User talk:Mavlo

Neutrality, edit summaries, stay to the sources or add new ones
At Persecution of Falun Gong, please provide explanations of what you are doing. I also would encourage you to make smaller edits, with explanations. I reverted todays edits as they seemed a complex mix of damaging, POV, and useful edits. - Sinneed  03:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood and duly noted. Please see talk section. --Mavlo (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Damage to the article.
In this series of edits, you have added a great deal of wp:POV material.- Sinneed  04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, you damaged existing sources. If you re-add, please do so in detail, and correct the damage this time.- Sinneed

You attribute opinion to news organs. While this *may* be appropriate for state papers, most of the press gives the authors of opinion articles, and it is the opinion of the authors. Attribute the opinion.- Sinneed  04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are making citations to sources that fail wp:V... we can't see them. At least, add quote= params and give the actual quotes. Your credibility is damaged as you have used sources... but then contradicted them directly.- Sinneed  04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, you are adding sources that you claim to support your POV... but then you state there are, for example 7 protesters... but the article you use says 5.- Sinneed  04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur. You're walking on thin ice right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be good to take care about biting the newbies, guys. This fellow has so far just restored information that was already on the page a long while ago, and tried to summarise some other info. Calling him a COI pov pusher (whether directly or in edit summaries or templates) like that seems a little rough. Particularly when explanations for large pieces of content deleted are so spare, and not even in line with wikipedia policy in one case (like the claim that the section on political motivation should be deleted cause it's "pov"). His edits do not seem problematic from the NPOV policy--or at the very least, it could do with some elaboration as to exactly how they are. Comments like "You're walking on thin ice right now" seem way over the top. Anyway, two cents from an observer.--Asdfg12345 07:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Though I am new to wiki, perhaps you two can familiarize yourselves with civility. While I do appreciate constructive criticism, please refrain your communications to me in the above-mentioned tone. --Mavlo (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Civility is not an issue right here, buddy...hehehe...and I think u can familiarize yourself with Civil POV Pushing. Seb is just giving u a warning...telling u to be careful. You know, not everyone uses those flashy templates. Plus, if u feel the need to understand the wiki better, u can always spend some of your valuable time refreshing yourself with the basic guidelines in that welcome template I gave u way back when.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
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 this important core policy. Thank you. Defender of torch (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev
Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)