Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 20 April 2007

Response to Cluck-U Chicken

Hi. I noticed your response to the Cluck_U Chicken debate. My comment was just supposed to be a general comment, not to anyone in particular. I hope it wasn't taken in the wrong way.
Seraphim Whipp 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious democracy

Thank you for your comment. Farhoudk 07:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance sign-up

Thanks for joining the project! The reason for the technical problem is that the members' list is transcluded - just add yourself to the original page at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/list. Please also add yourself to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw if you want, you can also add this userbox to your userpage: Walton 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now added you to the list. For some reason, the section edit button doesn't seem to work, but if you use the Edit tab at the top of the page then it seems to work OK. I copied the signup comment you left at Misplaced Pages talk:Editor assistance, but feel free to change it if needed. Also, don't forget to add your user page to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton 11:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for following up on a Request for Assistance

Thank you so much for following up on my request for assistance on the Jat people page. I really still need assistance here. If you can spare the time I would be very grateful indeed.

For one thing - I forgot to copy the reply I received from Deryck C and I can't seem to find it again now. (I was going to write to him and ask him to redirect me to his reply - but I will wait now and see what you have to say). In any case, he suggested that the article be rewritten which I think would be a great idea except that I am really not the person who should be doing this (as I have explained in a recent note to the Talk page for "Jat people" - please have a look at the note which is self-explanatory at ]). While I am an historian with a keen interest in Indian history, I am neither a Jat, nor am I particularly knowledgeable about Jat history, as such. In any case, if I try to rewrite the page I am sure to cause more antagonism and upset, which I think would be most unproductive.

This page, and other related pages, seem to have been hijacked by people with racial (and/or communal) and religious biases who overwhelm dissent by endless disputation and the quoting of many obscure authors of difficult-to-obtain books (often by Jat authors in Hindi). A number of times I have shown that the references they have called on to support their positions do nothing of the sort - but one must be able to check them to discover this - and many of them are just about impossible for me to find. I believe much of this misinformation is being done deliberately - while some of it may just be due to the fundamentalist religious convictions of the authors (such as insisting that the death of Krishna actually occurred in 3102 BCE and that Mathura was attacked by "thirty million monstrous fiends.") These are presented as historical "facts" and anyone who questions them is asked to disprove it. They don't seem willing to have such "facts" qualified as "legendary" or "mythological" or to qualify them in any way, but just go on the attack until people are either scared off or just give up trying. I have had some nasty insinuations made about me and my integrity, as you can see if you look at the Jat talk page and the Archives, but some writers have actually received threatening comments - see, for instance, the comments at: ])

I have not had any replies yet to my last appeal on 14 April, (the critics seem to have gone very quiet the last few days) although the dispute tag has been removed once again without comment (which I have just replaced again).

I believe the article is riddled with inconsistencies and false and misleading information and is not worthy of, or good for, the Misplaced Pages. However, I am really at a loss about what to do next and can't afford to keep spending the time and emotional energy trying to counter the rubbish and propaganda. I am wearied and saddened by the whole experience.

Any help the editors might be able to give here would surely be welcome to me and a number of fair-minded Jats who are embarrassed about what is happening on the page (please have a look at their comments on the Talk page and its archives).

Thank you in advance for anything you may be able to do or suggest. Sincerely, John Hill 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions today which I will certainly follow up on. Sincerely, John Hill 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD closing

Nothing major- its just that the template and your comment belongs above the AfD's heading rather than below it. Everything else was fine... WjBscribe 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the intervention.

Re your message: No problem. =) As for your question, only administrators can block IPs or editors. In this case with the fast vandal, you would just have to sit on the article history and keep reverting until an administrator notices the report on WP:AIV and blocks the vandal. On a side note, on your warnings to editors/IPs, you'll went to add "subst:" to the notices you leave. Don't worry about going back and subst'ing the ones you didn't do, there is a couple of bots that will do that. Lastly, thanks for helping to revert vandalism. =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)