User talk:Apollo1203: Difference between revisions
→Worth a Look: response |
Apollo1203 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
-------- |
-------- |
||
As an uninvolved admin, I will do whatever is needed to curtail disruptive editing, Apollo1203 — including but not limited to editing your talk page, as was done in this instancre. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
As an uninvolved admin, I will do whatever is needed to curtail disruptive editing, Apollo1203 — including but not limited to editing your talk page, as was done in this instancre. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
::I am not sure what was disruptive in anything above? Since when was being invited to a '''discussion''' considered disruptive? [[User:Apollo1203|Apollo1203]] ([[User talk:Apollo1203#top|talk]]) 14:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:39, 13 March 2020
| This is Apollo1203's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1 |
Sandbox
I've been busy for the last few weeks but hoping to take some time in the coming weeks to rewrite what's in your sandbox. I added a few more details today with potential sources to give you a head start. Moksha88 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for spearheading the effort to improve the Vachanamrut article. Moksha88 (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC) |
Gunatit Samaj (Swaminarayan Sampraday)
Hi,
I see that you have undone my edits on the Gunatit Samaj for not being "constructive", however the edits you have made/undone are extremely biased and does not consider "facts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GunatitSamaj1966 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think it has been written in a concise and clear way utilizing reliable sources. However, if you feel that it needs to edited, I suggest you utilize your sandbox and engage users on the talk page to review and comment. Apollo1203 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I do not think the sources are reliable, it may be written in such a format but it does not consider and capture the holistic viewpoint, thus the validity of the sources you have used I have placed under scrutiny.
I also suggest removing Gunatit Samaj from the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page
- @GunatitSamaj1966: I would recommend discussing on the talk page why you think it should be deleted, otherwise other users will assume it is vandalism and revert it, as someone has already done. Apollo1203 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Worth a Look
Hello, I hope you are well. I'm concerned about the arguments raised here. I think there's confusion about whether WP:DOX applies here and whether Swarajya fails to meet WP:RS criteria, especially since little evidence has been presented in the discussion over the past week. Take a look at these policies and chime in when you get a chance. Moksha88 (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin, I will do whatever is needed to curtail disruptive editing, Apollo1203 — including but not limited to editing your talk page, as was done in this instancre. El_C 14:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure what was disruptive in anything above? Since when was being invited to a discussion considered disruptive? Apollo1203 (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)