User talk:Archon888

Original research
Please familiarise yourself with these: WP:OR & WP:RS. "Original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. Not only do the sources you provided not make any mention to Hinduism, they are also open wikis and unreliable sources regardless, same applies to forums. Rehevkor ✉  23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Really, that is interesting. I was simply expanding upon what was already apparently acceptable on that page.  To quote:


 * "Although the specific reason was not revealed in public, it is possible that it is due to the fact that the game contains two-headed mutated cows ::called Brahmin, or that Brahmin is also the name of a class of religious scholars in India, or its similarity to the spelling of brahman, a type of cow ::that originated in India). Brahman, a breed of Zebu, are revered by Hindus.[116]"


 * That certainly seems like an allegation, idea, or "story".


 * I would also appreciate a solid definition of "reliable sources", as my experience so far as been that this is so incredibly subjective that it is ::comical to even bring it up. Your allegations that these sources are unreliable are laughable when you take a simple look at the existing references. ::By your logic, no references are better than references that you've personally deemed unreliable. Please take a look at ref 112, which is from the ::exact same site that my "unreliable" ref came from.


 * Here is the wiki definition of "Questionable Sources" = Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no ::editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or ::which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion


 * None of my links fit the above definition. If I am wrong, perhaps give some actual reasons before you just start chainsawing someones work at ::enhancing what is already on the page.


 * I was actually improving the ambiguity of what was written, if that is wrong, remove the entire original piece.


 * Now, onto your claim that my sources don't even mention Hinduism... let's start here with with my first reference, entitled THE HEART OF HINDUISM.


 * http://hinduism.iskcon.com/concepts/203.htm


 * This site - http://news.iskcon.org/ - is a NEWS site for "Krishna Consciousness".


 * Now, on to my second link:


 * http://www.world-faiths.com/GCSE%20Short%20course/sanctity_of_life.htm


 * This is a page literally dedicated to WORLD FAITHS.


 * Now on to "original research" which again, I have done none of... you deleted the following:


 * Brahmin have been a part of the Fallout (video game) series since the original, released by Interplay in 1997. It is possible that the ::rising popularity and awareness of video games explains why only the most recent instalment in the series has created controversy.


 * Which is not only correct, but it quite pertinent to this controversy and the reasoning behind the decision to cancel the Indian release of Fallout 3. ::(Although I did make a typo... which I am embarrassed about.)


 * Now you attack my link to a forum where Indian Gamers gather to discuss Fallout 3. It's simply showing proof that it exists, not trying to back up any ::other claim.  This edit I am fine with, I just found it interesting and pertinent to the issue at hand, as it shows that some gamers apparently don't ::mind.


 * So, let us re-cap. You go after my "original research" when there is none.  You assault my edits to the wording of the controversy, when all I did was ::clarify what was already there (removing the assumptions that had been made, while preserving the material itself).  You then tell me my sources are ::"unreliable" when they are from the same sites (gaming news sites, by the way... if there is something more pertinent to a gaming entry, please do tell)


 * You then remove a valid informational piece regarding the initial appearance of the controversial animal in the series. That's not "original ::research", it's simply a statement of fact.


 * In closing, every single claim you've made is patently false. Please stop removing my edits until you can familiarize yourself with the ::definitions of the guidelines you've cited, and you actually take them time to read and compare the links that you claim are unreliable.

Archon888 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)