Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche

message: I have just posted a personal message for you on your personal user talk page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Balazs38.
There are also several other important messages for you there, which you do not seem to have replied to or noticed. Please respond as appropriate.
In case you are not aware, every editor has a User Page where you can write about yourself, describing your interests, your field of expertise and why you are a Wikipedia editor or whatever, and a User Talk page where you can receive notices and can discuss things in general with other editors not related to the content of particular articles (in which case you use the talk page of the article in question). I am explaining this as you do not appear to be very conversant with how Wikipedia editing works, I hope you don't mind. I also had to learn these things when I started off.
There is an important message, for example, about your WP:COI, and about WP:NOSHARING, and what you need to do about these matters to avoid being blocked in the near future. Thanks, --MacPraughan (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Messages for you on your User Talk Page, Balazs38! 

message: In order to conform with Wikipedia policies about all articles and especially about living persons. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a great job. Thanks!. - MacPraughan (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  pared 

message: I'm seeking consensus to restore this edit into the article Shenphen Rinpoche, with additional sources mentioned above to better establish notability. I believe this edit addresses all the misgivings expressed by other editors on this talk page and in the AfD discussion. In more general terms, I also believe that the article is relevant, and that the controversy about the subject should at least be summarized (supported by reliable sources, of course, and not presupposing guilt), so that the reader can make an informed choice about whom to believe. — Yerpo Eh? 07:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a declared conflict of interest, , and therefore your opinion should not count here. You have also made legal threats in the past. MacPraughan (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  , A coi does not prohibit one from commenting on talk pages, per WP:COI.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 14:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, , I did not say he could not comment here. MacPraughan (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I have this document and can provide it to an admin. This document shows directly that some of the suggested sources (newspaper articles) make false claims, and thus these articles can't be considered as reliable.Balazs38 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid it's not so simple, . In some narrow cases, primary sources can be considered along secondary ones, but they must be published, not shared privately. And in any case, a proof of an empty criminal record will not disprove the sources I found, because they don't deny this. Like I said, context is important. — Yerpo Eh? 05:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you,  I totally agree. ,  and  please note. MacPraughan (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking wider consensus