Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence/JFD misrepresentation

Response to Maha Bodhi Society

 * (cur) (last) 04:44, 3 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (blanked material?)
 * (cur) (last) 00:34, 3 February 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (rm OR, restored Blanked Material, rm sections which belong to Mahabodhi arcticle. restore formatting,)
 * (cur) (last) 18:26, 2 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (additional citations then)

Yes I restored to my version as I'll do this very instant if someone reverts blindly assuming that I "blanked material."

Response to Michael E. J. Witzel

 * 1) (cur) (last) 15:20, 22 February 2007 Crculver (Talk | contribs) (Rv. A number of respected editors are reverting you. This should tell you something.)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 13:15, 22 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (tagging for now)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 12:57, 22 February 2007 Dbachmann (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Freedom skies (talk) to last version by Crculver)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 12:43, 22 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (I'm surprised, one user asking for footnotes means you produce them. If he finds the content unsourced then he will remove it vigilantly.)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 01:02, 22 February 2007 Crculver (Talk | contribs) (Rv. One user claiming "Need cites" when a plurality of other users think it's fine means: you're wrong.)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 00:53, 22 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (this seems to be spiralling into an edit war, provide in article footnotes and you can keep the statement, or an rfc is in order)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 23:06, 21 February 2007 Zora (Talk | contribs) (rv to Culver)
 * 8) (cur) (last)  22:35, 21 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (then I'm sure that the provision of multiple WP:RS sources is not going to be a problem)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 21:46, 21 February 2007 Crculver (Talk | contribs) (Rv. The textbook material was mainly removed by well-respected editors a few months ago. And that statement is sourced: Frawley's entire oeuvre.)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 21:31, 21 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism)
 * 11) (cur) (last) 21:29, 21 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (→Politics)
 * 12) (cur) (last) 21:28, 21 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (rem unattributed claim)
 * 1) (cur) (last) 21:28, 21 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (rem unattributed claim)

You can see in the history the responses I recieved.

WP:BLP ?? ??

I suppose you should ban me here and now.

Response to National Development Front
All my sentiments are covered in great detail here. I was against sockpuppets. When one deals with socks I guess reverting to a version which actually a David Bukay (University of Haifa) citation is edit warring.

Response to Bodhidharma
Blnguyen himself put a neutrality disputed tag on the article. The article began with Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that Bodhidharma is an entirely fictional creation (based on the creative misinterpretation of the citation which read "In his "Notes on some artists of the Six Dynasties and the Tang," Paul Pelliot asserts that all accounts of Bodhidharma are legendary.")

This should shed a light on the claim of "disruptive removal of sourced content in neutral narrative."

My involvement saw the article go from this to this and then the current version; undisturbed by the interference of either

Response to Buddhism and Hinduism
My content made it to the final stage in face of opposition such as users Green23 and Saavak123, identified as vandals as sockpuppets and have been been permanently blocked (Requests for checkuser/Case/Green23).

Response to Muhammad Mahmood alam
See here for the following:-


 * Now that's good citation. Kudos to the guy who put it there. Instead of the pulp fiction garbage that was pushed earlier, this definitely clinches it. Grammer cleanup might be needed though. Freedom skies 15:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to add one more thing to it :-


 * 12:08, 28 October 2006 Idleguy (Talk | contribs) (rv. I think reverting to a nonsensical version, especially when an official pak resource has been provided flies in the face of Wikipedia policies and ur own set of rules in the talk pages) 


 * I kinda missed it. Given the past, I thought it was another revert to the underground sites which claim to be privy to the official records. Sorry for the oversight.


 * From my POV the official citations were still missing and reverting back to a version based on underground websites is something I cannot allow.


 * Now that the official citations are provided, it's a whole different story. Freedom skies 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to "Freedom skies wages disruptive edit wars on articles relating to Buddhism or martial arts"


That was the argument that was bought to my attention by MichelMaggs. The details of this argument can be found in the version to which I linked to earlier in the section Talk:Zen. The discussion on Zen may shed a light on JFD's claims of "disruptive removal of sourced content in neutral narrative."

The discussion will also reveal that I refrained from even the mention of Hinduism and have yet to place India in this Mahayana philosophy.