User talk:Wikisunn

This is Wikisunn's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Contributed for the following Wikipedia Articles

Sathya Sai Baba

Your participation is required here. In short, please do not get into revert-wars over superficial reasons, as the article is already under 1-revert parole.

This may be out of place, but I cannot help noticing that you have received three warnings for your previous activity at Sathya Sai Baba. Whereas a user is free to modify their talk pages as they see fit, removing content (especially warnings) could be interpreted as hostile or an act of bad faith. Thank you. Ekantik ^talk 06:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please not that before I reverted you I had given an explanation on the talk page [1]. I am not convinceed that I broke Wikipedia policies. Andries 08:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel inclined to give detailed rebuttals to your arguments why the reputable sources are wrong (e.g. salon.com about Kundalini and Nagel about Shiva Shakti) when they write about SSB. Again, Wikipedia reports only what reputable sources have written, so I do not have the duty or moral obligation to give you detailed rebuttals to this kind of reasoning. You, I, and others can best discuss this outside off Wikipedia e.g. at the infamous yahoo group sathyasaibaba2 Andries 09:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

As you have played a major role in the editing of the article Sathya Sai Baba and have taken strong positions with respect to its editing I have joined you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 as the findings and remedies may affect you. Please make any statement you wish. You may add evidence to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Evidence page and participate on the /Workshop page. Fred Bauder 20:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Fred

Hi Fred,

I saw that, you have added me to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I will give a detailed explanation related to my edits very soon in the /Workshop page. I have been very busy lately with my personal stuff. Also, I would like to add that I had discussed about these edits nearly a month in Thatcher’s page, also had detailed discussion with Andries related to these edits, before changing the article. There is a whole section of discussions related to these edits in *User talk:Thatcher131/SSB.I have 2 important questions related to wikipedia policy. Please could you answer these 2 questions related to wikipedia policy.

1) Can an editor add a reference in the article of biography of living person just because the reference was published in a newspaper but the reference does not make any sense or it raises questions like this cannot be true as it sounds ridiculous or there is something fishy or wrong here?. Can such reference be challenged?

No, it must be established, using sound editorial judgement, whether the source is reliable. That is an appropriate subject for discussion on the talk page of the article. Another problem is that an otherwise sound article may contain information from an unreliable source. Fred Bauder 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Can an editor add a reference by naïve author who has no clue or knowledge on the subject he is talking about or gives his ridiculous perspective on the subject?

Again, such a reference would not be reliable. Fred Bauder 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikipedia’s policy on such references?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources, based on Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Fred Bauder 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a general rules under Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons” which states "We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.". Please, can you help with the policies related to references / claims which are ridiculous and makes no sense or by naïve authors. Thanks. Wikisunn 22nd January 2007

It is quite likely that we disagree profoundly regarding who is naive or what makes no sense, but I will certainly do my best. For example, if a government has not investigated repeated charges of sexual assault, its spokesmen are not a reliable source regarding the truth of the charges. Fred Bauder 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sangam

Questions related to Sangam to Venu62 The article says "There has been no contemporary archaeological or scientific evidence found to substantiate whether these academies existed at all and if so, the dates, the participants or their works."

The article again says "Claims of the Sangams and the description of sunken land masses have been dismissed by the historian and scientific community at large[11]". when I clicked the link it said page not found.

I) Take a look at these below on more news about Sangam. I am planning to add some of these links as archaeological proofs for sangam period / Age.

News on Sangam period potteries unearthed: A piece of Sangam period pottery with Tamil Brahmi inscription of 2nd century BC, recently unearthed by the Archaeology department at Mangudi in Tirunelveli district. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/08/08/stories/2002080801780500.htm

2)There is even a published book by Gurunathan. Administration during Sangam Age SANGAKALA ARASU VARALAARU: V. Gurunathan; Published by Tamil University, Thanjavur-613005 http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/br/2003/03/18/stories/2003031800110301.htm

3) Classics in current idiom - S.N. KANDASWAMY http://www.hindu.com/br/2006/10/10/stories/2006101000221500.htm

4) Ancient Tamil Writing and drawing in Clay Tablets: http://www.infitt.org/thf/monument/oodu/sangkam.html

II) I am planning to add more info to Sangam legends. Any way I will discuss about it with you before making any changes. Thanks. Wikisunn 7th February 2007

Sangam legends

Hi. thanks your messge and apologies for the delay in my reply. I will take a look at the links you have given and some of them make interesting reading. However none of the evidence directly point to the existance of the three Sangams. The archealogical evidence merely points to a flourishing Tamil civilisation during the pre-historic period. There is no dispute there. The Sangam legends became only vogue after the commentary on Irayanar Agapporul, attributed to Natkeerar. There are scholarly articles on the commentary discussing the Sangam legends. The article should not include unscientific and unprovan information as fact. I hope you understand. cheers Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, you are welcome to add the text, however madurai.com cannot be considered a good source as it cites no references to support the legend of Tirukkural. In reality, we really don't have any information on either Thiruvalluvar or the date of Tirukkural. The information you pland to include probably should go in Meenakshi Temple rather than in the Sangam article. Cheers Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries

I have proposed banning him from editing the article for edits like the one you complain of. I think the point is the hold the guru up to ridicule by publicizing a ridiculous claim. Fred Bauder 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fed, that is completely untrue, though I can imagine that you come to such a conclusion. I would not have believed it if I had not heard independently confirmation myself. Andries 18:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, so you are saying that this material should be included in the article because you "independently confirmed" it? Where are you journalist credentials and where have you published your "independently confirmed" story in reliable and reputable sources? I find it amusing that you are attempting to argue that Sathya Sai Baba has the paranormal ability to literally and miraculously transform his penis into a vagina (and vice-versa) with a snap of his fingers. And people say devotees are brainwashed and gullible. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Wikisunn, regarding your comment on my user page, perhaps you would be interested in the following link that discusses the alleged "genital-switch" claims: Reference. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]