| Revision as of 13:59, 23 June 2007 view sourceEl elan (talk | contribs)45 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:29, 23 June 2007 view source Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled18,508 editsm Reverted edits by El elan (talk) to last revision by HornpleaseNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| *I will be in WikiBreak soon. I have seen that discussion. But I expect it to stay as <s>allegation of</s> fake encounter has become (to Modi) what ] is to ] or ] is to ]. ] 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock|I am on a wikibreak and saw today that I have been marked as a "sock puppet of Kuntan". I can only say I am not a "sock puppet of Kuntan" as no other reason has been given for my block.}} | |||
Revision as of 14:29, 23 June 2007
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. Rama's arrow (3:16) 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 WP:NPOV. I don't find accusations on "Dalit Buddhists" to be less or more acceptable than the police. Rama's arrow (3:16) 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think I have ansered it here. Nothing is more or less acceptable. What you removed as controversial can be sourced easily and what you inserted is a POV. El elan 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. Rama's arrow (3:16) 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.El elan 06:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Narendra Modi
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. Hornplease 09:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)