 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled edit
The responses added under the section of references against some of the amusing predictions cited in the main article do not follow the wiki-policy of keeping out any discussions or adding rejoinders in any of the wiki-articles. On the other hand, the responses themselves are not so much to the point as well. The first response is regarding the "flying trains and cars" prediction which is explained away in the form of Chinese Maglev trains when the technology itself isn't anything new and was already being used in Germany and Japan in 1980s and even before. There were no breakthroughs made by International Space Station in or before 2007 which can possibly make up for "the secrets of space" being discovered as such. Last but not the least, the response to aliens visiting us (India) on 26th January, 2008 is equally amusing. Traditionally, the heads of some foreign country are invited over to grace the event, then what is so special about the French first couple which warrants labeling them as "aliens." If aliens are considered in the sense of "people from another land," then, as explained earlier, every year "aliens" are invited as chief guest for our Republic Day celebrations. However, if one reads the article containing original prediction (which can be viewed by clicking on the reference), one can see that the astrologer was speaking about aliens coming from space, i.e., extraterrestrials. Taking all of the abovecited reasons into consideration, the responses are being removed from the page altogether. --MazeOfThoughts (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit war edit
If you want to add reliable information to the article, do not mix it with puffery. Adding things like "great" and "revered" is unencyclopedic and reduces the credibility of the other stuff you are adding at the same time. So, please learn how to do it right. WP:BETTER may be a good place to start. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It's also important to understand WP:LEAD (a summary of the body that doesn't need sources if everything is supported there) and WP:CITE (inline citations should allow to verify the body's information easily). If disruption persists we'll have no choice but to request page protection. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)