Hjaqpnu

Do not lie in your edit summaries

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sathya Sai Baba, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Response: You state that this was disruptive editing and vandalism, which is unfortunate. The sources were cited, referenced, and free from bias.

The only edit I reverted was this one, where you said "added one citation" but removed material you disagreed with. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Your other edits which were reverted by someone else, by-and-large did not cite sources. Furthermore, it changed material that was properly sourced to say stuff that the sources do not say. That is dishonest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Part of Wikipedia is allowing presentations from multiple sources. For example, I changed the word "cult", as the main citation used to cite this is the following link: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3912810/inside-the-bizarre-cult-pretty-belgian-backpacker-elise-dallemange-joined-before-her-mystery-death-on-thailands-murder-island/ Looking at this article, which is from the Sun (you call that a reputable source?), the article is alarmist and written with typical tabloid-style exaggeration. Quoting the Sun, one might as well quote an equally biased article such as this one: "https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20110509-sathya-sai-baba-an-iconic-godman-passes-away-745872-2011-04-29"

A good example of an unbiased citation is seen later on in the article http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/24/india.spiritual.guru.death/ which describes the philosophy as a "movement" rather than a cult.

Moreover, as Wikipedia itself notes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult, the use of the word "cult" is controversial. In an unbiased article that presents both sides of the story accurately, a controversial and biased word such as "cult" detracts from the objectivity of an article.

As I mentioned earlier, please don't let your own personal biases and hate influence the ability of the Wikipedia community to present both sides of a story fairly.

Wikipedia just summarizes sources, and does not create artificial balance where none exists. It's pretty obvious you're yet another a follower of Sathya Sai Baba trying to censor the article to fit your own beliefs. Do you have nothing to say about the blatant lie you left in an edit summary? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Join Main Talk on Sathya Sai Baba

I've opened a topic on general article talk page: You may be interested in contributing: section titled "Use of Cult Leader" Objectiveap (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

Besides the untruthful edit summary Ian Thomson mentions above, that you evaded answering, this edit summary, "Corrected typos in biographical information", was also deceptive. Unless you think "Hindu" is a typo for "interfaith" (?). Also this, which claimed to add "citations and more detail", but didn't add a single citation. That's three out of your five edit summaries at Sathya Sai Baba that were deceptive, and presented your flawed edits as constructive. (The other two edits were merely unsourced.) That's profoundly uncollaborative. Your claim at Ian Thomson's page, "I added citations, links and properly referenced sources", was so untrue as to be mere trolling. I've blocked you indefinitely from editing for not being here to create an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC).