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

On a totally unrelated topic

Hi Andries, as already tried sometimes in the past, I'd like to ask you to look at some totally different article where you may be able to contribute to Wikipedia's coverage and correctness (unfortunately it seems a subject of some dispute too, but at least an unrelated one).

• Oera Linda == de:Ura-Linda-Chronik == nl:Oera Linda

I assume a significant part of the secondary literature is in Dutch (hopefully not in Frisian, I don't thing we have many native speakers of Frisian at hand).

Pjacobi 13:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Please stop repeating your threat to revert without warning. It is certainly not civil and following through on such threats is disruptive editing. Given your history, or at least the outside perception of it, continuing with such actions, or similarly disruptive tactics, is likely to result in blocks to prevent such disruptive editing. I ask you to reconsider the attitude and stance you are using. When you civilly bring up specific points, they usually seem to be valid concerns. It serve your interest in improving the article to do that, instead of resort to generalized complaints and threats of revert wars. Vassyana 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not have to repeat and will not repeat the same specfic concerns ad nauseam for each revert. Andries 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is unacceptable, no matter how many times you have repeated yourself or how correct your position may be. It is this attitude that caused you to receive blocks and sanctions in the past and I beg you to reconsider. I enjoy your feedback when you are being civil, to the point, specific in your complaints and willing to offer solutions. However, continuing down the disruptive path will only result in your opinion being further discounted by others and possibly preventative blocks. Please choose the productive path. Vassyana 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why I proposed mediation. Andries 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot force mediation by disrupting the editing process, Andries. Mediation is useful when editors are willing to collaborate, and the mediator can assist in with such. That is what I meant that your tactic is transparent and flawed in principle. For editwarring and a show of disregard for collaboration, a user RfC will do a better job. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is somebody unwilling to collaborate then it is Momento. Do you mean that I should file a user RFC for Momento? Andries 20:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I copied some of the good things of Momento's re-write to the old version and I gave specific examples where and why I found the re-write unacceptable. Why don't you show your interest in collobaration in trying to address the concerns in the re-write. Why should I continue to give comments and suggestions if not even a start is made of doing something with them. Please fix the re-write first as per my practical but non-exhaustive suggestions. Andries 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen Momento not willing to collaborate. Read the comments in the article's talk page on why insisting on going back to a flawed version is, well, flawed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Going back from a very flawed version to a somewhat flawed version is okay if that is all that can be done quickly. Andries 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento pretends to be collaborating, but he did not even try to fix my concerns that I voiced on 15 April. He is completely uncollaborative, though he presents himself as the opposite. Andries 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, Andries, difss. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some diffs from mid April in which I made the same objections to the Momento's bioproposal that I am still making in mid May [31][32] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=122967557&oldid=122965640] [33] User:Andries|Andries 09:03, 15 April 2007] User:Andries 11:59, 15 April on talk:Prem Rawat]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Image of Basava Premanand

Today I uploaded an image of B. Premanand which I had taken on 12 January 2007. I also added his year of birth which you had asked for earlier. He refuses to divulge his date of birth. I will try to get some information on him shortly. I recently had a chance to know closely. MANOJTV 03:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I completely understand the debate can get very intense at Talk:Prem Rawat. However, please refrain from personal attacks. A number of your recent comments could be considered personal attacks.[34][35] (From WP:NPA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.") Please try to stay cool when things get hot. If you find yourself too heated to comment civilly, edit something else for a while and come back to respond. Take care! Vassyana 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that my comments were personal attacks? I commented on Momento's re-write and his editing habits. Andries 16:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The section of policy I quoted above clearly explains. Saying that another editor omits and distorts facts is disparaging another editor. That is considered a personal attack "regardless of the manner in which it is done". I have also pointed out Momento's snarky/baiting comments to him. Please try to keep a cool head and focus on the content. Be well. Vassyana 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jim Jones brochure of Peoples Temple.jpg

Hello, Andries. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Jim Jones brochure of Peoples Temple.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Andries/drafts/cult. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sathya Sai Organisation official logo.jpg

Hello Andries, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Sathya Sai Organisation official logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Andries/Sathya Sai Baba. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Created new article on book, Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?. Was pleased I was able to find lots of reputable citations for this article. Further discussion can go on the article's talk page, but thought you would like to know. Smee 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Editwarring

I see that you keep stating that editwarring is an appropriate behavior. I would recommend that you re-read Wikipedia:Edit war that states, unequivocally that Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Instead of performing pure reverts, disputing persons should cooperatively seek out methods of compromise, or alternative methods of statement. While edits made in collaborative spirit involve considerably more time and thought than reflexive reverts, they are far more likely to ensure both mutually satisfactory and more objective articles. In the case of less experienced contributors, who have unknowingly made poor edits, reversion by two or more people often demonstrates that such reversions are probably not fundamentalistic or in bad faith, but instead closer to an objective consensus.

A statement that you will abide by Wikpedia core policies, would be a good step forward in the right direction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say that an edit war with reverts between two reasonably good versions is preferable to retaining a bad version only to avoid an edit war. Andries 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral reviewers have described your version as "poorly written" and "poorly organised" and a "mess in comparison" to the proposal that was described as "very good". Your version is the "Bad version" and that is what you revert to.Momento 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

An edit war is never preferable, Andries. You will be hard pressed to find one experienced editor that would agree with that! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and I replied at [36]. Andries 13:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You should not be doing this

Your comments at that user's talk page are unnecessary and unhelpful. His request was rejected by the MedCab and the ArbCom. User pages are not for polemics, for discussion or personal or legal matters or similar misuses. User pages are also not the place to discuss named individuals. You will be very ill advised to inject yourself in that person's dispute. I will remove my reply to you from that user's talk page, and I would appreciate if you stop blowing on the ambers with the hope to start a fire. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free remove the legal statement and named individuals. The majority of the contents there is not a violaten of WP:USER. Please do not remove more than necessary. Andries 15:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you remove these comments? I have not and I will not remove anything from there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should I? Lots of work. Andries 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, it seems that you only have one interest in this project. Oh well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You have made three reverts at Prem Rawat. Please avoid violating the rules. Vassyana 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

Hey, Andries, did you see this? I don't know the article well enough to say, but I rather suspect the nomination of WP:POINT, considering that the whole editing situation was the subject of arbitration recently. Maybe you'd care to comment, especially on stability and NPOV, at WP:FAC? Bishonen | talk 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

It is incredible. I just proposed a topic ban to Kkrystian because of his inability to recognize reputable sources. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian. Andries 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Prem Rawat

This is a current hold on editing Prem Rawat. Please review the talk page. Please respect this cooling off period. The page was unprotected under the belief that the disputing parties would take the week off. Thanks. Vassyana 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I never agreed with this. I will not re-insert the NPOV warning, though but the invisible comment is unrelated to the dispute and completely untrue, because there was never something that came close to an agreement to the re-written summary. I had given detailed comments where I disagreed. Andries 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This behaviour is disruptive and rude. Of course this is the m:Wrong Version. However, I will please ask you to respect the cooling off period of the week. Vassyana 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How is removing a blatantly untrue invisible warning disruptive? Andries 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it does not matter if the article is wrong. The unprotection was dropped on the basis of the honour system. Please respect the courtesy extended in that fashion. Vassyana 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider restoring contents or invisible warnings that are completely untrue disruptive. Andries 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the mediation? You filed a mediation request and rather than starting promptly withe the mediation, you do not edit for a week and the first edit is a revert. Can you explain this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, My first edit was not a revert. Andries 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Shirdi and Sathya Sai Baba

In the case of Shirdi Sai - he has been described by many people in different ways, the sentence you added is only about one person who described him. Look, Andries, this section is to be about his life and not what somebody thinks about him.

ABout the Sathya Sai article - this sentence is NOT a teaching of Sai. It's just what he said. He also said people should brush their teeth twice a day and that will not be put under the "Teachings" section neither will this! Kkrystian 16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba's clain to be omniscient etc is an important aspect of his life. Move the statement or re-name the section, but do not removes. Andries 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Shirdi Sai Baba, I think it is disastrous that you remove a statement sourced to a reputable source and add statements from doubtful sources. I believe that you do your best, but I think you have repeatedly proven to be incomptetent and I am very tired of it. Andries 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Bala Sai Baba

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bala Sai Baba, by Jac16888 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bala Sai Baba is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bala Sai Baba, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Bala Sai Baba itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 2. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives contribution

Hey, Andries, thanks for your recent contributions to Night of the Long Knives. I think the link is a good one, but I think it should be part of "See also." Take a look at my comments on the talk page and let me know what you think. Thanks,--Mcattell 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

List of drafts

You linked to a set of drafts on your userpage.[37] This is not usually a problem except for Sathya Sai Baba drafts. Please place {{db-author}} on the top of those drafts to have them deleted, to avoid any potential conflict. Thanks! Vassyana 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote Reconsideration

I didn't read your message in time but, it ended in no consensus anyway from what I can see. Bulldog123 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba considerations

Not that I care much about it, but your recent creation of Category:Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba may be in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Remedies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not edit "Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages." Andries 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Andries is that despite his long time in Wikipedia, he as yet to understand how Wikipedia policies work together. WP:RS is a guideline that explains WP:V, but WP:V is only one of three other core policies. Waht these policies do is to afford the possibility of encyclopedic articles that are informative, neutral and verifiable. The question is not "Is source X a useful source for Wiklipedia", rather, "Is source X in the context of article Y, for claims Z a useful source for Wikipedia?" Andries fails to understand this, and that lack of understanding already created many problems for him in the recent past. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I understand this. Andries 15:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you did, Andries, you would not be pressing on the points you keep pressing on, and you would not find yourself in such precarious position as you you do now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Such general statements are not helpful. Where do you think that I misunderstand wikipedia. For which claims? I have in most cases given detailed rebuttals while referring to policies. I hope you can do the same. Andries 15:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You and not a newbie, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot and will not take your accusations seriously if you do not give examples. Andries 15:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not making "accusations", Andries. I am stating what I see as the problem with your approach to editing Wikipedia. You may disagree with me, but I see that, honestly, as the real issue here and other articles you edit or edited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but such generalized complaints are unhelpful both for me and this article unless you give examples. Andries 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rawat article considerations

If you could, Andries and in your own words, Andries, what is the overall aim of Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Providing a compendium of human knowledge. This overlaps with my interests. Andries 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries. I’ve taken the liberty of posting a updated version at [Rawat Bioproposal nr2] which I think may offer a way forward. The text has been treated with the approach toward rhetorical and semantic neutrality that I’ve argued for at [38], in addition I’ve reintroduced some of the scholarly references that were taken out in later edits, although this by no means meets your arguments for a criticism section. I have edited the Bibliography list to show only those items that are referenced in the text – which should make it clear what is in and what is not. The text also now reflects what references actually say – something which at a number of points in the existing versions is not the case.

I realise there are issues which are awaiting mediation, the updated version is only 48k in size so there is room for additional material should that be required. However having read through all of the existing reference material I have come to the opinion that rather than a criticism section in the biography much of the scholarly material would be far more appropriate to the | Techniques of Knowledge article. It seems to me that past editing of the PR articles has led to a confusion of a personal Biography with the history of a belief system, the practice of meditation, and the functional history of organisations. For any progress to be made I think these various strands have to be unwound if articles useful to readers unfamiliar with the territory are to be created. --Nik Wright2 10:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Kenneth Wapnick Article Discussion

Hi Andries,
          In case you might be interesrted, there is some discussion going on about whether or not Wikipedia should include an article about Kenneth Wapnick at: Requesting your opinion re reinstating the Kenneth Wapnick article... and at Request to rescind your decision to delete the Kenneth Wapnick article on July 6, 2006. Your input at the Admin's page would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
-Scott P. 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP

Hi Andries,

I wanted to let you know that I closed the AFD/CFD that you started due to forumshopping. It is considered bad etiquette to request outside perspectives on the same subject in multiple places as you did with the RFC/AFD/CFD. I left the RFC open as it should be the prefered method of resolving an issue when possible.Balloonman 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Religions

Please don't be stupid. Is Tibetan or Chinese Buddhism an "Indian religion" in the sense you have changed it to? Remove "dharmic religions" if you must, but you must not alter the meaning, and introduce inaccuracy whilst you are doing so. I think you will have to expand & be specific. Johnbod 13:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This time your edit may have been less wrong, but it is still wrong. Johnbod 14:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't foillow your question. The concept of "dharmic religions" is clear. There are numerous reliable sources on the relevant faiths. It's not necessary to have a book with the exact phrase in the title. There have been numerous phrases used over the history of comparative religion: just as there have for the "abrahamic" faiths. "Abrahamic" is also a relatively new phrase, but the distinction between what usec to be called "Semitic" and "Aryan" faith-traditions has been recognised in comparative religion since the 1850s. Paul B 13:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you notice that there is a DRV in place?I know you did, as you commented there. So please, do not do a massive delete of wikilinks until the DRV is completed. Also note that Dharmic religions now redirects to Dharma. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, I know all this, but I had argued several times that use of this obsure neologism throughout Wikipedia and the deletion of the article are different issues. I will continue to remove links to this obscure neologism. Andries 15:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Please discuss in the talk pages of these articles instead of doing this unilaterally, otherwise these changes will be reverted mercilessly ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I will ask for reliable sources for the term "dharmic religions" used in the context of the article at hand. I wish you and other good luck with finding reliable sources, because this has been requested unsuccesfully before. Andries 15:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly making quasi-disruptive changes all over the place, without any consideration for the contexts in which the phrase is used. One phrase cannot be exchanged for another withourt regard for context; in many contexts "Indian religions" will include Islam, which "dharmic religions" does not. One CfD you started was already speedily closed, and you have a history of edit-warring on this. Possibly your English is not good enough to appreciate the implications of some of your changes. Next stop ANI. Johnbod 15:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to grasp the context. Indian religions does not include Islam. Andries 16:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That depends on context. There are I think 120 million muslim Indians, the 2nd largest population in the world. Johnbod 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Indian religions are by definition religions that originated in India or greater India. I think that you confuse religion in India with Indian religions. Andries 22:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that your editing behavior, Andries, continues to be disruptive. Continuing with this behavior will only earn you more disgrace than what you have already gathered in this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I will request reliable sources for use of the term in contexts of these articles and will delete the term if the reliable sources are not provided within a week. You always give me unrequested lectures on reliable sources as if I do not know the policies on the use of reliable sources and this time you have the chance to show that you are fair, sincere and consistent. Andries 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not seem to know the policies Andries. At least that is what shows up from your behavior, such as mass deletion of wikilinks despite comments from three editors to stop doing so. It was only because of their interventions that you are now attempting to follow current practices. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I know the policy of reliable sources. These are missing and I do not understand why you apply this policy so selectively. Andries 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Compare the number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" (45.600 + 84.200) versus "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion" (492+475) and ask yourself who follows Wikipedia policies better. Andries 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

re book: it's on p. 116 Paul B 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is available on preview, if you type 'dharmic religion' into the searchbox. Paul B 16:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a search box that appears on the right side of the page. It says "Search in this book". You type 'dharmic religion' into the searchbox and then below the box the words 'page 1 16' should appear in blue. Click on that and then the screen will display the page. The sentence is at the bottom of the page. Paul B 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Andries, you might not be aware of this, but your recent comments on talk pages increases the number of links to 'Dharmic religions'. -- Fullstop 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was aware, but I want to do get rid of the overuse of this obscure neologism in a fair and open way. Andries 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Main page

If you continue to troll talk:Main page you will be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic religions

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. Dharmic is a huge concept that falls into many areas. The best place to work out how it should be presented on Wikipedia is at WikiProject Religion. I looked over some of the posts on your talk page and you appear to be trying to swim up stream. Content is never more important than Civil behaviour. Also, we try to resolve things though discussion, the end of which a disinterested person determines where the consensus resides. With the matter resolved, most people move on. Once you get a sense of how Wikipedia works, things generally move along easily. I'm sure you have other interests. Perhaps spend some time working in non-contentious - biographies of people who have passed away, plant, insects, trees, geographic areas. Spend some time at AfD providing comments. Wikipedia seems to have endless areas in which to get involved. Moving around helps keeps us from getting too caught up in a particular topic or too attached to content we added to the encyclopedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sound advice, that I hope you take to heart. Seems to me that WP is becoming a place in which you try hard to get into POV fights, for reasons unbeknown to many, but obvious to those that have had the opportunity to be at the opposing side of these disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you were uncivil. However, one of the posts on your talk page talked about content and you seem to put content above how others are treated. Since you deleted your talk page posts rather than archived them, I found it too difficult to locate that particular discussion. Content is not that important because it can always be recreated once things have cooled. Hurt feelings, on the other hand, linger and can be passed onto to others. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Adi Da RfC

Please have a look. thanks in advance, Comesincolors 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way. A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details. Member News Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia New Members Congratulations to our 225 new members	From the Editors The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page New irc channel Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: #wikipedia-en-bio Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up. Contributors to this Issue Psychless (talk · contribs) Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)
Complete To Do List Write an article Expand an article about: a person an actor an animator an artist a bishop a businessperson a diplomat an educator an engineer a lawyer a military person a musician a photographer a saint a politician a scientist a sportsperson a writer Improve an article by: adding references adding categories Review an article Romano Volta • Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle • Answer requests for comments Work on the Portal Portal:Biography Assess an article Assessment requests Unassessed articles Assessment Progress Biography articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Core Other ??? Total FA 34 1,591 1,625 FL 192 192 A 1 103 104 GA 41 8,071 8,112 B 91 37,242 37,333 C 37 159,503 159,540 Start 3 735,262 735,265 Stub 1,031,897 1 1,031,898 List 7,478 7,478 Category 2 206,370 206,372 Disambig 8,071 8,071 File 29,533 29,533 Project 1 197 198 Redirect 3 41,939 41,942 Template 12,674 12,674 NA 238 238 Assessed 213 2,280,361 1 2,280,575 Unassessed 32,681 32,681 Total 213 2,313,042 1 2,313,256 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,634,173 Ω = 5.39
We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 12:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Thanks for providing the quote - including it on the discussion page is not providing the quote - (obviously, since no one could find it) Sfacets 12:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion of Ted Patrick

Looks like the article's already been restored. Are you talking about the old edits? Contact me if you've got additional questions. -Pilotguy contact tower 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A note

• I changed what you originally had as a redirect to a new article I created, Doomsday cult. Let me know what you think of it. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

I will NEVER stop

A surety: Know that and be sure. Citta Santana 14:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"I will NEVER stop" - I've often heard that from trolls just before they were blocked into oblivion. Mere stubbornness has never acheived anything on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I will NEVER stop

A surety: Know that and be sure.
Citta Santana
14:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Times - "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party"

• Staff (December 2, 2007). "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party". Gulf Times. Gulf Publishing and Printing Company. Retrieved 2007-12-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Thought you would be interested in this citation for some more recent information on the activities of the subject of this article and his adherents. Cheers, Cirt 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

History and origins of the Sathya Sai Baba movement

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article History and origins of the Sathya Sai Baba movement, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)