| Revision as of 05:40, 22 October 2014 editLeadSongDog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,244 edits →Please stop and discuss: no, we need real sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:46, 22 October 2014 edit undoJaime-Ordonez-Victoria (talk | contribs)39 edits →Please stop and discussNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| The sources cited are not self published sites. They are published by both sides of the controversy. If you are a member of either side, you are breaking the rules here. Are you a member of either side?? I am being very objective and informational based on the controversy surrounding this issue, and I am not part of either side. Are you?? Please do not delete my work without valid reason. If you have edits add them. I am sorry but I will escalate this if I have to. If you want to discuss , then discuss, Do not Delete my work without asking!!! IF you are part of either side, then propose the changes. Deleting, without discussing is bad manners and frankly immature. Is that not what this section is for?? | The sources cited are not self published sites. They are published by both sides of the controversy. If you are a member of either side, you are breaking the rules here. Are you a member of either side?? I am being very objective and informational based on the controversy surrounding this issue, and I am not part of either side. Are you?? Please do not delete my work without valid reason. If you have edits add them. I am sorry but I will escalate this if I have to. If you want to discuss , then discuss, Do not Delete my work without asking!!! IF you are part of either side, then propose the changes. Deleting, without discussing is bad manners and frankly immature. Is that not what this section is for?? | ||
| :No, I am not a party to the "controversy". If there are reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking which objectively discuss such controversy, where are they? It appears instead to be something recently manufactured, with those websites referring back to Misplaced Pages. This alone is enough to disqualify them as reliable sources, per ]. Note that we do not publish ] in Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 05:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | :No, I am not a party to the "controversy". If there are reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking which objectively discuss such controversy, where are they? It appears instead to be something recently manufactured, with those websites referring back to Misplaced Pages. This alone is enough to disqualify them as reliable sources, per ]. Note that we do not publish ] in Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 05:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| I any one bothers to check they will find that the websites have been up for decades and the stories from both sides of the controversy are in the websites. so when you say "It appears instead to be something recently manufactured," you re clearing not taking the time to study the linked websites for both sides. I stand my ground this is objective and you are very clearly wrong and incorrect!! Please do your homework before deleting anymore. ...Or I will seek an attorney and sue your ass. | |||
Revision as of 05:46, 22 October 2014
Welcome!
Hello, Jaime-Ordonez-Victoria, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 ""s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- over the book changes and argued philosophical digressions by "]" fueled a splintering of the original group of followers into various groups. In 2014, four
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was changed by Jaime-Ordonez-Victoria (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.912705 on 2014-10-04T03:48:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Please stop and discuss
Use the article talk page, that is what it is for. Misplaced Pages requires wp:reliable sources, not just self-published websites.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources cited are not self published sites. They are published by both sides of the controversy. If you are a member of either side, you are breaking the rules here. Are you a member of either side?? I am being very objective and informational based on the controversy surrounding this issue, and I am not part of either side. Are you?? Please do not delete my work without valid reason. If you have edits add them. I am sorry but I will escalate this if I have to. If you want to discuss , then discuss, Do not Delete my work without asking!!! IF you are part of either side, then propose the changes. Deleting, without discussing is bad manners and frankly immature. Is that not what this section is for??
- No, I am not a party to the "controversy". If there are reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking which objectively discuss such controversy, where are they? It appears instead to be something recently manufactured, with those websites referring back to Misplaced Pages. This alone is enough to disqualify them as reliable sources, per wp:CIRCULAR. Note that we do not publish wp:original research in Misplaced Pages. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I any one bothers to check they will find that the websites have been up for decades and the stories from both sides of the controversy are in the websites. so when you say "It appears instead to be something recently manufactured," you re clearing not taking the time to study the linked websites for both sides. I stand my ground this is objective and you are very clearly wrong and incorrect!! Please do your homework before deleting anymore. ...Or I will seek an attorney and sue your ass.