Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 6

message: Andries is requesting a citation stating: "Kreydick's statement cannot be retrieved from the clerk of court and hence breaks wikipedia policy verifiability." It is not my fault if Andries cannot obtain these public court records. I obtained them: View Them Here. As one can see, these are actual scans to actual public court records. Therefore, I suggest Andries take out his request for citation. SSS108 talk-email 00:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you get them then? If they can only obtained from a lawyer, but not from court records then they are not public records and this breaks Wikipedia:verifiability. Please give a contact address where I can get these records. Andries 03:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you refuse to to provide an address where I can obtain Kreydick's statement from public records then I will remove it because this would break Wikipedia:verifiability. Andries 03:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you mean that you refuse to give an address where I can retrieve the statement from Kreydick from public records? It is your problem, not mine, to give an address, because information in Wikipedia needs to be Wikipedia:verifiability. If I used information from a book then I also have to give at least a book title and author name and preferrably ISBN nr. This is the responsibility of the person adding contents to the article, not the responsibility wishing to verify what is written.  Andries 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, others have tried before to get Kreydick's statement from the court but failed, nevertheless I will try get it too from the court . Andries 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What is wrong with my tone? I did not use not a single unfriendly word. I used the word please. Why do we have to disengage until the arbcom makes a decision? I sincerely cannot understand. Andries 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, others have tried to verify the court record and they were unable to do so. Andries 07:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ProEdits, did you request the actual court records? I did and I got Kreydicks deposition with my request. Therefore, your internet search is trumped by my actual request, which included Kreydics video-taped deposition. SSS108 talk-email 15:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to maintain transparency, ProEdits is Robert Priddy, an Anti-Sai Activist who happens to be a very close associate of Andries Ref. SSS108 talk-email 15:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: user:ProEdits did very serious effort to verify Kreydick's deposition and was unable to do so, incl. extensive e-mail correspondence to the court archive contact persons. Therefore the Kreydick's deposition breaks Wikipedia:verifiability and I have given the article a warning.  Andries 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, Kreydick's deposition is not listed with the method that you described hereabove. Andries 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ProEdits did pay for access to the court archives and was unable to verify Kreydick's deposition. Andries 16:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I also want to point out that using the method listed above, under "Register Of Actions", there is a "Stipulation - Other" that happened on 3/16/2006, which happens to be the exact date for Kreydick's deposition Ref. SSS108 talk-email 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:ProEdits had extensive communication with the court clerks but he was unable to retrieve the depositions from them. How did you retrieve the deposition? Andries 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you did not provide enough information to retrieve the deposition. ProEdits did serious but unsuccessful efforts to get it. I am still waiting for an answer from you to my question how you got the deposition? Andries 07:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Kreydick's Testimony

message: The reference provided for the last edit is from Rick Ross' website and does not have any information about the original source. The citation is referred to be from The Times, but The Times archive does not have such article. See: [. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really was an article in [The Times]], see e.g. here, here and hereAndries 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, the article itself meantions the names of The Times three times. Andries 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the link from The Times is dead (see: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,7-2001295208,00.html ), then we need to use the proper format for the cite as per WP:CITE#Intermediate_sources:_Say_where_you_got_it, as you do not seem to have seen the original article. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fascinating.... What should we do about that article? It may not cross the threshold for verifiability... ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what do u mean not verifiable? U can check the hard copy of the Times of that date. Andries 16:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How? Let's ask Freelanceresearch. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: it can only be removed it if you or somebody else was unable to find it in the hardcopy archives of the Times. Andries 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Verifiability does not mean that it has be accessible online. Andries 05:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you google on the name of the article then it is clear that it used to be available online. Online copies can be found e.g here.  Andries 05:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not have to prove its existence. The article only has to be verifiable You can verify its existence and contents by checking the hardcopy of the Times. Andries 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, unless its existence is disputed. In which case the burden to provide a way to verify the source is on the editor adding the material. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are misinterpreting policy. I gave a date, name, publication, and author. This makes it verifiable to anyone who is willing to do the effort. Andries 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not inclined to believe Andries. After all, he got the name to Premanand's book completely wrong and left it that way for many months. The fact remains that 2 out of 3 of Dominic Kennedy's articles have been and can be verified by The Times archive. One cannot. That means it is not in their archive which casts doubts on it's origins and verifiability. How to request the article from The Times to verify it when it is not in their archives? When it came to Kreydicks deposition, Andries immediately wanted it removed based on the word of his cronies (he didn't even research it himself) even though I provided all the relevant information and scans to the actual documents. Now he is arguing for the inclusion of an article that cannot be verified from it's alleged official source (i.e., The Times). This shows how Andries flip-flops on the standards he uses when it comes to material that argues in favor of his POV. It is my intent to remove the source unless Andries can provide information that verifies it. So far, the title, date and newspaper name have yielded no verifiable results. SSS108 talk-email 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof that the article exists is only on me when other editors did serious but unsuccessful effort to verify it. Please contact the Times first or check the hardcopies of the Times. I read the article when it came out and there are several independent sources that mention the article without disputing its existence. Andries 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Times reference 

message: I removed the statement that oiling genitals is a Hindu ritual. This has been discussed many times outside of Wikipedia and proponents are always unable to back up this statement with clear reputable sources. Andries 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some proof voiced in reputable sources. Even the Dutch SSO admitted it (in an article by Wim van Dijk) in their offical newsletter for members. Oiling gentitals by SSB of young men is so common that it cannot be seriously denied anymore. Andries 09:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu ritual oiling genitals?

message: Any reason that takes up half the article? Can the notes be summarized?Bakaman Bakatalk 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to do it a bit, but I have been repeatedly accused of selective and out-of-context citing. Selective and out-of-context citing can be verified and corrected easily if the citations are long. Andries 08:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes and refs

message: Starting with a reversal of SSS which introdudes a giant citation into the article and broke the references.
And archiving the talk page seems also needed.
Pjacobi 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you reference your comments, Pjacobi? Most of the "giant citations" were added by Andries. I also noticed the broke refs and was going to try to remedy it when I had the time. SSS108 talk-email 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I enlarged the citations to counter the repeated accusations against me of out-of-context and selective citations. Andries 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's engage the emergency break and shorten the article now! 

message: ...Is way off:
# Wikipedia is not a battleground of ideas or opinions. See WP:NOT;
# we deal with each other with civility and respect. See WP:CIVIL;
# and we do not engage in personal attacks. See WP:NPA
If you are unable to abide by these policies, you would be better off not participating. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Priddy has not been attacked any more than he has attacked Sathya Sai Baba. Priddy completely discounts his utterly slanderous pages against Sathya Sai Baba and fails to mention that the only reason my link was added to his page was because of his defamatory link about Sathya Sai Baba. Since the link to his defamatory website has been removed, I have not attempted (not even once) to re-add my link. Priddy also lies (again) about me being a follower of SSB (very much the way he lied about Freelanceresearch being banned from Wikipedia). This is the type of shady, garrulous and whiny character who is trying to present himself as honest and fair-minded. Kreydick and (more recently) Rye both knew Alaya Rahm very well and were with him during the time of his alleged sexual abuse. Alaya never related anything but positive things about Sathya Sai Baba (even writing SSB a love poem after allegedly being sexually abused dozens of times). Furthermore, Alaya conceded, out of his own mouth, that he suffered no psychological trauma that warranted a therapist or doctor of any kind and could not identify to the court having seen any therapist or doctor for his alleged abuse. Alaya also admitted being a decade-long daily user of illegal street drugs and withheld his promiscuous sexual activities from his parents. All these facts have been purposely withheld from the general public by Priddy, Andries Rahm & Co. until now. That is why they are fighting tooth and claw to remove this information. It utterly compromises the poster child (Alaya Rahm) for their movement. SSS108 talk-email 21:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of this conversation... 

message: 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. 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba]]

message: Who requested the RFC? Where is it at? When was it made? And where on this talk page was the RFC made known? Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I filed an RFC on 3 Sept. It was made known on the talk page hereabove by me. Andries 04:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Andries stated he was filing a RFC but never posted the direct link for this RFC on this page Ref. Rather, he just posted a general link to the Wikipedia:Request for comments. The RFC instructions were not followed, I was not directly informed about it (although I was a party to the discussion) and I never agreed to the issue being resolved before the edits were made. You did not follow proper procedure. Let me know if I am wrong about this. SSS108 talk-email 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: what do you mean that you were not directly informed about it.  I did try to summarize it neutrally, but only after I got responses from the RFC. And of course. Andries 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding RFC 

message: Andries once again re-inserted a link to his Anti-Sai Website before getting an answer or obtaining a consensus from FloNight. See Thread. Andries also attempted to justify his re-insertion of links to his Anti-Sai Website by citing the proposed decisions: Reference. For Andries information, that link is not ArbCom's final ruling. Andries needs to substantiate his actions by referring to The Final Decisions and not the one's that were formerly proposed. SSS108 talk-email 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Andries just stated on the Wikipedia:Citing sources page that he is not attempting to modify Wikipedia policy so that he can push links to Anti-Sai Sites on Sathya Sai Baba-related articles Reference. Just making this known now in case Andries changes his mind later. SSS108 talk-email 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prema Sai Baba Issue

message: Cum grano salis I've now removed all cites from the references and split all footnotes holding multiple references. I've begin collapsing multiple references to the same article using the name="xyz" method. There will arise a problem: I'd would be very happy to collapsing all references to Erlendurs book into one, but that would lose the page number information. Are there workarounds known for this situation. --Pjacobi 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert, but a possible work around could be to list all the used page numbers. Andries 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal stuff