| Revision as of 14:29, 23 June 2007 view sourceSir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled18,508 editsm Protected User talk:El elan: Protect from trolling, used by banned user Kuntan, now on Reliance IPs. ← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:30, 23 June 2007 view source Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled18,508 edits ←Redirected page to User:El elan | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| == Ambedkar revert == | |||
| My revert was of a controversial edit without a source - blaming the police for the violence. The edit that was reinstated is POV and needs a good source, I agree. ] 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :We cannot be judgmental - blaming police is not "unencyclopedic" - what does that mean? The problem is simple - either sentence you keep has a problem in terms of needing a citation and conforming to ]. I don't find accusations on "Dalit Buddhists" to be less or more acceptable than the police. ] 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think I have ansered it . Nothing is more or less acceptable. What you removed as controversial can be sourced easily and what you inserted is a POV. ] 05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And Manohar Kadam's conduct is not an issue to be covered in the biography of Ambedkar. That's something for an article on the riots. ] 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: You are right; this is a problem with many of the articles. But the removal on the grounds of "controversial" is not acceptable.] 06:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thank you for your recent edits. It would be helpful if, once done, you could put in a brief justification on the talkpage in case they are challenged. ] 09:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:30, 23 June 2007
Redirect to: