User talk:Charbaka

Welcome to my talk page.--• Charbak ☀      ⋠talk⋡  23:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Anukulchandra Chakravarty
Please be aware that blogs, being wp:selfpublished are generally not acceptable sources on Wikipedia. See wp:reliable sources (RS) and wp:NOTRS. The content on Anukulchandra Chakravarty is not sourced in an acceptable manner and does not belong there until it is RS. Jim1138 (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please recheck the controversy section of the article, which I've properly re-cited with primary references from the person's(Anukulchandra) own written works, hosted on archive.org. Several biographical information along with documents and pictures from websites of followers themselves have been deliberately erased by these followers to remove any critical outlook. The sources now used in the controversy section are of the same kind of those which are used in rest of the article. The only scholarly source in this article which I cited to support the claim that Anukulchandra promoted a religious-organization in Bengal, in which he was himself a member and eventually split-up, has been repeatedly erased. All these have done to protect the article from being used as an online advertisement in real life.• Charbak ☀      ⋠talk⋡  12:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you please start a new section on the talk page, list each reference and why you think it valid? Sources should be under editorial oversight or be of known reliability (unusual). One's own writings can be self-serving and likely leave out critical information. If a Wiki editor comes to a conclusion from source(s) (that don't specifically state that conclusion), it is wp:SYNTHESIS and shouldn't be used. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on talk:Anukulchandra Chakravarty I am not sure if either "side" is attempting to edit the article to wp:NPOV. I'm no longer going to comment/work on this. Best of luck. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please format / indent your talk
It helps one follow conversational threads. See help:talk pages Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. Is it properly formatted now? In the talk page of the article, although I accused an account of sock-puppetry, because of it's creation in a certain date, suggested by another editor, I never expressed those editors any personal adversary, but now they  being unable to edit are hurling deliberate ad-hominem attack at me, such as- "This guy is lying to it's core and taking advantage of the wikipedia platform to mislead everyone." Even after providing citation from the person's own works and organizational websites intended for his own promotion, I'm being accused of same old allegations of using self published sources and misinterpretations, whereas I being nonjudgmental provided only quotations. The section is not even termed criticism, controversy only states the disagreement, don't judge morally, as content from his followers position have been expressed, I provided them so the readers can be aware about the dispute, not any judgement. Is their any possibility to have an admin having same regional language as the person be invoked to review this article?•  Charbak ☀      ⋠talk⋡  14:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)