Universewik

January 2010

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to the page Template:Politics of the People's Republic of China. Blank pages are malicious to Wikipedia as they often confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the deletion process for how to proceed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Maoism, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rodhullandemu 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Maoism. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How can you claim that adding RISP as an organization is "undocumented" and therefore shouldn't be added? It is a Maoist organization as much as the others that claim to be so. Also in the context of explaining developments in Maoism the Tim Redd paper comments are highly relevant. Please allow my edits or explain specifically in terms of what I have written what is required. Thanks.

WP:CITE explains how edits should be supported; but what you are seeking to use as a source is self-published and therefore not necessarily regarded as reliable. They can say what they like about themselves, as can you and I; unless some third-party commentator validates their position, that's not acceptable, but you may want to seek further advice at the reliable sources noticeboard. Meanwhile, if you are associated with this organisation, you may wish to look at WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why allow any organization to be listed? Nearly all on the lists of Maoist orgs are self-claimed. No one has validated any of the groups there that I know of. Further the comments on Tim Redd shoud be allowed as a member of RISP. This seems extremely unfair. Also I left discussion of the China template in the discussion group and will no longer edit it unless the group decides.

Also I have adopted a neutral stance in both listing the group and in wording around the Tim Redd paper.

Whether organisations are listed is loosely related to notability, in that the one you cite has a website, but that may not be enough. That should be determined by how much coverage they've received in third-party sources. As for other organisations, they may have been added, without necessarily deserving to be. However, I'm not so interested in the topic itself that I am prepared to debate this, and I suggest you ask these questions on Talk:Maoism, where more experienced editors will give better-informed opinions. All I am concerned with it that you cite your sources properly, and I've already directed you to the correct guidelines. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)