User talk:Sbs108

Sathya Sai Baba

To fix this article, please see my comments on the bottom of the sai baba talk page. My idea is to find the relevant information, post it in my sandbox, and work together to get it to the point that we can add it into the main article without removing a ton of info from the current article. Thanks, Ono (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I think President visiting Sai Baba is a notable event. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=291486589&oldid=291297571. Please also provide the news link in the reference. In wikipedia reference source is very important. Yes. This article is in bad shape. If you have questions you can reach me at rad0909@yahoo.com. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email. I will reply shortly. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Baba

While I agree with you, I do not believe you are taking the correct approach to fixing the article. You will run into harsh criticism when trying to add "his own words". You must be able to back up what you add with Reliable sources. Before you add the reference, be sure to check and see if they are considered reliable. If they arent, you would not be helping the article, as the info would be disputed and ultimately removed. Might I suggest you edit the paragraphs here first. Then we can collaborate on how to best move forward (and I can edit the writings to make sure they are easy to understand.) I would also be happy to help you find sources for the info. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow this link and make the edits as you would on the actual page. It will show up, and then Radiantenergy or I will help you out with syntax and such, so it is easier to read, etc. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your name, writing style, and manner of editing are all suspiciously similar to SSS108's. He was barred from editing the Sathya Sai Baba page, and "retired" from wikipedia. Your sudden appearance, with such a similar name and your focusing on many of the same articles he did, has made me (and I'm sure other people) significantly suspicious. However, I am assuming good faith that you are a different person. I am glad to help get the Sathya Sai Baba to a level worth of FA status. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure why Dilip removed the information. If you believe that the information will bring a positive change to the article, by all means add it. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to update you about this discussion - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concerns_regarding_removal_of_info_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: Always log in when you edit a page, lest you want to be accused of sockpuppetry. [1] As of now, I wont report it, as I think it was probably an accident. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to move the sandbox changes to the main article as instructed by OnoPearls. I hope we won't have surprises / edit-warring for these changes. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSB

A vote on adding the youtube videos to the Sathya Sai Baba page can be found here. Your opinion on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that all editors on the SSB page agree to no more than one revert per day. If you agree, please sign your name on the list. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement Case on Dilip Rajeev

Here's the link to the case. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip_rajeev. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Sbs108, listen to reason. I dont want to report any of the editors (you, Dilip, or Radiantenergy) for edit warring. Please take your concerns to the talk page. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tip

It's usually considered in bad taste to edit another editor's posts. I doubt JS29 will care, but some editors get rather hostile about people editing their posts. Just a friendly tip ;). Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is new and messed up his entry, I didn't change any content. But thanks for the heads up.Sbs108 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Baba again

I replaced the wikinews link to SSB being accused of pedophilia. I disagree that it is "highly POV" as it is merely a link to a news article. I would love to hear your rationale behind removing it on the talk page, as I personally believe that it is a neutral redirect to a relevant story on the subject. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its linked because it is a very relevant article (further reading, if you will) to something covered in the article itself. If you would feel more comfortable adding more news story links, then by all means do it. But we can't get back into the game of "if we have one bad thing there, we should have a good one too" or it will soon become swamped with articles. If you believe there is something in the story that requires further reading, add it. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee ban

Based on your editing patterns and user name, it appears that you are the same person as User:SSS108. You were banned from Sathya Sai Baba by the Arbitration Committee, and I have requested enforcement of that ban. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Having reviewed your editing history and that of the banned user SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a couple of things appear clear to me. First, when you registered this account you were not a new user to Wikipedia. Second, judging by the edits you have made (which are restricted to defence of Sathya Sai Baba) it is very likely that your former account was SSS108, currently under a site ban for harassment and outing and a topic ban from your sole area of interest. I have therefore blocked this account indefinitely. If you wish to appeal the site ban and/or topic ban you should do so from your original account following the procedure for appeal to the arbitration committee in WP:APPEAL. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Unblock as I am not banned user SSS108. Only one admin decided I was on speculation

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sbs108 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin claims I am banned user SSS108 which I am not

Decline reason:

The similarities between your username, edits, and other mannerisms are too similar for me to believe you are another user. Since this conclusion is endorsed by several independent administrators and users, I am declining this request. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have requested CheckUser. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Won't do any good; SSS108 hasn't edited in two and a half years. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you provided more info and/or evidence that you are not, in fact, SSS108. TN X Man 01:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what I need to do to prove I am not SSS108.I have already said my name is Scott Boyd S (last name) and 108 is a very common holy number. I am the one accused, it is those who accused me to prove I am SSS108. This is all mixed up. How can I be banned with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that I am SSS108. If I were deceitful would I come back with almost the same name. I've edited the Desert Fathers Article as well. I am primarily responsible for that article. This block should be removed immediately. This is very unfair. Tell me what I need to do as I am ready to do it to prove I am not SSS108.Sbs108 (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three original reasons of my accuser were 1) almost the same name. 2) Single purpose interest 3) Same Grammatical errors. I've answered to the name accusation. Yes most of my edits have been on the Sai Baba Article. There are millions of people with interest in Sai Baba. His accusation of the same single purpose interest as SSS108 doesn't hold up as evidence that I am SSS108. User Crotalus (the accuser) has not shown any similar "grammatical" errors between me and this user SSS108. Even this is subjective and couldn't be hard evidence that I am SSS108 even if he could show similar "errors" which he can not and has not shown.Sbs108 (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who blocked me User Guy uses these two reasons why I was blocked. 1)He said when I signed up for this account I was not a new user. This is an absolute lie. I was a new user. I had briefly signed up before this but was unsure how everything worked and couldn't remember my user name or password. 2) That all my edits were in defense of Sai Baba, well so are a lot of editors. This is not reason to block someone. Is this a third world country where you are guilty until proven innocent? I am innocent until proven guilty and there has been no proof other than speculation. You can not ban someone on speculation.Sbs108 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other seasoned admins would be equally sceptical of a user who displays from his first edits not only a consistent use of edit summaries in mainspace, but also a consistent lack of them on talk pages. The first edits certainly do not look like a newbie. I forwarded your mail to the arbitrators as it contains real world identities, I am not going down that road, that's their job. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you, I AM NOT SSS108. I don't even know what this means "consistent use of edit summaries in mainspace". I am a quick learner. I looked at pages and how people edited to learn as I wanted to contribute. I was frustrated because I didn't know how so I spent time quickly learning. Because the general public is slow, doesn't mean that I am. This can not be a reason to suspect someone of being someone else.Sbs108 (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO UNBLOCK ME BECAUSE THEIR IS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT I AM THIS BANNED USER.Sbs108 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Unacceptable

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sbs108 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not SSS108

Decline reason:

Regardless of who you are, you were just using another account to evade your block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If I were SSS108, why would I come back with almost the same user name. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only reason anyone is being suspicious is because my user name is close to his. This is a travesty of justice here. If I really were him , I would be a sick individual that would keep perpetrating this lie. Look at the article the Desert Fathers of which I am the main contributor. I am a woodcutprint maker and have uploaded one of my prints of St. Anthony. As St. Anthony as my witness, I am not SSS108.Sbs108 (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of sockpuppets have names that are very similar to the original account's name, ostensibly for ease of remembering. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sbs, as we've explained, your username is not the only concern here. Your edits and mannerisms also very closely match those of SSS. You have not provided any explanation why you can't be the same person. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why I can't be SSS108 and even swore on saints and my mother that I am not him. I really don't know what esle to do. How do I defend myself against WP:DUCK? This is an opinion based on no evidence. Please see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:SSS108#I_Am_Not_Sbs108. Please check user again. SSS108 has even come back after catching wind of what is going on here. Sbs108 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really look carefully at SSS108's style and mastery of Wikipedia, you will see that it is not at all similiar to mine. He is much more forceful, wordy, pointed and argumentative backing up his arguments with detailed explanations. He is also much more adept at Wikipedia than I am. With a closer look you will see this is blatantly clear.Sbs108 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're seeming pretty argumentative right now. Checkuser won't show anything except this account and the one you just used to evade your block, as the banned user in question hasn't edited under that account for over two years, beyond the point where we store IP data. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you be argumentative if you were falsely accused? If you are not willing to accept any of my explanations, what else can I do. I have not used any account to "evade" my block. I don't know what you are talking about. I have contacted this SSS108 to write in as to clear myself of this false accusation. A check user has been opened. I don't know how it works but it should show the locations of the IP addresses which won't be the same because I am not him. Please look deeper at our respective edits and way of working on wikipedia, instead of just assuming we are the same person. Give me the benefit of the doubt instead of reading a few posts and claiming I am him.Sbs108 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold is a Checkuser, Sbs, and can thus confirm whether or not you evaded your block, and judging by what I'm reading above she did. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there can be no connection between me Sbs108 and PSSS108 because I am not him. She is refering to SSS108 creating PSSS108 to make comments. I have not created any page. If you check user you will see no connection between me Sbs108 and SSS108. This is really unbelievable. I can sympathize with all those people in prison who are falsely accused.Sbs108 (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, got a question: How are you so sure she's referring to PSSS108 evading for SSS108 when she very clearly is aiming her comments at *you*? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beacuse I never used any accout to "evade" my block. I did use my iphone to defen myself on the original sock puppet case because I had already been blocked way to fast. This isn't what she is talking about. SSS108 says on his talk page that he created that PSSS108 account. I found out who SSS108 was contacted him (as his name was public )so he could write in to show that I am not him. User: Hersfold wrote the same thing on the talk page of SSS108 as she wrote on my page thinking I am the same person but i am not the same user. She has not checked user because if she did she would see our locations. I have no idea where this SSS108 is but I am assuming its not near where I am.One more thing, if I were him I would not be stupid enough to come back with almost the same name and I wouldn't come back with almost the same name so I could use that as an excuse that I wasn't him. I don't think the article of Sai Baba is worth this much deviousness, especially when he preaches "Sathyam Vada, Dharman Chara " which means "speak the truth, act righteously." Sbs108 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disinclined to buy that especially given all her comments on this page have been aimed specifically at you (Sbs108), and not SSS108. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what I need to do to prove I am not SSS108, don't you have any good investigators there? If you did really investigate this matter thoroughly you would see the differences and you would see I am not him. I am losing faith in wikipedia fast. Please tell what I need to do.Sbs108 (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been cleared of being SSS108 (apologies for that); I will lift the block after I have a chat with Hersfold regarding her comments above. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 23:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you, and I apologize for the whole affair. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing my name

I appreciate the admins finally coming to their senses to realize I am not SSS108.Sbs108 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it took a CheckUser case to do it. The vast majority of admins do not have access to CheckUser, and thus it was less "us coming to our senses" and more "us having better information." -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up Effort

Hi Sbs108, You might have seen the clean up discussions in the talk page. The concerns raised so far are mainly about the 'Biography' section which uses the primary sources. In the RS discussion it was agreed that the official Sathya Sai Organisational Websites could be used. I think more than the sourcing the style of writing in the Biography should be made more neutral in tone and more encyclopedic with out too much emphasis on miracles etc. That's going to be a challenge. It might be easier for us to fix this section as we know this article and its sources well. I will appreciate your help. I am also planning to start working on this. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Sbs108,

Wishing you a Very Happy and Prosperous New Year 2010. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba

User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Sbs108/sandboxSaiBaba during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]