| Revision as of 06:16, 20 January 2008 editPahari Sahib (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers29,547 editsm reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:41, 20 January 2008 edit undoPoeloq (talk | contribs)6,227 edits →POV pushing on People's Republic of China: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ] 06:16, 20 January 2008 (]) | ] 06:16, 20 January 2008 (]) | ||
| == POV pushing on ] == | |||
| 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. ] (]) 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:41, 20 January 2008
 Archives |
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)