User talk:Bugnot

copy vio and other editing problems

Bugnot,

Currently you are just copypasting sentences directly from sources without paraphrasing. This is not acceptable.You have been warned before not to do this. You cannot simply copy a sentence from a source a paste it like you did here. (an entire sentence from the hindu made it unaltered into the text)

And secondly the text you are adding is soapboxing. wikipedia articles shouldnt be telling people and goverments what they should be doing or not doing. For example take the text you added to Poverty in India

Overpopulation is a major cause of poverty in India, the world's second most populous nation with over a billion people, contributing towards mass unemployment and corruption in implementing poverty-curbing measures on a large-scale. Indian Government has failed in recent years to implement any effective measures to curb population growth. It is widely believed that a United Nations directive or some type of international regulation would help the Indian Government draw its attention towards this major issue because otherwise the Government of India is not focusing at all on this issue due to previous electoral concerns (see Compulsory_sterilization#India and The Emergency (India)). If India's current lax attitude persists, UN researchers predict that by 2030 India will become the most populous nation in the world, with almost a third of the world's poor and unemployed. Significant efforts, like China's one child policy, are needed in recent times to prevent this from happening in India but a lack of will amongst Indian politicians and political parties has led to not any effective measures being implemented.

There are two problems where - malecontraceptives.org is not a WP:RS. I am sure you will be able to find a lot of newspaper articles and books to back up the same facts. So please dont use websites and blogs as sources. The second part says something like "X is needed, but there is no political will" as a fact. This is a opinion not a fact. There is no source to back this up and no attribution to indicate who is saying this. In short, your language is suitable for blogs and newspaper columns, but not for a summary style encylopedia. Here you have to add facts in short, neutral language and attribute opinions without stating them as facts.

note: i am not disputing anything about content, but the way you are presenting them. Please take my points into consideration while you add content in the future.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My Reply

Okay, I will keep this in mind and usually from now onwards will either enter everything within quotes or change the language/words. Moreover, the point that I stated was what I believed was a universal fact and general public-opinion as mentioned everywhere in media and, thus, I didn't mention any reference/source specifically but if you insist I will try to do so from now on. Thanks for bringing these points to my attention. Regards--Bugnot (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, it's never my intention to bring Wikipedia to disrepute. I'm simply trying to help by bringing the facts to public attention. If you find any objectionable content, please simply delete it and kindly also notify me why you did that so that I may correct myself.--Bugnot (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)