User talk:Bunchhel

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Preah Vihear Temple. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The content you removed appeared to be relevant and sourced -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view - removing all mention of Thailand from the Preah Vihear Temple article is not the way to maintain neutrality. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. I see you removed some information from Preah Vihear Temple, giving the reason "The source is not readable by everyone because it is written in Thai." But that is not a valid reason for removing a source - Wikipedia prefers English language sources, but foreign language ones can be used in their absence. However, it is true that Thai and Cambodian sources should be treated very carefully during this dispute, as neither are likely to be neutral. So I checked the source (as you could have done with Google Translate yourself), and it did not appear to support the claim made - and if it had, then it should only have been used with care and not assumed to be correct. So in this case I think it was correct to remove the material, but not for the reason you quoted. And just as general advice here, please do be very careful when editing in an area in which you have a clear personal interest - and please do have a look at the Conflict of interest guidelines. Regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, in this edit, I think you were right to remove the material as it was clearly not neutral (describing the Thai side as "reality"), but you must be very careful with your reasons - people will revert your removals if you quote such clearly invalid reasons. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and saying "Thailand has not commented" is untrue, so please be very careful. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've now put back one of the Thai sources you removed, here, with a neutral and non-judgmental statement, so the article now has balanced claims from both sides. Please stop trying to whitewash the article to reflect only the Cambodian view. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)