Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:48, 20 September 2006

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

This 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)

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)