User talk:Dupont och Dupond

Revert: Shoko Asahara
Dupont. despite the tone the info is verifiable, although I consider it hard to make your typical journalist print his conclusions. Kindly show me examples of what you consider appropriate tone. I consider myself the source. I am a former Aum follower, known by many including top brass, I have access to info including books and whatever you like. Email me in confidence. I am very skillful in WIki edit wars but wish to skip this stage, although I know for sure that after this the text will be exactly as today (before your revert), including the tone. I am not going to edit your articles though.


 * Sorry, but I don't feel like going into an e-mail conversation. The thing is that a Wikipedia editor can't use himself or herself as a source. I can take an example for what I consider an inappropriate tone:


 * Those whom Asahara publicly proclaimed failures, those who either did not achieve anything at all or have fallen from their spiritual stage are doing very well. Those who speak publicly or privately about the experience, are thankful for their Aum Shinrikyo time.


 * And may I ask what articles you're talking about when you write "I am not going to edit your articles though." I don't have any articles. Dupont och Dupond (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is to be revised, other passages where blogs are used as references will be supported with references to books which are extremely hard to get, but they have ISBN, so references will be valid. Let me repeat: irrespectively from whatever else, before you edit, discuss in talk, wait for response - this is an unwritten Wikipedia rule of decency. Otherwise, I will see to it so that you don't have a very good time editing Wikipedia or at least not for long. You are correct as regards blogs, thank you. When discussing potential edits in talk in my article, if Wikipedia guidelines contradict common sense, they are going to be revised. Thank you. By "your articles" I meant articles you contributed to, as well as articles you may start.


 * The problem with using "common sense" is that it's different between different people. What is common sense for me can be stupidity to you and vice versa, hence the guidelines. And the problem is that I frankly feel that discussing with you is not productive as you have kept inserting dubiously sourced information.


 * And frankly, I find your threats of disrupting work on Wikipedia distasteful. Dupont och Dupond (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

your opinion/input
...needed here Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)