Jump to content

User talk:Tat Sat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome

[edit]
Hello Tat Sat and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.
Getting Started
Getting help
The Commmunity
Policies and Guidelines
Things to do

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography of a Yogi

[edit]

Please could you discuss any proposed changes to Autobiography of a Yogi on the talk page for that article and attempt to obtain consensus for them. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tat Sat, Please do not revert back to the article as it was 3 years back before coming to a consensus. What you are doing on the page is considered vandalism. NestedVariable (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would compare the article 3 years ? back with the article now you can verify the page has turned into an advertising of SRF. Red Rose made HUNDREDS of small editions. The article does not even have the original cover of the book. I am going to request WP:DRN . Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • note that the major clearing of that page was done by Sitush, the Wikipedia editor - he cleared out most of it back in the end of May and asked that as we enter in new things that we use reliable 2nd/3rd party references. He actually told you that already. He basically took out most of the article.
  • Yes, but because he was mislead by innacurate information. We need an experienced book editor who understands of ethics in publication. He certainly will agree with me. This article is about a book that was published in 1946 and is in public domain. Instead of having the book's original cover, the page advertises a posterior edition of the book published by Self-Realization Fellowship, one of the 5 or 6 Publishers of the same book. The trajetory of this book publication has many disputes and controversial issues since after the author's death, Self-Realizatin Fellowship made nearly one thousand changes in the original text and forged the author's signature. Red Rose supresses reccurrently all the contoversy from the article. There was even a lawsuit in which SRF accused Ananda, another publisher of the book, of violating its copyright . SRF lost the lawsuit: . "We hold that SRF was not entitled to renew its copyrights in books authored by Yogananda." - The legal case is posted in Wikisource. Thank you, Tat Sat (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Autobiography of a Yogi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

OK, you've had enough explanations and guidance. There are at least three other contributors involved and they are all discussing etc. If you revert again without obtaining consensus then I will seek to have you blocked from editing for a period in order to minimise disruption. Sitush (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • While we were discussing the page in order to attain consensus, Red Rose kept editing and made TEN small editions. Please check this information, it´s true. We had agreed we would discuss the issues one by one before editing, since the trajetory of the book is controvert, and includes disputes and lawsuits. Red Rose suppressed all the controversial issues, considering only SRF´s points of view and using SRF as the paragon of truth. We cannot ignore that SRF forged Yogananda´s signature many years after his death (this technical term meaning "the creation of a false written document or alteration of a genuine one..."). This polemic point in question - one among many - impairs SRF´s credibility and contradicts the guidelines of Publication Ethics. The page as it is advertises SRF. That´s why I asked for WP:DRN. You cannot choose SRF´s cover in detriment of all the others presently in print and authorized by law. The book was published in 1946 WITH a cover that cannot be hidden nor kept from public knowledge because someone does not like it. We need the help of an experienced editor of book pages, aware of the ethics of publication. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten minor changes does not give you the right to - yet again - make a single massive change that reverts the article to the terrible state that it was in 3 years ago. All you are doing here is creating a poor image for yourself and while we do have the "assume good faith" guideline, it is not a suicide pact. Combine this with your attacks on people and, well, things are not looking too good. Neither is your filing at WP:DRN because it was way, way too premature.

    I have said that I will be away over this weekend. I cannot tell you to do anything or to desist from doing anything, but I would advise you that letting things calm down for a few days and collecting your thoughts etc might be A Good Thing. As far as I am aware, there are no plans to terminate Wikipedia any time soon and the article is not a biography of a living person, so there really isn't any need to rush around. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sitush, unfortunately I cannot agree with you. We should not even be discussing the use of the original cover of the book since it is not a subjective matter. The book was published in 1946 WITH a cover. This cover cannot be suppressed. The page as it is advertises SRF. With all respect I do think we need WP:DRN. All the people involved in this article agreed with the changes made in it. So we need someone with book editing knowledge to help us come to a consensus. I am one against 4 editors who turned the page of the "Autobiography of a Yogi" into a sectarian article. I am 3 years late. Also I do not think that to disagree with someone´s implausible points of view is an attack on people. I will be more careful though. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

You have just attacked me and others again in your message above. My tolerance of your behaviour is wearing very thin now. Sitush (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sitush, I am sorry you consider I am attacking you and others. I am not and I respect your point of view. I just disagree with it and wrote why. If I am wrong, please, point where I am wrong. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:What appears at Google search when you look for "Autobiography of a Yogi".jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:What appears at Google search when you look for "Autobiography of a Yogi".jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Google search image of Autobiography of a Yogi.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Google search image of Autobiography of a Yogi.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Google Search Autobiography of a Yogi.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Google Search Autobiography of a Yogi.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I received an e-mail about this issue and answered it. Anyway, I am not using this media. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

[edit]

You have been warned previously about both forum shopping and attacking other editors, yet you continue to do so with edits such as this. If I find that you do this on one more occasion, I'll seek administrator intervention. It is a particularly bizarre situation given that it was you who initiated a discussion at WP:DRN. - Sitush (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong accusation of forum shopping

[edit]

Sitush, I started a discussion at WP-DRN only because I was not familiar with Wikipedia. Now I know better. I should have gone straight to another instance, but I am happy with the help that's been provided. As you can see the article of Autobiography of a Yogi has wrong informations, I am not talking about subjective matters. For instance, among other problems, the name of the Publisher of the first edition is wrong, the book cover that illustrates the article is copyrighted by SFR, the ISBN belongs to a recent SFR's edition, the first edition of the book did not have ISBN, etc. I understand you are not happy since you were involved with the editing of the page. As for Magog the Ogre, on July 4th -- before all this dispute started -- I received an e-mail from MediaWikiMail about a public domain file which I uploaded -- that was wrongly marked for deletion because someone denounced that "perhaps" it was copyrighted in India. It was sent from Magog the Ogre and I was answering back to him, further clarifying this imbroglio about Autobiography of a Yogi images. I do not believe this can be considered "forum shopping". As you can see in the media copyright question page, the book to which the file belongs was not copyrighted by anyone from Yogananda's family, the only possibility (in India). Please verify if you can correctly accuse me of forum shopping before threatening to look for administrator intervention. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC) PS Just to prove what I am saying:[reply]

"Dear Tat Sat, The Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Tat Sat has been changed on 4 July 2012 by Magog the Ogre, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tat_Sat for the current revision."

Indeed I can. You are spewing these similar arguments/points/accusations etc across multiple forums/talk pages etc. Deal with it in one place, please, as you were told when you also shopped at WP:ANI. As far as the image notification is concerned, you need to read up on WP:COPYRIGHT etc - we can take no chances with copyrighted material, hence "perhaps" can be a reasonable cause for concern.

Honestly, a part of the problem is that you are flying around at breakneck speed without seemingly spending any time reading up about how we operate. Lord knows, you have been given enough links to policy etc in the last few days: are you actually reading any of them? And did you bear in mind my earlier comment that this really is a fairly non-urgent issue - if it takes a few days or even weeks to sort out, Wikipedia will still be around. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Sitush, Wikipedia will still be around, as well as SRF´s priceless advertise of the book giving the misleading impression that Wikipedia sponsors SRF´s publication. As I have said before, I respect your point of view, but I disagree with it. If we did not disagree we would not need to be looking for a consensus. I was reading the vandalism page and I inferred it points to many of the problems presently found in the book article page, like incorrect information, removal of topically-relevant content from article, failure to keep a neutral point of view -- and advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. As I have already said, I am glad that Mr. Stradivarius is helping on the dispute board, I am happy the copyright is been discussed in the media copyright question page, and I was giving further information to Magog the Ogre about what appears to be an international incident, since the file was posted in the Portuguese Wikipedia. The editors there are aware of this problem, and it is not the first time it happens. Now, I will wait for this imbroglio, entanglement, confused or complicated disagreement, whatever, to sort out. It is not a matter of wanting "my" opinion to prevail, since it is not a matter of "opinion", but rather a matter of objectiveness, i.e, (abbreviation for Latin id est, meaning "that is" or "in other words") right information, impartialness, -- which is required to mantain Wikipedia´s credibility and reputation of excellency. I frequently consult Wikipedia, and I love it. Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Tat Sat. You have new messages at Mr. Stradivarius's talk page.
Message added 07:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 07:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Autobiography of a Yogi". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

[edit]
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Autobiography of a Yogi, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Autobiography of a Yogi, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Autobiography of a Yogi mediation

[edit]

Hi Tat Sat. Sorry for the very long delay in resolving the dispute over at Autobiography of a Yogi. I have just received word from the Mediation Committee that ItsZippy has agreed to mediate the dispute. However, ItsZippy isn't a full member of the Mediation Committee yet, so we need all the editors involved to indicate that they are willing to have him as a mediator. Would you be ok with ItsZippy mediating the dispute? Please leave your answer over at the mediation page, and let me know if you have any questions about the mediation process. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tat Sat. I've invited members of WikiProject Books to look in at Autobiography of a Yogi. You are of course completely correct, WP Books sets the standards for what should be described and depicted in the infobox of an article about a book, and that should be exclusively the first edition of the book. I've corrected the infobox to conform with WP Books standards, and cited the publisher of the first edition to the US Library of Congress. Hopefully you will have less trouble keeping it that way with WP Books overlooking the situation. Yworo (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yworo, I am glad of your help. The WP Books standars are the ones to be followed, of course. Unfortunatelly - as you can verify - Red Rose keeps editing the article, without first discussing the changes: he imposes them. He considers the article to be about SRF´s version of the book. Since he makes countless small editions, it is nearly impossible to review each one of them. He says SRF is not a sect, but the rival Ananda is - a troublesome and sectarian point of view. Could I revert the article to your last version? Or should you do it? Could you please also help in the mediation? I have the original cover image. I will upload it. There is a lot to be done. We could start from your last edition. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll revert first. We can alternate. Don't revert more than once per 24 hours. Hopefully, somebody from WikiProject books will also get involved. You might want to go to the WikiProject discussion and add to the discussion there. Yworo (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the sectarian issue. Technically, both are sects, the Hindu tradition is composed pretty much solely of sects. And Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy says that we give their points-of-view equal weight. Yworo (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. Both are sects. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The moment SRF rejected a particular subset of its membership, it ceased to be "nonsectarian" as it claims and made itself into an opposing sect. To remain nonsectarian, an organization must embrace all of its followers, including those who have complaints about the leadership and differences of opinion with its actions. Yworo (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yworo, here is a link for the lawsuit "Self Realization versus Ananda Church" about copyright issues and its conclusion. Here is the appeal made in 2000. The settlement was made in 2002. There is no doubt the ''editio princeps'' of the Autobiography of a Yogi is in public domain. Could you please insert the links at the article´s page? Thank you, Tat Sat (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tat Sat, I think you might find it interesting that Red Rose 13 at Kriyananda has persistently tried to rewrite the parts referring to SRF disputes, which directly relate to the book Autobioigraphy of a Yogi. Also, the 9th [U.S.] Federal Court decision primary document link of Judge E. J. Garcia's decision, which was against SRF in most copyright issues with Ananda, was removed, against my protest, with little or no justification. Regards Jack B108 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

I propose that we start a new version of the Autobiography of a Yogi page based on the template at WikiProject Books. We could place it in a subpage of the current article, or in your sandbox or in mine. If in either of the latter, only those invited to edit it would be able to participate. If in a subpage of the current article, everyone involved would be able to edit it, which might not be what we desire. We could integrate all the content which was removed from the current article and start adding the necessary citations to support the full text, though better organized according to the template, possibly reducing the total amount of coverage of the contents of the book itself. Once we finish it, we could have an admin "merge" it into the edit history. Let me know what you think of this proposal. Yworo (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with your proposal. Where should I send the image of the original cover? Thanks Tat Sat (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the image of the original cover not currently on Wikipedia? Also, what is the source of this cover? A scan? Or Amazon/eBay? Yworo (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have started an outline at User:Yworo/Autobiography of a Yogi. I've posted an initial proposal for which of the heading variants to select at User talk:Yworo/Autobiography of a Yogi. Let's continue the discussion there. Yworo (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yworo, 19 days after I accepted your proposition, we have not advanced much beyond the original cover. The history of the book is not in the article which is about the SRF´s version. Could you please tell me what you think? My belief is that mediation is needed. Red Rose only considers SRF´s point of view. He has not changed. Tat Sat (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page reformat

[edit]

Is there any chance that you could reformat your proposed lead section etc at the Autiobgraphy talk page? It might be a bit tricky but it would be more clear if it was incorporated into the "Lead section" section. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you please explain to me how I could reformat my proposed lead section at the "Autobiography" talk page? I did not quite understand what you have asked, but I am willing to help. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a bit tricky because your proposal includes another section. I've got a bad cold (for some reason, I get this every year afterhaving a flu vaccination) and am off to bed soon but I could have a go at it tomorrow. You can always revert me if you think it makes matters worse.

    I'm hoping that the pair of you can come to some sort of agreement regarding the lead: you have both made constructive suggestions, which is a good start - I appreciate it. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I will try. But Red Rose reverts everything I try to do and accuses me of edit warring. Thank you. As for the flu vaccination, many people I know also catch a cold. I take a French vaccine and never had any problem. I will be looking into having your feedback tomorrow and I hope you feel better. Thank you so much for your time and your help. Tat Sat (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you take a look at User_talk:Red_Rose_13#Talk_page_reformat. I am hoping that this meets with your approval but, as I say there, revert me if it does not. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noblesse Oblige (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Dorothy Gilman.jpeg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Dorothy Gilman.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

[edit]

Hi Tat Sat! I don't do adoption, as it makes it sound like we're not peers. Which we are. What I am happy to do though is offer any help I can. Is there anything in particular I can assist with? :) - Bilby (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noblesse Oblige (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Fleming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why So Hard To Get The 1946 Cover on Autobio. Yogi

[edit]

Hi, Tat Sat 

 I see the cover now shown on the article says it's the 1946

original, and its blue color seems to verify that. Can you tell me if it is and why it seems to take Acts of Congress to accomplish something so basic in Wikipedia? This sort of thimg goes on in many Wikipedia articles, I'm sure you know. Example: On Roswell Incident article: First the US military told the press it was a "flying disc" in their possession. Right away they corrected that to weather balloon (second explanation). In 1994 they put out a report saying it was most likely a specialized balloon for a Project Mogul (third explanation). About 1997 they added a fourth possibility, that crash dummies used in testing could have been what was seen (inconveniently the crash dummy testing didn't start in New Mexico until 5 years after the 1947 crash). Yet one editor refuses to permit the wording "Project Mogul was the government's third explanation for the incident." ThanksMoabalan (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tat_Sat&oldid=827382948"