User talk:Onopearls/Archive 2

Anoop.
Hey, I noticed on the history there was some confusion. Everything's good now though? ^_^ If you're the one who added his group performance, thanks, because I couldn't find the video for it.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Cherokee
The warning concerning violation of the 3RR rule goes for you too (see my comment on WP:RFPP. The changes are not obvious vandalism, so go to the talk page, if needs be, or find a 3rd opinion. Lectonar (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't take me wrong, I'm not on anyones side here (and don't know enough of the subject to comment). But this is definitely the start of an edit war, and 204..... refrained from editing the article page after my warning. So just relax and step back, have a tea and let others comment on this. Never involve yourself to much, there is no Truth (TM). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

About Impeccable
I notice that in the talk page of Impeccable, somebody guess I am employed by the Chinese govt, that's not. In fact, I am a university student born and raised in Hong Kong, a former British colony. I have been educated under the western system ad in Hong Kong where I can watch news from BBC, CNN. New York Times in the west and Xinhua, China Daily in China. I enjoy my freedom and right and understand all the western values.

However, at the moment, I think most of the western media selectively report news related to China. This may be due to their collective unwillingness to see the rising China. Therefore, as a Chinese citizen, I try to ensure that the Chinese view is able to be accessed by internet users. If you looks at the details of my editing, they are all based on facts, just like those in BBC and Times. I think western users cannot simply delete them when you don't agree, else you are just doing the same thing as the Chinese govt. (To large extend, I agree with the west on this point.) Happy editing. --59.149.188.63 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I modified one section by moving text and I did not undue hours of others' edits. I think you should show some good faith and patience here and leave the text alone, i.e. let "harassed" remain where it was until the dispute is resolved. Your own original text was "allegedly harassed".  Of course it is no longer an allegation but affirmed by the United States and not denied by China. The word harassed was and remains accurate.  It's placement as the first sentence was and remains correct. patsw (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PRC confused
You appear to have my edit confused with someone else's edit about the Chinese dissidents. My edit was about the "5 star flag" section, and has yet to be resolved. I'll respond to the proper talkpage section soon. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I did follow the dissident debate and added "notable" to the section title just for clarification. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

about baba
Hey - there are significant movements both for and against Baba - the anti-baba people are more vocal and have consumed the Sai Baba wikipedia page. Fixing small errors is the best I can do right now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.87.27.73 (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of removal of tag.
I recently reverted your removal of the 'intro too long' tag from the War of 1812 article, because I failed to see how the issue of the introduction going beyond the recommended length by a large degree had been resolved. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for reverting your removal; upon another examination of your relevant edit summary, I can see your reasoning is quite clear. I must confess the infobox on the article did appear for me when the tag was uploaded, and I believe if the infobox did not appear for most people, then the tag would have been removed sometime before your own action.  Perhaps there might be a problem with your own computer, and that of a minority of readers.  In any case, I will try and ensure the tag can be uploaded to the article without causing the same problem, since the tag is useful for directing people to the talk page to the relevant discussion.  Sorry again, and thanks for reading.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. When you first saw the tag on the article, did the infobox appear then? I ask because I am hoping the answer might be able to allow me to resolve the problem, as if you did see it, the problem may have been the result of an edit done after I originally added the tag.  Thanks in advance.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't get me wrong; if the problem can't be resolved, then I don't advocate putting the tag back up. In response to your answer, for which I would like to thank you, I suspect now the problem was caused by an edit done after I originally added the tag, because if the problem was caused by my original insertion of the tag, then I imagine you would not have been able to have seen the infobox then.  I will look through the edit history, see if I can find the problem, and try and add the tag back if I can resolve it.  Is it ok if you notify me, if I add the tag back, to let me know if you can then see the infobox?  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I have re-added the tag, in the belief the problem won't happen again. If the problem still exists, please feel free to remove it.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for your help. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Story of Lucie and Jessie
I understand the correct title of the episode now. But please don't add the reference articles to the episode. I won't change the title of the episode to the wrong title again. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba article

 * I have added a question for you in the talk page. Also the problem is that the same old sources which were discussed in the earlier mediation discussion by BostonMA and dismissed as unreliable are still being used. I have read the whole mediation discussion. There is no admin involved related to this article. The editors are not able to agree and come to conclusion regarding the article. May be you can help in resolving such issues. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would definitely appreciate a third party review on the article. Also, I have added more comments in the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please give your viewpoints on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Why_Dale_Beyerstein_cannot_be_used_as_a_source. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Sathya Sai Baba page is ridiculously negative to the point of absurdity, what can I do to at least make it 50/50 and objective to people can make draw their own conclusions Sbs108 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ono, Do you have an email id? I could n't find it from your user page. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

People's republic of china article
I received a warning about content removal (from People's Republic of China article) from your account, yet I haven't edited that article this week. How come? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Your reversion is fine. I undid mine because I pushed the wrong button. The edit looked dubious to me, but I'm thinking it was in good faith....poorly constructed and two tons of POV, but probably not vandalism. I have been cautioned in the past about my edits, so I'm trying to be very careful. Some vandalism is gonna get by me but I'll learn in time. Thanks for your message.  Tide  rolls  22:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

attention
adding non realistic information is vandalism, as you did in russian armed forces: STOP IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

attention
Maybe nato is more powerfull than russia, (so I don´t removed it) but why do you think that china is more powerfull than russia? China has more soldiers than Russia and the USA, but why the USA and Russia are more powerfull than CHINA? the answer is simple: TECHNOLOGY. While Russia and USA are renovating teir troops China is equipped with old soviet obsolet weapons so why do you think that China will win? (cuality is better than cuantity). Another thing: the soviet union and Russia never fear china, you don´t have any sources of that so if you continue adding false information you will banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fear
that article don´t says that the soviet union feared china (actually the soviet union won the war and controled the disputed territories and China had more victims). Second: I know that the doctrine is that the nuclear weapons are the mayor detenant against an attack by a major power, but China IS NOT more powerfull than Russia so China don´t should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia said that it will use nuclear weapons as the primary detenant against China? where? I don´t think so. Can you show me a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, the source is a bit old but it´s a source

PRC
Hi,I was add image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg to Chinese,but Chinese admin User:Gzdavidwong think it is fair use in tankman and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 only ,so he delete the photo in Chinese article PRC.Should I delete it in English revision? --Wmrwiki (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm one of the admins from Chinese Wikipedia. Sorry for disturbing. But the photo that mentioned above, according the Fair use rationales on Wikicommons and even here, can only be used for critical discussions about the issues described by the image. In that paragraph, it just mention about the incident as an example of Chinese censorship to media. Is it possible to call it critical discussion about the incident? Sorry, but I cannot agree with it. You are recommended to remove it to avoid from commiting the fair use principles. Thank you.-- J.W ong  05:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank for your reply. But the main point is what the image discribed about. Is it about the civil rights in PRC? No, it just about the incident occurred at 1989. How can it be used for illustrating the critical discussion about the issues of civil rights but not Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? Regards, -- J.W ong  06:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As we all know, Wikipedia is not censored. However, the fair use rationales should be executed. And I can reply you that the photo on Chinese Wikipedia has been removed from the article with the community supports. It is fully becease of executing of the Fair use principles, but not censor the contains, and certainly it is no needs to do so. In fact PRC actually did so, it is no needs/must not be hidden from public. If you use it to describe the issues about the 64-insident and Humans right abuse, I do not oppose with it. But if you wanna use it to describe the current status of civil rights in PRC, I think it is too old to do so and of course I oppose with it. Regards,-- J.W ong  07:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

PRC infobox map
Hi. I noticed you just undid my change to the infobox map. Please find my reason in the talk page, and I'm looking forward to yours. Thank you. --MtBell (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I replaced the map simply because it is wrong: there is an unnecessary border line east of Bhutan. It is nothing about a consensus on actual or claimed territory. Please read these two maps carefully. Thank you. --MtBell (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)



Sai Baba
As I said, the site is so ridiculously skewed that its comical. How can I at least make the site 50/50 so people can make their own conclusions (Boyd1008 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Burntwood Barbarians
The subject matter is probably only just notable and attracts only a handful of editors, most of whom belong to the same internet forum. Hence there has never been any controversy over edits made to articles belonging in this area. A lot of club articles were created by people connected with the clubs and basically forgotten about, half of them were deleted and I'm tidying up the rest to prevent them from getting deleted.GordyB (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

North Korea and weapons of mass destruction
Hi
 * As　Forbes mentioned GlobalSecurity.org is famous as one of the"Best of the web" directory."of Military. And "Gensuikin" is one of the world biggest anti Nuke NPO. Much more reliable than Newspaper because it is written by the experts.
 * And It is Big defference "1Nuke warhed/per year" or" 50Nuke Warheads/per year." Because even Iran/NK loanch several Nuke Missiles to German/Japan, German/Japan will not over by first strike. But if Iran/NK loanch 320 Nuke missiles to German/Japan then she will over by first strike. (I think Iran is not aiming 320 missiles to German but North Korea is aiming 320 Rodong-1 to Japan and it is increasing 120/5years)
 * "North Korea’s tested and apparently reliable Nodong missile can already carry a nuclear warhead as far as Tokyo. "International Crisis Group
 * "On 15 June 2005 Kyodo News reported that North Korea had informed a visiting American scholar in late May 2005 that it had resumed the construction of the two nuclear reactors that was halted under the 1994 Agreed Framework. --- The two reactors (50/200MW Big reactors)could produce about 275 kilograms of plutonium annually, enough for about 50 atomic bombs."=300 Nuke missile within several years
 * User:Onopearls you can try your compromise plan of  the new article until end of this month otherwise I will revert(ofcourse check spel mistake again)--Jack332 (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Without a consensus, you are not to revert your poorly written, grammatically incorrect version of the article. If you do change it without a consensus, it will be reverted back to its original form. Wikipedia is not somewhere for you to push your POV and add information to articles that doesnt help to explain the topic better. Your information (which is incredibly hard to read, and bordering on illegible) makes it a more tedious task to read this article. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * If you have good English skill then please cooperate to propose your compromise plan, I do not believe current" very poor knowledged,Left biased, un-Cited, Facility-History Mixtured Messy article" is the best for wikipedia
 * And if you breach the Cited article just on your One side of View ---isn't it against NPOV? And If you say "DO NOT revert until I agree" then only your leftside biased Article remain & it is not fair to rightside peopleSo dialogue & compromise Plan please! if you prefer democracy than dictatorship.
 * So I think if you cooperate by your HighLevel English,then we get much better quality article than current one. Hope your cooperation--Jack332 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi And if you think My article is Biased then please suggest which part you want to change. If you are busy please inform I will write Complomised article for NPOV.--Jack332 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT Write My Page
Please do not copy and paste your comments from one page to another, as you did from the North Korea WMD page to my talk page. If you want to leave a comment, I would appreciate it if you would write a new one, instead of pasting something I have already read. Thanks, Ono (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Please do not copy and paste your comments from one page to another, as you did from the North Korea WMD page to my talk page. "
 * ?????? Hi Pal I'm doing just like you are doing to me!?  You copy&Paste my page, so just I thought It is your favour way. funny--Jack332 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I copied and pasted my comment because you did it to me(Citation required). It was a point (that obviously went over your head) to prove that it is annoying to read something you have already read several times on SEVERAL different pages. Thanks, Ono (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple Question---Is it my Mis-Recognition?
 * My First on your page
 * Hi
 * As　Forbes mentioned GlobalSecurity.org is famous as one of --- you can try your compromise plan of the new article until end of this month otherwise I will revert(ofcourse check spel mistake again)--Jack332 (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 

--Jack332 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your First on my page
 * can allow you to revert the article back. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say. Thanks, Ono (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Pal
 * You say "DO NOT WRITE MY PAGE" and you are uniraterally Bombing my page, after I stop to write your page. Lets stop I'm sleepy<G--Jack332 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting recent edits
You criticise and reverted 3 edits I made, despite all 3 edits being correct and verified. Try http://www.3rddegree.net/

Lapira stats required updating. Check the Nybersgund website stats.

Stop be unhelpful. Seabear84 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabear84 (talk • contribs)

Freddy Garcia
Hey, Although it's usually not the case, Mr. IP was right here.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Source.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you must be confused!
Got this from you - The recent edit you made to the page Durban Review Conference has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Ono (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) As you will see, if you look at the edit summary, there is an informative summary - viz the source quoted does not support the statement, neither does the wikipedia entry for the president. I will undo your reversion, and suggest that you spend more time on research.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand why I should take simple factual corrections to the talk page. I suggest you compare my summarised edits to the referenced article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please revert your destructive edit - here is the relevant section from the reference - GENEVA (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted a rare walk-out at the United Nations on Monday when he called Israel a "cruel and repressive racist regime" in his remarks to a conference on race. - No mention is made of the "Israeli government there. Please provide an edit summary to explain what you are doing, and stop obstructing my attempts to improve this encylopedia.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

no
Not sure why you reverted my edit on Andrew Cuomo. I think it's just because I'm not a registered user. The material in question is a lie, based on a nonexistent link. Way to defend misinformation, though. You're a hero. 74.74.150.42 (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am confused
You posted this on my talk page. It makes no references to specific deletions, and when I checked the article, you had actually deleted material I had added to the article. Please explain, or remove.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Durban Review Conference, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ono (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * there was a citation, please check, and reinstate it

"Ahmadinejad's accusation that the West used the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians still provoked walkouts by a stream of delegates including representatives of every European Union country in attendance. But others, including those from the Vatican, stayed in the room because they said he stopped short of denying the Holocaust."
 * That source was there in the beginning. You can identify sources by the little numbers next to them.?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology. I suggest you learn how to use huggle. See above!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very puzzled by your last two comments -

"When I opened the edit with huggle, the source didnt appear next to the information (as it doesnt open the page as it appears to the reader, but how it appears when being edited.) When i went back and searched, I found the source below the statement. My apologies for not looking harder. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)" "I do know how to use huggle. And i stand by my revert, as it appeared to be unsourced. My apology was solely for not looking closely enough when reverting. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)" either my edit was sourced, and you wrongly reverted it on that ground, or it wasn't. We both agree it was sourced, and you blamed it on huggle. Good luck with wikipedia!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Spotify
Please be more careful when you attempt to revert vandalism. You made this edit and this one but completely missed the vandalism above it that you had already previously reverted. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, you twice warned another editor who themselves removed vandalism. Please take care.  See  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Honorifics (linguistics) revisions
I got the following two messages from you:


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Honorifics (linguistics) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Ono (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Honorifics (linguistics). Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Ono (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not using the edit summary the first time, but I had indeed given an explanation as to the edits the second time before you reverted my edits again. This page is part of a school project that I am a part of, therefore I am working on improving the page as some of the sections that I had written were too long, unorganized, and could be more clearly explained. I am also revisiting the references that I had used to edit and add information to that page and would greatly appreciate it if you would please stop reverting my edits, giving me warnings, and continue calling my edits vandalism. Thank you. (98.207.94.77 (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloring_book
The Black Panther Coloring Book depicted white people as pigs and police as pigs. Here is a link http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/coloring.html what is your problem?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.60.149 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How is The Black Panther Coloring Book not a reliable source for an article about The Black Panter Coloring Book? Madness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.60.149 (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is info about me in an article that is not true. How do I get it removed? Not trying to vandalize, just needing some help. Thanks!--Kimofr (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

RBK
Just a little friendly note that, in my humble opinion, this edit that you rolled back did not meet the criteria for a rollback.  shirulashem   (talk)  01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Egypt Archeological Sites
Please note that The Egypt Archeological Sites in *NOT* a blog (tough it has been created in blogger)! This page provides valuable information on the different archeological sites in Egypt, and it will continue to provide up-to-date information. It is a permanant page.(Mlavannis (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)).

Edie Britt
Hi. Can you provide a reference for the character's birth year? You can reply here. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the information. However, simple math comes up with 1964. The year is 2014, and she dies at the age of 50 in that year. 2014 - 50 = 1964. I would guess that that is where the original editor came up with that information. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How did that 50 come up? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was revealed in this episode that she was 50 years old, and that she always knew that she wouldnt live past that age. Ono (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Egypt
Hi Ono - please note that the archeology page has been created for the purpose of providing factual information for archeologists and researchers. The information is not personal. It will provide details of timings, entrance fees and access - since such information is not easily found, and keeps changing. If there is something specific you would like me to address, please let me know. Best Regards.(Mlavannis (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)).


 * Will do as you say. Thanks (Mlavannis (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Maillard reaction
Why is it not constructive to add a picture to the Maillard reaction article? Please reply here.74.105.24.4 (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didnt see an edit summary, and it didnt look constructive in Huggle. If it was a mistake, please replace the picture with an edit summary. Thanks for editing! Ono (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh?
You offered no rationale or explanation in talk for the tag. Just because the article is long does not mean it is "unnecessarily long." Without reasoning, expect nothing less than a revert. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take it up with sci-fi. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rache Green article
Uh, I did mention in the edit summary the reason for the change. The episode name below the character picture states that it's from episode "The One where Ross dates a Student" but that's incorrect. That scene is form season 7 "The One with the Holiday Armadillo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.51.2 (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

HI!
GO ahead and block me. I'll be back with valid edits. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec Tgint (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad You are an inclusionist....
I AM TOO! We agree on something —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec Tgint (talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Edie Britt
I'm confused. Did they move forward to 2014? The economy seems to be bad in 2014 too. I suppose if they never mentioned what year it was, it could be 2009.Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't make a practice of reading articles on most TV shows; are they used as sources in any Wikipedia articles?Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So you haven't actually SEEN any articles. Well, I won't worry about this then. I'll let someone else confirm whether or not it is 2014.Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy!
I saw your recent comment on Izzie's article. And I thought that it would be nice If you join our project! We need more members, and the Grey's Anatomy articles need help! And with the show growing popularity we really need to fix them! We'll appreciate your help. Please, think about this! ---Max(talk) 10:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello
That was constuctive what are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrett Mitchel Johansen (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

re:PRC talk page
No. You doubted the action that was not on the behalf of WP, I felt uncomfortable. You should not question it in the first place. Apparently you could give other reason of RV that doubting one's motive was needless. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have absolutely no way of knowing intentions of the one you doubted. And I had given my reason of rm that pic per Wiki fair use policy. Now it's your edit that violate that fair use policy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The AGF has nothing to do with my RV. It's only appeal to fair use policy. If you insist adding Tankman pic in the PRC article, first you must respond to my argument why that fair use policy isn't effective in our case: Fair_use: Unacceptable use: Image: line 5: An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IMHO, you can use the Tankman image in PRC or other PRC human right related articles iff that photo is copylefted by the publisher, I will not stop you from using it as you please. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BC Skeptics
Onopearls,

As far as I can see - the arbcom never said anything to the effect that BCSkeptics is not reliable. Please look into the issue. I believe yuo are being mislead by earlier edits that made the wrong claim. Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to see the WP:RS discussion on the same subject where a user comments: "The article would be much poorer without that info" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Dale_Beyerstein_and_Basava_Premananda Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let know what your personal perspective on the topic is. Isn't removing such a study while keeping even fringe-news articles as source, biased? Aren't those who are attempting to do this clearly trying get info removed? Please share your thoughts. Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree to a great extent with Dilip Rajeev that excluding Dale Beyerstein's well-researched study that originated in academic circles does not help the article, but on the other hand, I admit that Beyerstein's study is self-published and does not formally fulfill Wikipedia's reputable sources standards. And the problem is that even if including Beyerstein's article makes the article better you will set a precedent and the article will degenerate further as a consequence. I also agree that some pro-SSB statements are not sourced to well established newspapers (i.e. fringe news). Andries 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
Dale Beyerstein was clearly declared as "Self-Published" and "Unreliable source" in the Wikipedia Reliable Source Notice board. Inspite of this User:Dilip_Rajeev has been adding this unreliable source back into the article like 4 times inspite of our explaining in the talk page and removing it. I am getting sick and tired of this user's POV pushing an unreliable source into the article. Can something be done to stop this POV pushing? Radiantenergy (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam


FlyingToaster Barnstar Hello Onopearls! Thank you so much for your support in my  recent RfA , which passed with a tally of 126 / 32 / 5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust.  Flying Toaster 

Sai
I have understood you--Soham-Sasha (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sai Baba Article
Hi Onopearls,

I am going to be adding sourced positive but non-bias content to article such as teachings and general facts about Sai Baba and more of His own words. Also sourced material from people who spent over 30 years with him. If people like Arnold Schulman and Tal Brooke are used who only spent a short time with him and then wrote negative acounts, then people like Sam Sandweiss and others who have spent over 30 years with Sai Baba should also be used.What is the proper procedure? I want to do this the right way in order to get this article to a respectable standard

My first task is to improve the teachings section as well as add content about Sai Baba's humanitarian works such as free hospitals, schools and his massive water project.

Two important points

1) It is my firm belief that criticism MUST be in its own section, and not included within the other parts of the article. In other words one section could say MATERIALIZATIONS AND MIRACLES, then the people who refute these could have a section in the criticism part of the article that says CLAIMS OF MATERIALIZATIONS AND MIRACLES. The amount of sourced documented material on Sai Baba's miracles is massive compared to the claims of fakery.. We are talking about miracles performed on a daily basis for over 70 years.

2) The first two paragraphs of this article MUST be re-written. It reads like a trailer to a bad movie.I don't believe the accusations should be in this first paragraph because they are just that ....accusations, and if they have to be there...there must be a clear rebuttal in the same paragraph to effect that Sai Baba has never been charged with any crime and never been convicted of any wrong doing. Also, The Consular page no longer carries the warning that was attributed to Sai Baba. This is vital to the intergrity of the article.Sbs108 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose the segregation of claims of miracles and criticisms of these claims. They belong together because they treat one subject: miracles. Andries (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Its true that the warning about travelling to Andhra Pradesh and all indirect reference to Sathya Sai Baba in the Consular Sheet  has been removed. .I even checked the latest 2009 Consular Sheet released by the US Department of State in February 2009 and I don't see any warning referring to either Andhra Pradesh or indirect reference to Sathya Sai Baba under the crime section. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html#crime. I have also started a discussion about this in the reliable source notice board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question:Can_an_articles_be_updated_as_per_the_new_2009_Consular_Travel_Warning_For_India.3F. So far the verdict has been to exclude this information as it is a BLP concern. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reports of Sexual Abuse Section: Even this section heading sounds biased and advocating a POV. I am thinking about more neutral heading. For instance even the 2006 consular sheet mentioned the word "Unconfirmed" when referring to the allegations on Sathya Sai Baba. The BBC documentary made those allegation reports based on Alaya Rahm case. Later when Alaya Rahm filed a case of allegations on Sathya Sai Baba in the supreme Court of California - Alaya Rahm was defeated. Sathya Sai Baba was proved innocent in this case. So I think atleast the heading should be more appropriate and neutral like "Unconfirmed Allegations". Please let me know what do you think. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the above change in your Sandbox. Also I want to address another issue. There are number of negative videos in this article which were added during White_Adepts edits.
 * These videos under the Claims of materialization and other miracles section are clearly biased. I watched this video a couple of times it is not very clear but the message seems to be clearly advocating POV views saying he is faking the "materialization" of a necklace. [[Image:BabaNecklacefake.ogv|200px|thumb|A video broadcast on Indian state controlled television in which Sai Baba is seen apparently faking the "materialization" of a necklace.
 * The same came be said about the following video - its not very clear from the video but the comment is very biased and advocating POV saying that Sathya Sai Baba is hiding the compressed ash pill between his fingers.[[Image:SaiBabaAshCreationExposed.ogv|200px|thumb|Denmark National Television documentary analyzing one of the most common purported "miracles" of Sai Baba.
 * There are also number of positive videos on Sathya Sai Baba materialising a number of different objects telecasted by some prime TV channels in India. Also number of his followers have claimed to have seen him materialise rings, chains etc. To balance the negativity we can either remove some of these negative videos or we can add some positive videos. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the video showing Sai Baba apparently manifesting vibhuti can not be "proof" of fakery. It is unrealistic that Sai Baba has been carrying around pills, necklaces, watches and other objects for over 70 years in order to pretend to materialize them. If this video is allowed than other video's showing the untold amount of materializations should also be there. For example there is a video of Sai Baba doing the "abhishekam" where he has his hand in a pot upside down. Vibhuti (ash) pours out in Large quantities for at least 5 minutes.This video only shows about a minute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeaJpD8Jwg. I really don't think any videos should be in this article. If people want to investigate they can go to You Tube themselves. You find what you are looking for.Sbs108 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ono- I will take your suggestion and make changes in the sandbox first. Again I am learning the ropes on Wikipedia proceedure.I will help make the article more positive in nature. I am not trying to promote Sai Baba through this article, but I feel it should accurately portray his life, teachings and the tremendous good he has done. Criticism and opposing views are welcome and I don't have a problem with that. We should stick to factual information. Sbs108 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that one of the few good edits that White_adept/Dilip made was adding those videos. I do not think that they should be removed. Andries (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I must agree with radiantenergy and Sbs108 on the videos. They really are, if nothing else, pushing POV in the section. The fact that the miracles are believed to be staged is more than adequately covered in the text, so the videos are, in my opinion, overkill.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

can you tell me how to use the sandbox. When I went in it looked like there were comments so I didn't know where to put my edits thanksSbs108 (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am new to wikipedia and have nothing to do with this SSS108. I don't understand what you mean by a puppet? Every suggestion I have made so far is reasonable and only look to balance the article. Why the suspicion? its hurtful. I don't gain or lose anything by editing this article. I felt compelled to do something seeing the gross injustice that it was. You have already agreed with me about the first two paragraphs and the videos. I will continue to work on the article until it is 50/50. I have 15 years of experiences with Sai Baba, does that mean I am not allowed to help get this article to a fair standard. Most of the people quoted in this article were "former devotees" or people that have never had a first hand experience with Sai Baba. I'll give you a perfect example of how certain people frame their POV. I just edited a quote sourced from Michelle Goldberg's article in Salon. The person who made that entry deliberately left out the part about Sai Baba's critics admitting that he has done a lot of good and relieved at lot of suffering in the area. They misquoted the actual passage to get there POV across. I edited it leaving the full quote which also accuses misconduct with the funds.(I didn't delete that part),.(Take a look at the Salon article. If you want to know who I am I can send you an email with my work address and contact information.Sbs108 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Death in the Ashram Section: There is a sub article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam" which covers this incident in great detail. This link in both under the Criticism and Controversy section and as well in the further reading section. I am not sure if we need a separate section for this. Pretty much this section repeats again from the subarticle. I suggest that may be we can get rid of this section and leave the sub-article link there. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You left a message in my page. I was n't sure if you were talking about this. Are you okay with deleting this section and leaving the link to the sub-article on the top of the page? Radiantenergy (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the allegation section there is a big paragraph about suicides sourced to the article in The Times. One case is about a HIV patient Pender who wanted cure by Sathya Sai Baba and later commited suicide in homeless hostel in North London. Its not clear from the article what really happened. This section is full of POV views analyzing why he commited suicide based on another person Mr Ord's evidence on the internet. Its pretty much like some one said something based on what she heard from some one whose claim in the internet accuses Sai Baba as the reason for Pander's suicide. I have re-written this in more neutral tone in the Sandbox. Also I have mentioned two other case mentioned in The Times where one of the person had psychological problems and wanted cure for that. Please see if you are ok with this change. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael Pender committed suicide, in part, as stated in the Times article, because he was sexually abused by Sai Baba, according his close friend Keith Ord. This should be stated in the article. Second hand, yes, but Pender could not speak anymore for himself. Keith Ord stated in another article that he tried to verify what happened to Pender, went to the ashram and unfortunately got sexually abused too by Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The article does not state Pender directly said that. Pender did not die in Baba's ashram either he commited suicide in London. The article does not say when Pender travelled to India. It only says that Kathleen Ord who says she is friend of Pender said her son Keith Ord reported about this. The whole section following that statement is on the  basis of "Mr Ord's evidence, posted on the Internet, states:" and goes on. It does not make any sense to directly accuse Sathya Sai Baba of sexual allegations based on a posting in internet by Ord?.
 * There is a basic difference between Wikipedia and other newspapers. Wikipedia is not a  tabloid nor a newspaper nor a magazine it is an encyclopedia  and greatly emphasis on encyclopedic neutral tone especially when writing Biography of a Living Person. In this case I think we should mention about this suicide incident as it is sourced to The Times. But Sathya Sai Baba cannot be accused directly of sexual abuse because it not clear from the article what really happened. We cannot write accusations based on vague details like somebody told me that somebody said and wrote on the internet so this is what happened. Anybody could have posted on the internet as Keith Ord.  When did internet postings become a reliable source for accusing some one of abuse in wikipedia articles?  Radiantenergy (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong here is what the article stated
 * "Kathleen Ord, who first told him of Sai Baba's teachings, has since destroyed her books and videos on the holy man. She said: "I blame myself in many ways because, if I hadn't introduced them, Mitch would probably be alive now. That's what he went to India for, thinking he'd find a cure.


 * "He tried to commit suicide in the ashram. He had overdosed on drugs more than once. He had some strange, very powerful experiences there. There was something sexual that was frightening."


 * Her son, Keith, has given a detailed account of what Mr Pender said in his last weeks about meeting Sai Baba. The guru flattered the British student by describing him as "the reincarnation of St Michael". Mr Ord's evidence, posted on the Internet, states: "He told me that the very first private interview that he had with SB was a sexual encounter.Her son, Keith, has given a detailed account of what Mr Pender said in his last weeks about meeting Sai Baba. The guru flattered the British student by describing him as "the reincarnation of St Michael". Mr Ord's evidence, posted on the Internet,states: "He told me that the very first private interview that he had with SB"
 * Andries (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all mentioned in the Times and several other sources. When did this become and unreliable source for Wikipedia? Andries (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that it may not be very clear to you what happened but if you read it in combination with published Dutch sources, like University press article the Sai Paradox http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/artikelen/paradox.html and (translated into English) http://www.saiguru.net/english/media/0010spiegelbeeld.htm then it is very clear. Andries (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is another published Dutch source that mentions Keith Ord's experienced that could be used for the article. http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/artikelen/wonderdoener.html Andries (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Times considers evidence then who are you to doubt that? I consider it evidence too, because Keith Ord's story has been verified several times. The Times is not tabloid journalism. Let us follow what reputable sources have stated. Andries (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Andries, you yourself admitted its not clear. Why are you pushing to add such an abuse claim on Sathya Sai Baba when his involvement is not clear. You very well know that we cannot use attack website such as saiguru.net nor ex-baba as reference to this article.
 * I did some more research on Keith Ord and his allegations on Sai Baba and found some reference in some attack websites. Keith Ord has made other senseless claims saying Sathya Sai Baba changed from male to female.
 * I don't think we should go out of way adding ridiculous claims and information from attack websites to support such claims. I still stand with my earlier statement. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All the information that I posted is listed in published paper printed sources, not only in attack websites. The websites www.saiguru,net and www.exbaba.com contain both information that are reliable sources and unreliable sources, according to Wikipedia sources. I am sorry to say that the bizarre claim that SSB can change instananeously into a woman can be sourced to a university press magazine and Keith Ord is not the only one with this testimony. Your opinion about a statement in a reliable source does not change the reliability of the source. Andries (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article regarding Keith Ord and Michael Pender is sourced to attack websites. All is sourced to the Times. I only used some originally Dutch paper-published articles that are also copied on attack websites to support my argument that the story in the Times should be included. Andries (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone that commits suicide has serious emotional and mental problems that extend way beyond one particular incident. It is ludacris to assume one person caused the suicide of another. We can not assume someone was abused based on heresay when there is just no evidence of anywrong doing by Sai Baba.To somehow have the article insinuate that Sai Baba had anything to do with suicides of mentally unstable people is just tabloid journalism. THIS is an Encyclopedia. I think people should look at a real encyclopedia to get a sense of how this article should flow and be structured.Sbs108 (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will leave it to OnoPearls to decide on this. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Radiantenergy, if you do not understand the article in the Times then take the time to read other articles about the Pender/Ord affair. E.g this paper published article. http://www.saiguru.net/english/media/0010spiegelbeeld.htm Andries (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Andries, Again you are repeatedly giving the reference from attack websites and their interpretation of what happened. Here's a Pro website with  a different version of Keith Ord story . I wanted you to take a look at this too. http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/Ord/
 * The point is we cannot write an article based on either attack website or pro-website. From the Times article is not very clear what really happened other than the claims from Keith Ord in an internet posting. So I think we can mention this incident from The Times but Sathya Sai Baba cannot be accused as his role is not clear.
 * When writing the criticism - Wikipedia rule states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides;  it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone". If we still don't agree we can take it to WP:RS noticeboard. I don't have issue with that. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not. The article that I referred is sourced to a paper published article that was published in the magazine Spiegelbeeld. This article is copied on www.saiguru.net
 * Going to the WP:RS to ask whether The Times is a reputable source seems like a waste of time. Again, nothing is sourced to spiritual seekers' consumer protection websites, like saiguru.net or www.exbaba.com Andries (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Andries, The question is not about whether to include this incident or not. I do agree that we can include this incident sourced to the The Times. But from The Times Sathya Sai Baba involvement in the abuse and suicide is not clear. I am sure the WP:RS noticeboard will be able to help out in this case. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Every word from this incident is now sourced to the Times i.e. a reliable source. If you want to discuss this at WP:RS then go ahead, though, to me this seems like a waste of time because the consensus is that the Times is a reliable source. Andries (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Onopearls-Please see sandbox for constructive changes to the article.Sbs108 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

yes it was an accident, I undid the change and then reverted back as signed in-thanksSbs108 (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi OnoPearls, Do you want me to move these changes from Sandbox to the article as you mentioned in my talk page? I would like you to take a look at everybody's changes let me know if you are ok with these changes to be moved to the main article. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied back in my talk page. Please let me know. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi OnoPearls, I moved the biography section and response to criticism section from sandbox to the main article. But in the materialistion and miracle section there are too many diffferences between the two versions. I think the two versions should be merged first in the sandbox and then later it can be moved to the main article. I fixed the sandbox, cleaned up POV statements in sandbox under this section. I think it might be better for sbs108 to do the merge in the sandbox between these two versions as he worked with those edits and then later we can move it to the main article. Please let me know what you think. Radiantenergy (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I finally merged the differences and moved the changes to the main article. Please add if I missed anything. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Organization Section-Sai Baba Article
I would like to add back the old organization section which was deleted for some reason. I think it covers important positive infomation that is missing in the article. What do you think? Currently there is no information about the Organization and the good works being done.Sbs108 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please review my improved biography section in your sandbox. If its OK I would like to add it. I smoothed it out, added some information from a current source, removed superfluous and non-relevant information. ThanksSbs108 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Update
I wanted to update you about this reported by Dilip Rajeev. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concerns_regarding_removal_of_info_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba. I will also reply to this. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Barbados–France relations
Barbados–France relations is up for deletion and some help finding reliable references would be helpful, are you interested? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of videos from Sai Baba article
I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, but did you remove content from the Sai Baba article based on the consensus of a subset of editors having a discussion on your own talk page? If that is the case, I would request that you re-insert the information and put forward your ideas for a discussion among *all* the editors. User talk pages are absolutely *not* the appropriate forum to formulate consensus on article content.

Again, I apologize if I've completely missed what's going on, but what I see right now appears inappropriate. Bhimaji (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see any discussion of the *source* of the video. I only see discussion of who put it in, and of the believability of the content. Claims like:
 * "It is unrealistic that Sai Baba has been carrying around pills, necklaces, watches and other objects for over 70 years in order to pretend to materialize them" are personal opinion, nothing more.


 * while its true that this is a personal opinion, its NOT the rationale for removing the videos. The fact that you believe they are fake and amazed at what magicians do is also a personal opinion, "nothing more." The rationale for removing the videos is that if the videos are allowed than there will be videos added that show many more materializations, not just the ones on the heavily "slanted" documentaries. I personaly won't let negative videos go unanswered so why get into an unecessary battle over videos.The consenses is videos push POV on both sides.Sbs108 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable source says there is evidence of fakery, a Wikipedia editor does not get to exclude that source because it is personally incredulous to him or her.
 * I've met amateur and professional magicians on and off over the years, and I've been astounded at what sort of apparently impromptu tricks they could perform - outside of formal magic shows. "It is a miracle because he couldn't have props around him often enough" is a ridiculous argument. Bhimaji (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reliable source you quoted is only giving their opinion and commentary on the videos, it is not a statement of fact, so a consensus of people including the moderator agreed its best to leave them out to avoid pushing POV.Sbs108 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Moderator? That is not a title that I am familiar with on Wikipedia. Bhimaji (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another discussion you might be interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question. Radiantenergy (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

China in Africa
Hello, thanks for your help. If I understand well, you are trying to reduce this article size by rewording and selection of facts, is it this ? You deleted some facts, such the 50BC link on Caesar time (to be more precise: Cleopatra is said to have wear silk clothes from China, Egypt being in Africa). In the same way: Taiwan, USA and France influence in Africa does shape the China approach of Africa, and are important to introduce a little. Some other statements such that the Chinese diaspora helped to fueled Sino-Africa trade are basic and easy to accept, I don't think that need source, Jean ping, and so many Chinese are example of this.

Note: I'm a bit sad to see this article get shorter and lost data, but I understand that select facts and sentence will produce a shorter and stronger article. So... I'm sad, but that's ok :] Yug (talk)  15:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not false, I understand. I'm aware that copyedit/rewording is need XD
 * As you noticed, some sections are also too much a list of facts, I had not time to do better and make everywhere a work of smooth-smart redaction. I have my final exam next week (History + Chinese), I hope have time to write down the last missing section. Thanks a lot for your work !!!! Yug (talk)  16:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too [I do/did a part, that's already good ;)] Good luck and thanks~ Yug (talk)  16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegations and Criticism Section of Sai Baba Article
I have brought up the issue on the talk page. No one has responded. The Criticism section is bloated considerably, Again given that this is a BLP, and the fact that Sai Baba's popularity and reputation remains intact, not to mention again and again, there is no case, no evidence, and nothing that proves Sai Baba has done these things. Criticism should be at a minimum. Even without these facts, the rules in the WP:BLP state that criticism should not overwhelm the article. The article is better now, but the "Allegations" section is still the "cancer" of the article and is out of control. I think my version is much better than what's there and still conveys the message without the mood of presumed guilt and semi-hysteria. I would be suprised if any anti-sai editor would agree to reduction though in fact they would like to expand the slander to the whole article, as you've seen happen already. I would hope that they could be satisfied with it. I think that myself and radiantenergy have proven to be reasonable and credible with our efforts so far and have improved the article. Why is that we are OK with having the negativity in the article, where as those inimical to Sai Baba want to make it look like he is a demon or worse? Actually to be honest, with that reorganization of the criticism section, I am pretty much satisfied with the article and its no secret where I stand on Sai Baba. I think that says a lot. I still think the teaching and biography section needs some more content though and I will work on that.yours Sbs108 (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip Rajeev Out of Control with regards to the Sai Baba Article
Onopearls, Dilip Rajeev has shown before and is showing now that he can not remain neutral and can not cooperate on the subject. He refuses to leave any positive information in the article. He continues to push the article into a full blown assault against Sai Baba. Please do something about this. This is an observation on his behavior with regards to the article only. Not a personal attack. Please restore version to before his edits when we were still discussing important issues with the article. Sbs108 (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You gave the three-revert warning to Dilip Rajeev at 17:40 12 June 2009, at 17:45 12 June 2009, Dilip Rajeev made another revert to the article adding back the allegations in the intro as well as other things. Sbs108 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Case on Dilip Rajeev
Here's the link to the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip_rajeev. Please post your comments here. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ono, I saw your message in my talk page. I got caught up in the moment. Sorry about that. I would really appreciate your response to the above case. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the long history of this user (Dilip Rajeev) and his behavior in the Sai Baba article and in a few other articles, what he did today wasn't suprising at all. I would expect it tomorrow as well and if not tomorrow the next day. I am simply not going to let him run over this article with overwhelming criticism as he has done in the past. So we can go back and forth until eternity if he wants. He has already been blocked at least once regarding another article. We were having a good discussion with other editors as well as Dilip, but it seems he just couldn't control himself and went on a "rampage" even after he agreed on one revert a day going back on his word. I am only here to defend the article so its not overwhelmed by criticism. I saw the other previous article (before Dilip AKA White Adept got to it) and never got involved even though it had the criticism in it. At that time it was properly proportioned so why get involved. Again I am involved now because of the gross injustice being done, you yourself even said you were shocked and had never seen an article like this before (with so much criticism). I think each person' behavior (anyone involved)with regards to this article needs to be watched closely from this point on.yours Sbs108 (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Go with Love
I am sorry you are going which doesn't bode well for the article, anyway Sai Baba says, "if you fight with people in the gutter, you have to go into the gutter to fight them." I am sad you withdrew your reply concerning Dilip Rajeev. In fact I am shocked that you didn't stand for what is right. He has a right to edit but not sabotage the article. I hope you might have a change of heart. yoursSbs108 (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)