User talk:Freelanceresearch
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.
First, please discuss proposed changes to Sathya Sai Baba on the article's talk page as it has been hotly disputed recently.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
And now that you have an account, you can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
Again, welcome! BCorr|Брайен 20:59, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Freelanceresearch
[edit]- Insists on slandering the critics of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Skeptics "such as Premanand, 'a school drop out", "Tal Brooke who is an evangelical Christian sees himself as a 'false prophet and an 'Antichrist, as predicted in the Bible." "Hari Sampath's website, sathyasaivictims.com went down after a query was turned over to Illinois police regarding a report on an internet message board that Sampath was wanted in India for theft and sexual assault. Since then Sampath's high profile public appearance seems to have evaporated." This user is probably sincere but brainwashed. User threatens to sue Wikipedia if s/he is blocked. [1]
- Please explain why this is relevant for the article on talk:Sathya Sai Baba Thanks. Otherwise I will request to block you. Andries 20:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Hi again. I put this all on my talk page, but I'm copying it here just in case you don't have my talk page on your watchlist. You should definitely check out Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view since there are ways to do what you'd like that are considered acceptable and some that aren't, and also, as I mentioned above, discussing them on the talk page first is a good way to get feedback as a new user and "learn the ropes." Also, in articles we usually put external links in a seperate section at the very bottom of the article.
- Overall, for an example of an article about a controversial religious figure (as well as formatting tips) see Mother Teresa -- and see Talk:Mother Teresa for the background on how the controversies were worked out in one of the most difficult cases I've seen in my time here. Hopefully the one you're involved in won't get anywhere near that level of conflict. :-)
11:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit]Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thank you. --Pjacobi 11:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you say something to Andries and Proedits about their continuous personal attacks on Joe? I've been watching them attack him and nobody says anything. Personally, I'm getting tired of the fact that they are using the wikipedia article to attack Sai Baba and anyone else they want to and nobody does anything about it.Freelanceresearch 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And BTW, if you look at Andries statements above, you can see the day I came to wikipedia he started attacking me personally the MINUTE I started trying to the wikipedia article. He even tried to get me banned for making true FACTUAL statements (which he blatantly lied about) regarding the backgrounds of both Hari Sampath and Tal Brooke. Andries thinks he owns the wikipedia article and scares away anyone who tries to work on it that isn't in his camp. If you look at the talk page archives you can see NUMEROUS people have complained about Andries monopolization and dictatorship of the article. When are you going to do something about THAT? How many people do you see working on the article besides Joe? Look at my history of edits compared to Andries and see who is chasing WHO away.Freelanceresearch 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Warning
[edit]- You accuse those who are not believers of having a conflict of interest, but appear to deny that you also have one. 100% of your main space involvement is with Sathya Sai Baba, that makes you a single purpose account. Single purpose accounts may be banned from an article or Wikipedia without recourse to ArbCom. Tone down the rhetoric right now or I will block you. Guy 11:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The BIG difference here Guy is that I have NOT hardly edited the Sai Baba article because Andries had total control over it and harassed ANYONE who tried to do what he didn't like. I, on the other hand, have ALWAYs tried to follow Wikipedia rules even though I am basically a beginner while Andries KNOWS the rules and still refuses to follow them. As far as I'm concerned, unless you issued a warning to Priddy for his obnoxious behavior you are harassing me and I WILL file a complaint against you if you abuse your position.Freelanceresearch 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, actualley there is no difference. Tone down the rhetoric or I will block you. Guy 07:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, abuse your position by being biased towards the anti-Sais and and I WILL file a complaint. I'm tired of being bullied. That's one of the reasons I spend very little time on Wikipedia besides the fact that I do not have time for the immature headgames. Freelanceresearch 03:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- File away. Guy 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A Proposition
[edit]Please read the proposition on the Sathya Sai Baba Talk Page. If you agree to it, please sign it. It is an effort to build good faith and resolve controversial issues on the talk page, rather than engaging in edit warring. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
[edit]I have filed a request here to reopen the previous arbitration case regarding Sathya Sai Baba and related articles, as I believe there are serious ongoing problems with disruptive editing and personal attacks which were not addressed in the previous case. You may wish to add a comment of your own. Thatcher131 15:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Exceptional Controversial Claim
[edit]I have added a discussion to Sathya Sai Baba talk page regarding the controversial Sathya Sai Baba sex changing claim, please give your feedback. I have also added a RFC(request for comment). As you are one of the editors in the Sathya Sai Baba article, please give your comment whether you support adding this claim to the article or you disagree to adding this claim in the article. This is for content decision based on consensus.
Wikisunn 11th February 2007
Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title
[edit]Please give your comment in the Sathya Sai talk page. I have added a RFC(Request For Comment). As you are one of the editors your feedback will be greatly appreciated. This is for decision making on consensus.Wikisunn 22nd February 2007
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Sathya Sai Baba. Thank you. Ekantik talk 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How can anyone assume good faith when you are so dishonest Ekantik? Please stay off of my talk page. You are banned from leaving messages here. I've had enough of your harassment and dishonesty on the other board you are not going to start it here.Freelanceresearch 11:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Barbra Streisand
[edit]I edited out your sentence that says Streisand sang at the Playboy Club in 1961. While plausible, it is controversial enough that I believe it should be documented in the article. I suggest you find the documentation and re-add. Bellagio99 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Lies About Me
[edit]This is a note to verify that I have NOT been banned from wikipedia or I could not write this note or edit articles. This lie was started by a wikipedia user named ProEdits and spread like a virus to his friend Conny Larsson in Sweden who never fails to stoop to new lows in non-accountability. This way ProEdits does not have to be held accountable for the lies his friends tell. New info here where Priddy aka ProEdits continues his lies (under the anonymous name 'bandbox') about me being banned from Wikipedia. Freelanceresearch 07:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)