User talk:Satsangam

October 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Laurens van der Post, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also do not post your own analysis, opinions, commentary, or assessments into Wikipedia articles. The fact that someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account holds a particular view is not a reliable source of information, for obvious reasons.JBW (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia is "not a reliable sources of information", I'm afraid I see no point in consulting it. Wikipedia presents itself as a kind of encyclopaedia accessible by anyone, and as such would surely be reliable. You are telling me that this it not the case, "for obvious reasons". I am new to editing, and this episode has discouraged me. I now don't see any point in contributing. Accusations of "child rape" were made in the article on the basis of citations from journalistic writers: I did not delete the section, but added the caveat that this was an "allegation", not a fact. I also added that the allegations were not made until after the death of Laurens van der Post. I have no intention of engaging in what you term an "edit war", but I have been discouraged from contributing to the project, and will also withhold any further monetary contributions, as my trust in Wikipedia has been severely compromised. Satsangam (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You say that Wikipedia "would surely be reliable", and then go on to say that "[I am] telling [you] that this it not the case, 'for obvious reasons'." In fact, I said nothing whatever about whether Wikipedia is reliable: I said that "someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account" is not a reliable source, which is not the same thing at all. Evidently I was wrong in using the expression "for obvious reasons", because it seems it isn't obvious to you, so I will explain it. Anyone can create a Wikipedia account, and post anything they like. There is nothing to stop people posting statements in good faith which are simply mistaken; there is nothing to stop people posting deliberate lies; there is nothing to stop people posting statements as facts which are in fact opinions or subjective judgements. None of those is just some academic remote possibility: they are all things which happen regularly, every day. Therefore, the fact that a person who has created a Wikipedia account posts a statement is not evidence that the statement is true or valid. That is why we require citations to published sources which can reasonably be expected to be reliable, unlike the unsubstantiated word of just anyone at all who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account. I hope that will help to make clearer what I said. JBW (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have actually confirmed what you initially said about Wikipedia not being reliable, with the following: "there is nothing to stop people posting deliberate lies; there is nothing to stop people posting statements as facts which are in fact opinions or subjective judgements." Forgive me if I'm wrong, but to my understanding the articles are all produced by those same people who have "chosen to create a Wikipedia account". To my mind, that means that Wikipedia is quite clearly not a reliable source of information or knowledge. It may be due to my stupidity, which you imply by "because it seems it isn't obvious to you", but I can only conclude from your words that Wikipedia is not reliable. However, the fault is with me, for ever thinking otherwise. I now see what Wikipedia is, and will no longer respond to Mr. Wales' regular requests for financial contributions. If you doubt I have made contributions over the years, you can probably check through my e-mail address. Finally, as far as I know there exist laws of libel that have evolved here in the UK to discourage people from publishing "deliberate lies", etc., concerning other people, in the public domain. I may write to Mr. Wales himself, and hopefully get a more helpful and less condescending response. 2A00:23C8:85A8:CB01:FCC5:8FB9:98DF:A0B7 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll make one more attempt to clarify what I was trying to convey, since unfortunately I have failed in my previous attempts.
 * Of course Wikipedia is created by people who have chosen to edit it (with or without creating an account). The distinction is between content posted with no other authority than the say-so of someone who has chosen to edit Wikipedia and content which posted by someone who has chosen to edit Wikipedia but supported by a citation to a more reliable source.
 * Of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and if you previously thought it was then it's good that you now realise it isn't. However, it's a hell of a lot more reliable than it would be if we allowed anyone to post anything they like, without attempting to make sure that they provide citations to reliable sources.
 * If you re-read my messages above, you will wee that I wrote "Evidently I was wrong in using the expression 'for obvious reasons' ". (Emphasis added now.) Saying that I was wrong is certainly not saying that the misunderstanding was due to your "stupidity": it means that the misunderstanding was because I misjudged the situation.
 * I am sorry that my attempt to clarify things came across as "condescending". It certainly wasn't intended that way; it was a good-faith attempt to help clarify matters for you. Almost all of us, when we first come to edit Wikipedia, have, to a greater or lesser extent, misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works, and therefore make mistakes. I did, when I first started editing, and I do my best to help other new editors to better understand. Sometimes my attempts are successful, but sometimes, unfortunately, they aren't. I do my best.
 * You are, of course, perfectly free to write to Jimmy Wales. If you are lucky, you may be one of the few out of all the thousands of people who write to him to get an answer from him. If so, I hope you do get an answer which you find more helpful than mine, since you didn't find mine very helpful.
 * I offer these comments in the hope they may be helpful to you, despite the failure of my previous attempts to do so. JBW (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Satsangam! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Laurens van der Post that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Your edit may or may not have been justified, but it certainly wasn't minor. PatGallacher (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. I am new to editing, and as you will be aware there are a myriad of regulations and norms with Wikipedia that one has to familiarise oneself with. I have no intention of engaging in an "edit war". My respect for Wikipedia has now taken a serious blow, and I probably will not participate anymore (after just a few hours). I may also not make only more financial contributions. It seems that it is not a truly trustworthy source of knowledge, or information - simply a platform for certain people to propagate their views as if they were encyclopaedic. I'm not sure if you are the author of the article or not. I must say I found it quite accurate, but not so much in its detail. I am also of the opinion that allegations of the kind made in the article should be supported by stronger evidence than citations from journalistic writers. The allegation of "child rape" was made quite directly, with no caveats. I attempted to correct this, taking Wikipedia at its word of presenting fair, unbiased content. I see now that I was mistaken in my trust. Satsangam (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One could quibble about the "child rape" wording, but calling a 46 year old man having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old an "affair" is not acceptable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your wise advice. I wonder who is the arbiter of what is acceptable, and what is not? But I am bowing out of this conversation, as I now realise that Wikipedia 'edit' is simply another platform for people with strong opinions to voice them, and harangue others. I've explained my reasons in my replies above. The article can remain as it is, if you wish, but I won't participate further in the edit programme, after just an hour or two. More importantly, I won'd trust Wikipedia again, or consult it for reliable content. Satsangam (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)