Misplaced Pages

Talk:Votebank: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:48, 20 September 2006 editHkelkar (talk | contribs)7,279 editsm →CPM Doesn't practice Votebank politics???: heh← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:34, 13 December 2024 edit undo201.150.49.108 (talk) →vote: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App talk topic 
(29 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi|date = 24 July 2006|result='''Keep'''|page=Votebank}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
{{WikiProject India
|importance=mid
|politics=yes|politics-importance=low
}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}}
}}

==Untitled==
As per Misplaced Pages conventions, all alternate spellings of the same term should lead to the same page. Hence, ], ], and ] all need to point to the same page. The page ] is itself linked from ], and hence it makes no sense to link to it from ].] 10:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC) As per Misplaced Pages conventions, all alternate spellings of the same term should lead to the same page. Hence, ], ], and ] all need to point to the same page. The page ] is itself linked from ], and hence it makes no sense to link to it from ].] 10:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::Not only alternative spells but articles having same subject/content too should lead to same page.That means The Title Vote bank politics in India should not exist at all.]|] 10:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ::Not only alternative spells but articles having same subject/content too should lead to same page.That means The Title Vote bank politics in India should not exist at all.]|] 10:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


I have contested that opinion, and the matter is still under resolution. You should at least wait for the final decision on that issue.] 10:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC) I have contested that opinion, and the matter is still under resolution. You should at least wait for the final decision on that issue.] 10:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


::You have failed to give any argument in favour of your own supposed ''contested that opinion'',the only matter under consideration is your behaviour.Instead of offering arguments for why you want to move the page you declared----You need not ask anybody (ref--].After moving the page many times,which was simply a reaction of having failed in AfD--You created this page with only one motive that the original page should become unnoticeable,intentionaly created "Edit-History" of the New page to make the Counter Move more difficult.Even Your wikiquote link does not work,besides you have failed to answer the questions raised in AFD and don't offer any arguments for your "Moves".These are considered Vandalism.]|] 11:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ::You have failed to give any argument in favour of your own supposed ''contested that opinion'',the only matter under consideration is your behaviour.Instead of offering arguments for why you want to move the page you declared----You need not ask anybody (ref--].After moving the page many times,which was simply a reaction of having failed in AfD--You created this page with only one motive that the original page should become unnoticeable,intentionaly created "Edit-History" of the New page to make the Counter Move more difficult.Even Your wikiquote link does not work,besides you have failed to answer the questions raised in AFD and don't offer any arguments for your "Moves".These are considered Vandalism.]|] 11:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


:::Read this . There I have presented my reason for the move. That reason has been accepted as valid by the only third party to comment so far. Even so, I am waiting until the discussion is closed. I expect you would at least do the same.] 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC) :::Read this . There I have presented my reason for the move. That reason has been accepted as valid by the only third party to comment so far. Even so, I am waiting until the discussion is closed. I expect you would at least do the same.] 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Also read your own "Move Log" with dates which offers no arguments for Your Many Many Vandal Moves.Also check the dates,The reason you are talking about was only lame excuse of having intentionaly blocked Counter Moves offered after commiting the blunder.You should have done the discussion part before doing such an act because you were well aware it was disputed.If you question my "Moves" I was simply restoring with reasons.Thanx.]|] 11:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ::::Also read your own "Move Log" with dates which offers no arguments for Your Many Many Vandal Moves.Also check the dates,The reason you are talking about was only lame excuse of having intentionaly blocked Counter Moves offered after commiting the blunder.You should have done the discussion part before doing such an act because you were well aware it was disputed.If you question my "Moves" I was simply restoring with reasons.Thanx.]|] 11:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


:::::Having given my reasons for the move the first few times, I felt it was unnecessary to repeat them. There was no "blunder" as you so colourfully put it. I found your reasons for reversion petty and illogical, and the reasons are nonsensical.] 11:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC) :::::Having given my reasons for the move the first few times, I felt it was unnecessary to repeat them. There was no "blunder" as you so colourfully put it. I found your reasons for reversion petty and illogical, and the reasons are nonsensical.] 11:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::Read this again ''I found your reasons for reversion petty and illogical, and the reasons are nonsensical'' and see ].Also judge your other comments made earlier on different pages in the same light.You need to build consensus in case of every dispute---The dubious means you have adopted to undo restoration seems to be done in Bad Faith and cannot be justified even if you can proove all the allegations you have put on this page or on any page against me.]|] 11:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ::Read this again ''I found your reasons for reversion petty and illogical, and the reasons are nonsensical'' and see ].Also judge your other comments made earlier on different pages in the same light.You need to build consensus in case of every dispute---The dubious means you have adopted to undo restoration seems to be done in Bad Faith and cannot be justified even if you can proove all the allegations you have put on this page or on any page against me.]|] 11:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


:::''Comment on content, not on the contributor.'' - Your ''reasons'' were petty and illogical, not you. This does not qualify as a personal attack. I reject your accusation of bad faith. My reasons for my actions have been repeated ad nauseaum. Furthermore, from where I stand there is no need for a dispute. I took an action that nobody could have objected to, and you are the one who has shown bad faith in reverting it purely out of ego.] 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC) :::''Comment on content, not on the contributor.'' - Your ''reasons'' were petty and illogical, not you. This does not qualify as a personal attack. I reject your accusation of bad faith. My reasons for my actions have been repeated ad nauseaum. Furthermore, from where I stand there is no need for a dispute. I took an action that nobody could have objected to, and you are the one who has shown bad faith in reverting it purely out of ego.] 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


*Found my way here via ]. If I'm reading the situation right, the both of you could put a little more work into ]. Not every person who disagrees with you will inherently become an enemy -- life is only that much better when we all work ''toward a mutual solution'' instead of accusing each other of all being idiots. With that in mind, I'd like to clarify that content disputes don't qualify as vandalism, per ]. To be honest, I'm not sure if I understand the objections -- if the previous article referred specifically to the situation in India, is there a reason why that shouldn't be made clear? If the India article really has to be here, why not propose a merge, instead? ] 04:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC) *Found my way here via ]. If I'm reading the situation right, the both of you could put a little more work into ]. Not every person who disagrees with you will inherently become an enemy -- life is only that much better when we all work ''toward a mutual solution'' instead of accusing each other of all being idiots. With that in mind, I'd like to clarify that content disputes don't qualify as vandalism, per ]. To be honest, I'm not sure if I understand the objections -- if the previous article referred specifically to the situation in India, is there a reason why that shouldn't be made clear? If the India article really has to be here, why not propose a merge, instead? ] 04:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::The person in question here was offered dispute resolution which he adamantly refused---Saying he don't need to ask anyone (REF:]).This person does not believe in consensus.He is well aware that this article will never grow in size and content without referring to indian context (which he was told earlier too).Even then he has repeatedly moved the page abusing all the reasons given against it,just for the sake of ego satisfaction(it is amusing to see similar allegation against me).I am sure several users has been blocked under similar circumstances.Plz refer cases of ] and ] pages.Why should he be given special privilege?????]|] 15:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC) ::The person in question here was offered dispute resolution which he adamantly refused---Saying he don't need to ask anyone (REF:]).This person does not believe in consensus.He is well aware that this article will never grow in size and content without referring to indian context (which he was told earlier too).Even then he has repeatedly moved the page abusing all the reasons given against it,just for the sake of ego satisfaction(it is amusing to see similar allegation against me).I am sure several users has been blocked under similar circumstances.Plz refer cases of ] and ] pages.Why should he be given special privilege?????]|] 15:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


::: The problem arose when the user above insisted on reverting any changes I made, even though I felt I had strong grounds for my actions. The user showed bad faith by treating all edits made to a page which he had created as personal affronts.] 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC) ::: The problem arose when the user above insisted on reverting any changes I made, even though I felt I had strong grounds for my actions. The user showed bad faith by treating all edits made to a page which he had created as personal affronts.] 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 22: Line 33:
::PS--->1.''user above insisted on '''reverting any changes''' I made''<br> ::PS--->1.''user above insisted on '''reverting any changes''' I made''<br>
2.''treating all edits made to a page which he had created as personal affronts''<br> 2.''treating all edits made to a page which he had created as personal affronts''<br>
3.''I noted that a number of members had suggested a massive clean-up, which was what I attempted.''---What were your other attempts besides moving the page and tagging NPOV???????]|] 07:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 3.''I noted that a number of members had suggested a massive clean-up, which was what I attempted.''---What were your other attempts besides moving the page and tagging NPOV???????]|] 07:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


:::Creating the page ], which explained the concept in technical terms.] 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC) :::Creating the page ], which explained the concept in technical terms.] 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Line 28: Line 39:
== Survived AfD == == Survived AfD ==


{{oldafdfull|date = '''24 July 2006'''|result='''Keep'''}} {{Old AfD multi|date = '''24 July 2006'''|result='''Keep'''}}


== Proposed Merger == == Proposed Merger ==


I would like to state my strong objections to the proposed merger. There has already been a discussion on the issue, and the clear majority voted to Keep this article. Only one vote was received in favour of a Merge.] 08:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC) I would like to state my strong objections to the proposed merger. There has already been a discussion on the issue, and the clear majority voted to Keep this article. Only one vote was received in favour of a Merge.] 08:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::Only three people voted "Keep" one of whom is this ] himself.One must also check the contribution history of other two.Thanx.]|] 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC) ::Only three people voted "Keep" one of whom is this ] himself.One must also check the contribution history of other two.Thanx.]|] 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


:::I would request you not to cast aspersions on the decision-making ability of other Wikipedians. Whatever you may think about it, the decision was taken to keep this article, and that decision must be respected.] 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC) :::I would request you not to cast aspersions on the decision-making ability of other Wikipedians. Whatever you may think about it, the decision was taken to keep this article, and that decision must be respected.] 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I would rather request you not to mislead others,The statement simply means what it says.]|] 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC) ::::I would rather request you not to mislead others,The statement simply means what it says.]|] 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


See this . It states that a merger may proceed if after five days, there is consensus or silence. Since there is neither, the merger should not go ahead. If you still want it merged, add it to the proposed mergers list.] 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC) See this . It states that a merger may proceed if after five days, there is consensus or silence. Since there is neither, the merger should not go ahead. If you still want it merged, add it to the proposed mergers list.] 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
::Since there is neither of the two (for which one must wait for at least 5 days,not to be confused as most),I am not merging the page,but rule does not ask for removal of tag.The issue must settle ,coz you are the only person opposing it.Thanks and don't repeat.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ::Since there is neither of the two (for which one must wait for at least 5 days,not to be confused as most),I am not merging the page,but rule does not ask for removal of tag.The issue must settle ,coz you are the only person opposing it.Thanks and don't repeat.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Accordng to the rules, I may express my disapproval of the merger at any time by removing the tag. This is sufficient to qualify the merger as controversial. Therefore, please do not put it back again.] 15:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC) :::Accordng to the rules, I may express my disapproval of the merger at any time by removing the tag. This is sufficient to qualify the merger as controversial. Therefore, please do not put it back again.] 15:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::This may be treated as ], your earlier behaviour too has been suggestive of ] Trolling.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC) :::This may be treated as ], your earlier behaviour too has been suggestive of ] Trolling.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Read the link carefully. Stubborn editing does not qualify as vandalism.] 15:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Read the link carefully. Stubborn editing does not qualify as vandalism.] 15:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Read this carefully - ]. Once you do, I hope you will stop tagging this page. I'm getting quite tired of this.] 05:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Read this carefully - ]. Once you do, I hope you will stop tagging this page. I'm getting quite tired of this.] 05:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I hope you have read it CAREFULY.Kindly stop removing tag again. <span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 10:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) :::I hope you have read it CAREFULY.Kindly stop removing tag again. <span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 10:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


== References == == References ==
Line 51: Line 62:
Please point to specific statements that you consider controversial.] 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Please point to specific statements that you consider controversial.] 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


:The tag simply demands citations if you have,if you don't have wait for someone else to provide it.Plz don't delete it again.]|] 14:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) :The tag simply demands citations if you have,if you don't have wait for someone else to provide it.Plz don't delete it again.]|] 14:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


::No, you need to start placing the {{tl|fact}} templates at specific places in the entry. ] 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC) ::No, you need to start placing the {{tl|fact}} templates at specific places in the entry. ] 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 61: Line 72:
:The only reason I didn't merge it myself was; I felt that the history of Votebank Politics in India was long enought to merit a separate article. Also, given how poorly, that article was written, it might have been better to write a brief synopsis of the Indian experience with votebank politics, and add a {{tl|main}} link to the other article.] 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC) :The only reason I didn't merge it myself was; I felt that the history of Votebank Politics in India was long enought to merit a separate article. Also, given how poorly, that article was written, it might have been better to write a brief synopsis of the Indian experience with votebank politics, and add a {{tl|main}} link to the other article.] 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


:::What a joke Gamesmaster was going for merger!!!!!.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC) :::What a joke Gamesmaster was going for merger!!!!!.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


==CPM Doesn't practice Votebank politics???== ==CPM Doesn't practice Votebank politics???==
Line 70: Line 81:
::Time to restart the debate, and invite RfA in case of intransigence.] 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) ::Time to restart the debate, and invite RfA in case of intransigence.] 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


:::First of all both of you get well through references.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC) :::First of all both of you get well through references.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)




:::Care to explain what you just typed, preferably in grammatically and contextually correct ] that is within the comprehension of poor souls like myself?] 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) :::Care to explain what you just typed, preferably in grammatically and contextually correct ] that is within the comprehension of poor souls like myself?] 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Plz go through VHF on my user page.If you borrow language and idea from likes of Gamesmasterg will you ever get out of that.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Elements within CPI have protested against VOTE-BANK POLITICS IN CPI:

http://pv.cgpi.org/pv300499.htm#1

Will come up with more refs.
] 10:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I believe you were already warned not to make personal attacks against other users.] 09:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

::No I am really going to pursue the case of harssment by both of you.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Harassment by us!! Ha! Never in my life have I seen a clearer case of the pot calling the kettle black. You need to stop behaving like the article is your personal property.] 14:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


== Definition part of article == == Definition part of article ==


The definition part of article is POVish without any expert citation should be removed.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC) The definition part of article is POVish without any expert citation should be removed.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Well 99.99% of the article is unsourced anyways, so we all need to provide sources or a lot of the article will be removed by somebody...] 09:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:::None of my contributions are without refs,yah others may opt to pull themselves out from this article if they have nothing to contribute.Infact you sd contribute what you know well , merely folowing someone to make false cases on ANB is not the right way to choose ,infact that is what constitutes ] <span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::]. You do not own this article. Anybody can contribute to wikipedia. However, the burden of presenting sources is valid, but none of the statements in the article are sourced with {{tlx|cite}} or anything. Just a few external links won;t do.] 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't wish to spoil my time arguing with you,see ],BTW where has ] disappeared.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Who?] 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Who is Densagueo, and what does he have to do with anything?] 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

== sources in the article ==

All sources in the article are the basic foundation on which this article is built,removal should be treated as vandalism as per ].<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 12:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
::Nope. Article failed verification. No mention of CPIM and their alleged repudiation of votebank politics is even present in the article.] 12:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I cannot help you , if you can't see it.Because the statement itself is present in one of the refs.attached in the version I provided(repeatedly vandalised by you).Any person who have normal eyes can see it.I don't know from where this CPI problem arose,infact I had offered to Gamesmasterg to prove the contrary citing source to change the statement.Still you particularly are repeatedlt vandalising article and making bogus cases on ANB,I think you need to read the article first,plus your attitudes are not acceptable.Take care.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 12:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
::Like gamesmasterg said above, pot calling kettle black. Quote the precise line, paragraph etc with cquote tag below that attests to your reference.] 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
::Reminds me of ],so no comments on your comment.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 12:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
{{cquote|The left parties, CPI and CPI (M), are ideology-based political entities and have a committed ideological cadre as their constituency. West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura are the few states where these parties are strong.}}
''Note'' ---- > Ideological cadres are not regarded as votebanks.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 11:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
::The above quote which was visible through ordinary diligence was wilfuly ignored even after repeated requests to see them .I blv this is valid case of vandalism and trolling.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 11:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

== vote ==

Does anyone who develops more real technology have more authority than anyone who doesn't produce as much? R importações C importações ] (]) 18:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:34, 13 December 2024

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconIndia: Politics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

As per Misplaced Pages conventions, all alternate spellings of the same term should lead to the same page. Hence, Vote bank, Vote Bank, and Votebank all need to point to the same page. The page Votebank politics in India is itself linked from Votebank, and hence it makes no sense to link to it from Vote Bank.Gamesmasterg9 10:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only alternative spells but articles having same subject/content too should lead to same page.That means The Title Vote bank politics in India should not exist at all.Holy | Warrior 10:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have contested that opinion, and the matter is still under resolution. You should at least wait for the final decision on that issue.Gamesmasterg9 10:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to give any argument in favour of your own supposed contested that opinion,the only matter under consideration is your behaviour.Instead of offering arguments for why you want to move the page you declared----You need not ask anybody (ref--Talk:Votebank politics in India.After moving the page many times,which was simply a reaction of having failed in AfD--You created this page with only one motive that the original page should become unnoticeable,intentionaly created "Edit-History" of the New page to make the Counter Move more difficult.Even Your wikiquote link does not work,besides you have failed to answer the questions raised in AFD and don't offer any arguments for your "Moves".These are considered Vandalism.Holy | Warrior 11:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Read this . There I have presented my reason for the move. That reason has been accepted as valid by the only third party to comment so far. Even so, I am waiting until the discussion is closed. I expect you would at least do the same.Gamesmaster G-9 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Also read your own "Move Log" with dates which offers no arguments for Your Many Many Vandal Moves.Also check the dates,The reason you are talking about was only lame excuse of having intentionaly blocked Counter Moves offered after commiting the blunder.You should have done the discussion part before doing such an act because you were well aware it was disputed.If you question my "Moves" I was simply restoring with reasons.Thanx.Holy | Warrior 11:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Having given my reasons for the move the first few times, I felt it was unnecessary to repeat them. There was no "blunder" as you so colourfully put it. I found your reasons for reversion petty and illogical, and the reasons are nonsensical.Gamesmaster G-9 11:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Read this again I found your reasons for reversion petty and illogical, and the reasons are nonsensical and see WP:NPA.Also judge your other comments made earlier on different pages in the same light.You need to build consensus in case of every dispute---The dubious means you have adopted to undo restoration seems to be done in Bad Faith and cannot be justified even if you can proove all the allegations you have put on this page or on any page against me.Holy | Warrior 11:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment on content, not on the contributor. - Your reasons were petty and illogical, not you. This does not qualify as a personal attack. I reject your accusation of bad faith. My reasons for my actions have been repeated ad nauseaum. Furthermore, from where I stand there is no need for a dispute. I took an action that nobody could have objected to, and you are the one who has shown bad faith in reverting it purely out of ego.Gamesmaster G-9 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Found my way here via WP:3O. If I'm reading the situation right, the both of you could put a little more work into assuming good faith. Not every person who disagrees with you will inherently become an enemy -- life is only that much better when we all work toward a mutual solution instead of accusing each other of all being idiots. With that in mind, I'd like to clarify that content disputes don't qualify as vandalism, per WP:VAND. To be honest, I'm not sure if I understand the objections -- if the previous article referred specifically to the situation in India, is there a reason why that shouldn't be made clear? If the India article really has to be here, why not propose a merge, instead? Luna Santin 04:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The person in question here was offered dispute resolution which he adamantly refused---Saying he don't need to ask anyone (REF:Talk:Votebank politics in India).This person does not believe in consensus.He is well aware that this article will never grow in size and content without referring to indian context (which he was told earlier too).Even then he has repeatedly moved the page abusing all the reasons given against it,just for the sake of ego satisfaction(it is amusing to see similar allegation against me).I am sure several users has been blocked under similar circumstances.Plz refer cases of Rajput and Talk:Shudra pages.Why should he be given special privilege?????Holy | Warrior 15:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem arose when the user above insisted on reverting any changes I made, even though I felt I had strong grounds for my actions. The user showed bad faith by treating all edits made to a page which he had created as personal affronts.Gamesmaster G-9 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to go through the proper channels. When my initial proposal (deletion of the page that is now Votebank politics in India) was rejected by a vote, I noted that a number of members had suggested a massive clean-up, which was what I attempted. I still believe that the decision to split into two was the correct one and, in fact, am waiting for the outcome of the vote on HolyWarrior's proposal to delete it. Finally, I was the one who called for a 3O here. As you can see, I'm perfectly willing to resolve the dispute by established procedure.Gamesmaster G-9 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

PS--->1.user above insisted on reverting any changes I made

2.treating all edits made to a page which he had created as personal affronts
3.I noted that a number of members had suggested a massive clean-up, which was what I attempted.---What were your other attempts besides moving the page and tagging NPOV???????Holy | Warrior 07:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Creating the page Votebank, which explained the concept in technical terms.Gamesmaster G-9 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Survived AfD

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Proposed Merger

I would like to state my strong objections to the proposed merger. There has already been a discussion on the issue, and the clear majority voted to Keep this article. Only one vote was received in favour of a Merge.Gamesmaster G-9 08:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Only three people voted "Keep" one of whom is this user:Gamesmasterg9 himself.One must also check the contribution history of other two.Thanx.Holy | Warrior 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would request you not to cast aspersions on the decision-making ability of other Wikipedians. Whatever you may think about it, the decision was taken to keep this article, and that decision must be respected.Gamesmaster G-9 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would rather request you not to mislead others,The statement simply means what it says.Holy | Warrior 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See this . It states that a merger may proceed if after five days, there is consensus or silence. Since there is neither, the merger should not go ahead. If you still want it merged, add it to the proposed mergers list.Gamesmaster G-9 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there is neither of the two (for which one must wait for at least 5 days,not to be confused as most),I am not merging the page,but rule does not ask for removal of tag.The issue must settle ,coz you are the only person opposing it.Thanks and don't repeat. Ikon |no-blast 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Accordng to the rules, I may express my disapproval of the merger at any time by removing the tag. This is sufficient to qualify the merger as controversial. Therefore, please do not put it back again.Gamesmaster G-9 15:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This may be treated as vandalism, your earlier behaviour too has been suggestive of WP:TROLL Trolling. Ikon |no-blast 15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Read the link carefully. Stubborn editing does not qualify as vandalism.Gamesmaster G-9 15:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Read this carefully - How to merge pages. Once you do, I hope you will stop tagging this page. I'm getting quite tired of this.Gamesmaster G-9 05:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you have read it CAREFULY.Kindly stop removing tag again.  Ikon |no-blast 10:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

References

Please point to specific statements that you consider controversial.Gamesmaster G-9 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag simply demands citations if you have,if you don't have wait for someone else to provide it.Plz don't delete it again.Holy | Warrior 14:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you need to start placing the {{fact}} templates at specific places in the entry. El_C 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Merged

The merge tag is not meant to stay indefinitely. I've merged since I saw no concrete reason expressed against it. Old article's talk page is here. El_C 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't merge it myself was; I felt that the history of Votebank Politics in India was long enought to merit a separate article. Also, given how poorly, that article was written, it might have been better to write a brief synopsis of the Indian experience with votebank politics, and add a {{main}} link to the other article.Gamesmaster G-9 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What a joke Gamesmaster was going for merger!!!!!. Ikon |no-blast 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

CPM Doesn't practice Votebank politics???

Since when? Find sources that support this claim please. CPM has intensely lobbied to legitimize madrassa "education" in West Bengal. That smacks of vote bank politics.Hkelkar 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already had this exact same discussion with User:Ikonoblast, after I tagged the old article Votebank politics in India with a {{pov}} tag. He kept removing it, and I finally gave up. Read this Talk:Votebank politics in India, particularly the last part of the page.Gamesmaster G-9 01:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Time to restart the debate, and invite RfA in case of intransigence.Hkelkar 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all both of you get well through references. Ikon |no-blast 09:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Care to explain what you just typed, preferably in grammatically and contextually correct English that is within the comprehension of poor souls like myself?Hkelkar 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Plz go through VHF on my user page.If you borrow language and idea from likes of Gamesmasterg will you ever get out of that. Ikon |no-blast 09:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Elements within CPI have protested against VOTE-BANK POLITICS IN CPI:

http://pv.cgpi.org/pv300499.htm#1

Will come up with more refs. Hkelkar 10:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you were already warned not to make personal attacks against other users.Hkelkar 09:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No I am really going to pursue the case of harssment by both of you. Ikon |no-blast 09:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Harassment by us!! Ha! Never in my life have I seen a clearer case of the pot calling the kettle black. You need to stop behaving like the article is your personal property.Gamesmaster G-9 14:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition part of article

The definition part of article is POVish without any expert citation should be removed. Ikon |no-blast 09:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well 99.99% of the article is unsourced anyways, so we all need to provide sources or a lot of the article will be removed by somebody...Hkelkar 09:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
None of my contributions are without refs,yah others may opt to pull themselves out from this article if they have nothing to contribute.Infact you sd contribute what you know well , merely folowing someone to make false cases on ANB is not the right way to choose ,infact that is what constitutes WP:STALK  Ikon |no-blast 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:OWN. You do not own this article. Anybody can contribute to wikipedia. However, the burden of presenting sources is valid, but none of the statements in the article are sourced with {{cite}} or anything. Just a few external links won;t do.Hkelkar 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't wish to spoil my time arguing with you,see WP:SNOW,BTW where has user:Densagueo disappeared. Ikon |no-blast 10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Who?Hkelkar 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Who is Densagueo, and what does he have to do with anything?Gamesmaster G-9 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

sources in the article

All sources in the article are the basic foundation on which this article is built,removal should be treated as vandalism as per WP:VAND. Ikon |no-blast 12:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Article failed verification. No mention of CPIM and their alleged repudiation of votebank politics is even present in the article.Hkelkar 12:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I cannot help you , if you can't see it.Because the statement itself is present in one of the refs.attached in the version I provided(repeatedly vandalised by you).Any person who have normal eyes can see it.I don't know from where this CPI problem arose,infact I had offered to Gamesmasterg to prove the contrary citing source to change the statement.Still you particularly are repeatedlt vandalising article and making bogus cases on ANB,I think you need to read the article first,plus your attitudes are not acceptable.Take care. Ikon |no-blast 12:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Like gamesmasterg said above, pot calling kettle black. Quote the precise line, paragraph etc with cquote tag below that attests to your reference.Hkelkar 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Reminds me of WP:SNOW,so no comments on your comment. Ikon |no-blast 12:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
“ The left parties, CPI and CPI (M), are ideology-based political entities and have a committed ideological cadre as their constituency. West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura are the few states where these parties are strong. ”

Note ---- > Ideological cadres are not regarded as votebanks. Ikon |no-blast 11:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The above quote which was visible through ordinary diligence was wilfuly ignored even after repeated requests to see them .I blv this is valid case of vandalism and trolling. Ikon |no-blast 11:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

vote

Does anyone who develops more real technology have more authority than anyone who doesn't produce as much? R importações C importações 201.150.49.108 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: