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.-- Cinemaniac86 Oy_gevalt. 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)
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))
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)
Hi
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)
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)
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)
-- Jack332 ( talk) 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say. Thanks, Ono ( talk) 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hey, Although it's usually not the case, Mr. IP was right here.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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."
"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)
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)
I got the following two messages from you:
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))
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)
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)
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)).
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)
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)).
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)
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)
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)
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)
I AM TOO! We agree on something —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec Tgint ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That was constuctive what are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrett Mitchel Johansen ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
I have understood you-- Soham-Sasha ( talk) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
![]() |
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)
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)
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 thanks Sbs108 ( talk) 19:06, 4 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-thanks Sbs108 ( talk) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
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. Thanks Sbs108 ( talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. yours Sbs108 ( talk) 04:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
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.-- Cinemaniac86 Oy_gevalt. 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)
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))
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)
Hi
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)
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)
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)
-- Jack332 ( talk) 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say. Thanks, Ono ( talk) 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hey, Although it's usually not the case, Mr. IP was right here.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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."
"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)
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)
I got the following two messages from you:
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))
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)
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)
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)).
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)
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)).
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)
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)
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)
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)
I AM TOO! We agree on something —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec Tgint ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That was constuctive what are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrett Mitchel Johansen ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
I have understood you-- Soham-Sasha ( talk) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
![]() |
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)
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)
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 thanks Sbs108 ( talk) 19:06, 4 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-thanks Sbs108 ( talk) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
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. Thanks Sbs108 ( talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. yours Sbs108 ( talk) 04:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)