User talk:J929

Hi, I don't know if you are familiar with the history of this article but it was recently locked for 7 days due to edit warring. The article was OK before it was totally destroyed through one user's 150 edits in a ten day period in January while nobody was watching turning it into a total assualt against Sathya Sai Baba. The article is being repaired. It has improved a lot in the last month. We have set up a sandbox Sai Baba Sandbox for testing of major changes. E-mail me if you have any questions.Yours Sbs108 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi J929, I have been following the recent talk page discussions. If you think User:Ombudswiki is pushing an agenda you can report him in Wikipedia Conflict of Interest notice board. I do agree with you that these activists are starting to disrupt the article pushing their secret agendas. If they don't stop then we may have to report them in other higher level forums in wikipedia. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

Please add any relevant info!

J929 (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For now the activists seemed to have stopped the disruption. Let's see in future, if we see more disruption then we can present a stronger evidence and reopen an older case. I would suggest you also to keep a copy of the discussion links once its archived so it could be used for future. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have some questions to ask in the WP:COI. I will post them soon. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I replied in my talk page. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please add your comments here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi J929, In the reliable source board we can talk only about the source - "The Daily Pioneer' and that it was already declared reliable in the earlier reliable source notice board. It may not be an appropriate place to write about the activist. That has to be reported in the Conflict of Interest notice board. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please add your comments again in the reliable source notice board I think it got over written some how because 2 of us were editing the article at the same time.

I think I got confused some body reverted it later. I don't know why? - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=315608688&oldid=315608347 Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi J929,

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, 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 rather than others who are new to this topic. I will appreciate your help. I have also requested Sbs108 to help. I am also planning to start working on this. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

sounds good...

J929 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your Clean Up effort. I have one suggestion. If its possible please condense some of the details under the Biography section. Personally I am Ok with it as I know the article and its sources. But it might be overwhelming with lot of details to new users.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi J929,

I have started adding Secondary Sources from Babb, Kent and Others in the Biography Section. I am using the following sources which are available online. All these sources have used Kasturi's biography with their interpretations. For instance you will find supporting references for 1940 Proclamation and other important incidents from Baba's life from these sources.

Google Links of Secondary Sources with Biography References:

• Babb Lawrence: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B8bMjUt6AqIC&pg=PA162&dq=%22Sathya+Sai+Baba+was+born+in+1926%22&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Sathya%20Sai%20Baba%20was%20born%20in%201926%22&f=false
• Kent:http://www.wilfridlaurieruniversity.ca/documents/6484/Creating_Divine_Uni.pdf (Page 6 - Has the biography)
• Kent:Divinity and diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=26sVhUo_aM4C&pg=PA37&dq=%22Sathya+Sai+Baba+was+born+in+1926%22&client=firefox-a&cd=7#v=onepage&q=%22Sathya%20Sai%20Baba%20was%20born%20in%201926%22&f=false
• Eade:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iq1xhNpTlDEC&pg=PA267&dq=%22Sathya+Sai+Baba+was+born+in+1926%22&client=firefox-a&cd=5#v=onepage&q=%22Sathya%20Sai%20Baba%20was%20born%20in%201926%22&f=false
• Global Guru by Weiss - http://www.nzasia.org.nz/downloads/NZJAS-Dec05/7_2_2.pdf (Page 4 - Has the Biography)
• Larson - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vnAk9WefhfwC&pg=PA427&dq=%22sathya+sai+baba+was+born+in1926%22&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

J929 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi J929, In Page 8 - http://www.nzasia.org.nz/downloads/NZJAS-Dec05/7_2_2.pdf - there are more details about his illness as well his declaration that he is Sai Baba when questioned by his father. The same announcement is also mentioned by Kent - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=26sVhUo_aM4C&printsec=frontcover&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false in page 38. We can use these references. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi J929, Howard Murphet book is viewed as a Devotee material. Probably it could be used as a reference in Biography section other than that I don't think we can use it anywhere else. Did you see this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=337689481&oldid=337130963? - When you get a chance please add your comments. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wishing you a Prosperous, Happy New Year 2010. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

)

Thanks!!! hope you have an amazing 2010!!! J929 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could join this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Reliable_source_for_Pioneer_claims.3F Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The phrase during low UV levels needs a reliable source.Autarch (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Where did you scan this photo from? --Damiens.rf 18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

an original photo taken by me in Bangalore several years ago. read the meta data. may i ask why?

no scan nor scam. J929 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The description use to say "original photo (scanned version of print)", so I was worried it could have been a scan of a copyrighted work. My fault I didn't noticed the presence of metadata. And the scam in the title was not intentional.

Nice shot! And thanks, --Damiens.rf 18:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

don't worry. haste makes waste.. J929 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brian Steel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Steel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walk for Values is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk for Values (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Sri Sathya Sai Super Speciality Hospital, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ∯WBG^converse 13:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sri Sathya Sai Super Speciality Hospital is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Sathya Sai Super Speciality Hospital until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello J929! Your additions to Sathya Sai Baba have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Please take care to read the section on limited quotation. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zalaraz. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Zalaraz (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

its still there... read it before editing.... J929 (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

here it is again

The Sathya Sai Baba page took years to build up. These agreements took a long time to achieve (one can still see hidden notes in the criticism section) as well as a foundation for the pages lay out to be solidified. Two sections stand out for this, the introduction and the criticism section.

Headings and banners pertaining to multiple issues plagued the page for years but with effort the article grew up to par as per Wikipedia standards.

Zalaraz's recent slew of edits (erasing paragraphs and "summarizing" key events) does not help this page at all.

Under the umbrella of the “removing promotional content“ theme/narrative, well sourced and relevant information is being erased.

4 TOPICS/EDITS OF DISCUSSSION

1. removing Sai Baba's exacts words and replacing them with "and left his home for religious cause." Poorly written, vague, terrible grammar and incongruent with the pages nature. Considering this is the lead sentence, how does this improve the page - at all?

2. removing "promotional material". the information that zalaraz removed was from a university press and therefor a legitimate and reliable source according to wikipedia standards. the editor removed this on their own and reverted attempts to undue this vandalism without consensus or looking at the talk pages.

3. lying about “removing unneeded trivia“. Zalaraz says they removed unneeded trivia while in fact, looking at the edit itself, one can easily see zalaraz was simply removing disconnected links and legitimate source material after their previous edits. It seems there were red links in the article and instead of addressing or cleaning up the page, they simply removed them. Again, another level of vandalism.

4. removing devotees counter points to allegations against Sai Baba. As these allegations were never proven, no charges ever laid and Sai Baba himself addressed their nature, the initial "criticism" were in fact an opinion and in order to balance these allegations a sentence or two is in order to balance the section and tone of the article. Removing these statements creates a one sided view that destroys any neutrality.

EXPANSION and FURTHER DISCUSSION of ISSUES

1. edit - "and left his home for religious cause.[7][8][9]"

WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

Who said that?

Where is this phrasing printed or discussed?

Zalaraz left the sources from the previous quote of "and left his home saying "My devotees are calling me, I have my work".[6][7][8]", in the newly edited page. why? NONE THESE SOURCES SAY "he left for religious cause" What is this religious cause zalaraz is talking about? It is a vague, ambiguous and inflated yet completely ungrounded statement.

It is terrible English as well, grammatically. It makes no sense yet to Zalaraz this is an improvement? This helps the article? how?

Now add to the fact IT IS the very first sentence of the page, it shows the scope and nature of these edits. This is low level vandalism, poor english and a very skewed notion of summarization.

What is this "religious cause"? When did Sai Baba say this? What did he say exactly (and thats the point - this is a bad attempt to paraphrase or summarize a very important statement in the life of this figure)? What did he mean by religious cause? What did he do for "religious cause"?

Zalaraz gives no specifics (or correct intelligible english) YET the original wikipedia version held specific and precise words -with meaning and context- to this person‘s biography. Zalaraz reduced it to a simple nonsensical poorly written, half English jumble of syllables.

All spiritual figures have some defining moment or publicly known event that changes their direction or trajectory in life and/or their mission and that is what this statement did. Sai Baba saying that he has work to do, etc., etc. is a defining moment in this person‘s life.

These statements are noted, written down and discussed because it is a change from the Sathyanarayana; the 14-year-old boy, into Sathya Sai Baba, the adult personna. Considering the global and personal changes this person created for himself, as well as others, this is a very important statement and turning point. So why remove it? and worse, why replace it with jibberish nonsense? "religious cause"???? im guessing english is not zalaraz's native tongue.

Look at Ramana Maharshi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi -his biography in Wikipedia also states his personal experiences from his childhood and his normal life, and how that led to his awakening. The definite change from the old person he was, to the new dynamic being he became. That is also in the beginning section of that Wikipedia statement.

"at the age of 16, he had a "death-experience" in which he became aware of a "current" or "force" (avesam) which he recognised as his true "I" or "self",[web 1][5] and which he later identified with "the personal God, or Iswara",[web 1]"

The equivalent of the Zalaraz interpretation/edits would be "he felt religious feeling and saw something different".

Ramakrishna in the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna says, "His parable-based teachings advocated the essential unity of religions and proclaimed that world religions are "so many paths to reach one and the same goal".[6] He is regarded by his followers as an avatar (divine incarnation).[7]" These exact words attest to his philosophy and outward look, yet is that not a promotion to his teachings? Or should the page be edited to "he had religious view and many paths are religious cause"?

Is the absurdity of this statement (religious cause) beginning to be understood? And how it makes no sense and holds no place in this article - especially in the very first sentence!! It is a straight downhill nonsensical poorly written half English testament to nothing.

Look at Lemmy Kilmister wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmy - the first paragraphs in his Wikipedia page,

"A foundational force in the genre following the advent of the new wave of British heavy metal, Lemmy was known for his appearance, which included his signature friendly mutton chops, his military-influenced fashion sense and his gravelly rasp of a voice. It was once declared "one of the most recognisable voices in rock".[1] He was also noted for his unique posture when singing, which was once described as "looking up towards a towering microphone tilted down into his weather-beaten face".[2]"

A recognizable voice in rock ‘n’ roll? Why are these descriptions in the lead and not in the "influences" or "biography" or "career" or "personal" sections? Is this not a form of promotion? Telling people how his voice is iconic? Yet the article is well sourced and quoted, hence it stands.

Maybe Zalaraz should try editing that page.

Nowhere in these supporting/referenced articles does it say that he left his house for religious cause. Zalaraz didn't read the supporting articles yet felt to leave them into validate the term "religious cause"?

PLEASE!!! Notice the bad grammar and English at the very onset. Instead of reading that Sai Baba said that his devotees are waiting and left his worldly life, all of that was replaced with he left for "religious reason"......??

? What does that even mean?

Where does any article/newspaper reliable source say that? These reliable sources alluded to by the reference numbers 7/8/9 behind the original quote were precisely that. References for specific facts and words and events.

These well documented and reliably sourced words were replaced with some kind of bad English jibberish in an attempt to do what? Summarize? Paraphrase?

Please explain.

2. removing "promotional material"

Zalaraz says the previous version of the introduction was "Promotional".

Please explain the premise of these edits, it’s a sweeping statement and definitely needs clarification.

According to wikipedia....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

What part of the introduction is promotional, propaganda? Advertising, showcasing? Advocacy, recruitment?

Is it self promotion? Did Sai baba edit this himself - considering he’s been dead for years now? Did someone put a laptop beside his grave and he made the edits himself? What company is being promoted? Publicity? For what? is this PR?

Initially the section started/read as "By virtue of his sizeable influence, many feel Sai Baba provides an example of "the phenomenon referred to as mahagurus; that is, gurus with a global reach."[27]

Why was this removed? Where was the "promotional material" in this statement? Did Zalaraz read the university paper/book that they so readily deleted? I’m guessing no.

It is a university publisher a reliable source? yes.

Is it impartial? Yes! The paper discusses the phenomenon of the Sai Baba organization and movement how it is exuberant and expands on a scale of global proportion. It shows the macro/global version of a movement and how it integrates itself into a culture, society, system and world view. From an anthropological standpoint, this is a very important part. Did you read the article? (no)

The CIA itself reported in its release that the organization is expanding beyond comprehension via the social, financial, belief systems within India and abroad. The CIA operative said himself that it is a global phenomenon, likening it to the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Now, considering the global movement is being acknowledged worldwide, this indeed is a macro effect, and considering the large nature of the organization, and it’s outreach (hospitals, universities, water projects are a big social outreach), this is an important part of the lead in that it differentiates the organization's movement from other smaller, more localized movements. It is a global phenomenon. Prove it otherwise.

As this was discussed in the university press book, the CIA papers as well as many other documents, where is the promotional aspect in this? What’s being sold? Is there an agenda? Or are these well sourced and reliable documents?

Yet this was completely removed?

This is vandalism, plain and simple.

Zalaraz didnt actually research what "promotional" means in the Wikipedia guide and use it as a blanket statement to remove whatever they "felt" needed to be removed. The article wasn't pruned, it was simply hacked up, parts/ pieces/reliable sources removed etc..

A summary of the book reads "Gurus in America provides an excellent introduction to the guru phenomenon in the United States, with in-depth analyses of nine important Hindu gurus-Adi Da, Ammachi, Mayi Chidvilasananda, Gurani Anjali, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Osho, Ramana Maharshi, Sai Baba, and Swami Bhaktivedanta." Considering the scope of the book, it accurately portrays a global aspect of these gurus/spiritual figures.

It is not promotional. zalaraz never discussed or elaborated on how or why it was promotional. As well, they did not read any of the articles or source materials or "religious cause" wouldnt be a part of the page.

The article was properly written with reliable/credible sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

Specifically , which wikipedia rule is this not following and why?

Please explain, with direct links and wording to wikipedia guidelines.

3. 01;46 March 23, 2026 zalaraz's edit for “removing unneeded trivia“ was in fact zalaraz removing references that were 100% valid, reliable and properly sourced and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

After the previous edits, it seems these disconnected links/references were now a 'red linked' eye sore for the current version. S0, in order to hide their tracks, zalaraz removed all existing (well sourced) document links/references. Since they were no longer connected to anything (because of the previous edits) zalaraz simply got rid of them.

That is in some sense, a level of vandalism. Instead of trying to streamline or prune the article to help it, zalaraz simply removed content. When the problem/red text showed up in other parts of the article as disconnected links/references, instead of trying to clean things up, zalaraz tried to sweep it all under the rug.

Zalaraz then even lied about the reasons for the edits, saying they removed “unneeded trivia“ .... the edit Zalaraz made under that description, simply removed all the existing and now dislocated and disconnected article references - no trivia was removed.

The amount of thought that seems to have went into this seems to be the same amount of thought that went into their version of using “promotional material“ to remove well sourced information, it makes as much sense as Sai baba leaving his home for "religious cause".

Please explain why removing disconnected links and references is "removing unneeded trivia".

4. Zalaraz removed the counter arguments to the accusations in the opening section saying "It is inconsequential as to what his followers think of these accusations, writing them in the same breadth as the widespread accusations risks portraying them as equally significant"

- and just undid an edit by Anuradha Rao for this same "reason" - stating he needs consensus in the talk to undo their edits....???

Reading the archived talk of the Sathya Sai Baba page (did zalaraz read these talks??) - seems like no) and it comes up clearly that this topic was highly debated and an agreement finally came about to how to create a balanced and well sourced opening paragraph to address the concerns from both sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_13

If nothing was ever proven then it is, in fact, still an opinion. Yes, there are reliable sources that document these allegations but is it a fact?

The topic is discussed so therefore; with these credible sources, it is mentioned and elaborated on as a good neutral page or article should be. This was discussed in the times of India, the Deccan Herald and other international newspapers, so it was included in the article. So why is it removed as inconsequential?

Yet so are the rebuttals. The devotee's reasons for why these allegations were made are equally as valid as the allegations themselves. Considering the CIA themselves said that the movement could be undone by convincingly proving that Sai Baba was a fraud is a big red flag to these initial allegations. Did you read the CIA article? (im guessing "no" - again)

Sai Baba himself even addressed these concerns saying,-- "in those days there was one Judas, but today there are thousands."[181] Addressing the allegations, he said that out of jealousy, hate and fear, many devotees were being bought to speak against him, having been offered money to say nasty things.[181] -- so this is a well documented pushback from Sai Baba himself.

But to Zalaraz, it’s an inconsequential opinion? Yet the allegations are not? Considering they were never proven...

In order to create a balance page, both sides must be given weight. According to Wikipedia standards and protocol, both must be sourced properly, and they are. So why were they erased? This is simply Zalaraz's opinion on things and they simply erased well sourced and reliable information. If the overall information about these criticism is trite and useless, then simply erase all of it.

And yes, CIA documents alluding at proving Sai Baba to be a fraud ARE equally important to the page as the allegations themselves as they provide a context to these allegations.

Again, how are these opinions? These are all well sourced / referenced points in line with Wikipedia standards and discussed in length in the talk pages.

Please explain how not presenting two opposing views is not balanced and how one side is inconsequential and devalidates the other side.

ENDING POINTS OF CONCERN AND ATTENTION

1.zalaraz did not explain how these sections or facts were promotional in any way. the Wikipedia page for promotional material was included as someone had to do the work for zalaraz.

2. the edits were terrible. zalaraz made terrible English because they make good religious cause (example of cacophonic English). Apologies if English isnt zlaraz's first language but seriously, its terrible.

3. zalaraz lied about the nature of their edits when they said “removed unneeded trivia“. They didn’t remove trivia, they removed well sourced links and references to cover their previous edits.

4. Zero attempt was made to read the existing articles or talk pages. These articles (and how they were originally put together) comes from months/years of work from multiple editors. Consensus, cooperation and agreements, created the dynamic and structure for the opening paragraphs. As can be seen in the current hidden messages in the criticism section.

5. these edits were at best a drawn out level of vandalism. All edits were made against factual statements that were all properly sourced, verified and documented.

CONCLUSION

These initial contributions, edits and the templates for the lead paragraphs were created years ago by multiple editors to promote a clear and fair, balanced introduction. zalaraz's edits destroyed work agreed-upon by multiple editors, and it is vandalism.

There’s a hidden message (in the criticism section) saying that these points were agreed-upon years and years ago and how they were to be presented, as well what would be talked about.

(Please check the talk pages for additional information and history of this page.)

As was the introduction. It took a long time and a lot of back-and-forth to agree upon what was a proper format and structure, considering the controversy and heated opinions around Sai Baba. (AGAIN - see the talk pages)

Zalaraz is being asked to address each of these concerns, points, and questions in order to proceed in a cooperative manner in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policy.

The article - previous to these edits - was well sourced/verified, well documented, well written and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. As of now due to these edits, it has lost its fluidity, grammatical correctiveness, proper Englishness as well as valuable information that was seen by many to be relevant to the biography of this figure.

Ultimately one must ask themselves, do these new edits help the page?

No, they do not. Bad English, useless deletion of well sourced and pertinent facts as well as the lies for deleting unneeded trivia do not help any page.

Wikipedia says itself "it is run by volunteers who are under no obligation to do your work." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

Yet here I am writing a long piece to ask zalaraz to explain why they made the edits they did so this can proceed amicably and improve the quality of the page/article.

All of these concerns must be addressed.

As zalaraz themself is saying the talk page consensus is necessary. Yet is this only for other editors and not their contributions?

As zalaraz's phrase of "needing to achieve consensus in the talks" seems relevant, as should their "edits" now need to be validated by the talks as well as explained and expanded on due this vandalism.

As stated previously, the Sathya Sai Baba page took a lot of communication, concessions, and cooperation amongst many editors over a long period of time to come up with a balanced neutral and well sourced introduction. Any changes should involve researching the history of the article.

As of now, any attempt by any other editor to change Zalaraz's edits is simply met with a reversion.

No discussion, no communication just a reversion. This is not Wikipedia policy.

This will ultimately lead to a edit war and this is why this post is being made.

• note.... In testament to the nature of zalaraz's edits, did zalaraz read the talk pages before their edits? did zalaraz reach consensus in their edits as they ask others to do? were the edits done with proper/understandable english and grammar? were the edits ultimately helping the page or hurting it? Did zalaraz read any of these source materials? Is it any other editors responsibility to read them for zalaraz? Absolutely not. As just stated, Wikipedia says it itself these “volunteers who are under no obligation to do your work“

Before anything can move forward, all of these concerns and questions must be addressed.

NB* the page was reverted to the March 24th version as to forgo having to re introduce/research ALL the lost sources/information and wordings due to zalaraz's "edits".

Any attempt to undo these edits will be seen as an edit war - as zalaraz has already simply undid edits by J929 and Anuradha Rao.

This shows zero good faith, discussion, research or effort put in to these "changes".

ALL of these points presented must be addressed, discussed and stream lined in order to move forward. J929 (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Zalaraz (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

a talk page conversation was set up to discuss any issues with fellow editors.

you didnt read it or address any concerns. simply undoing any edits you didnt like - though they have been there for years. instead you send these warnings.

you ask everyone to create consensus? yet do nothing yourself to help the page.

your english is terrible. and the page is poorer after your edits.

if you dont like something in the lead, simply put it to more fitting place, but you dont. showing zero concern for the page, the other editors etc

perhaps discuss the issue instead of sending warnings.

the onus is on you, not the many other editors that have helped the page.

on that same note if user , Anuradha Rao also undoes your edits then you are in the minority concerning the appropriate direction of the page. yet you dont discuss you only undo.

then send warnings.

good faith started with the talk page. it ends with you doing as you please. J929 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

14:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) caste-related topics in South Asia.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Zalaraz (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

refer to the talk page that was set up and stop making it personal with what ever warnings you can send.

dont claim good faith and pull a power struggle J929 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your edit to Karunamayi has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)