Talk:Ram Bahadur Bomjon/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Ram Bahadur Bomjon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Really disrespectful
Many days of work had been deleted by Diaanee because he/she considered my updates of the very outdated and incorrect main article "plagiarism"! Without deeper studying why is in this particular case and topic so important to keep to the exact names, numbers and multiple sources, this editor labelled my painstacking work as copyright breaching. I do not agree and wish to complain. I was accused by other senior editors of exactly the opposite: that instead of faithful quotings I used my own intelligence and wrote down conclusions based on multiple sources. That was then stamped POV fork and UNDUE (not my fault that media after 2007 had not much positivity towards Bomjon, who started to attack, abduct, let raped and torture people!). Yet, this is exactly happening when one is just rushing into conclusions in topics about which they have not a clue. If they had, they would had already fixed the incorrect data (I meantion it above) in the main article, the manipulated numbers of days, the name's alleged "sanskrit" transcription (no it is Nepali), etc etc.
So it is clear to me that those who rushed to delet my updates, are no experts in this field, enough to see the situation of the main article. My only fault is that as a beginner, I thought that the proper format of quotations is NOT to add citation marks as we do it on text editors, but just to add a number behind the sentence. I saw this was used in the main article, but the original author manipulated the text to show bomjon in a better picture. When I clicked on the sources, it said different things. I wanted to be more exact, as what readers appreciate most than neutrality, faithfulness to the truth, keeping to teh facts? And now I am accused by Diannee of plagiarism! Beacuse I misunderstood the quotation system, and because I was so afraid to add any of my own conclusions, after accused by Robert McClenon of POV Fork and similar things. One can never satisfy entirely all Wikipedia editors, but I am sure there should be a rule to give a notice and a chance to repair mere formating mistakes by newcomers!
What Dianee did, totally broke my faith in any good wil in Wikipedia. I now start to see how the under-standard main article in its vague and irrational form, wit manipulated data, IS the way how senior ediors wish Wikipedia to be! Not factual, updated, well-sourced data! I cannot express my deep shock at the brutality of disrespectfulness, when deleting one's long and precize work for days, without giving any space to repair the mistake! Someone who read the history behind the article, and the reason why did I copy-pasted text from the Media on Ram Bah. B. Controversy there (it was advised in the merger sticker to do so!) - could not do such a vandal act. But reading "boring" articles of others is more difficult than to just delete entire reference lists (filled out with so much care!) and entire paragraphs! I woudl advise McClenon, baerian and Dianne to first clarify, what they actually want, between themselves. If writng texts by onw words is forbidden (viz. McClenon and Bearian), than quoting is why forbidden as well (Diannee)???
Can someone reasonable explain me, how to write about an event, when own words are not allowed, neither words of others???? Are you here playing with me some black game? This topic is so controversial and dark already, and now it seems even some editors are taking sides with the cult, rather than with the facts. Why didi Dianne delet only the quotes which were showing Bomjon in negative picture, but left intact those updates (also by me) which actually helped his image??? This is very strange to me. So I deleted even these, as I am not going to update an article with only one-sided data and take on responsibility to pull more victims to this dangerous religious group! If you do not allow me to edit FULLY, with sources from BOTH sides, then do not hijack my edits and updates for cult propaganda. I must say, I am disgusted with the unfreindliness, pride, elitism and brutal disrespect of senior editors who pick theri noses to topics about which they have no idea, and delet historically important and serious information.DarkAges 22:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 22:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Verbosity and correctness are often strangers. You assume disrespect, which means you fail to assume good faith. I was the one who used the word "plagiarism," not Diannaa -- get your facts straight. I do not disrespect you as a person but I do not respect your attitude or your plagiarism.
- It's very simple. All you do is cite, paraphrase, and summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources on a topic. No more, no less. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, it is not very simple. If you do not even give a notice, do not discuss it openly with other ediors before deleting, do not have understanding to a newcomer, and do not give time to fix it, than it is not simple. It is human to make mistakes, and I did this mistake because I wanted to avoid another one, the allegation of POV Fork and UNDUE in my previous article, which I was going to merge with this after preparing it. It would be simple if you give a notice and then give time to repair. What is simple in one's personal rush (without discussion) to delete (interestingly, only the critical!) new quotes from a new edit? I can learn, I can accept and even acknowledge the warnings like I did it in the case of my previous attempt Media on Ram bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, if you gave me a notice and gave me time to change it: you did not. I had assumed good faith where there WAS apparent good faith. The discussion about my Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies article mentioned some valid concerns, I accepted them and accepted to merge it with this main article. But I cannot merge my factual and exact text with an under-standard main article with manipualted data (see above, instead of 48 days the article changed the number to 96, and the editors did not even know that there exists a language called Nepali, in which Bomjon's name is shown, and not in Sanskrit). I was in the process of merging, but there was impossible to merge it without correcting and updating the painfully outdated main article. You seem to sickly enjoy your "power" above newcomers and delete their attempts without giving any chance to repair the mistakes. Instead of collaborating and helping each=other, I find that some editors use Wikipedia to enjoy the liberty to "punish" without any chance to fix the issue. Do you think anyone could assume good faith when faced with such an attitude? That is a wrong attitude, and I have read many Wikipedia rules about how not to apply blindly the deletion button and to be especially understanding towards newcomers! But when you delete without notice, without warning and without discussion, an edit of a newcomer, than sorry, I just do not see any good faith in it! I somehow know that you and Dianee did not comply with Wikipedia's rules and I will find enough links to prove it to you. In any normal academic environment blind deletion of others' work is not a norm, and giving time to repair and discussion with others is a normal civlized practice that you failed to follow.DarkAges 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was not involved until you posted a screed on Diannaa's page, so you have no ground to blame me for what happened in previous articles. My first action on any Bomjon related article was to remove material you had already been warned was a copyright violation (if that's not enough prior notice, then no amount of prior notice will help you). The way to "merge" the information would be to:
- Take the sources that you copied from and open them in another window.
- Write a summary of each source off-site (I use Microsoft Notepad because it removes formatting), putting the citation at the end of each source.
- Paraphrase those summaries into a combined work, arranging the citations as needed. Write it as if you disagree with yourself, sticking only to material that no one can really argue against.
- Post that paraphrased work on the site.
- You do not need to restore copyrighted material to the site to do that, you do not need prior warning for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was not involved until you posted a screed on Diannaa's page, so you have no ground to blame me for what happened in previous articles. My first action on any Bomjon related article was to remove material you had already been warned was a copyright violation (if that's not enough prior notice, then no amount of prior notice will help you). The way to "merge" the information would be to:
- No, it is not very simple. If you do not even give a notice, do not discuss it openly with other ediors before deleting, do not have understanding to a newcomer, and do not give time to fix it, than it is not simple. It is human to make mistakes, and I did this mistake because I wanted to avoid another one, the allegation of POV Fork and UNDUE in my previous article, which I was going to merge with this after preparing it. It would be simple if you give a notice and then give time to repair. What is simple in one's personal rush (without discussion) to delete (interestingly, only the critical!) new quotes from a new edit? I can learn, I can accept and even acknowledge the warnings like I did it in the case of my previous attempt Media on Ram bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, if you gave me a notice and gave me time to change it: you did not. I had assumed good faith where there WAS apparent good faith. The discussion about my Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies article mentioned some valid concerns, I accepted them and accepted to merge it with this main article. But I cannot merge my factual and exact text with an under-standard main article with manipualted data (see above, instead of 48 days the article changed the number to 96, and the editors did not even know that there exists a language called Nepali, in which Bomjon's name is shown, and not in Sanskrit). I was in the process of merging, but there was impossible to merge it without correcting and updating the painfully outdated main article. You seem to sickly enjoy your "power" above newcomers and delete their attempts without giving any chance to repair the mistakes. Instead of collaborating and helping each=other, I find that some editors use Wikipedia to enjoy the liberty to "punish" without any chance to fix the issue. Do you think anyone could assume good faith when faced with such an attitude? That is a wrong attitude, and I have read many Wikipedia rules about how not to apply blindly the deletion button and to be especially understanding towards newcomers! But when you delete without notice, without warning and without discussion, an edit of a newcomer, than sorry, I just do not see any good faith in it! I somehow know that you and Dianee did not comply with Wikipedia's rules and I will find enough links to prove it to you. In any normal academic environment blind deletion of others' work is not a norm, and giving time to repair and discussion with others is a normal civlized practice that you failed to follow.DarkAges 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The bottomline is clear: the Wiki-masters do not allow criticism of Ram Bomjan. They first decided that a very well researched article about the myriad controversies surrounding this man had to be removed and had to be included in the main article. And now that the author started to do exactly that, his or her work is being deleted again. What remains is the current, hugely biased article about Bomjan which omits almost everything negative about this man and his cult. To me, this is just another example of how unreliable Wiki has become.--Mathilde2009 (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Mathilde2009, I agree. How it is that you can see this, but they not? It is so clear if someone takes the effort and reads the edit histories of both articles, and reads the Talk pages! I started to use exact quotations only because they stigmatized my Media on Ram B.B.C. article with a sticker "article for deletion". Reason? I used my own words, according to as RobertMcClenon could hardly recognize in those less than ten minutes when he nominated it for deletion immediately after I published it. It was my own opinion, he and Bearian assumed! So OK, then I thought, summarizing, paraphrasing and descriptive texts are forbidden in Wikipedia, as they might seem POC Fork, especially when they are describing an intensive controversy. OK, they are senior, they must know, so I decided this time not to use my own words but quote exactly! And now I am accused of exactly the opposite. It nearly seems that these editors have a hidden agenda to show only the cult leader in the light of a god and nearly entirely positive. It does not matter to them how, but they want to delete the balanced information (based on an overwhelming amount of mainstream media!) at any costs. They are trying to push out any other than propagandist information, and they easily find some POV, UNDUE, copyright or plagiarism reason among the millions of Wikipedia rules to stick it on my article. But at least McClenon gave a chance to fix it and merge, and he passed it to a discussion, what was a proffessional move and not fanatic. These guys here are but radical! No chance, no time, no notice, no discussion. Just punish, just delete. The fact that they have no clue about this topic, and that they very clearly hardly know the background, no one is questioning. Why do I feel as if I crossed into the personal property of a group of senior editors who view themselves as the elite, and give no chance to editors like me, outsiders? The permanent scoldings and unfriendly ironic comments are a prove that Wikipedia is seen by these as their own property. Bearian even expressed it in "OUR charitable charter" (after I mentioned how possessive it looks, he swiftly deleted it). But no human is perfect, and giving a chance to learn and grow is a civilized way to solve misunderstandings. To give a notice, a friendly warning to adjust the quotes with quotation marks, add summarizations and paraphrasings, could have been enough, and I would have done it. But they seem to want to block the sources from "the other side" of the full truth, instead of searching for a solution. If they were so familiar with the Bomjon topic, how it is they did not correct the grave mistakes and incorrect data in this "main article" over ten years, and did not mind that facts, place-names, dates are wrong or outdated in it? This is the so called "neutral" and "academic" Wikipedia? I am so shocked I cannot even express!DarkAges 10:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 10:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Mathilde2009: Please point to where anyone has said that criticism is not allowed. The issue has been copyright violations and neutrality. Bearian, Diannaa, Robert McClenon, and I are not Buddhist (heck, Bearian, Robert, and I are all Christian), so none of us really give a fuck about Bomjon. We do care about this site which we have a combined 40 year's experience with.
- @Kaliage: The scoldings are not "permanent." You just need to learn from your mistakes (instead of trying to posting overly-long posts to try to excuse them and shift the blame) and get over it. You have not been "punished." You demand respect and consideration and yet you hypocritically give less than that to those who try to teach you how to do things the right way -- is it any wonder I don't especially care for your presence on this site? If you'd stop with the tantrums, own up to your mistakes, and move on, I'd respect you. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Mathilde2009, I agree. How it is that you can see this, but they not? It is so clear if someone takes the effort and reads the edit histories of both articles, and reads the Talk pages! I started to use exact quotations only because they stigmatized my Media on Ram B.B.C. article with a sticker "article for deletion". Reason? I used my own words, according to as RobertMcClenon could hardly recognize in those less than ten minutes when he nominated it for deletion immediately after I published it. It was my own opinion, he and Bearian assumed! So OK, then I thought, summarizing, paraphrasing and descriptive texts are forbidden in Wikipedia, as they might seem POC Fork, especially when they are describing an intensive controversy. OK, they are senior, they must know, so I decided this time not to use my own words but quote exactly! And now I am accused of exactly the opposite. It nearly seems that these editors have a hidden agenda to show only the cult leader in the light of a god and nearly entirely positive. It does not matter to them how, but they want to delete the balanced information (based on an overwhelming amount of mainstream media!) at any costs. They are trying to push out any other than propagandist information, and they easily find some POV, UNDUE, copyright or plagiarism reason among the millions of Wikipedia rules to stick it on my article. But at least McClenon gave a chance to fix it and merge, and he passed it to a discussion, what was a proffessional move and not fanatic. These guys here are but radical! No chance, no time, no notice, no discussion. Just punish, just delete. The fact that they have no clue about this topic, and that they very clearly hardly know the background, no one is questioning. Why do I feel as if I crossed into the personal property of a group of senior editors who view themselves as the elite, and give no chance to editors like me, outsiders? The permanent scoldings and unfriendly ironic comments are a prove that Wikipedia is seen by these as their own property. Bearian even expressed it in "OUR charitable charter" (after I mentioned how possessive it looks, he swiftly deleted it). But no human is perfect, and giving a chance to learn and grow is a civilized way to solve misunderstandings. To give a notice, a friendly warning to adjust the quotes with quotation marks, add summarizations and paraphrasings, could have been enough, and I would have done it. But they seem to want to block the sources from "the other side" of the full truth, instead of searching for a solution. If they were so familiar with the Bomjon topic, how it is they did not correct the grave mistakes and incorrect data in this "main article" over ten years, and did not mind that facts, place-names, dates are wrong or outdated in it? This is the so called "neutral" and "academic" Wikipedia? I am so shocked I cannot even express!DarkAges 10:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 10:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
To User:Ian.thomson : "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templatesDarkAges 10:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 10:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is why your other article attempts were deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
As you see, in case of BLPs it is very sensitive to paraphrase, and using direct quotes (when linking back to the source and its archive) is the safest when it comes to controversies. It is not my fault that Bomjon just happens to have a too long list of such "sensitive issues" of controversies, and instead of writing with my own word (what could be attacked by POV Fork and UNDUE allegations) I opted for emphasizing direct quotes. I was NOT AWARE how far it is accepted (what amount of quotes per article) and how it is in this particular case, when controversies unquestionably overweigh the positive information.
Ad quotation marks: And yes, it was my stupidity to rely on the format of the main article, which does not use citation marks but actually it is also all quotation (instead of 2 cases when the paraphrased version simply manipulated the numbers and information to show Bomjon in a holier picture). So I just assumed that citation marks are not a habit in Wikipedia, so I deleted them. But I always added the source of quotations! In my whole life when I am writng, I scrupulously distinguish quotes from my own words, and use citation marks. But I was still not so familiar with Wikipedia formats, and just accepted mindlessly the one I saw in this main article. After all, you left this article onlien about ten years, and seemed not to mind that it is plagiaric or even using quotations while manipulating the text. But if you took any effort to check my Media on R.B.B. C. article, there I did use quotation marks everywhere, to distinguish the quotes from my own words. Then you could have understood (seeing the blue sticker "to merge") that I was in the process of upadting this main article to be merged soon with parts of the other one. I am convinced that you simply did not take the effort and time to check all these facts, before sweaping the whole half-done edit away. That's why I call your move strongly disrespectful, but also incorrect, as before you decide, you must discuss it openly with others and also give a notice and chance to the editor. If you did this, you could have learned that I was half-way in the process, the article was not yet finished and that paraphrasing texts had been planned to be merged here from the Media on Ram B.B.C. article. I left out quotation marks not because I wanted to display the words of others as my own (what a crazy accusation, as I even do not use my civil name here, what acknowledgement woudl I get for it?) - my intention was very clear, I wished to save human beings from being misled by false and very one-sided information on the Wikipedia about this person. I have clear conscience, and I have no problem to use quotation marks at all.
A senior and experienced editor could have advised me on the proper balance between POV Fork and plagiarism, instead to find such a barbaric solution as to delete the whole thing. Please let me remind you (it seems some of you forgot) that you are not owners but "managers" in Wikipedia. I respect senior ediors fro their experience, but not those who use this as a means to show cynical deleting power of other people's big efforts to write and edit articles. I see that you and Dianne have neglected to first study, then discuss it openly with others. By the help of editors, ideally, I could have cleared out seemingly plagiarist elements and if you have given me time, I would have merged the Media on... article with this main one. But instead of friendly advice and constructive consultation, you just stampede on many weeks work.DarkAges 11:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 11:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- WP:COPYVIO is also a site policy. Your argument that WP:BLP means we shouldn't paraphrase is ridiculous. How about, instead of trying to defend your admitted mistakes, you just listen to the plain and repeated instructions on how to do things the right way? BLP also says (and you quote this part):
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
That necessitates paraphrasing because if you can't arrive at a third statement that agrees with both sources, then the two sources are not in agreeance. That's why all of our biography articles are not just a series of quotes. - Also, plagiarism from laziness is still plagiarism -- credit-stealing plagiarism is not the only kind there is. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- WP:COPYVIO is also a site policy. Your argument that WP:BLP means we shouldn't paraphrase is ridiculous. How about, instead of trying to defend your admitted mistakes, you just listen to the plain and repeated instructions on how to do things the right way? BLP also says (and you quote this part):
And this too: "A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize." https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)
- That does not trump WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP, both of which were problems with the article that was redirected to this page. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't give a fuck who Ram Bahadur Bomjon is. I know that Robert McClenon and Bearian are Christian and I've seen no reason to believe that Diannaa is Buddhist, either. In other words, the only people here who have any strong emotions about Bonjon are you two. Now, Robert, Bearian, Diannaa, and I all have a lot of experience with this site (40 years if you put us all together) -- so if three or even four of us agree on some course of action, that's because it is within the site's policies and guidelines or our experience has shown that it will help this site. So, accusations about "Wiki-masters" are just paranoid and immature. It is dishonest to act like we've said "you can't add anything negative." You're free to add reliably sourced information in a neutral manner.
- Have either of y'all considered that maybe the problem is your bad attitudes and that y'all are going about this the wrong way? That maybe the problem isn't what you're trying to add, but the way you're trying to add it? Read WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY.
- @Kaliage: you also need to read WP:TLDR and WP:SPA When I see overly-long single-paragraph posts with random bold words, the author almost always either:
- Is not editing in a calm and reasonable state of mind (i.e. they are throwing a tantrum).
- Has confused talking too much with saying the right thing.
- Is looking to play victim when others ignore the time-wasting screed.
- The solution here is not railing on and on about how Wikipedia is supposedly unjust, it's learning how to do things the right way. It's not going on and on to excuse past mistakes (or trying to shift the blame to other people), it's learning from what you did wrong and putting it behind you. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- So tell me how to learn when you do not even give me time to correct my mistakes, but delete the whole article? This is not too pedagogical. If you put an "ENTRY FORBIDDEN" board, and delete anything I am just trying to fix, how could I learn? I was ready to learn and was accepting advices from ediors who were really helpful, not radical. But why to learn and what, if you burn teh whole school building? Can you grasp what I mean? Before I did a mistake on Wikimedia, adding pictures from Nepali newspapers (none cares about copyright stuff in nepal really, I have never heard any issues), but the person looking after it politely warned me, then explained me and I had to accept he was right. Same thing happened when after Robert shifted my AfD article to the Talk page about deletion, I accepted that being it too long and too negative, it would be better to merge with thsi main article. So you see, there are also civilized ways to help newcomers to learn and develop. But what should I learn from Diane and you, wehn you just bluntly delet my all edits, not giving me space and time to learn and repair? You put me in the box of mentally ill, just because I tried to explain you that this move was not right? I also don's give a... what is your religion, but there is one universal religion called Conscience. And if you don't care about Bomjon, then: what are you doing here? Sorry, but I thought that only someone who does understand the topic, should have a right to blindly delete my edits... I confess I am not an expert in Hitler, so I am not going to delete other's texts about him. Beacuse we cannot know everything about everything, there are good ways to discuss it with those who might know more. You should have given me time, and ask religious and Buddhist editors, cult-expert editors etc. to give you advice. If you and Diane DGAF about the topic of an article or edit, then I am quite sure you are not th eright persons to decide about its deletion. And yes, I got engaged during my work on this topic, because it took me a lot of time and effort to fill up the reference link forms and triple-check all details. Anyone would become emotional after such a brutal reaction. Simply can you not understand that I got tired of your abbreviations and scoldings after spending days on searching, archiving, comparing sources and making up the detailed picture? You treat editors here like babies in the kindergarten. So please, even if you spent 100 years in Wikipedia, do not stop to learn. You can learn from how Wikimedia dealt with my mistakes, how the Deletion discussion page was quite tolerant to me, how Jeff, Loopy had been helpful and polite. Instead of stigmatizing editors of deleted works as mental patients. I use the bolds mainly for myself, because I have a serious eye problem and I cannot well read same formatted texts and have an overview. Your conclusion that it is a sign of mental problems, is really out of place. DarkAges 16:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 16:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)