Talk:Bharat Sevashram Sangha

Re-creation

I had to recreate this page after an "idiot", who claims to be an administrator had put a spam by calling it a Boddhist organization and he did not mind in putting cut & pastet texts from some wired news pages...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.2.7 (talk • contribs) 13:24, November 18, 2008

That is because the text you put in is blatant promotion of the organisation. Please observe WP:NPOV when writing on Wikipedia. The previous article is definitely not neutral and was deleted for that reason. Thank you. Pegasus «C¦T» 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Then what would you call this for Jesus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus ???... Mohammad - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamad?

and above all Pope?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope Shall I keep going???

according to your logic all these should be deleted.

The Jesus article is described as "Jesus has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria." I agree w/ this comment. On the same ground my article is equally good Philosophy and religion article. If you deny, then you have to undo what you said about the "Jesus" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cppcat (talk • contribs) 01:54, November 23, 2008

There are many reasons why I called you an "idiot!" One is for making cut & paste texts from a wired news paper (Telegraph) and secondly calling it a Buddhist organization... you are putting nothing other than a spam....

I studied the NPOV, and I found nothing conflicting against what I'm doing here. I'm putting an authentic historic article about an organization which I know well, and which many others are interested in knowing well... I happily let others (of course not people like you who would google to find texts to frame comments) change!

Thank you for your comments... hope now these guys will stop their religious biasness and I'll be able to complete the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cppcat (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks against other editors. Calling someone "idiot" is a personal attack.

How good an article is depends on how much sourced and verifiable info it has. If there is lots of info but no sources then it is a terrible article. I have just labelled all the info that will need to be sourced. If there are no sources it will have to be removed. Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 23:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest do little reading before you pass a remark like "blatant promotion of the organisation". Only a dumb person would talk on a subject about which he/she has no clue and make a complete fool about him/herself. Going forward, do not delete the pages which someone is tryin' to put in place.... leave the decision to the readers, if they feel it is "blatant promotion..." or not. Why do you want to decide for them?

I had read the article and it was very neat and it never bragged about the organisation. Park your judgement and remarks as it is biased.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Koushik Roy (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the personal attack even though the editor behaves rudely by simply deleting the content and adding junk data (viz. it is not a Buddist Organization - it is a Hindu organization). Today I added several supporting references 93rd party) to earn your confidence. Hope we can work together. UNFORTUNATELY we worked simultanously and I'd overridden your changes and I could not revert back (using the version control). PL add your comments so that we can work together to get this project going adhering to wiki policies. Cppcat (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PL NOTE: I'm not done w/ adding supporting contents (for some there will be no supporting content - viz his childhood etc as references to those are limited and available as part of non-electronic books. Cppcat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Further pruning

I've removed most of the promotional speech from the article. As it stands, everything left in it should either be properly cited to independent reliable sources, or removed. I'll see what I can find later this week, but this is the base to start from. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

OK thank you Cppcat for the list of external links. While some of these such as [1] are less usable - that link is biased against the government and such may be less reliable source, they do provide a start point from which I can add references. Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm thoroughly confused. You do not look to play Admin's role. I feel my article has been hijacked. I did not understand why the picture was removed. It describes the founder saint. Nothing orientated w/ biasness. This is where I strongly disagree.

It is my article and let is be like that. I want to revert it to the point where The Hand That Feeds You:^{User talk:HandThatFeeds} "as the base point to start". I surely invite help and suggestions from you but not active editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.2.7 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The image is a copyright violation from [2]. At the very least it was not drawn by you.

As for "I surely invite help and suggestions from you but not active editing.", no one owns any article on Wikipedia. I have created a number of articles, but I do not own the editing rights to any of them. Likewise with this one. Neither you or me or anyone else owns the editing rights to this article. Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh man! How do you say it is not my art work??? It means you are claiming that I'm lieng. Here you are completely biased. Having said so, you got to find this picture or anything close to this from the internet to prove me wrong. It is my art work. Your argument is not correct. I got to restore that.

You sound to be too young and too enthusiast. TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AND FIND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWO PICTURES.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.2.7 (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The picture is not inappropriate, but since this is an article about the organisation, why not use a image of one of its centres instead? I have found a nice photo on Flickr but we can't use it right now, because it is labelled "all rights reserved". I will contact the owner of the picture to ask him to re-license the photo with suitable copyright for Wikipedia. Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 02:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

NO, Let "me" decide which picture goes here okay? You are pushing me too hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.2.7 (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. All articles here are created by the group, and not by any one editor. If you want to make a page where you have control over what goes into the article, Wikipedia is not the right place for you. Perhaps you should try making a webpage, instead? Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Elonka 04:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka - What do you know about the context of the picture w.r.t the article before making the blank comment????

Every one knows (at least I do after having couple of MS in engineering from top 10 Univ) the expectations in wiki compared to a personal website; you need not teach me so loud. "Editors" having no knowledge about the article logically don't pour ideas when the "original author" is in the process of building it. You should allow the "original author" to make a draft and then criticize it constructively. Then a collaboration & communication is established between the "author" and the "world". Otherwise the purpose of wiki is defeated. Finally, it does not help anyone - a complete waste of time for both sides. Cppcat (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. All articles are a work in progress, and no single editor gets to declare what state an article should be in before other people can touch it. We're here because we're trying to help ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines.

Further, the entire point is that we should be able to read the sources and verify the contents; not that we should already know about the subject. If we can't verify what you're putting in here through reliable, third-party sources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated External links

Kimchi.sg: I've updated all possible references (external links) to support "citations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cppcat (talk • contribs) 05:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Kimchi.sg: WHAT IS HAPPENING ? WHY ANOTHER ADMIN CAME AND DELETED THE IMAGE??? LOOK HOW POORLY YOU (WIKI) ARE MANAGED... I'M QUITTING... IT IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cppcat (talk • contribs) 13:35, November 25, 2008

help for the controversy

can ny 1 provide me information as what was the controversy against with the pond with bharat sevashram sangha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdcb4u (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)