The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:AdhunikaSarvajna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Disregard the comment of change in designs. Its just colour change and i assume he is re-painted with different schemes a few times. (Not a good thing to do, but whatever.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I have stayed in Mysore for several years and been to Chamundi Hill several times. There is only one statue AFAIK.really liked the snake is like finally scared of Mahishasur and is trying to get away--sarvajna (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah! Quite logical, why would they have two statues. But whats with that snake? Unsolved mystery. Maybe it was revamped. It must have escaped or fallen down. Its COG seems faulty. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I will surely comment in sometime. I am at my work place and bit busy today. I was also part of the dispute regarding the definition of Saffron Terror. There are lot of issues on one hand we say that its a form of terrorism conducted by Hindu extremists and then write that Saffron is related to Hindu Nationalism, its something like Nationalism = Extremism. --sarvajna (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Now, another matter has come up about the assertions of fact in the lead, I changed the first line to ″The phrase Saffron terror is used, especially in India, to refer to acts of terrorism that have been linked to Hindu nationalists″. I was reverted by Lowkeyvision. I put it back. Then immediately afterwards got a scrupulous comment from Qwyrxian. So I self-reverted (no more edits there). But then I looked around and noticed that this discussion doesn't seem to have an official closure. I initiated a discussion about the line on the talk please, comment there if you will, that will be helpful. Thanks :) Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)13:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
I think the destination already says everything about the link between Purohit and the blast, but I like your idea of creating a separate section also. I suggest you do that in your userspace, in that way I can contribute too unencumbered. Would that be okay? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)14:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Careful of the NPA
Calling Lowkeyvision a "habitual liar" is probably too strong, and could arguably be considered a personal attack. He could simply be misreading the DRN...and even if he's not being fully honest, it's a somewhat gray area. In any event, you could express the same point without directing a negative judgment against him, which is really what WP:CIVIL is all about. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I can strike out that part but if you take a quick look at his talk page time and again I had asked him to stop lying which he does very often. I agree I should not have used such words.Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ratnakar Kulkarni, I've read with interest your recent changes to the Amritsar page, and would like to ask you a few questions, please. You changed a section from:
FROM (my edit)
He became a celebrated hero in Britain among people with connections to the British Raj,[3] but unpopular with Winston Churchill who wished to see Dyer punished.[4]
TO (your edit)
He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj.[3] [4]
I've re-read my reference (reference 4), but cannot find anywhere the mention that most people connected with the British Raj saw Dyer as a hero. The reference (reference 4), shows that Winston Churchill lead the debate in the House of Commons, and successfully got even MPs who were pro-Dyer to vote against him. The House of Commons voted 247 to 37, a massive blow to Dyer. (see reference 4.) If Dyer was a celebrated hero with "most", why did the majority of MPs vote against Dyer, why was Dyer removed from duty, and why was the army's role re-evaluated to become less confrontational? Surely if he was a hero, he would have remained at his post in Amritsar?
If, however, you have reason to believe that the majority of Britons connected with Dyer saw him as a hero, please state your source. I was quite careful when I edited the introduction to not delete anything added by previous writers; I simply added, "but unpopular with Winston Churchill who wished to see Dyer punished." Since it was WC who lead the House of Commons debate, is it not reasonable to give him this credit? --Samcoghlan (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Samcoghlan, my intention was not to make it look like all the Britons connected with British Raj saw him as a hero. The sentence He became a celebrated hero in Britain among people with connections to the British Raj sounds like Dyer was seen as a Hero by all the Britons connected to Raj taht is the reason why I added most which I am sure is different from all (If I am wrong you are free to make the change, English is not my native language you see). I just wanted to make it clear that not all supported Dyer. WC did protest but IMO that need not be mentioned in the lead of the article. Most may be all the Indian leaders protested do you see that in the lead? NO. We need not mention everything in the Lead. If you see my edits I did not try to remove WC's response from the article. We do need to give proper space to him.Thanks--sarvajna (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ratnakar Kulkarni, thanks for the swift reply. What about this, "He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj,[3] but unpopular with most Members of Parliament[4]"
My reason for suggesting this is that 247 MPs voted to forcibly retire Dyer from duty with only 37 MPs voting to keep him. Later, a Dyer supporter (Carson) attempted to pass a motion of mild approval of Dyer, but was defeated 230 MPs (against approval), 129 MPs (pro-mild approval). This suggests that a majority of MPs was against Dyer. All this is covered in the reference 4. Please let me know what you think, I think adding what I suggest above would balance the introduction, yet keep it short. --Samcoghlan (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we can write but unpopular with most Members of Parliament. House of lords passed a resolution favorable to Dyer (AFAIK 129 in favour of Dyer with 86 against ). The house of lords passing resolution in his favor is mentioned here which is also used as a source in the article. I read here that it is also mentioned in The Lion's Share: A Short History of British Imperialism 1850-1970 and also in the The Butcher of Amritsar: General Reginald Dyer I do not have a copy of both these books.
Member of Parliament refers to elected members who sit in the House of Commons; in this case, it is quite abundandly clear that the majority of Members of Parliament were against Dyer. Nevertheless, I take your point that the Lords (from the House of Lords, not MPs) supported Dyer. I still think the statement in the introduction, "He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj," is misleading because he was clearly highly unpopular with the House of Commons - as the vote I mention clearly shows. Surely there must be some way in which a sentence can be added to the introduction to show this divide? For example, adding, "He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj,[3] he was popular with the House of Lords, but unpopular with most Members of Parliament from the House of Commons[4]"
I don't like leaving the sentence as it stands, "He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj,[3]" because it does not show the division of political opinion. I take your point on the House of Lords, but what about the two votes in the House of Commons I mentioned? The House of Commons was clearly against Dyer. --Samcoghlan (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
ps - could you add a reference for the House of Lords? The reference I've quoted only refers to the House of Commons, as it is a biography of Churchill who was in the HoC but not HoL at the time. --Samcoghlan (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added the refs however I somehow feel that the way we have added it is a bit non encyclopedic. But there is a lot of work needs to be done on the article, the crawling on hands and knees and whipping of locals was done after the incident, it should not be prelude. This source used in the article says that the crawling orders were issued on April 19th that is 6 days after the shooting. He met injured Miss Sherwood on April 19 and not to forget that when HoC forced him to retire, morning post organized a fund raiser for Dyer which can make way into British reaction.--sarvajna (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for adding reference. I did hear from one source that the crawling order was after the massacre, but the majority of the sources I've read says it was before the massacre. It would make more sense for it to have been beforehand, or the crowd would not have had a reason to protest. Also the crawling order only applied to Indian men, not Indian women (see the book: General Dyer: the Butcher of Amritsar). You can read the whole book online. It was I who added the crawling order to the page. William Manchester says the crawling order was before the massacre, and he's a respected historian who took 10 years to write the book on WSChurchill. I'll keep looking at sources of crawling order and see what the earliest sources say. I'd be surprised if William Manchester was wrong because he adds about five references per page on his book. --Samcoghlan (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, it works. Even the Butcher of Amritsar says that the crawling orders were given after the on April 19th after the shooting, looks like majority of the sources say that ( I have already provided two sources above) We need to correct it.--sarvajna (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings fellow editors! Apologies for butting into your conversation. I believe the crawling order was instigated when Dyer returned from visiting Ms Sherwood in hospital on the 19th April. It was repealed by O'Dwyer on the 24th April. With regards to the massacre, I understand there was some initial support for Dyer (but by no means a majority) including a sympathy fund to which Rudyard Kipling contributed; but this support diminshed rapidly after Dyer had been called before the Hunter commission. Niall Ferguson, in his book, Empire: How Britain made the Modern World, suggests Dyer alienated his remaining admirers when he openly and unashamedly admitted that his intention was to strike terror into the whole of the Punjab. Montague asked those MPs who defended Dyer, "Are you going to keep your hold on India through terrorism, racial humiliation, subordination and frightfulness?"
Hope that's of some help (or at least interest) to you both. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your inputs, now we need to make a lot of changes to the article. Need to edit prelude and the massacre --sarvajna (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ykraps for joining the discussion. Could you add that to the Introduction? I don't have the book you have, and would be glad to see Dyer's popularity portrayed accurately. The recent BBC coverage suggested Dyer became a full-time hero in England, but when I read earlier sources (such as the sources you quote), it seems reaction to him was mixed - even within the army, many were against the crawling order and saw it as extremist nonsense and "un-British". For some strange reason I don't understand, recent news coverage does not mention this. Could you add the reference to show Dyer's diminishing popularity after Hunter? --Samcoghlan (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I would request both of you to be very considerate when you add these stuff. one. the article is not about dyer and two. the majority of the sources are in agreement that he was considered a Hero in England.--sarvajna (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Ratnakar Kulkarni, I have been very considerate, and have not undone any of your edits without first discussing it with you on your talk page. You, however, have undone my edits without discussing it first with me. As to "majority of sources" which sources are you referring to? In my experience, "new" sources, such as internet pages are unreliable because they do not have footnotes, and often do not quote their sources. Most, but not all, books do quote sources. If you look at the Times of the 9th July 1920 (the day after Churchill's speech in parliament), you'll see that the Times was completely against Dyer. If, however, you wish to only look at the Morning Post then I agree that you'll come to the conclusion that the whole of England loved Dyer. The book, "The Butcher of Amritsar" that I have quoted clearly shows that Dyer's crawling order was unpopular within most of the British army in Amritsar, and popular only with a few. But if you wish to overlook that, then you are being incredibly insensitive to the British who, mostly, deplored Dyer and wished to see him removed at once for the awful atrocities committed against India. If you wish to believe all the British loved him, that is your choice and I cannot help you. --Samcoghlan (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No need for condescension Mr.Samcoghlan, I am not sure which was the edit of yours that I have undone, if you are speaking about removal of sentence from the lead that mentioned WC, I thought I had already given a very fair explanation in the very first reply. So do not accuse me of doing something wrong. I only requested you to be considerate when you make edits not accuse you of making wrong edits. Please read Wikipedia:AGF. I can very much give you the list of sources that I see but I am on short of time now (will provide it in a day or two). Also internet pages from reliable news sources which are otherwise considered reliable on Wiki are being considered unreliable by you.--sarvajna (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
In ALL kindness, you removed the sentence I added, "but unpopular with Winston Churchill who wished to see Dyer punished," and you gave the reason, "removing the explicit mention of Churchill, looks like his hagiography". I'd added the sentence to show British public opinion was split. In fact, it was not split evenly: it was strongly anti-Dyer, and the House of Commons voted to support Churchill and the Government against Dyer. They voted 247 to 37. The majority of Britons was against Dyer. We see him like a crazy man who needed removing. Please do not call me condescending for adding balance. I have added British mistakes, such as the crawling order. I am referring this talk page to a Wiki editor. --Samcoghlan (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Just like mentioned about I have already given a very fair explanation to my edits regarding removal of WC from the lead. Sure please go ahead and refer this talk page to anyone you want, I had already requested on your talk page that we should start a discussion on the article's talk page.--sarvajna (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. Just a few points (since I was asked on my talk page):
It looks like you guys are sorting things out, but please remember that this can be an emotive topic, so extra care to understand and appreciate other viewpoints should be made. If things do get a little heated, it's fine to sleep on a response.
I'm nervous about words like "most". Such qualifiers need support from reliable sources. If in doubt, why try to interpret the source? Why not create a quote box and display the original text from the source? That way you are giving the reader the tools to make up their own mind.
Discussions like this should be on the article's talk page because you are discussing content (not behaviour). On the article's talk page other interested readers can have input, and there is an obvious permanent record which can be referenced if the topic re-emerges in the years to come.
Also:
BBC says:
"There have been two major theories about the early development of early south Asian traditions. The Aryan migration thesis that the Indus Valley groups calling themselves 'Aryans' (noble ones) migrated into the sub-continent and became the dominant cultural force. Hinduism, on this view, derives from their religion recorded in the Veda along with elements of the indigenous traditions they encountered. The cultural transformation thesis that Aryan culture is a development of the Indus Valley culture. On this view there were no Aryan migrations (or invasion) and the Indus valley culture was an Aryan or vedic culture."
I won't be reverting you but there is in fact no consensus either way. Consensus is not a vote and OBC is not caste (we can't mention Ganchi/Teli for that reason, btw). I think the person who added this is the same person whose efforts I was trying to fix last time round when you deleted the stuff completely, but I really cannot be bothered digging into it right now. You might want to let them know of the talk page discussion. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I have informed that editor twice, yesterday and today, check User_talk:Gzyo. I am aware that Consensus is not a vote and honestly I am against this whole self identification thing, I just don't want Modi to be made an exception. I can bet that I know more about OBC not being a caste than you do (I am just not interested in caste based articles). When you call someone a OBC means you are coming very close to mention his caste.I also think your edits were more harmful as you were writing Modi has claimed that he is a OBC or something like that which is not correct, atleast according to the two sources that you presented. --sarvajna (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"When you call someone a OBC means you are coming very close to mention his caste". Yes, somewhere within 1,000 or so possibilities, including many communities that are not castes at all. That's very close ;). - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Modi, again
Yet again you have removed stuff from Modi when the problem was the placement, not the content. Please can you consider moving rather than removing. It is beginning to look like some form of censorship and I am sure that is not what you intend. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not have any intention of censorship at all, it was added by an editor Manus [3] and he was reverted by another editor Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington which I agreed because the political stance of BJP and L.K Advani was completely undue there. All this happened even before I reverted Indopug. I have informed Indopug about the same.--sarvajna (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I am backing off Modi for a few days because it is getting a bit toxic, even though I am trying to keep my head down, improve the small things and discuss the potentially big things. I don't want to be around when an admin and an ex-admin are battling it out, especially when I have no particular opinion about the issue that is being battled. I've just added something about electricity but now realise that it should probably be in the preceding section, as perhaps also should the irrigation-related stuff that already existed. I'll have to let someone else move as appropriate. I appreciate your many responses to my queries on the talk page and will pick up on things when things have calmed down a bit, if that's ok with you? - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, my good intentions did not last very long, did they? I may try again, depending upon what Nick's response to my last message may be. He is clearly more experienced with BLPs than me. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what to say, honestly, we both have serious differences but I really liked a lot of improvement that you have done on that page if not all. I will try to take care of that electricity thing if not already taken care.I hope things will be ok, but hey you will be having the page on your watchlist, drop by if you feel that things are going terribly wrong.-sarvajna (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thatcher
We learnt during the deletion of "Death of Bal Thackeray" that natural deaths of politicians do not warrant a separate article even though they may be well covered in the media. Will you please AfD "Death of M. Thatcher" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thats kinda right! There is no reason to have separate article just because the British press has a big mouth. But i suggest waiting till the funeral is finally over (17th Apr). Who knows, Harry Potter might visit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I got the expected answers and to be honest I agree with them, Death of Thatcher needs to be covered in a seperate article. It is unfortunate that we need to deal with people like Sitush who thinks that everything we add is a POV. Nothing much can be done about the deleted article, the deletion review says that deletion review should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted .--sarvajna (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your last statement. Personally I believe that no article should be solely dedicated to funeral and death of a subject. I am not a fan of prejudicial treatment either. With that said, at times (usually when the shapes of policies become blurry and they start to seem inconsistently applied) I myself become unsure as to who is actually biased, is it me or the person accusing me and everybody supporting my stance? Sitush and I have had our fair share of tiffs in an AFD. But wikipedia is not about winning. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've only just seen this. I would not have supported a separate article for Thatcher's death but, equally, I am so prejudiced against her that it probably was just as well I didn't say anything. There is a reason why I do not go near some articles! I'm not aware of disagreements at AfD between me and Mrt3366 but, hey, if they happened then presumably consensus got its way. My record at AfD is not spectacular - there is a Toolserver gadget that analyses AfD outcomes versus what a particular user !voted for but Toolserver seems not to be working at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Read what DS wrote, "actions carried out by these nationalist bigoted assholes is nothing but pure violence" notice the implicit assumption here as well as in the article that Hindu nationalists are the only ones who are violent against Christians when I can virtually guarantee that it is not the case, actually it is far from reality.
Before I edited the page there was not a single freaking mention of hand chopping incident in Kerala by Islamist or anything about the death-threats received by K.K. Alavi from Islamist groups. (google it up or click this) Take this for example, likely as it is, it has not yet become violent. S Goerge said, "is a clear case of discrimination against the Christian faith and shows the double standards with which our minority is treated." should the current article not allow this to be included?
BTW did you know that an Islamic mob tried to lynch 12 Christian tourists The Global Council of Indian Christians (GCIC) condemns the increasing persecution in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The incident was triggered by a photo published on the Facebook page Gulmarg News. The current article is heavily biased against Hindus who are actually most tolerant in India.
Currently the page doesn't allow for inclusion of Islamic Intolerance against Christians in India. Those cases are more overwhelming in number but they don't necessarily end up in violence because of our relatively neutral law-enforcement. Besides, why do we need two different articles talking about incidents that could be adequately dealt with in one? Now, I could create a page for Anti-Christian intolerance in India or Persecution of Christians in India (as per the suggestions there) but it will almost inevitably be AFDed as a coat-rack and with good reason.
Hi MrT, I had not seen DS's comment and I agree that anti-Christan violence is not mostly by the Sangh activists, in the state of Kerala there are a lot of Muslim-Christian clashes reported, however that would not mean we actually rename the article to "Persecution of ... in India",I still do not understand your logic about why we should rename the article to Persecution. -sarvajna (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Read what I wrote in the 3rd and 4th paragraph here. Could you suggest a better name that allows inclusion of things more than just violence? I would highly appreciate that. I tried renaming it to Anti-Christian intolerance in India or Anti-Christian sentiments in India but all in vain (DS reverted me). As you can see, I am not particular about the names, I just want to include things that are not exactly violent yet are examples of radical extremism that way it would make way for an unbiased article. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)10:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There is something called THE KARNATAKA TAX ON ENTRY OF GOODS ACT, 1979 I think there were changes to this with some KARNATAKA VAT thing, I have found these two PDFs THE KARNATAKA TAX ON ENTRY OF GOODS ACT, 1979 and this which would not be very helpful I think. I can also call up my friend who is a IRS officer but not sure how much he would know about state taxes -sarvajna (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I found another book ref that says that octroi is abolished from K'taka from 1979 and was replaced with another state entry tax. This is the one you have attached above. Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act also in its objective states "Octroic is being abolished in the State, as it was causing great hardship to transport operations and to trading community". (pg 3 of the pdf). So its not octroi for sure. But i think this law is still applicable. THE KARNATAKA TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2012 has a amendment mentioned to this law of 1979 and the amendment is not regarding VAT. Also the 2011 amendment is not concerned with VAT. But we can't be sure if prior amendments spoke of this. Gujarat seems to have changed from octroi to VAT in 2007. Btw, i hope you got that this is all about the new LBT article. We need to include tax status of all states in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes I got that point, I just spoke to my friend, even he informed me that octroi was abolished in karnataka, he aslo made a point that the entry of goods within the state is not taxable, say I get the goods from Belgavi to Bengaluru it would not be taxed all we need to do is to pay the state sales tax or something. Having said that I will try to find sources I know I have said this at many places, I am bit busy these days or atleast inform you on what kind of taxes are applied. -sarvajna (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I sure you can count but just in case you're caught up in the heat of the moment, it is probably best not to revert any more at the Modi article for a while ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
No big deal. Despite what some may think, I don't particularly want to see anyone blocked when it can be avoided. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The chat was scheduled to start at 20:00 IST, but began 45 minutes late because of the reported crash of Google+ due to the response.(source Dinakaran, R. (1 September 2012). "Modi chats live on Google Plus Hangout". Business Line. Chennai. Retrieved 3 September 2012.)
(My emphasis)
The source says:
It was all over Twitter and Facebook. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi would be answering questions - live - through Google Plus’ Hangout. The time was 8 p.m (August 31, Friday).
But by the time the event began, it was well over 8.45 p.m. The reason, the response was so much that Google Plus reportedly crashed.
He thinks it is a PR stunt and that it is just "rubbish", just like that. The irony is he admits here that he didn't search for other sources: [5]
"Narendra Modi's live chat through Google+ Hangout attracted a huge traffic of netizens, which led to crash of the Google+ server for a few minutes."
″the online session was disrupted for few minutes after the Google server cashed due to huge traffic.″
etc. maybe these sources are all rubbish in his opinion which is quite drastically different than mine, we should follow the sources, shouldn't we?
Would you be so kind as to restore this, I have been reverted several times, you may comment about it here too. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)11:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If google server crashed because of Modi's hangout event then it should be mentioned and about the removal of source I did not understand the concern, so are you saying that we should delete samy-live instead of DNA. I think we can do that.-sarvajna (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in - this was my original fix, which Mrt then reverted and thus caused me to write the "unnecessary, period" edit summary. I have no problem with a single source being used and deleted the DNA one because it does not actually seem to mention 1995. If someone wants to replace samay-live with something else that does mention 1995 then that is fine by me ... but we do not need two sources for the statement. I did try to explain this on the article talk but just got a knee-jerk reaction. Hope this clears things up. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The DNA source does say,
"Narendra Modi today scored an unprecedented hat-trick, catapulting the BJP to power in Gujarat for the third consecutive time." (My emphasis)
That means the source is indeed corroborating the assertion. First deleting the source and then someone will ask where are the sources? What is your actual problem with the sources? Two sources for any claim is acceptable, at least it is not unacceptable. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)07:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Narendra Modi
Dear Mr Kulkarni,
It is my belief that with respect to the Gujarat model of development, views of both proponents and critics must be given. I refuse to accept your suggestion of some kind of "bargaining" to the effect that some criticism of Modi will be allowed followed by a one sided praise for Gujarat model of development. Prima facie it is clearly a violation of Wikipedia rules to do or expect this kind of bargaining. I will also point out that the criticism of the Gujarat model of development is based on facts and data and not on rhetoric (which in fact is how the article praising the Gujarat model of development comes across). Unless you accept the inclusion of the statement and reference I gave criticizing the Gujarat model of development which immediately followed the statement and reference praising the Gujarat model of development, I intend to go for Dispute Resolution. I will point out that I have no objection to you giving more references to articles praising the Gujarat model of development just as I also may give more references critical of the Gujarat model of development). Soham321 (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that the criticism of the Gujarat model of development is based on facts(as noted in the op-eds), like I said there was a discussion in past also there is a discussion currently going on, I wonder why you want to stay away from the discussion on the talk page. If you check other BLPs which have a FA or GA status you will know how the lead of the article is written. I don't want to write that Gujarat development model is great or that he was criticised for 2002 violence in the Lead. We can have that in the body but there is lot going on in the article now, you may as well start a discussion on the talk page where everyone else can give their inputs. -sarvajna (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no question of any compromise on this issue on my part for the simple reason that every WP article is obliged to include all (or as many as possible) perspectives on a controversial issue. Others may have compromised or bargained on this issue, but I will not. What you are trying to is to sweep under the carpet the criticism of the Gujarat model of development on the ground of some kind of bargaining or compromise and this is completely violative of Wikipedia rules to my mind. As i mentioned earlier you are free to give even more references to articles praising the Gujarat model of development but you cannot possibly stop someone from giving a reference(s) to criticism of the same model. Since we both seem to have made up our minds on this issue, I will be taking this issue for Dispute Resolution. Will request you not to delete these posts until the matter is resolved out of courtesy for the Dispute Resolution team who will be reading these posts of ours.Soham321 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlike you, I am not in a habit of deleting my talk page entries, you are free to take the matter to anywhere you want. No one wants to sweep anything under the carpet, a lot of editors are putting a lot of efforts in improving the article. It would be better if you can inculde everyone on the article. I do not want to consider this as a dispute just between you and myself. -sarvajna (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to invite all those who you think would take your side on this issue for the Dispute Resolution. Please let me know how I should do this. Soham321 (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The easiest way to do that will be to discuss on the talk page or may be you can continue it here where you can get the opinion of all the editors involved. -sarvajna (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, it seems like the personal opinion of "LYLA BAVADAM" not sure how reliable that is. Secondly, that is talking about Social development of Gujarat, which has little to do with Modi as a person. Every criticism is not due to be included just because it is a criticism you like. I would like to quote Nick:
″You will be able to find a stream of criticism aimed against [Modi] for more or less everything he does. Same is true for other public and prominent individuals in the world whose (featured or good) biographical articles we should probably be using as a standard for writing other biographical articles on individuals involved in politics such as – Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and even Adolf Hitler (though there is no comparison here). You will find that all of these individuals have been controversial at some point in their political career or are still controversial. Yet you will not find refutation of each and every policy opinion that they may have expressed or every action that they may have taken.″
"There is no question of any compromise on this issue on my part for the simple reason that every WP article is obliged to include all (or as many as possible) perspectives on a controversial issue. Others may have compromised or bargained on this issue, but I will not." - you're needlessly being obstinate. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)10:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ratnakar, kindly do not post comments in the voting section ("Proposal"), if you want to prolong that conversation (which I don't see going anywhere), then shift it to the "Further discussion" section created specifically for this purpose. To me it seems, Sitush is a master of creating clutter and filibustering and it would be prudent not to encourage him further, because then the proposal won't have much input from the neutral outsiders(most of whom will likely dread clutter and spiral conversations). Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)11:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
May I remark that the Margaret Tatcher article also talks in the lead about the economic progress, and how it affected her popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcbelaD (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This is a non administrator notification, and will be logged as such on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
Ok now I see that I am also on somekind of list, so why just us why not Sitush and most importantly why Yogesh, DS, did you even check Yogesh's contribution, he has not at all been active also why not maunus and his IP? -sarvajna (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
That is true, but that stance is all over the article, without a proper citation (I think so) - not a maunus edit though. And that's the reason he was pushing for the same stance in the NM page too. Some one needs to semi protect these pages, DS seems to be stirring another whirlwind in his sandbox... so I don't know whats going to happen... already fed up of this Amit (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Initially the storm was limited to NM page but now it has spread over most of the related articles, even I am fed up and I think everyone else is fed up looking at the activity on NM's page. -sarvajna (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Aurorion's chicanery is really irritating me. Is there a policy for flat-out dishonest appraisal of the validity of a proposal? Read this essay, Consensus. Hopefully you'll see what is going on. Although we at Wikipedia like to coax ourselves into believing a false sense of hope that Wikipedia is not a ″majority rule″, unfortunately expectations don't come true by lying to ourselves perennially. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)08:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
″Regarding Ramchandran's report, the SIT has said the amicus curie had "erred" by relying solely on the statements given by Bhatt and concluding that certain offences can be made out against Modi. [..] The SIT has demolished all allegations raised in Ramchandran's report submitted to the court here. "The amicus curiae did not allege any conspiracy or abetment on the part of chief minister," the SIT report noted.″(added emphases)
I have informed the same thing on the talk page, the SC asked AC to submit a report and the asked SIT to examine ACs objection and then SIT rejected the AC report because of the many reasons like the one you provided above, but Aurorion thinks that because AC report is an official report we should mention it. I do not understand that, we can have an article about SIT and there every detail can be mentioned but not on a BLP. -sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It was already speedy deleted right? Also I see that DS created a category with the same name which is more redundant.-sarvajna (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Should we XfD it? I think this sort of distortion is not acceptable, it cherry-picks sources which call the random incidents as "pogroms" and omits those which deal with the cause and aftermath. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)11:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I initially thought about it but I do not think we can do that although I am not sure, if it is possible then we we should do it.Let us do it, will you nominate or shall I do it -sarvajna (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Waaaait. I think we should first solidify our case against the article and then we might go in with the proposal. I am dealing with a lot of heat at the moment, so I would prefer if you did it, as it seems you have a better rapport with most of the guys we usually interact with. DS called me a "nationalist prick" and then argued on my talk that my "mind is closed" and hinted that I resist the truth in some weird way. It pretty much sums what my usual opponents think of me, I am just too apprehensive about what other allegations could be hurled against me if I nominate the page. It may become a platform to bash me. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
In the RSS article should the very first line categorize it as a "paramilitary" organization based on this? Should that not be left for the body per WP:UNDUE and Relative emphasis? Where was it established that RSS is essentially a paramilitary organization? [8],[9] ← These tertiary entries categorize it as "an all-male organization begun in 1925 to foster nationalism in India's Hindus" It is a Hindu nationalist group first. The connotation of the term paramilitary is subjective, depending on what is considered similar to a military force, and what status a force is considered to have. We should work towards something like its Britannica entry or any other tertiary source. It does mention paramilitary training but as a part of a drill to unify Hindus of all castes and classes.
"The RSS presents itself as a cultural, not a political, organization that nevertheless advocates a Hindu nationalistic agenda under the banner of hindutva, or “Hindu-ness.” The group is structured hierarchically under the guidance of a national leader, while regional leaders are charged with overseeing the local branches. A major emphasis is placed on dedication and discipline, both mental and physical, as a means to restore strength, valor, and courage in Hindu youth and to foster unity among Hindus of all castes and classes. Paramilitary training and daily exercise and drills are part of this discipline."
IMHO, to ignore all that and rashly label it as a traditional paramilitary organization is unfair. After becoming a part of Wikipedia, I truly realized at what level does propaganda operate. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, but there would be a lot of opposition to the changes, i remember being involved in a dispute where an editor wanted to call RSS a terrorist organisation using a source which did not even call RSS a terrorist organisation.-sarvajna (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you are receiving this message because your name is listed at Wikipedia:INCOTM/Members, where people indicate their interest in the India Project Collaboration of the Month (INCOTM).
DS is edit warring on multiple venues and persistently pushing hideous, and occasionally insidious, POVs as well. He is going on adding unhelpful tags to pages simply because the discussion didn't yield the result he wanted[10][11], but not when it's against a version he likes[12]. The list of articles are (at least):
I would also suggest that MrT is quite fortunate to not have been blocked himself, based on the overall circumstances - and the blocks likely would have matched in length. As much as I'm not 100% happy with RP's unblock, it appears to be the "lesser of 2 weevils" right now - and further provocation/similar actions by either party will not end well (emphasis mine)
Then DS left some condescending and fairly provocative, pugnacious comments (my "mind is closed", that he "was entirely correct in [his] previous assessment of" me, I will need luck in future, that sort of thing) on my talk I really had to forcefully make him stop.[13]
He got very upset when his move request from 2002 Gujarat violence to Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002 failed. So he indignantly created Anti-Muslim pogroms in India with cherry-picked sources that suit his cause while omitting other-sides of the argument. He is still defending everything he is doing. There is no sign of remorse, amicability about anything he does these-days. The whole environment has been turned upside down because of his unilateral and redundant disruptive edits and remarks.
Fut.Perf wrote on talk of Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, [14]
"If this had been written by a newbie, one might consider it a one-off mistake. But it's been written by an active, long-term contributor with a months-long involvement in POV fights. From such a contributor, this is inexcusable. It deserves a ban." (emphasis mine)
He was already very clearly warned by Fut.Perf here.
″That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE.″ (emphasis mine)
But still he ignored the warning and carried on with his POV pushing. Nothing seems to be enough to calm him down.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2002 Gujarat violence. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
DS, you are indulging in needless edit warring, not just on Gujarat 2002 article but also on Godhra article, I paste the warning notice on the talk pages very rarely. Let it be even 2RR, it was an edit war.-sarvajna (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I did not indulge in any addition of disputed content to the article, on the other had I tried to stop an editor from adding undue material to the lead which were not even present in the body, I was tricked into 3RR violation because an editor tried to add different but similar material into the lead after I reverted them.Like I said on 3RRN, I only tried to revert un-discussed changes to the lead sarvajna (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Per your email to me, I have reduced the block to time served based on assurances of future good behavior. You won't be so fortunate if you transgress again so please behave. SpartazHumbug!01:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I just spoke a friend who hails from that region, he said that the place does exists and the english spelling might vary from kudkaadi to Kudkadi to Kudkady, give me sometime, when I reach home I can atleast search in some regional newspapers. -sarvajna (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, AdhunikaSarvajna. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I am canvassing as per WP:CANVASS. "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.". Just notified him because he has much experience in such nominations, often comments on mine too. Faizan15:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I will wait for some more comments there, I feel that there should be some explicit mention that it was Jinnah's residence, I don't think many western editors might understand the term Quaid-e-Azam -sarvajna (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
This is an archive of past discussions with User:AdhunikaSarvajna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.jpg)
