Revision as of 09:47, 26 July 2006 editShiva's Trident (talk | contribs)2,622 edits →Vandalism of []← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:05, 26 July 2006 edit undoShiva's Trident (talk | contribs)2,622 edits →Vandalism of []Next edit → | ||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
{{blatantvandal}} | {{blatantvandal}} | ||
This will be your final warning. Do not cite POV editorial websites that have no journalistic credibility. I know the countercurrents link well. They have anti-semitic and anti-Hindu content. If I report you for posting anti-semitic content you will be banned. Misplaced Pages admins take a very dim view of such things. Also, make personal attacks again and I'll report you. Violate 3RR and I'll report you.] 09:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | This will be your final warning. Do not cite POV editorial websites that have no journalistic credibility. I know the countercurrents link well. They have anti-semitic and anti-Hindu content. If I report you for posting anti-semitic content you will be banned. Misplaced Pages admins take a very dim view of such things. Also, make personal attacks again and I'll report you. Violate 3RR and I'll report you.] 09:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
:Countercurrents denounces BBC as 'Zionist Propaganda' and engages in polemical attacks on Israel . Several of these articles satisfy the criteria for ] as defined by the B'Naii B'Rith organization. Websites that quote antisemitic content cannot be regarded as reliable journalistic references since they have an ethnic bias.] 10:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:05, 26 July 2006
Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Rama's Arrow 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Re:Iqbal
Hi - I'm sorry but the text you removed was cited from a reliable source. It will have to stay.
You are also advised never to remove text like that, or revert your own talkpage, because it is WP:VANDALISM. Rama's Arrow 18:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not about conflicts between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. You were placing flat accusations against religious communities. Even with a reference, that does not belong in a biography of Allama Iqbal. Rama's Arrow 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- You may also be advised to read WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:NPA. Rama's Arrow 19:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, what about the line I added; I think it is not only entirely relevant, but essential. Without it, uninformed readers will get a view that is out of context. Let's discuss this issue on the talk page with civility. --Disinterested 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- You placed an accusation against Sikhs, Hindus. The article is a biography of Iqbal - while his views, religious and political are up for criticism, the wider conflicts between religious communities has no place there. --Disinterested 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Iqbal is neither being maligned nor glorified. Rama's Arrow 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have genuine disagreements with your assessment. These 'critics' say that Iqbal's idea of partition was flawed and point to sporadic violence b/w Muslims as proof. To put that into context, it is ESSENTIAL to compare what would have been the case if Pakistan had not been created. India has more Muslims than Pakistan and is the best comparison in that regard. It is not in anyway biased or irrelevant to point out that this sort of violence is more prevalent in India; hence giving the uninformed reader an ACCURATE view of the argument.--Disinterested 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Iqbal is neither being maligned nor glorified. Rama's Arrow 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I ask that this conversation be continued on the Iqbal talk page where other members can see it and discuss it.
- I'm sorry, but you do not understand WP:NPOV. What would have happened is pure conjecture and not fact, and hardly encyclopedic. Nobody is trying to prove or disprove Iqbal - the article merely speaks of his views, and the criticism of his views. Rama's Arrow 19:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Again, you're failing to see an obvious point. This is not conjecture in anyway. Let's consider my argument: FACT: India has more Muslims than Pakistan. FACT: sectarian violence between Muslims and Hindus is much worse in India than within Muslims in Pakistan. This is not conjecture in any way, these are facts. I request that you yourself use facts. If you think that my statement is conjecture, then you should remove the critics' statement as well; who is to say that violence is because of religious differences and not because of evil, corrupt people? I believe that there are two options here: remove both statements or keep both. --Disinterested 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you do not understand WP:NPOV. What would have happened is pure conjecture and not fact, and hardly encyclopedic. Nobody is trying to prove or disprove Iqbal - the article merely speaks of his views, and the criticism of his views. Rama's Arrow 19:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Even if I accept your groundless and biased view of violence in India, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH IQBAL? Rama's Arrow 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- First, my claims are not groundless, please read the news and it will become obvious. It is certainly not biased, since I myself said that violence of a similar pattern exists in Pakistan albeit very less than in India. Second, it is entirely relevant to Iqbal's article only because of the critics' assertions that his ideas were 'flawed.' If you want to keep that criticism, you should also be prepared to add a response that merely puts that criticism into current context.
Iqbal
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. deeptrivia (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, Disinterested. You are free to have a discussion. You are encouraged to use the talk page for it, and all constructive comments/suggestions are highly appreciated. Rama's Arrow had already realised that he had reverted the article many times, and I thought it would be helpful to remind you about the 3RR rule before you cross the threshold number of reverts, which could have been problematic for you. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but...
- I'm sorry if I was rude to you, but the fact is that your impression about violence in India is WP:POV. It is not a fact. And it is not relevant to Iqbal's contention about Muslim political future. Rama's Arrow 19:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Request for assistance from Alabamaboy
Thanks for asking me to mediate with regards to the Muhammad Iqbal article but I'm on vacation right now and have only limited internet access. As such, I must politely decline. However, if there are any issues I can help with in the future please do contact me. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant intrusions by other users
- The statement is not POV, because it is a critical analysis of Iqbal's views. Its not a commentary on the religious situation in Pakistan or India, and Iqbal's biography is not a place for discussing religious issues in Pakistan or India. Misplaced Pages is not responsible for protecting people's feelings, and its important to make the criticism as lucid as praise, or else it is not NPOV.
- Gandhi's biography includes criticism about his comments on Jews and Kaffirs. Jinnah's bio talks about the suggestion that Jinnah maybe did not really want partition. So why should we remove a critical analysis of Iqbal's views? This Fire Burns Always 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- 'The fire always Burns', this message was not intended for you and I seriously do not want to start another competition. I think we can wait until the other person has more time.--Disinterested 06:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this message does concern me - nothing is exclusive or private on WP - becoz it is about an article I wrote and raised to FA status. This issue is not anything new, and I'm simply helping you realize that it is a cited and referenced critical analysis of Iqbal's views. I don't have any anti-Pakistan bias or any agenda to malign Iqbal or Jinnah. This Fire Burns Always 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- It should only concern you when I actually make a change on the page. For now, leave me alone!!!!--Disinterested 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this message does concern me - nothing is exclusive or private on WP - becoz it is about an article I wrote and raised to FA status. This issue is not anything new, and I'm simply helping you realize that it is a cited and referenced critical analysis of Iqbal's views. I don't have any anti-Pakistan bias or any agenda to malign Iqbal or Jinnah. This Fire Burns Always 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. This Fire Burns Always 06:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- How ironic that you should say that! I'm not participating in ANY edit wars and hence you should mind your own business. Since there is NO topic that is currently in discussion between us, you have NO right to trash my talk page. Your constant unwarranted attacks will not be tolerated.--Disinterested 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- What are you so paranoid about? You don't seem to understand that I'm not "trashing" your page, nor is there any exclusivity or privacy on WP. And don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that the above-raised issue has nothing to do with me. Once again, remain civil and keep a cool head. This Fire Burns Always 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not paranoid and I'm not trying to be private. If you have a valid point to make about an ARTICLE that is currently "LIVE" and you are concerned about the content I added, then make it here and refrain from making irelevant attacks. Otherwise, move on!--Disinterested 06:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- What are you so paranoid about? You don't seem to understand that I'm not "trashing" your page, nor is there any exclusivity or privacy on WP. And don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that the above-raised issue has nothing to do with me. Once again, remain civil and keep a cool head. This Fire Burns Always 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well I've never heard of "dead" articles, neither have I attacked you or raised irrelevant issues. And the problem is, you're refusing to deal with this in a civil manner - exactly why we have this situation here. Oh, and don't refactor your talkpage in a manner that insults "other users." This Fire Burns Always 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please learn some manners and end this right here. I don't have the time to go back and forth on your totally ridiculous conversation. --Disinterested 06:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well I've never heard of "dead" articles, neither have I attacked you or raised irrelevant issues. And the problem is, you're refusing to deal with this in a civil manner - exactly why we have this situation here. Oh, and don't refactor your talkpage in a manner that insults "other users." This Fire Burns Always 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're the fella who is doing the yellin' ma friend... Do acquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:POINT and realize that I'm not your enemy. This Fire Burns Always 06:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record
I am not an admin. I've seen some weird stuff done by Madman0014, and would gladly second any complaints you file over his behavior (see for another example of the problems he's caused). Of course, it would be preferable if someone could get him to respond to comments or defend his edits. He has made some valid contributions to the WP. MrZaius 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism of Bajang Dal
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
- First of all, remember to obey rules and sign your name when you make comments on my talk page. Secondly, if you're posting allegations of hateful statements by the Pope, Pat Robertson, or whoever, you had BETTER cite them. Otherwise, you're lowering the standard of this website from an encyclopedia to a website that's involved in smear campaigns against popular people.
- Also, just because you cannot come up with concrete arguments based on tangible facts does not give you the authority to simply use the garbage-can term of 'vandalism'; if it's unclear, Misplaced Pages actually categorizes people who post non-cited propaganda as vandalism; not people who try to stick to the facts. --Disinterested 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This will be your final warning. Do not cite POV editorial websites that have no journalistic credibility. I know the countercurrents link well. They have anti-semitic and anti-Hindu content. If I report you for posting anti-semitic content you will be banned. Misplaced Pages admins take a very dim view of such things. Also, make personal attacks again and I'll report you. Violate 3RR and I'll report you.Netaji 09:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Countercurrents denounces BBC as 'Zionist Propaganda' and engages in polemical attacks on Israel . Several of these articles satisfy the criteria for anti-semitism as defined by the B'Naii B'Rith organization. Websites that quote antisemitic content cannot be regarded as reliable journalistic references since they have an ethnic bias.Netaji 10:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)