Another user has removed your additions to the "Controveries" section of the Daisaku Ikeda article on grounds that they are not substantiated by citing reliable sources. Although I do not disagree with the content of your comments, I neither do I disagree with Garion96's rationale for removing the material: It violates Wikipedia convention in several ways. See Talk:Daisaku Ikeda#Unsourced paragraph for details.
Now that you've reverted your contribution several times, I would like to suggest that you supply some authoritative, verifiable sources for its content. Only if you cite such sources will your content be permitted to remain. Further, Wikipedia convention limits such reversions to three ( three-reversions rule).
Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Another user has removed your additions to the "Controveries" section of the Daisaku Ikeda article on grounds that they are not substantiated by citing reliable sources. Although I do not disagree with the content of your comments, I neither do I disagree with Garion96's rationale for removing the material: It violates Wikipedia convention in several ways. See Talk:Daisaku Ikeda#Unsourced paragraph for details.
Now that you've reverted your contribution several times, I would like to suggest that you supply some authoritative, verifiable sources for its content. Only if you cite such sources will your content be permitted to remain. Further, Wikipedia convention limits such reversions to three ( three-reversions rule).
Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)