Fryymb
Hi, regarding your edits to Charles_Webster_Leadbeater you may want to look at the RfC on the talk page. The consensus was that is was the unverifiable and fringe nature of the claims that were the issue. e.g. so far reincarnation is not accepted as a demonstrable fact, so phrasing it as though it is causes problems.
I suggest making a case on the talk pages, because otherwise it would just look like you're ignoring the consensus.
Hope this helps explain the revert. Alun Salt (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I suggest making the same point on the Charles Webster Leadbeater talk page. If you read it, you'll see that the objection was the factual basis of the claim, not specifically that it fell on line 13. Opinion ranged from the idea that the claims were not proven, to that they were nonsense. Posting to talk may help build a consensus rather give the impression you're ignoring anyone who disagrees with you. You may find that not everyone equates a belief in reincarnation with a neutral point of view, so explaining why it is so in the talk will save you a lot of time rectifying the page from people who see what they think are POV claims and revert. Hope that helps. Alun Salt (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case edit
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CrunchEl for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
