Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:16, 28 July 2008

Welcome!

Archive 1: February 2006 - May 2006 ; Archive2 : June 2006 - July 2006 ; Archive3 : Aug 1st,2006 - Aug 9th,2006 ; Archive4 : Aug 10th 2006 - Aug 31st 2006; Archive5 : Sept 1st 2006 - Sept 12th 2006; Archive6 : Sept 13th -Nov 6th; Archive7 : Nov 7th - Dec 4th; Archive8 : Dec 5th 2006 - 21st October 2007; Archive9 :Till Feb 29th 2008; Archive10 :Till April 15th 2008; Archive11 :Till June 20th 2008

Romila Thapar

Could you explain why Sreedharan's analysis of Thapar's historical works is something work mentioning in this article? Is Sreedharan a scholar of sorts? In its current state, Sreedharan's analysis is the first mention of suspected Marxist overtones in Thapar's writing. As an outside observer, I fail to see what's special regarding the Marxist classification of Thapar. Could you also explain what the basis of Sreedharan's analysis was? This is what I mean by "no context". It's just a statement with no analysis or explanation provided in the surrounding text. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

48 hours for violation of revert parole. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

According to arb-revert restriction , "1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page .

Please see the bolded portion. I was restoring text which was getting deleted due to vandalistic edits.Please see the history of Romila Thapar article. Please see the talk page where I have explained the edits .-Bharatveer (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can see is that you still fail to understand what vandalism actually is. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". This removal were( as a matter of fact, my edit is blanked out now )done by a group of experienced WP editors to "own' this particular page. Please seeMisplaced Pages:Ownership of articles.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to indicate that this was a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the article. For all I know, the removal was done properly. Furthermore, I only saw the changes to the page through my watchlist. I'm not doing anything to "own" this article. It is your responsibility to engage in discussion instead of reverting a user first. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you will see the talk page, you will understand who were doing WP:OWN.Please note this .-Bharatveer (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no ownership issues on the article talk page. You failed to establish a context for the Marxist label and Sreedharan failed to substantiate his claim that Thapar is a Marxist historian. Just stating these obvious facts doesn't indicate any ownership of the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see this .I had included this edit under a heading"School of thought and political views".But this was first deleted by User:Doldrums. Reason told :Shreedharan is not speakingabout her "school of thought" and "political views. Comment: No where in the edit , it is mentioned that sreedharan is speaking about her school of thought. I re-added the edit without the heading again, which you deleted on 29th June 2008 saying This bit of info establishes no context, why do we care what sreedharan did??. Firstly one of the group editor's edits out the heading portion, then another comes and removes the portion altogether, saying it is just a comment without any context.(SEE Multiple owners in WP:OWN).

I will request you to see the talk page of Romila Thapar to read the discussion i had with "page owners" User:Akhilleus,User:Doldrums and others. I explained my edit clearly on 24th June 2008 specifying that the reference cited was from a book previously cited in the article. User:Akhilleus responded by saying that "It's a problem to call Thapar a Marxist when she has said that she isn't, and that she believes the label is abusive". I explained that the edit does not call thapar a marxist anywhere, it is merely reporting that in the book, her historical works are mentioned under the "marxist phase" of Indian history writing. Now User:Akhilleus gets worried, he suddenly feels that Sreedharan is a transit engineer who cannot be a mainstream scholar.It does not matter to User:Akhilleus that this scholar's work was used previously in the article to support thapar's work on ancient india. As soon as I pointed out sreedharan's academic credentials (using online sources) to User:Akhilleus, User:Doldrums came in and deleted the entire edit. I then asked for admin intervention. User:Doldrums wanted me to go to WP:HIST instead of making further edits. (please see shades of WP:OWN here). Please see this edit by user User:Dance With The Devil ], after which he deleted the referenced portion. Finally User:Akhilleus comes and justifies his removal of the reference saying that its not"informative" enough. Now you say if this is not a case of WP:OWN, then what is???-Bharatveer (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)-Bharatveer (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Himmler

was this removal of content deliberate? if so, i hardly need remind you that an explanation is needed. Doldrums (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Vikramaditya

Vikramaditya

What is the original meaning of the Sanskrit term Vikramaditya? Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

atiyah

I have posted to the RS notice board. Perusnarpk (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bharatveer. Thanks for contributing to the RS notice board. However, I feel that for now, we should keep the attention focused on the petition. I would really like an answer to that question. SSV is also a strong source, but I feel that if we want to discuss that we should create a separate section in the RS notice board. Otherwise, people take the opportunity to talk about SSV and ignore the question about the petition. thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Attacks in the article Raju - Atiyah Case

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Raju - Atiyah Case. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Florentino floro (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for editing my user page. I deeply understand, and I was not aware at that time of my post, of the different opinions. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked pending explanation

Hello,

A CheckUser discovered that you were editing via a proxy based system (using a VPN server, to be exact) to give the appearance that you were editing from a different location. A checkuser has blocked the proxy, and hopefully that will be the end to it. Pending an explanation of why you're using a proxy-based system to edit on Misplaced Pages, you will remain blocked. Please do not use proxies to edit Misplaced Pages, as in these circumstances it may be considered as avoidance of scrutiny. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock

User Nishkid64 has blocked me citing frivolous reasons. I have been editing WP using the same settings for at least 2 years and I have always used my registered name for editing WP. I request user Nishkid to explain his block . If it is due to this edit ( See , this edit is definitely not personal attack as user:fowler & user:mathsci alleges as this is written from a neutral point of view as well as WP:RS. I request neutral WP admins to look into this.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I already explained my block above. You were found to have been editing under a VPN server (which equates almost to a closed proxy). The question is why you're using this server to throw off your real editing location. If you explain properly, instead of claiming that this was a frivolous block (which had been OK'ed by the Checkuser and another administrator), then you will be unblocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I told you before, I have always been editing WP using these settings( 95% of my edits). I have always edited using my registered name. I have never claimed anywhere in WP that I am editing WP from India .( now dont give me the excuse that my userpage says "lives in india"). This edit diff ( would show that I have never tried to "throw off" my real editing location. -Bharatveer (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)