User talk:ProEdits

Welcome!

Hello ProEdits! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Smee 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Yours, Smee 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For starters, I am not a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba, nor is he my Guru. This is a constant lie perpetuated by ProEdits (Robert Priddy) against me with no proof. The page about Arne Næss contained original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. ProEdits even called his material "original research" Ref. It is also important to point out that Robert Priddy (ProEdits) had a slanderous and defamatory link about Sathya Sai Baba on his Wikipedia article and used Alan Kazlev as a pawn to remove my link. Robert Priddy (ProEdits) has no less than 3 Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sites on the internet and has no less than 6 websites deleted for defamatory content against Sathya Sai Baba. Priddy is obviously oblivious to Wikipedia's policies on original research and citing reliable sources. As one can see, ProEdits is highly polarized and is incapable of telling the truth and backing it up with any verfiable sources. He was a former devotee of Sathya Sai Baba for 17/18 years and is now very disgruntled and angry at his former eulogy of Sathya Sai Baba as God Incarnate and the Avatar Of The Age. He even wrote a book about it. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not stated that SSS108 [the anonymous defamer] is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba, nor that he is SSS108's guru since he surprisingly declared this himself after some time about 2 years ago. However, the massive diatribes against all critics of Sathya Sai Baba by SSS108 on four websites, several blogs and numerous bulletin boards - totally in defense of this guru -shows enough about SSS108's obsessive attitudes and total POV bias. His claim that I have had 6 websites deleted for defamation is not true, simply. There is NO PROOF of this copntrived allegation - and I have never been informed by any web server of having defamed anyone, which would be normal practice, for then I would obviously have reacted... not least because all the materials about Sai Baba I had on those websites are also on my more consolidated set of 3 websites now. This is simply an unsupported allegation by SSS108 yet again. This matter will be addressed before long in another context.

Because Alan Kazlev chose to defend me against SSS108, he wants to imagine I use him as "as a pawn", thus trying maliciously to attribute what Kazlev wrote to me! How far will SSS108 go to pervert facts, one wonders? SSS108 does not know me, or realise therefore that I am not "disgruntled" or "angry", which words are the standard defence of the Sai Organisation against all critics - it is applied willy-nilly because they can't accept the fact that Sai Baba has actually been so widely exposed as a fraud. The fact is, having been deceived so thoroughly for so long by Sathya Sai Baba on many counts, I naturally became very concerned to demonstrate his deceptions in the interests of the uninformed and innocent who may be trapped by them as I was. I decided to make known the very widespread evidence that has been posted by scores of former devotees against him after they - like myself - found out many things which show he is not what he claims and is practicing fraudulence and deception on his followers, and large number of alleged serial homosexual abuses by him.

Yes, I wrote a book about Sai Baba when I was as deluded about him as is SSS108 now, but I have also written a much longer book explaining the reasons for my leaving him, entitled 'End of the Dream'. SSS108 is totally polarised because he has only ever seen one side of the issue and has always been very peripheral to the Sai movement and what goes on there (as he claims, he is no follower or devotee). Yet I discovered much which he has not done. Despite what SSS108 says, I have cited many verifiable sources - not least many of the untruths propagated by Sai Baba from his own published words (some examples at), so this is simply another untruth of the kind SSS108 is trying to propagate daily all over the web. My main website gives access to all my writings concerning Sai Baba and Co. --ProEdits 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits) made a defamatory complaint against me on Angela's Wikipedia Talk Page: Reference.

Since Priddy made his comment on the top of Angela's talk page (instead of the bottom where it should have been made) Angela moved Priddy's comment to the bottom of the page where it belonged: Reference.

Because Angela moved the comment, Priddy (unable to find his previous comment) reposted it again: Reference.

Without any proof, Priddy jumped to the worst case conspiratorial view and erroneously claimed that I removed his post. Priddy said, "You will see the determination of SSS108 to stop you knowing what I wrote by the fact that he has deleted my request to you in your user paeg (see below on the discussion page). Just goes to emphasizse my point. SSS108 is a full-time stalker and defamer. Robert Priddy (Refs: 01 - 02)

That's right! Robert Priddy claimed I removed the text and insulted me as a "stalker" and "defamer" although Angela moved Priddy's comment herself. I never touched or edited that page!

This the guy who is trying to portray himself as honest, sober and fair-minded. He defames me for his paranoid errors and is wholly unapologetic! SSS108 ^talk-email 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fair to me that I now set the record here straight, not least since all SSS108's allegations against me will eventually be archived. Someone who writes in the way SSS108 describes my writing "as honest, sober and fair-minded" may happen to be just that! I certainly try my utmost to be these things, unlike SSS108. I submit to readers to judge which of us shows dishonesty, lack of sobriety in language and anything but fair-mindedness. SSS108 has so constantly harangued and harassed numerous editors on Wikipedia (and on diverse websites and blogs) to the extent that he has been banned indefinitely from editing on Wikipedia. As to who defames who, please see the prominent Wiki editor M. Alan Kazlev's defence of Robert Priddy against the slander and defamations of SSS108 http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Moreno_slander_against_Robert_Priddy.htm

Yes, I was evidently wrong in assuming that SSS108 removed the said post, for I was then even less acquainted with the way Wikipedia works than I am now. Further, SSS108 was already making major efforts to include his links to his slanderous websites against me on the Robert Priddy page. It can easily be seen that SSS108 has been attacking me constantly, also long before he began his excessive campaign to try to remove all mention of me from Wikipedia. ProEdits 11:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Your Vandalism

Please stop vandalizing the Sathya Sai Baba article Ref. Blanking sections of the article without discussion when the material is referenced to a reliable and verifiable source is vandalism and you may be blocked from Wikipedia if you persist in this behavior. You have already been warned once before about this under your IP 84.208.99.96 Ref SSS108 ^talk-email 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider that vandalism. I judge it in full accordance with the requirement of the recent arbitration. Not only is the on-line page from This Week "potentially libelous" ( containing clealrly negative and biased materials against critics of Sai Baba, including against the Indian Professor N. Nayak - see Larsson's webpages http://www.saibabaexpose.com/nayak.htm). Further, it is mostly subjective babbling by a self-declared devotee of Sai Baba. This fully qualifies it for removal. I have asked jossi, PRBerry and Pjacobi to reply on this matter. We'll see.--ProEdits 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Robert Priddy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Andries 21:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy Andries 22:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Tony Sidaway's comment, I am not agreeing to the mediation request. This issue has already been resolved by ArbCom. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request for clarification Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Arne Næss, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Request for arbitration

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

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, Cowman109^Talk 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Heart

I added the "purple heart" award to your user-page. Feel free to migrate it here to your talk page if you wish. Yours, Smee 11:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Editing your own biography

Please read Wikipedia:autobiography. Andries 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

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 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement Case

You can see this case related to Sathya Sai Baba article here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=307807198

Radiantenergy (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RadiantEnergy. The material to which you constantly blindly refer is totally inconclusive. That this is so is shown by the fact that the BBC entry I reformulated and posted has not been criticised or removed by any administrator. You should read the BLP page yourself again much more carefully, and take off your POV glasses for a minute for once. You have not received formal support for your views. You are filling up Wikipedia pages with an immense amount of pro-Sai POV and have applied in vain for help from a long list of administrators. Your Arb. Com. complaint against me was totally ignored by the administration - a strong silent comment on its valuelessness, and the COI complaint made against me by one of your two co-editors (J929) was not upheld because I have not linked to any of my web pages on the main article. I long had an open approach to discuss your points and those of your co-operating Sai devotees, but none of you have responded with other than diversions, formal complaints, misrepresentation of BLP material and extremely long and abrasive diatribes in which the substance is almost absent, except for reiteration of claims which others than I have demonstrated as being bogus. Please stop your attempts to harass me on Wikipedia and cause disruptions through throwing the rule book around in vain without understanding the rules properly. That is all proof of lack of good faith on your part. ProEdits (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SineBot. It was a simple omission. I did, however, add my identity of the grounds I gacve for the edit on the Sathya Sai Baba discussion page.ProEdits (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Notice

As per Wikipedia policy...

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

J929 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This case was concluded and removed from the COI board finding that ProEdits has no conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.59.126 (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello ProEdits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 341 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Guy Lyon Playfair - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]