User talk:Anuma31

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Oromo Liberation Front, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Oromo Liberation Front was changed by Anuma31 (u) (t) deleting 26448 characters on 2009-04-03T19:35:33+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The content of this article was added by agents of the regime the Oromo Loberation Front and the Oromoo People are fighting against. The whole content is biased and it has to be edited in such a way to reflect the truth.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editor. I have read the core policies of wikipedia. My point is the present material in Wikipedia is a propaganda material. None of this material is true and is out there only to defame our organization. Items presented in Wikipedia as facts are indeed false. We believe that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a mouth piece of a tyrant group ruling Ethiopia today and against a people struggling for their rights. Wikipedia should present to its readers facts and we believe readers deserve better than this. We urge you to visit our website at www.oromoliberationfront.org.


 * By the same token, Wikipedia shouldn't serve as a mouthpiece for the OLF. If you are directly affiliated with the group (as your comments suggest), then you'll need to be mindful of guidelines concerning conflict of interests.  I am not denying that the article needs improvement, but note also that the previous version of the article was rather well atributed: there were 68 references, though your edit eliminated all of them.  -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any 68 references. If you click on each one of them more than half are dead links and the rest lead to irrelevant articles. Since almost all of the text in this article is far from the truth I would favour rewriting it from a scratch by a neutral and knowledgeable person. I don't understand why you are opposed to the idea of deleting dead references.