Misplaced Pages

What would you suggest? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Millennium '73 was a festival held by the Divine Light Mission in November 1973 at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. The highlight of each day was the evening address by 15-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, today known by his given name Prem Rawat..Momento (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't include any information on the relationship between Maharaj Ji and the DLM or the festival. The current name of Maharaj Ji isn't so important that it needs to be in the first paragraph (we don't give the current name of the DLM either). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the relationship between Maharaj Ji and DLM? It was founded by Bob Mishler, Maharaj ji was too young to have any legal connection with it He didn't organize the festival, he was invited to speak at it and did.Momento (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maharaj Ji was the spiritual leader of the DLM and the main attraction of the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. I've made the change.Momento (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I moved the information about the nightly address to the other prgram info, because it's more logical there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Momento, please stop edit-warring "The highlight of each day was an evening address by Guru Maharaj Ji..." (or similar) into the first paragraph of the lead section (10:14, 9 September 2008 - 22:08, 9 September 2008 - 23:32, 11 September 2008 - 21:22, 14 September 2008). I see no consensus for that here on this talk page, nor do I think that a good idea. E.g., it puts the fact that Rawat spoke in the evenings before the fact that the festival was billed "the most significant event in human history"... (etc) --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert all material because you disagree with one sentence. It is far more important to inform readers of Guru Maharaj Ji's presence at Millennium than the pick out one description of several about the event. If GMJ had not spoken there, no one would have bothered to describe it and this article would not exist.Momento (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Momento, the version before your change already said that Maharaj Ji was the main attraction. Moving the more detailed program information to the first paragraph doesn't make the material more readable. The descriptions of the event and they way it was billed are indeed important - Maharaj Ji appeared aat many festivals, but this is the only one that was promoted as the most significant in human history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, we discussed and agreed upon the prior version. I don't understand why you made the change after agreeing to the previous version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't discuss or agree to the claim DLM was a "sect". Nor does agreeing to an improvement in one sentence signify agreement to all or indeed prohibit further improvement.Momento (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this edit of Momento. He says that he wants to have Maharaj Ji's presence prominently featured, and it is in the previous version that he himself edited. What isn't so important is that his presence was in the evening, or that there was also a band. That can wait until a paragraph of its own, which covers the actual program of the festival. The first two paragraphs should give the most basic information of what the event was and why it's notable. Lastly, the RfC is still open on the name pronunciation, so continuous changes there don't help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You have removed the important info that Millennium was held by the U.S. branch of DLM. You have removed the important info that Davis was the vice president of the U.S. DLM. You have removed important context about the pronunciation according to the source. You have credited one person's opinion, Bob Larson's, as being from several sources. You have removed the fact that the pronunciation was confined to American followers. You have removed the important fact that GMJ took over the U.S. DLM as a result of the festival. And you have added that DLM was a "sect". And other material without discussion or consensus. Perhaps you can explain why you don't need to follow the rules you apply to me.Momento (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for it being held by the "U.S. branch"? The article still says that Davis was VP. There are three sources for the pronunciation, so it is appropriate to say "some sources". (But let's confine the pronunciatoin discussion to that section of this page). The fact that Maharaj Ji later took over the administration of the DLM doens't directly concern this festival. It is mentioned at the end, as part of the aftermath. I did not add that it was a "sect". Another editor added that it was a Hindu sect and I removed "Hindu". There are plenty of sources available for the term "sect", and I'd be happy to cite them. Or if there's another very short description that will clue in readers we could use that instead. Or we can go back to what we had before that helpful editor added it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity." from Melton. "Recent convert" is meaningless, "Vice president" is substantial. Again why did you remove "American"? You allowed "sect" to remain, why when it is just one of many descriptions? The sentence refers to "to changes in the DLM's structure, management, and message" and the greatest of all was GMJ taking over. I'll make the changes.Momento (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Melton doesn't use the term you're suggesting, "U.S. branch". Obviously the festival occurred in the U.S. BBJ was one of the main organizers - what was his role in the "U.S." DLM? As for Davis, the point of mentioning him is that he brought attention to the event. Almost every reference to him in that context mentions that he was a recent convert, which is not meaningless, while almost none of them mention that he was VP. That is mentioned later on, in the paragraph devoted to Davis. How does the change in administrative control in December relate to the festival in November? Do you have a source for the connection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you said that the appearance of Guru Maharaj Ji was the most important aspect, but now you've removed it from the lead? I don't understand your reasoning for adding and deleting material. PLease xplain this deletion and give a reason for why it shouldn't be restored. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Melton is clear - after "beginning in North America, the Mission (It) rented the Houston Astrodome. Obviously referring to the Mission that began in the U.S. Millennium was full of recent converts but how many V-Ps were there.GMJ taking control relates to the words that precede it "The festival's failure, along with other factors, led to changes in the DLM's structure, management, and message". You're right, GMJ should appear in the second sentence but not as a leader of a "sect".Momento (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's a silly point and the way you're presenting it is not far from original research, but if you really want to label it the "U.S. branch" of the DLM then go ahead. With Davis we can split the difference and mention that he's also a recent convert, which is what got the publicity. As for the mention of Maharaj Ji, how about we just go back to what we had before the helpful editor made his change. That would be: The main attraction was Guru Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji was 15 years old and the leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West at the time. That gives him a prominent mention, gives the significance of the movement and his connection to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't insult me by referring to the point I'm making as "silly". The DLM article says " Rawat defied his mother by travelling to the UK and the US, where local branches of DLM were established and rapidly expanded".Momento (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not interested in you offer to "split the difference". Davis didn't get the publicity because he was a "recent convert" he got it because he was famous and the spokesperson.Momento (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the edit, which I think is silly. I don't think it's a necessary or helpful distinction to make in the first sentence of the article. All through the article we mention that BBJ was a leading organizer, a fact which you've previously insisted on including prominently. OTOH, we barely mention Mishler. So yes, I don't think it helps the article. As for Davis, yes, he was famous for being the spokesman, so let's put that in instead, good idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about the "silly point I'm presenting", that is "I am presenting a silly point" therefore I lack discrimination.Momento (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lede: section break

...the Divine Light Mission. The main attraction was Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West at the time.

...the Divine Light Mission (DLM), prominently featuring Prem Rawat, at the time better known as Guru Maharaj Ji. He was 15 years old then, and leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West.

That's fine with me, except that I think "better known" is incorrect. The contemporary sources that I've seen, if they give an alternate name, give something like "Pratap Singh Rawat-Balyogeshwar, Satguru Shri Maharaj Ji" or "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". I think that just saying "at the time known as" would be more correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Verbatim copying

It is inappropriate and against Misplaced Pages policies to copy text from another source without marking it as a quotation. Please either re-write the material in your own words, or, if the material is worthy of a quotaiton, mark it as a quotation. In my opinion, neither of these are worth quoting, though some of the material might be added in our own words. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have put it in quotation marks.Momento (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the Millennium Fever section because the way you wrote it Will it went straight from what Rawat wrote to a whole lot of wild and wacky stuff from others without any sense of separation.Momento (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The order before was 1) comments by leaders, 2) commetns by followers, 3) predictions of attendance. I'm not sure what the order is now. Why is it better now than it was before? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Because your version went immediately from - "Rawat wrote in a letter" to "he reportedly predicted that angels would drop flowers on the Astrodome, which might then fly off into outer space" - without making it clear that we had gone from fact to speculation. And worse, that it didn't make clear that it wasn't "reported" by a "reporter" but said by a follower to a reporter. But even worse, you omitted the rest of the sentence which goes - "although a premie has assured me that the latter prediction is probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing". In other words it was completely distorted.Momento (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not speculation - it's a fact that members believed that the Astrodome would levitate. We can add more sources for it. I'll move the material back into logical order but modify that aentence to make it clearer who is reporting what. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, text from Maharaj was added that doesn't appear to relate to the runaway expectations that are the topic of the section. That material may have more to do with the general teaching of Maharaj Ji, rather than the expectations for this event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove the Rawat letter from the Millennium Fever since their is nothing feverish about it.

Having a think about the whole "Millennium Fever" section, I think it's not NPOV. Collier says only a minority experienced Millennium Fever, so perhaps the heading should be "Expectations" and that would allow us to include a more balanced range of expressions.

Claiming that this would be the most holy and significant event in human history was one of the most widely reported claims about this festival. This letter gives us the assertion straight from the source. On the other hand, I don't recall seeing any 3rd-aprty sources mentioning his assertion that, "In the world there is suffering, hatred and dissatisfaction. That fact does not need proof. We can attain all materialistic things and still not have peace, for peace lies inside not outside in materialism." Nor do I see that that has to do with expectations for the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't claim Millennium was "the most holy and significant event in human history". He was talking about the "festival (which) has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967. And this year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America". Anyway as I said above, naming the section :Millennium Fever" gives undue weight to a "minority of members" as per "Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue".Momento (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've revised your text about the levitation. There are two sources for it. Boyle writes about, the Houston Astrodome, which the guru promised would levitate at the close. So Levine says that the guru hinted, while Boyle says that he promised. I think that "said" is a good compromise between those two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the Boyle comment, what page is it on please.Momento (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the heading, I think "Expectations" is a valid name too, but let's limit the contents of it to actual expectations, not other elements of the DLM's belief system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the levitation, there are many sources that attribute it generally to members or organizers, in addition to the couple who attribute it directly to Maharaj Ji. It appears to have been one of the more common "memes" of the event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is Boyles quote please.Momento (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll check the book again to find the page number. Boyle made the same assertion in a periodical archived on one of the Rawat-oriented sites, I believe. It's also on the cover of the LOTU video. We can certainly improve that citation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The LOTU cover makes the claim but it doesn't appear in the video.Momento (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I neglected to record the page number in my notes, but I've requested the book again and will add the page number when I get it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should remove it as a source?Momento (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I tracked it down - it wasn't from Boyle's book but from an earlier article that Boyle had written. I also found an even more explicit reference to Maharaj Ji's prediction in Greenfield. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

If any more quotes from Maharaj Ji or others are edited to support a particular point of view, this article should have non NPOV tag on it. For this article to claim that "Maharaj Ji is reported to have said etc" when in fact the source says that a reporter was "told by someone that Maharaj Ji had indicated etc" is a flagrant distortion.Momento (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are saying. All quotations are edited. As for your other issue, does this concern the levitating Astrodome? If so, there is more than one report about this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WillBeBack all quotes are edited but editing that changes to meaning is unacceptable.Momento (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The line was quoted perhaps dozens of times. Aside from that letter, I've never seen it that way. Perhaps we should just use another source and then there won't be a question of how to edit it. Editing it to promote our own view of its meaning might constitute original research ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra Palace event?

Nineteen seventy-three was the peak year for the mission's activities both in Britain and the United States, when two major festivals were organised to rally the faithful and bring in new recruits. In Britain there was the Festival of Love at Alexandra Palace which drew thousands of premies and seekers,... (bolding added)

They are an interesting pair but the Alexandria Palace event, which I believe was Guru Puja, took place several months before the Millennium festival. Mentioning it first would disrupt the narrative about this event, in my opinion. We do still have a section on the DLM article that covers the festivals, and gives the context. As for sources, I think Price is the only substantial source, but it is mentioned in a few other sources too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article's POV

I shouldn't have to correct errors every time a read this article. Sources are distorted and journalist's opinions are frequently given as facts and there is an over reliance on biased media. The anti GMJ bias warrants a POV tag and I have put it up.Momento (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please say what the specific NPOV problem is so that we can fix it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias would use sources such as Levine's, whose opening description of GMJ is "He looked like a precocious Third World account executive on the make", sparingly but it is the major source for this article with more than 50 quotes. Eight quotes from an article titled "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget". Another 8 from "Goom Rodgie's Razzle-Dazzle Soul Rush". 20 quotes from the leftist Ramparts magazine. Plus material from ". "Singing Along With the Guru", ""I See The Light: In which a young journalist pushes a cream pie into the face of His Divine Fatness and gets his skull cracked open by two disciples",And where are the scholars? Messer gets 2 quotes, Galanter 2 and Downton, who wrote a book on this era of DLM, less the 20. The lack of balance is overwhelming.Momento (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article uses over 80 sources and over 400 citations. Richard Levine wrote a very thorough article. Many of the citations to Levine are in addition to other sources, confirming the reliability and notability of the assertions. David Snell was a senior editor at Life magazine and was writing for one of the most prestigious magazines of the era. Downton does report a bit on the festival, most of his work is on other aspects of the movement. Is there something more about the festival in Galanter that we should add? If you are asserting that there are unreliable source then we can take that to WP:RSN, but we've already discussed most of these. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about RS, it is about balance and neutrality.Momento (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific so we can fix it. What is unbalanced or non-neutral? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, your objection to having so many citations to Levine doesn't appear serious considering that you added material from Levine on five occasions last week. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the over reliance on clearly sarcastic anti-GMJ articles, many quotes have been POV edited to remove positive material or edited to make them more negative, including Levine. Here are the five edits you refer to-

• you included Levine's "He reportedly predicted that angels would drop flowers on the Astrodome, which might then fly off into outer space..." but you cut off the rest of Levine's sentence "...but a premie responded that the latter prediction was probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing". Why?
• you included the trivial "After the end of the program volunteers hurried to clear the field of the stage and carpeting in time for a football game the following day between the Cleveland Browns and the Houston Oilers" but didn't include Levine's important observation that the premies "worked smoothly, efficiently, happily into the early morning hours, without a word of complaint or a note of friction". Why?
• you left out the opening question of Levine's press conference report "Reporter: Maharaj Ji, are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible? Maharaj Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world". Arguably the most important question of the conference. Why?
• you removed Krassner's absurd but illuminating comment " that the Divine Light Mission was part of a huge ClA-directed conspiracy to destroy political opposition" from Levine's report of the Davis/Krasner debate. Why?
• I added more Davis for balance.

So there we have it, five edits where I have had to insert material that you didn't put in.Momento (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that 47 citations were too many, but 52 aren't enough? I don't understand why you say that there are too many Levine cites when you've recently added about 10% of them. Anyway, regarding these specific edits:

• Many sources report on the levitation of the Astrodome. The assertion of Lila only appears in the one source, so it seemed less important in that context. We already mention Lila several times elsewhere.
• We already mention the lack of friction in the next section. The material now appears repetitive.
• There are many quotations from the press conference, but I chose to use only the questions and answers that had multiple sources. This article is loing and it seems like a reasonable way of limiting content.
• I thought the CIA allegation was included in the assertion that the DLM was part of a government conspiracy. Again, there are many things that Krassner said in that debate, including the question about Maharaj Ji's masturbation. I suppose we could argue that much of it is "absurd but illuminating", however I thought it was something we can leave out. When i was drafting it the debate seciton was longer but it seemed like a good place to cut. Do you think we should include all of that?

If your complaint with the POV is just "too much Levine" then you should take down the tag. You can't add a source one week and complain about it the next week. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is too much Levine and too much trivia in general.As you say this article is long and a reasonable way of limiting content would be to remove such drivel as " One rumor said that a newborn baby in Houston had cried out "Guru Maharaj Ji" or "The Lord has come" and then died. Followers perceived the predicted appearance of Comet Kohoutek as another omen. Some members believed that the comet was a spaceship on its way to Houston, while others saw it as the return of the Star of Bethlehem. Members said its name meant "KO Houston Texas", as in "knock out". An astrologer pointed to a special alignment of the planets during the festival. One member used a Ouija board to contact Venusians who planned to attend purportedly "because they're from the planet of love and Guru Maharaj Ji is the source of love in the universe.". It is all adequately covered with "Many members had "bizarre", "runaway expectations", the rest is undue weight given to the claims of, in some cases, one individuasl. Momento (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Levine accounts for fewer than 1/8 of the citations, 10% of which you yourself added. I disagree with your assertion that using one source for an eighth of the citations is undue weight. As for the particular text you copied above, it is all properly sourced and neutrally presented. Simply telling readers that there were bizarre expectations isn't sufficient. Since we ahve the sourced examples of the expectations we should share themn with readers so that they can make up their own minds. Please re-read WP:NPOV before you assert that this article violates that policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this labelled as a "POV edit"? All it does is split a sentence into two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you splitting a quote in two in the first place?Momento (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"I am the source of peace in this world"

• Then in 1966, the night Shri Hans dies, Maharaj Ji hears a voice that says, "You are he, you are the one to go and take this Knowledge to the world," and Mata Ji weeps for joy, knowing that her husband "had indeed kept his promise that he would never leave her." Four years later, at the annual celebration of his father's birthday in New Delhi, Guru Maharaj Ji "reveals his plan" to a crowd of over a million people: "I declare I shall bring in the Golden Age of Peace to the whole world."
  • Levine 1974
• When a 12-year old boy announced, "I declare I shall bring in the Golden Age of Peace to the whole world," not very many people believed him.
  • "History of Hans Jayanit", And It Is Divine, November 1973

Momento prefers another version of the same quotation. That's fine, but it's inappropriate to leave the citations to the other version. I'll go change the citations. Please be more careful with cites. And please don't say something is a misquotation until you've checked the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I used the quote provided in a translation of the speech from the 1972 issue of AIID.Momento (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one version, though not the version printed in the Millennium AIID. Isn't that the more appropriate version, since this is about the Millennium? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If we're quoting a speech then a full translation of a speech would be a more accurate source than someone's paraphrase. Momento (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the 1972 AIID quote was accurate while the 1973 AIID quote is an inaccurate paraphrase? What's you're basis for drawig that conclusion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article says " Guru Maharaj Ji delivered his "Peace Bomb" address to a gathering of 1 million people, at which he said...", it therefore follows that we should use his words from the speech not someone else's paraphrase.Momento (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the 1973 AIID quote purports to be his words too. Anyway, I don't mind using one verison instead of the other. Just please don't change the text while retaining the citations to the old text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Then-member Sophia Collier later wrote that...

Why was "then-member" deleted? Without that text the reader will have no idea who Collier is or why her statement has any bearing. We identify other people, such as Mahraj Ji, Bal Baghwan Ji, Bob Mishler, Downton, et al. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't identify reporters or the media they work for, or who are Christian writers or whose writings have been criticized by other scholars, all of which would help readers evaluate what they are reading.Momento (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is unhelpful to reader to simply say, "Collier says..." without indicating who Collier is. I don't think we do so anywhere elese in the article. If we do we should fix it. We do say that "A reporter said..." or "a member said..." or similar expressions that indicate the role of the writer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Expectations section

I reverted a set of edits to the "Expectations" section. Many of the edits added material that was already included elsewhere in the article. For example, the explanation of Hans Jayanti, or the jokes about the ETs. Others added material contrary to what the citations say, or deleted material while leaving the citations. Finally, I re-added and re-worked the section intro that Momento drafted. that part has grown, so I don't want to hear about the article being too long. I again ask Momento to be more careful about the citations when adding or deleting material. Also, I request that he read the entire article before adding material, as he keeps adding things that are already there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You need only look at the "Verbatim Copying" section to see that you revised my text claiming "Boyle writes about" when in fact after several queries from me you admit "- it wasn't from Boyle's book". So please stop harassing me with your requests to be more careful about citations.Momento (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)