Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:18, 30 January 2008

Archives

/Archive1

user:PrivateSnipers userbox

Hi, I noticed you placed a speedy deletion tag on a userbox created by user:PrivateSniper. I don't think the user intentionaly littered mainspace with the userbox, so I moved it to his userspace. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi,

I have approved you for AutoWikiBrowser. You can download it from here. Good luck!   jj137 17:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

re POV articles

In reply to your note on my talkpage, I agree that Muslim population growth in India is Indeed POV and have voted for its deletion.

Pahari Sahib 06:16, 20 January 2008 (GMT)

POV pushing on People's Republic of China

Hi! You seem to be removing certain "negative aspects" of the article over and over again, for example the section/pictures about human rights and the environment. These sections are sourced and are written in a NPOV. Please don't remove any of them again, without discussing it on the articles talk page long before and waiting for a discussion on the talk page to reach consensus, as your edits have been reverted several times now by myself and other editors. Explaining the reason in the edit summary is fine at start, but if the edits get reverted over and over you should discuss on the talk page beforehand. Poeloq (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not pushing POV, instead I am fighting POV there. To single out a country with a "Human rights" section is POV-pushing, and I am against that. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for some countries it just isn't worth putting such a section. But I agree, other countries would do well with a Human Rights section. But just because other articles don't have it, doesn't mean it is general consensus not to have it. There is always a first article with something new. You could, instead of deleting valuable information, add such a section to other articles for example. As long as it is sourced and written in NPOV, it's fine. Poeloq (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just visiting, but It would seem to me that a human rights section would make very good sense in that article, & one about the environment is pretty customary. But they should be brief, with one picture each, and refer to more detailed articles. DGG (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fcukmeimhot

Hi You warned this user about WP:V a few weeks ago. The seem to be at it again, albeit with a little more subtlety. I have reverted their edit to Gatwick but I am not very hot on vandalism and stuff. I wonder would you take on the warnings and stuff? I also wondered if the username might not be inappropriate? MurphiaMan (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Road

Keeping mind we talking about the article Road not Expressways, talk to me about this edit. You removed referenced text that says there is 6,430,366 km of roads and 90,000 km of expressways in the USA, as well as other hard numbers for other countries to leave a reference that implies that because China has the second most expansive amount of expressways at 45,000 km it also has the second largest network of roadways. This is a logical fallacy, while all expressways are roads, not all roads are expressways. This is evidenced by the fact that is there are 6,430,366 km of roads there are only 90,000 km of expressways in the USA. Please respond on why you reversed my last edit. In my mind your presentation might be appropriate for Expressways but not for Road. Jeepday (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the EU/country thing, I added a couple words to clarify the standing. Jeepday (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Help desk question

Hi I have responded to your help desk question. I hope this response helped. If you need further assistance, feel free to respond at the help desk, here, or on my talk page. Best regards! --omtay38 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious violence

Hello Otolemur, I just wanted to cordially remind you that we must ensure our point of views do not cause conflicts on Misplaced Pages, as appears to be happening. To resolve this matter I want to clearly tell you my grievances as opposed to edit warring and using edit summaries. The portion I do not conform with in your edits is this:

As Hindutva ideology has grown more and more powerful over the years, its strategic use of riots to polarize religious communities has began to transform into a process of fundamentally destroying minority communities. Hindutva ideology, violence is a core aspect of which and which legitimates violence as patriotic response, excludes other religious beliefs and fosters religious intolerance and portrays violence against Muslims and Christians as a form of "self-defense". Over the last decade, religious violence in India has increasingly become organized pogroms to eliminate minority communities. Despite rejection of Hindutva ideology by United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led National Government, Hindutva has influence in government policies. Some state governments in India have been accused of not effectively prosecuting those who attack religious minorities.

First of all, I think the entire problem is about your knowledge or perception of Hindutva ideology itself. I admit there are some Hindutvavaadis who are violent in nature and hot-headed to the point that they murder others, blackening the name of Hindutva in the process. I think to some it is unfortunately these people who are the stereotypical Hindutvavaadi. In the first sentence you imply that the religious violence in modern India is due to the strategic use of riots by a stronger Hindutva group. I would like to remind you that riots were much worse in India before Hindutva was founded. It is labelling one group for the actions of many, which is unfair.

Your second sentence states quite blatantly and offensively that violence is a core aspect of Hindutva. I think this is rubbish and, pardon me, but bleeds of ignorance. Instead of quoting Marxist papers on what Hindutva stands for, there are numerous philosophy documents which you could peruse and take as a primary source of what Hindutva stands for. Hindutva essentially is a Hindu cultural awakening (or jagritri), aiming to define and stand for a Hindu culture. True Hindutvavaadis see everyone who treats India as their matrabhoomi and pitribhoomi as effectively Hindus. Most of the time, this automatically includes most Indians and almost all Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians and Buddhists in India. This is a quote from a Hindutva RSS philosophy paper:

The RSS entirely agrees with Gandhiji's formulations that "There is in Hinduism room enough for Jesus, as there is for Mohammed, Zoroster and Moses"

The RSS also believes that the fabric of Hindu society was its religious tolerance.

The final part of your edits which concerns me is the second last sentence, alleging that these Hindu extremists hold sway in politics although the UPA government soundly rejects them. Well this is completely ignoring the fact that the BJP was in government for 6 years prior to the current UPA government. It is safe to say that at that time a majority of Indians were in support of the BJP. Now you can't say that all of these Indians were Hindu fanatics!

I think the history section should contain details of pre-partition incidents and an overview of how religious violence occurs in modern India, as opposed to labelling one group and one group only. Nowhere in your paragraph is it mentioned Goan seperatism, Tripuran speratism, Punjabi seperatism and nowhere is terrorism mentioned. No, it is solely based on Hindutva, which despite its darkened past is essentially a cultural movement. I don't deny that Hindus have committed evils, and I will let you mention organizations like the Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal which seem to be into the violent acts quite a bit, but you should be more rounded.

Hope I have begun a fruitful discussion. Regards.

Darrowen (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I took my precedent from your adding of the Graham Staines incident, surely both are religiously-motivated murders and should be treated equally. Darrowen (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What about notable incidents during the Gujarat violence? Anti-Sikh riots? Darrowen (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the admin Ragib his opinion. If he disagrees with me then I will cease to edit war. Darrowen (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Let's move this discussion to Talk:Religious violence in India where I am hoping for some third opinions on the issue. Thanks. Darrowen (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Group (novel)

Hey there. I noticed that I had just saved the first pass at my new article on the American novel with the edit summary "start, needs cats, etc" when you tagged it as unreferenced and uncategorized. (In fact the edit histories have us saving at the same time) I'd like to point out that this sort of aggressive tagging can sometimes be interpreted by new users as unwelcoming. Fortunately, I'm far from a new user and I'm comfortable that my contributions are welcome. But in the future perhaps you could a) wait, maybe a minute or two before tagging someone's new article as uncategorized b)add the missing category which takes about as much time as tagging. I'm removing your tags as I am still working on the article and don't at present, need reminding about things like refs & cats. Cheers. Dina (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

I see that you are engaged in reverting. Advice: please note the 3rr rule. If you violate it you will be blocked. Also, note that you may be blocked even if you don't violate that rule.

The best option in disputes is discuss on talk page. See also Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.Bless sins (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		To applaud you on your efforts on various region-based articles and your ability on establishing articles from scratch and making a strong collaboration of knowledge. Darrowen (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw some of the articles you have created which are listed on your userpage. You've done a very good job on many of them. Darrowen (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in India

I think its a good thing that the page was protected. This user always wants to have things his way and always seems to have problems with other people on other projects, and nearly 100% of the time the arguments are over images. This seem to happen quite often. I think the image in question was rather moving and suitable for the that article, maybe Nikkul thought that it was degrading for Indian people, I don't think it is, its only portraying poverty. This user has had problems before http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nikkul . Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There voting for the beggar image, you may want to put you name down. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey have a look at this He (Nikkul) has notified atleast thirty other editors about this beggar image. It must be really important for him to have this removed, this is rather strange indeed. I would would simply move onto something else. "Unbelievable". Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nikkul / Poverty in India

Nikkul has placed a comment on my talk page regarding an image dispute on the Poverty in India article. I've had no involvement in Indian articles (other than routine vandalism reversion stuff) nor anything to do with this editor in the past. He seems quite keen that I express an opinion.

Is there anything I should know about this issue and/or user? I'm inclined to have nothing to do with it and leave the matter to those with an interest in Indian articles.

Best regards, Xdenizen (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Nikkul wants you to vote for a certain image to be added and another removed from an article, maybe he wants you to side with him. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

re:what should I do now

I am not quite sure about this, I just thought this was being taken to far. I think the image looks good in the article and suites it at that. If you think you can get people to side with you, inform them. All I wanted to do was reformat the article a bit and have the image remain. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If he photo is removed, just weight a month or so then re insert it, if it is removed again then do one revert per day after that, I don't think you would be breaking any law by doing so. I could step in as well. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)