That's a tough question. Print magazines are generally preferred over Internet ones, but as Internet magazines go Salon is one of the best. Getting printed isn't the only indicator of reliability; Salon is certainly more reliable than supermarket tabloids. I hope that helps. Jayjg (talk)16:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Salon.com article by Michelle Goldberg and hidden bias.
Examples Of Salon.com Articles That Could Be Cited IF Deemed To Be A Reliable Stand-Alone Source:
Antonin Scalia, self-made martyr: "martyr", being "a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics", writing "masterpieces of contemptuous nastiness" and turning up "the volume on his vitriol so high that it's hard to hear anything".
Does W. have a death wish?: "The biggest danger to the Bush campaign is not that the candidate is an idiot, it's the perception that he is an idiot. And every time his spinsters try to "clarify his remarks," they just reinforce the perception that Bush would be lost without them."
Holy Abuse: This one does it in for the Hare Krishnas.
The Grinch who saved Christmas: "Fresh off Republican wins in November, O'Reilly and company have ratcheted up the rhetoric. Mixing a kernel of truth with a grab bag of unconfirmed anecdotes, as well as some outright falsehoods, and then repeating the dire warnings, they've helped manufacture the impression that a tidal wave of anti-Christian activity, fueled by Democrats, is threatening to drive Christmas underground in America."
Penis of Jesus trimmed 2,000 years ago: "Jan. 1 marked the 2,000th anniversary of Jesus' bloody brith mileh, the Jewish ritual that snips off an infant boy's foreskin approximately one week after birth. The cock-cutting of Christ is presently sanctified in numerous Christian sects as the "Feast of the Circumcision."
In other words, anyone can justify their bias (particularly if you are a liberal) on Wikipedia by citing Salon.com [1]. Happy day. Just the type of information one would expect to find an encyclopedia (sarcasm implied). SSS108talk-email00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I read somewhere that salon.com was not a reputable source. That's why I removed it. I also read somewhere that all criticism of SSB coming from people with little geographical or cultural connection with SSB should be removed. That's why I removed the statement of Sacha Kester (Sacha Kester comes from Germany and has no geographical or cultural connection with SSB). As for the information about "Sai Krishna" I removed it from the Miracles section because I thought it didn't belong in that section. By the way, why did you write you didn't understand the reasons for my edits? Kkrystian 15:03 (UTC+1) 02.12.2006
Thank you for clarifying the problem and the misunderstanding. Kkrystian 18:24 (UTC+1) 02.12.2006
SSS, please at least take responsibility for your own edits. It's relatively frustrating when you revert with no justification for your actual edit and instead claim that it is someone else who should be blamed because they added the original text ("lease seek agreement with Andries first: his edit."). Anyone should be able to improve poorly worded text. In this specific example, you keep bloating the text with meaningless clauses, which has the effect of dilluting the section to the point of making it unreadable.
Compare the following:
"X wrote an article which critized Y as Z"
"X wrote an aritcle. This article was wholly critical of Y, in which X expressed the opinion, without mentioning any sources, that Y is a good example of Z"
The second wording should always be inferior, no matter what the variables stand for. Instead of reverting for purely procedural reasons ("This very issue was already discussed before and has not reached any consensus.") why not work with me and try to find a better wording. savidan(talk)(e@)20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SSS108, please do not continue to violate Wikipedia:privacy by revealing the real name of user:Ekantik. As per arbcom decision in this respect, I will however keep on using your name because you yourself keep revealing it. Andries06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you did it again on the noticeboard page. Look, if the guy wanted to keep his name a secret, then he has the right to. What you are doing is considered stalking and that is not a good thing. I ask you to stop now. If the person wanted to reveal their name, then they would (like I have). But, the editor chose not to do so and we should respect his right to not use his real name. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about his stalking of me on the internet and creating a blog specifically attacking me on Wikipedia? I said I would respect his wish as long as he doesn't attempt to portray himself as a netural editor who does not have a POV to push and that he is somehow not connected to the Sai Controversy. He is. He chose to engage in debates with me first, which led to my discovery of his sockpuppet. That isn't stalking. SSS108talk-email18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Debates? If I add my comments to Talk:Sathya Sai Baba regarding problems with the article then that isn't a debate addressed specifically to you, but for all editors. You are not the owner of that article. And yes, according to Wikipedia policies your actions can be interpreted as stalking. After all, you had to dig into my edit history to find something wrong with it and according to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekantik I have shown that almost all your accusations have reasonable explanations. Your sockpuppetry allegation has effectively collapsed, yet you continue to discuss disruptive information that bears no relation to the original sockpuppetry complaint. All of your actions are in violation of several Wikipedia poolicies and guidelines and you can be blocked for them. Please desist from being disruptive and stop revealing people's identities in violation of their requests. ekantiKtalk04:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, includingyou.
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, please stop using my talk page as a forum to push your venom and whine (just as you do on your blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia). You have shown nothing except your attempt to deceive others that you are a neutral editor who does not have a POV to push (despite the fact that you are the most vocal critic and opponent of Sathya Sai Baba on the internet). Your thousands of defamatory, vulgar, sexually-explicit and grotesque posts against Sathya Sai Baba stand in testament to this fact (as I have stated before [4][5]). Any Google search for "sathya sai baba+gaurasundara" ([6]) will bring up the relevant results.
Your edit history is public domain Ekantik (talk·contribs) / Gaurasundara (talk·contribs) and anyone can view it. By posting on Wikipedia, all of your edits are accessible to anyone at any time. Contrary to your assertions that I am "stalking" you (a mantra you have parroted numerous times on other forums), it is clear that you are stalking me. After attacking and defaming me all over the internet (and creating a blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia), you "innocently" appear on the Sathya Sai Baba article, engaged me in debate incognito and made edits all in exclusive association with the Sai Controversy. When Jossi asked you if you considered yourself a POV editor ([7]) you said "no" ([8]) even though you know full well that you are a Sai Critic/Ex-devotee. You continually and unremittingly accuse Sathya Sai Baba of being a "homosexual paedophile" and "faggot" despite the fact that he has never been convicted of any crime, has never been charged with any crime and has never had even one single complaint lodged against him first-hand by any alleged victim in India.
And my sockpuppetry claim against you has not"collapsed". To the contrary, you confirmed it by admitting that you areGaurasundara ([9]). As long as you edit on the Sathya Sai Baba article, you will be held accountable for your extra-Wikipedia status as a critic, defamer and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. Get used to it.
Even on Wikipedia, Ekantik/Gaurasundara said about Sathya Sai Baba (so much for the neutrality and NPOV claim):
"The 'number' of abuse testimonies on critical sites does not at all reflect the true nature of the situation. Sathya Sai Baba is believed to have engaged in sexual relations since the 1940s, and at least one report of child maltreatment dates from that period. The 'true number' of people in any way mistreated by SSB is impossible to count." (Diff).
If you want this discussion to stop, I suggest that you stop using my real name and behave in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ekantiKtalk03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SSS108, so should we or should we not include your website into the Sathya Sai Baba article? By the way, you are the webmaster of http://www.saisathyasai.com , aren't you? Please tell me if by writing this I am stalking. 15:05 (UTC+1) 10 Dec. 2006 Kkrystian Modified: 15:09
Regarding the inclusion of saisathyasai.com, I already expressed my view that we should not include the link because it will cause another uproar by Andries & Co. As you already know, when it comes to highly defamatory content by Robert Priddy, Andries will argue the exact opposite of what he is arguing now. Andries is a POV pusher due his former webmaster status and current "Main Representative, Supervisor And Contact" for the largest website opposing Sathya Sai Baba on the internet [12]. Best to drop the issue. Now there are two well known Anti-Sai Activists to deal with: Andries and Ekantik / Gaurasundara. SSS108talk-email18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different issue. If Robert Priddy is notable then it is because of his writings critical of SSB. Of course his article should link to his writings that make him notable on his own homepage. It is very similar with Michael Moore who became notable because of his criticism of George W. Bush and of coures his homepage should be linked to even it is defamatory reg. Bush. See Talk:Michael_Moore#Violation_of_WP:BLP. If you had your own article then of course that article could link to your homepage defaming me and Priddy. Andries18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, the link you want to include on Robert Priddy's page is not his "homepage". It is an Anti-Sai Site exclusively attacking Sathya Sai Baba. And I am not alone in my opinion. You were warned against including that link by admin [13]. As I said before, you will argue hard and long to push your Anti-Sai Agenda because you are a POV pusher, self-admitted critic and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba and former webmaster and current "Main Reresentative, Supervisor And Contact" for the largest Anti-Sai website on the internet [14]. SSS108talk-email18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your upteenth explanation that I still consider completely unconvincing. I will only revert, because discussion seems to be endless between us without any side coming a millimeter closer. Andries18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will revert what? And by the way, I am not aware of any ArbCom ruling on the George W. Bush or Michael Moore wiki-pages that prevents linking to critical and negative sites, as outlined by the ArbCom ruling on the Sathya Sai Baba article. You can't use other pages to make your arguments. There is now an ArbCom ruling that must be taken into account. SSS108talk-email18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can use other pages to make arguments. Precedents are quoted all over Wikipedia in discussions. What is your rationale for arguing that Priddy's site is an "Anti-Sai site" and not a homepage? ekantiKtalk03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, Andries and ProEdits (Robert Priddy) are all collaborators and belong to the very same Anti-Sai Group that systematically attacks Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. I do not have to explain myself to you, of all people, Ekantik/Gaurasundara. Admin has already spoken about this issue [15] and that is all I need to say. SSS108talk-email04:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see the link in my previous post. Place your cursor over it and left-click on it. Please direct your questions to the Admin who made that comment. SSS108talk-email05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I am not asking what Admin think of it in connection with the ArbCom ruling. I am asking what rationale you are employing in determining Priddy's site as an "Anti Sai site" and not a homepage. Thanks in advance. ekantiKtalk06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not kidding. I am asking you to provide a rationale for one of your fundamental arguments. Thank you for violating WP:CIVIL and not pointing me to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports your theory. I'll also thank you to carry this out. ekantiKtalk06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your comments on Sathya Sai Baba: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ekantiktalk04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ekantik aka Gaurasundara, there you go again acting like an Admin. Too funny. And if you are so committed to no personal attacks, explain why you created a public blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia? Explain why you have made numerous derogatory comments against me on Yahoo Groups and forums about my involvement on Wikipedia (which has already been discussed earlier on this page)? I suggest you read Off Wiki Personal Attacks while you are so busy acting like an Admin and citing Wikipedia policies. You viciously attack me off Wikipedia about my invovlement on Wikipedia and then you have the audacity to tell me not to attack you when I rightly point out your Anti-Sai Bais and vicious defamations against Sathya Sai Baba. I know you must always have the last word (as you do outside Wikipedia) and I will tell you once again to stop using my talk page as a forum for your venom and whine. SSS108talk-email04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your second warning. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Sathya Sai Baba, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.
Re your above complaints, "Attack" seems to be your favourite word of late. If you use Wikipedia as a vehicle to push your bias in favour of Sathya Sai Baba, you can expect your edits to be reviewed by other editors just as you do to them. The blog you keep referring to was created prior to my joining Wikipedia. In addition I may draw attention to your numerous derogatory comments on Yahoo groups and other venues (which far exceed mine when you consider the number of websites and blogs you author that specifically slander me). You were recently reminded by Admin Jossi about off-wiki attacks that you continue to engage in. Wikipedia does not directly penalise editors for such attacks but such actions may be considered aggravating factors during dispute resolution and other procedural matters. I would very much love to stop using your talk page as a "vehicle to whine and spew venom" just as soon as you cut it with the personal attacks. Please comply. Ekantiktalk04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to stop. File a complaint. And I would like to see my off-Wiki posts attacking you and your involvement on Wikipedia? And your diff from Jossi [16] was not directed to anyone in particular. Stop distorting other's words. SSS108talk-email05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments [17]. You have engaged in edit warring and have reverted the article a number of times wiping out substantial contributions. This diff spans 8 days and 48 reversions and yet the content of the article is almost identical, except for rearranging a couple of paragraphs. Reverting is not an appropriate editing method. Reverting 3 times on 19 Dec is arguably a blockable offense even though it is one less than a 3RR violation. Even reverting once every couple of days to a favorite or preferred version is a bad practice and will keep the article stuck in a bad state. You have also engaged in inappropriate personal comments. Simply searching for the phrase "You are..." on this page finds it used more often by SS108 than all other editors combined. It does not matter whether a editor runs an anti-Sai web site somewhere else, as long as their behavior here is appropriate and follows the rules. Accusing someone of being "the most vocal critic and defamer of SSB on the internet" over and over again is not how you move forward on editing an article. It is also not appropriate to link to google searches or external web sites on the talk page in order to demonstrate that an editor is opposed to SSB. (It is also not appropriate for opponents of SSB to try and denigrate SSS108 because he is a believer. Just deal with a person's edits on wikipedia and leave the rest of the web to itself.)
However, I believe some of your concerns are legitimate.
I am in a tough spot here. The edit warring and continued personal comments require some response. However, it seems that the only regular editors here have either a strong pro-SSB or strong anti-SSB agenda, and if I block or ban SSS108, I will have to personally watch the article to make sure it doesn't deteriorate into an attack article. I also think the disagreements here are rather small, and can be worked out if the editors involved can set aside personal issues. Therefore, I will issue a 48 hour block of SSS108 (24 hours for edit warring and 24 hours for personal comments) which will be suspended—I will not actually carry out the block if you stop edit warring and making personal remarks. I am also placing the article on 1 revert parole. All editors of this article are limited to one content revert per day (obvious vandalism excepted). Editors who revert more than once may be blocked for up to 24 hours per offense. Hopefully you will be able to discuss your changes and come to an agreement on these issues, or at least agree that as long as "the other side's" version is not much different from the way you would want it, you can let it go for a while to work on some of the more serious problem areas. Thatcher13105:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On Talk:Robert Priddy you are changing other user's (i.e. my) postings and you are using misleading edit summaries. You are near 3RR violation at Robert Priddy itself and using misleading edit summaries there, too.
This behaviour may result in temporary blocking your write access to Wikipedia. Of course, as an involved party, I won't block you myself.
Andries is bound by the ArbCom ruling, as well you yourself. If other editors in good standing are inserting links, it's another issue. --Pjacobi22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. Cite the relevant sections and have ArbCom verify your opinions to me. Instead of pushing forward with whatever agenda you are pushing, I suggest you follow a civil path and not the one you are currently treading. SSS108talk-email22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put up a clarification process. But as you yourself did state, that you don't consider yourself an Wikipedia editor, you should better trust the word of someone who has a better overview and has seen more than three or four articles. --Pjacobi23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should give your advice to the Admin who spoke in this matter and to ArbCom instead of arguing with someone you perceive as being inexperienced. As an experienced editor (as you claim to be), one would think you would have acted with more civility and grace than what you have shown with thus far. Pity. SSS108talk-email23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and discussing the quality of edits. May be you can start doing it. It does not mean extensive discussion about editing procedures. Thanks. Andries19:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you don't know what "duplicitous" means. I suggest that you look it up, understand what it implies about the person whose edits you're calling duplicitous, and not use it again. This isn't a playground game of name-calling; you will be blocked from editing if you make personal attacks on other editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have added a discussion to Sathya Sai Baba talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba sex changing claim, please give your feedback.
Wikisunn 9th February 2007
A serious message - PLEASE READ 