Loading AI tools
|
I've seen that in the past you contributed to the Mugabe article and you are and admin. The Mugabe article is currently under assault by an anon that keeps on adding POV unsourced material. IMHO it may be a good idea to protect it. I will appreciate if you can look into this. Thanks in advance. Bakersville (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Will.
If you look at the Mugabe you will find the situation is more complex than 'anonymous vandalism'. User:Bakersville is currently under a 24 hour block for 3RR (this is not his first time), and the things he complains of as 'vandalism' are in fact reverts of his repeated additions to the article. Other users have stated that Bakersville's additions are in fact copyvio, and it is certainly not obvious that they are appropriate to the article, or better than the versions he is reverting.
What I think is really going on is an edit war involving Bakersville, an anon, and a couple of other editors. None of the parties are behaving well, and my view is that the anon is no worse than any of the other people in the war. I'm currently trying to persuade the various contributors to talk to each other rather than just reverting each other. I'd like to discuss whether protection is appropriate under those circumstances. Feel free to reply here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
moving conversation here
Yes, I see the fight between two editors. I also see several incidents of outright vandalism by IPs in the last day or two. If you think the situation is under control I'd be happy to lift the protection. OTOH, your statement on the talk page about editors reverting each other makes me wonder if full protection would be better. What do you think of the situation? How can I help? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I only see a couple in the last few days (which is actually pretty low for a controversial world leader). User:64.167.23.18 I think is edit warring rather than vandalising. If it's OK with you I'd like to see the protection taken off; if it gets out of hand I'll put it back on. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Will, it wasn't my intention to drag you along to an edit war. I was under the impression that 64.167.23.18 IP edits,other just created accounts (Drabj new account 100 edits in two days, all in marxist pages), and some very supicious sock puppets, were an attempt to vandalize the article. I guess it wasn't that obvious. This is getting kind of tiresome and time consuming, I think I need a break. Best and keep up the good work. Bakersville (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
... about this rabid attack? . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea to move toward what you are suggesting. I'm disappointed with the way adventure travel has been categorized on Wikipedia and the template is a fresh start to begin the process of improving Adventure travel resources. Would you care to join WP:ADVTR for project co-ordination? TravelJournalNetwork (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw you left a message on Cult Free World's page... I have been meaning to drop you a line and ask you to comment at this sock report: []. Do you remember Shashwat Pandey from the old Sahaj Marg page? Well, he came back as "Rushmi" and now he is back at Cult-Free-World.
Would you be willing to look at the evidence and comment? Sethie (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
PS- I have wanted to say this for a long time... Will for me, you are the most neutral, calm, fair editor I have bumped into on these pages and I wanted to thank you for that.Sethie (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you keep an eye at Jewish_Cossacks? A user with anti-Ukr. bias has been putting insulting tags on an unusual article.Galassi (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your comment about sources for the LXG lawsuit, and while I take your point that the sources aren't great, I'm not sure how best to revise things. The lawsuit had a large impact on Mr Moore's disillusionment with films of his work and withdrawal from that aspect of things, as well as (tangentially) bringing about the demise of his ABC line of comics - so this is an important and noteable case. However, I don't think the court documents were released; many publications mention the lawsuit, but few (if any) go into any detail - leaving the paucity of sources you rightly note. I'm not sure that, even though it does deal with living people, the article negatively impacts upon anybody (certainly it is intended as impartial) involved, so I wouldn't think that a pressing issue. Don Murphy "My Very Educated Mother" has recently been through with a minor hatchet cutting out a couple of parts he that user felt were unsubstantiated/inaccurate (because he someone had at the same time edited the source of the comments) with particular regard to Mr Murphy, with the logical connotation that there is less of a/no problem with other comments. Indeed, that the sources are quoting Mr Moore and Mr Murphy surely lends them weight, even if their actual forum might fall without the bounds of absolute reliability.
I naturally appreciate your comments though, and hope to read from you again. :o) ntnon (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've have another read through, and tend to think that the reliability/origin of the sources falls under these guidelines - quoting the individuals concerned, albeit in some part through (as you note), forums and blogs. There was a little bit about the case in a recent issue of Empire, though, so I'll try to dig that out in the meantime. ntnon (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was something of a struggle to try and pull it all together in even as mildly-acceptable form as it currently is..! Ultimately, such cases don't particularly lend themselves to an easy article, BUT (at least in this case) are utterly vital to the surrounding subjects. (I'll choose to take your comments on complexity and intricacy as something of a compliment, by the way! ;o)) And, obviously, if there is anything obvious that comes to mind - let me know (or write on the talk page, or even wade into the page itself). :o) ntnon (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just left a question on the talk page for United States–Mexico border, and I'm wondering if you happen to know if the name was ever actually changed (to "Mexico-United States border"), and if so, when & why it was changed back? Cgingold (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 |
Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." |
1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.
2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
- AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255
- AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255
- AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255
Thanks! ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Will for reverting 92.9.165.3 (talk · contribs), did you get them all? Better re-load the evil that is him will be back. ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Today's IP: 92.11.116.249 (talk · contribs) IP4240207xx (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- THANKS...IP4240207xx (talk)
- Today's IP: 92.11.220.13 (talk · contribs) IP4240207xx (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, two IPs today. You temp-protected Talk:Dirk Bogarde and Talk:Rock Hudson, did you want to do it to Talk:Clark Gable also? Thanks. IP4240207xx (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- HC air force attack: 16 May 2008: Plane # 92.12.13.180 (talk · contribs)
- Targets: James Stewart (actor) - Talk:Cary Grant - Rope (film) - Cary Grant
IP Range Block
Will,
1) Can we check the IP range 92.8.0.0 - 92.13.255.255 and get a report of all the IPs in that range that have edited?
2) Then, based on that list, I'll check it manually (I have a feeling that HE as done most of the edits in that range), block the entire range?
Thanks... IP4240207xx (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Lets worry about #1 before we move on to #2, ok? IP4240207xx (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I took a couple days off and come back to:
What I have found so far. IP4240207xx (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Did you see Rodhullandemu's question to me and my reply? I think I overwhelmed him a little.
- Have you tried these new tools? Thanks for the heads up. IP4240207xx (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Will - I am new to submitting Wiki material and spent some time correcting and expanding information on the Santa Rosa Valley. The original post contained several errors and appeared to be written by someone who didn't know the area. I have learned that the material I posted has been removed and the original erroneous material reposted. I read the notes from "Zahnrad" but did not understand his comments. Among other things, he apparently didn't like the fact that I included the URL for our local non-profit community Website. I only did this after reviewing the policy concerning links and assuring myself that the listing was appropriate.
I understand that I replaced something that someone else provided (possibly Zahnrad) and that he may not have liked it, but how do you update Wiki with improved and corrected information without this happening when you believe the posted information is in error?
Thanks for all help.
OldThomas (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Verify source}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.Captive Hearts, Captive Minds). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:17 5 May 2008 (GMT).
Hi, I am Hpfan1. You probably recognize me I am sure. We have had different opinions about certain things. However, I need your help and support.
If you will look on the abercrombie page, the brand is refered to as "Abercrombie & Fitch Kids". I know that you know that that is completely wrong. The brand has NEVER EVER been refered to as "Abercrombie & Fitch Kids"!!! It is simply "abercrombie" from clothing lables to marketing, right! And its official name is abercrombie kids. All right. Well, A while back I noticed that the intro and template had the brand labled as "Abercrombie & Fitch Kids". I edited it to say "abercrombie"/"abercrombie kids" (because that is the correct name. Well, a week later I noticed that the brand was refered to as "Abercrombie & Fitch Kids" throughout the entire article! So I removed that, thinking it vandalism and changed it back to the correct "abercrombie". Well, not to get mad, but this ass hole was reverting my edits of the name. He argued that I was incorrect and that my edits were unresonable and was complete vandalism. I knew that what I was doing was correct and added my edits again. He ignored my reason and just reverted. I reverted this and told him that I have no intention of vandalism. However, he continued to ignore me. I thought, "Am I in some alternate universe where vandalism is correct adn correct is vandalism?" You can read what I said in regards to my edits on the Revision history of Abercrombie Kids. This is so UNREASONABLE!!!
Please help me and back me up. Please, you know that it is wrong and I know that you can do something about it! HELP. The bastard is Treelo and another who supports him is CanadianLinuxUser. CanadianLinuxUser is 41, and by high chances does not understand this. He may haev all these awards and what no tbut that does not mean that he is completely unable to make incorrect judgment! Even though the brand is from Abercrombie & Fitch, for encyclopedic purposes it should be refered solely by its name! IT IS SOLELY "ABERCROMBIE" NOT "ABERCROMBIE & FITCH KIDS". Please contact me right after you read this. --Hpfan1 (talk) 17:52 7 May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.128.78 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Please see what's going on in Alexander the Great. Each time a new(?) editor starts an edit war about the introduction of the article which is sourced. All of a sudden User:PelasgicMoon brings back an endless discussion again and again, about an issue which has been discussed to death and has been archived recently. Could you help? - Sthenel (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to work with you on the above article. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussions around the International Sahaja Public School page seem to be drifting back into deadlock. Could you offer a 3rd opinion? --Simon D M (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with you that Jossi and Momento made many specious allegations regarding sources and their paraphrasing on the subject of Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat. The relationship between Jossi and me has become disturbed because of it and it will not become better quickly and easily. Andries (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, excuse me. Well, thank you so much! I greatly appreciate your help in looking into this. --Hpfan1 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
After a very long time - I think I'd be happier if it was constructed as to reflect different climate zones or ecological zones or ground type - however I can see that such an article has the terminology not necessarily used in new zeland or australia or south africa - although the equipment and good people are trying to globalise us all :) - will get back a bit later about it and think about it again to see whether in the end i might be wrong SatuSuro 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe my leaving an oppose at this left me in a bit of a dizzy fear of the world being taken over :) SatuSuro 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Heheh - Ill leave both alone - wherever possibly (as long as im wearing the right boots) - and will probably ask your advice re some tasmanian mountains sometime - cheers and enjoy your summer ! (its getting tasmanian/canberran here in western oz - at night - ie cold - not a time to be out in light clothing :) ) SatuSuro 08:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your edit "So what objective rule are we using that allows us to use Collier to say that Davis is a liar, but excludes Collier sayinog that Prem Rawat is a drunk?" Is a violation of BLP and most inappropriate. That author does not refer to this person on these terms, and you need at least make an effort not to bait editors with such remarks. I remind you that the article in is probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your edits on the Fontana,Ca article. They were nicely done. Can you do something about the user that keeps putting Frank Finazzo DDS in the notable natives section? I have reverted them 3 times, but the are very persistent. I'm not sure how to report it properly. Thanks Mracew (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed one of the edits made today by a new account TuppenceABag, which appear to me to be, once again, ColScott, stopping by to edit articles related to him or his interests. Should I tag it as a suspected sockpuppet or let you investigate it?? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Snap. :o) ntnon (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm positive. Only Don Murphy goes around taking things pertaining to that lawsuit out of the articles and the pattern of the comments in the edit summaries are the same. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1. I apologize for my slow reply. For one thing, I just now figured out HOW to reply. 2. I added "left-handed" to all these articles because I think it is interesting that so many actors are left handed, especially when there are 2 or more in the same show or group: Hal Linden and Barbara Barrie as husband and wife in Barney Miller; all 3 of the female regulars in the 2001 season of Law and Order; and especially the 3 Hitchcock blondes - 3 in a row if you count only his color movies. 3. My source is personal observation: I have seen all of these actors write with their left hands in their movies and TV shows. This is also the source of the info in all of my other edits. You could argue that this qualifies as original research, and therefore taboo on wiki. But all of these observations are verifiable by others. If you watch Vertigo, North By Northwest, The Birds, and Marnie, you will see the 3 Hitchcock blondes write with their left hands. If you watch Absolutely Fabulous, you will see Julia Sawalha write with her left while wearing horn rimmed glasses. If you are in Panama City, FL you can see the 2 F-101 Voodoo fighters on display there. 4. Thank you for your Welcome and your question. Wjwtk (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Will Beback, Good point. I have changed my edits of the 3 Hitchcock blondes to something that is verifiable by the movies themselves, which in this case are the primary sources - the images on the screen. I deleted my other left-handed edits, at least the ones that other editors did not get to first. Thank you. Wjwtk
Well, took me all day, but there it is Grand Central Terminal (Glendale). Hope it suits. JohnClarknew (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are right about changing the name. I don't know whether to delete it and copy to the new name, or some other way. It is already on Google and needs a redirect from its current title. Could you do this please? JohnClarknew (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Decided to learn how to do it myself without screwing up, and did it, including the double redirects. I think it's fine now. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the second title is actually the one that is the more accurate title. I checked Bruce W. Orriss' landmark When Hollywood Ruled the Skies and that is the spelling used there, as well. In making a "move," the article requires an admin to complete the move to the new article title. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC).
Hi Will
Just wanted to ensure you realize I was just kidding about the edit war statement I made [here]. Quick background: 4d-don is referring to three users (Shashwat Pandey, Cult-Free World and Talk-to-Me) who are one and the same person (and currently under an editorial block). So when he referred to "their" opinions to say he had consensus to revert changes made by Embhee, I thought that was pretty damned hilarious. That's where I'm coming from when I say that "I, me and myself" disagree with him. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't mis-interpreted as hostility.
FYI, we have had a lot more stability on this page since user Cult-Free World was blocked. Sure, not everyone agrees on everything but we have had no out-of-control edit wars. It sure helps that a few admins are patrolling the page pretty regularly.
Thanks for your help. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? I just saw that there was some editing going on with that article. When I compared the diffs between how I'd left it in 2007 with now, I discovered that some of the carefully researched historical information had been dropped (with no justification for doing so), and new questionable stuff had been added with citations. It turns out most of the uncited stuff was legit (or at least citable), but everything just needed a little cleanup and polishing. I wasn't aware I'd stepped into the middle of a dispute. I guess that is a good thing, because obviously my edits then were completely neutral. :-) Good to see you're still active around here. I don't really feel that's I'm back to active status, though my edit count for this month seems to be proving different. I did reactivate myself in WP:MIX, but I'm trying to also branch out into other areas that are more aligned with my interests. How have you been? --Willscrlt (Talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Storm Rider jumped way out of line yesterday. Hir post Storm Rider 07:01, 20 May 2008 (diff) suddenly spewed out an amazing (to me) four personal attacks including three AGF violations. Two PAs were just the ordinary insult-type. The other two were not only character-type PAs, but actual libels as well. I wrote an evidence analysis of exactly what s/he had written, and why they were PA violations and libels: Milo 04:32, 21 May 2008 (diff).
Kiddy insult PAs don't get much more than censure at WP, and if they were all just simple PAs I wouldn't report it. On the other hand, casually uttering libels is a danger to Wikimedia Foundation, so I'm reporting it. If SR repeats these libels toward a non-anonymous editor it could cause legal trouble. Libels could potentially cause a semi-anonymous editor to lose reputation or more, if friends and/or employer know who they are at WP.
I think SR has also been gaming the system by removing text, demanding that it stay out during debate, and then engaging in tendentious debate to wear out the opponent. At least that's what SR did to me by appearance. I'm guessing that when that tactic failed to work, SR turned libelously abusive in frustration.
As far as I'm concerned, no WP editor can be required to risk libel, and by libeling me SR has forfeited any "right" to further debate on content. I informed SR that if s/he wanted to debate content, it would have to done through another editor. Milo 06:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, but I'm afraid that greater credit ought to go to the at-least two 'bots which catch the most obvious problems. Not my 'bots, I hasten to add.
Not being much of a writer, I hit upon this easy way to chip in and perhaps and make a bit of a difference. I fell away from it for awhile--checking back on my editing history, it looks as if it's been nearly 18 months--but now that I have some time, I'll try to keep up. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
... have a word with User:Milomedes to stop with the personal attacks and diatribes? It would be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Jossi, taking "diatribes" first, of the two non-archaic meanings, (M-W.com "diatribe"):
- 2. a bitter and abusive speech or writing;
- 3: ironic or satirical criticism.
- I wrote no recent irony or satire, leaving only (2:). Abusive means: "using harsh insulting language" (and bitter has too many meanings to choose from). As defined, a necessary component of "diatribe" is "insults";, and since I never write insults, I have not written any diatribes per M-W.com, so that charge seems disposed.
- That leaves "personal attacks". I've been a victim of personal attacks as WP:NPA-defined, so I would not intentionally do that to anyone else. As far as I know, I did not do that to you.
- I've noticed that many editors and even admins seem to confuse "personal attack" with criticism of behavior or actions.
WP:NPA: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks,..."
- I review all my texts to make sure they are WP:NPA compliant. Now, like everyone else I do occasionally make mistakes. If you want to quote the sentences I wrote that you think are WP:NPA noncompliant, I will review them and try to determine whether either you or I misunderstand the current rules. Milo 06:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look: Flora and fauna of Greenland -- Fyslee / talk 03:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I found it on some website. It was like a blog or something. Is that not the public domain. I figured that the image was taken by some person and posted on the website. I thought to of placing a non-free promotional, but, IDK. - User:Hpfan1 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will atempt to do so then by tomorrow. Thanks again for your help in abercrombie kids. - User:Hpfan1 15:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You posted a message on mytalk page. I am not sure if you have the right person or not. There were no details or references to what you were discussing. In any case, please do not harass me any more. I do not spam Wikipedia. If that is your opinion, I consider it incorrect. We can disagree, that is fine. But please do not harass me about it. Thank you. User:lsiryan 2:23 pm 23 May 2008
- Please stop harassing me. This is a formal request, and I am serious. You have sent me at least 2 more messages since I posted about. I do not wish to receive any communication from you, through any account I have, anywhere. This is my last response to you. If you contact me through any means, I will not respond further. Please consider this as a formal and legally binding notice. I am not joking or playing games. Thank you. User:lsiryan 4:51 pm 23 May 2008
Dear admin or whoever just deleted my entry because of 'commercial link'. This post is no different then the links you have for local newspaper and online social network site pasadena247.com. I think this will be good for people who are reading about San Gabriel Valley and finding information on services (in my case, local classified ads for the community). I think you should leave the link on there. I want to discuss this with you but I am not really sure how I can do so. I am leaving this message for you here and I hope this is the right section. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strancali (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already stated on my User Page, that it's my goal to be forever blocked and completely erased from Wiki's history. Wotring3 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will Beback, you recently assisted us on the International Sahaja Public School page and I was wondering if you could turn your attention a related article, the Sahaja Yoga page. This article has been frozen for quite some time and I have made three edit protected requests which I feel should have been addressed by now. If I'm going about this all wrong, please let me know. Freelion (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Two of the three edits have been agreed to now - see the talk on "Chakras and nadis section" and "Cult allegations section". The addition of the reference to the "Nirmala Srivastava" section seems to have been broadly agreed to. I request that you make the changes. Freelion (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- The new wording for the 'chakras & nadis' section has been agreed, but not the 'Nirmala Srivastava' section. --Simon D M (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: 'Nirmala Srivastava' section. It appears Simon D M is attempting to disrupt the simple addition of a new reference on this edit protected page. The reference has been agreed to by multiple editors and the wording has been made NPOV. Freelion (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, as there is a 3rd party reliable source available, I am just saying that we should look to that before plumping for self-published sources. --Simon D M (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not a self published source - it is a film by Carolin Dassel / produced by devifilm GbR / Carolin Dassel, Joseph Reidinger / Co-Production with University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski. The paragraph is already plump with misrepresentation and this is just a simple addition of a new source for balance. What is so hard about that? Freelion (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Will, the changes to the "Chakras and nadis section" has been agreed to. Could you please replace it with the new wording now? Also, your input on the "Nirmala Srivastava section" discussion would be appreciated. Freelion (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will, the suggestions for changes being discussed under the topics of "Nirmala Srivastava section" and the topic of "Introduction section" have no further objections. Could you please proceed with the changes to this edit protected page. Freelion (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will, should I ask you to do these edits or request that the page be unfrozen? Freelion (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of fleshing out your copy of DuPertuis' work here. I hope that was the right thing to do, and I hope you find it helpful.
Mael-Num (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, wait...you already had it. Figures I'd overlook that part and end up getting it the hard way. Mael-Num (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey man, I'm really sorry but I think I might have made a mistake in making additions to your references page. I think the extent to which I quoted DuPertuis exceeded what could be considered "fair use". I'm going to undo what I did, and would you mind terribly considering permanently deleting (that is, even in the revision history) the material I added? I know I can't, I'm not sure if you can, heck I'm not even sure if any of this is necessary, but I'm all for erring on the side of caution.
- I don't want to land in hot water, and I definitely don't want you to wind up in any trouble on my account. Again, I'm very sorry about this. I'll be more mindful of my P's & Q's in the future. Mael-Num (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain to Chesspieceface (talk) the resolution on the Primerica discussion page regarding the criticism section. He keeps reverting the article. P747AH (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
