Jump to content

User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SoxBot (talk | contribs)
235,195 edits
Delivering Wikipedia Signpost ([[User:|BOT]])
Sethdoe92 (talk | contribs)
1,200 edits
→‎New Topic: new section
Line 131: Line 131:


<small>Delivered by [[User:SoxBot|SoxBot]] ([[User talk:SoxBot|talk]]) at 03:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
<small>Delivered by [[User:SoxBot|SoxBot]] ([[User talk:SoxBot|talk]]) at 03:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)</small>

== New Topic ==

Insert Crap Here
::—<font color="Green">'''''Remember, the Edit will be with you, always.'''''</font> <small>[[User: Sethdoe92|<font color="Green">('''''Sethdoe92''''')</font>]]</small> [[User talk: Sethdoe92|<sup><font color="Orange">(drop me a line)</font></sup>]] 17:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:21, 18 August 2009

User:Mixwell/scrolling

Archive

Dates:

Sathya Sai Baba article

Sathya Sai Baba is a living person, who lives in a small city called "Puttaparthi", in South India, state of Andhra Pradesh. Thousands of people gather everyday to see him, in a place called Sai Kulwant Hall, inside a complex called "Prasanthi Nilayam", where Sai Baba's residence is located. This people believe he is a saint.

On the other hand, there is a group of people who believes he is a criminal.

So, we have two radically opposite points-of-view.

The article in Wikipedia is being used by the group with the "anti-Baba" point-of-view to do theirs propaganda. This group is engaged in a strong effort to avoid the article to be a truly representative of NPOV.

Currently, the article suffers from:
- lack of NPOV
- offends Basic Human Dignity
- suffers from Information Supression

Link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

In the brief description of the case, above, I myself have assumed a neutral point-of-view.

Below, a link to my first comment about the article. There, I write with my own POV feelings, but using NPOV arguments, so neutral editors could follow and, with common sense, agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F

But, after that, I found many unpleasant things:
- trying to edit results in "removal of large-scale vandalism", and the edit vanishes from the history; (thus, the history itself is biased)
- there is an editor, "White adept", acting as policeman to maintain biased, not-NPOV status quo;
- there is another user, "Andries", faking a positive POV; (thus, you are mislead)
- their combined actions drive anybody who arrives to read all negative-POV references;
- also, they managed a pack of ready-made arguments that classifies the huge amount of positive-POV references as "not reliable";
- making, in this way, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore or improve the article's quality.

This article constitutes a very serious issue for Wikipedia itself. Millions of people around the world support Sai Baba's efforts (six million, in the negative-POV estimate; from 50 to 100 millions, in the positive-POV estimate). The current article is an offense not only to Sai Baba himslef, but also to all of them.

Thank you.

Moved from your userpage

I tried to use the mediation window but couldn't. My concern is simply that the article "Pro Se Litigation in the United States" is missing essential information. Most particularly the Rules of Conduct for U.S. Judges and its changes in March 2009 that affect pro se litigants. This information has been deleted and should be available to the public

The current code of conduct for United States Judges requires "A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer full right to be heard according to law". On March 17, 2009, a new code, going into effect on July 1, 2009, was announced requiring "A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law." The wording was changed from a person "or" their lawyer to a person "and" their lawyer.[8][9][10]

Cooling my jets

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Least restrictive interpretation

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TB

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Allstarecho's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Hi Ryan, would you mind granting me access to en-admins? I had access before as "AmeIiorate" but that account has been inactive for about 8 months. My IRC account is "carlin". Cheers, ♣ Ameliorate! 14:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do if one side denies mediation?

Hi there,

I'm contacting you as the chair of mediation and hoping that you can point me in the right direction. There is currently a dispute in progress on the IRA page about how the introduction should be worded. There was an edit war and then the page was locked and now one side insists that here can be no discussion until a certain sentence is removed, while the other side refuses to have that sentence removed until consensus is reached on what will replace it. I have asked if the participants would be amenable to Mediation, and the response has been negative. I am not sure what the next step is. The issue with sending this to arbitration is that it's still primarily a content dispute. So I am not sure what to do.

Any help you can offer to advice you can send on where to ask would be more than appreciated! Lot 49atalk 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Lot49a stick to the facts! It's one sentence that was put in by an editwarring POV pushing IP. You are the one that now wants to re-write the Lead! No one disagrees that the sentence is misleading! No disagrees that the source dose not support the sentence! If you can not get your head around them facts, how could you possibly be the self appointed chair of mediation! No one has a problem with discussion on replacing the sentence, but the Admin who locked it insists that they will not remove the sentence untill it is agreed what we replace it with! Any unbiased editor who reads the discussions will see it is just pig headedness at this stage. --Domer48'fenian' 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Topic

Insert Crap Here

—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 17:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite&oldid=308718119"