User talk:Desione: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:56, 11 March 2008 editVadakkan (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers2,877 edits →1857: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:06, 14 March 2008 edit undoDemolitionMan (talk \| contribs)1,026 edits →3RR: new sectionNext edit →
Line 84:		Line 84:

	Hi Desione. Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. If you look at the (which was the one I looked at), the chapter is called "Great Revolt of 1857", with "First war of independence" not even mentioned in parantheses. Funnily enough, the Tamil version of the Std. X textbook uses the word "perumpuratchi" - which actually means 'great revolution' or 'great uprising' - rather than "perunkalakam", which means 'great revolt.' Anyway, as you say, it seems to have been sorted out now. -- ] (]) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)		Hi Desione. Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. If you look at the (which was the one I looked at), the chapter is called "Great Revolt of 1857", with "First war of independence" not even mentioned in parantheses. Funnily enough, the Tamil version of the Std. X textbook uses the word "perumpuratchi" - which actually means 'great revolution' or 'great uprising' - rather than "perunkalakam", which means 'great revolt.' Anyway, as you say, it seems to have been sorted out now. -- ] (]) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

			== 3RR ==

			Just a word of advice - don't violate the 3RR rule. You are soon gonna be in the same boat as I. If the British POV pushers on this board can't stop you - they will get you banned. Too bad they don't realize the worth of negotiating or civil talk. And beware of Ronnotel - he will do everything in his power to get you banned. I really don't know what his grouse is - he intermittently comes across as fair and at times utterly biased. Perhaps he got Bangalored. ] (]) 05:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:06, 14 March 2008

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you edit without a username, your IP address (Desione) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Baka man 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

British Raj article

Your participation is the current debate in removing bias from the current British Raj article is appreciated. A small group of people have overtaken this article to show British rule in India in a highly exaggerated positive light without any discussion of large scale atrocities, suppression of rights, racist policies, general looting of national wealth. Desione (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in India Image

There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not the following image should be a part of the Poverty in India page. Most Poverty in *Country* pages do not have any images, at most 1. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought many images showing extreme poverty in India and has tried to mislead people into thinking this is the way a majority of poor Indians live. There is a vote in which your input would be appreciated. You can find this discussion here

~~I feel that the the Bodhgaya Beggar image does not represent poverty in India correctly because:~~

The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception. To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most living under the poverty line work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of India's or even a fraction of the poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page.

Poverty and Disability are not connected in any way. There are thousands of super rich people who are disabled.

There are 11 country articles on poverty
These have NO images: Poverty in Pakistan, Poverty in Africa, Poverty in China, Poverty in Australia, Poverty in Canada, Poverty in Malaysia, Poverty in Switzerland, Social issues in Brazil,

These have 1 image Poverty in the United States, Poverty in France

The Poverty in India page is the only one with more than 1 image. And the only reason for this is because User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought more and more images onto the page.
This user is being uncivil and unyielding. This user has tried to have my user page deleted because it said America is priceless!

This image is being used by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus to display his dislike of India and to mislead people into thinking that this is the plight of millions of poor Indians. This user has often added images showing extreme poverty to many India relating articles. Even though this user knows that poverty is present in every country and that extreme poverty is not a fair representation of the Indian economy, this user has previously tried to add an image of children washing their clothes in a mud puddle to the economy section of the India page. This user has added this image to the poverty section of the Economy of India page, when a graph showing poverty would make more sense.

WP:Undue says:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

~~This can be applied to this because a very tiny fraction of poor people in India are disabled. Most work very hard trying to make a living for themselves. This image is misleading.~~ Nikkul (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Honor Killing

Hello,

There is a discussion going on here about whether sati, an ancient form of suicide in which a woman voluntarily immolates herself, is considered honor killing. Since you have contributed to the Hinduism page, I thought you would be the right person to ask. I hope you will contribute to the discussion. Thanks

Nikkul (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:British Raj

Hello, I have left my opinions on the talk page. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Policies

Please read WP:3RR, WP:NOR, WP:CANVASS. Relata refero (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please revert yourself, you've broken WP:3RR and are liable for a block. Relata refero (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are still trying to force your way through. Your intension is to unethically force a block and not in tune with opinions expressed by other users - a clear case of vandalism. PLEASE note the opinion of other users on the talk page who have pointed out the same biases that I have. Desione (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have noted that no arguments have been made on the talkpage as yet. Please revert yourself in the next few minutes. 3RR is non-negotiable. Relata refero (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR on British Raj

You've gone over the limit by about three reverts, you really should revert yourself to avoid a block. There doesn't appear to be consensus for that material in the lead of the article. Thanks, Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting vandalism which is perfectly acceptable. If you think there is a consensus as to the biased viewpoint propagated by the British Raj article, please call for a vote. Thank you Desione (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

WP:3RR is non-negotiable. Besides, you continue to canvass other people for support. You have posted the following post:

Your participation in the current debate in removing bias from the current British Raj article is appreciated. A small group of people have overtaken this article to show British rule in India in a highly exaggerated positive light without any discussion of large scale atrocities, suppression of rights, racist policies, general looting of national wealth. Desione (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

on the talk pages of at least eight different people. Please be aware that Wikipdia discourages such behavior. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for Edit warring: on British Raj. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr 23:51, 17 February 2008 (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).

Desione (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The fact that British Raj article is NPOV has been pointed out by me and several other users before me. Is it too much to ask for a NPOV tag to be placed until the baises in the article are corrected?

Decline reason:

The article is currently tagged, per your last edit. — Step hen 00:46, 18 February 2008 (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.

ISKCON work group or subproject?

Hello. I see you have made contributions to ISKCON related articles. If you are interested, there is a discussion concerning an ISKCON subproject located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious convertion

Hello buddy, Anyways, dont worry i later realized the image's license is not compatible for commons and would be soon removed :-) -- not able to sign as leaving message from blackberry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gppande (talk • contribs) 07:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

i removed the image. Will try to find some other image with compatible license. Let me say again, these images are not depicted against hinduism. There is nothing written against hinduism in these posters. These posters are very common in nagpur during dasera days. No objection has ever been raised by any political party or religious organisation against them. They are seen and ignored like a billboard :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gppande (talk • contribs) 08:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Whoops! Sorry, didnt mean to issue a warning to you. My bad. Steve Crossin (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for undoing the vandalism on my talk page. Happens once in a while; probably some loser DemolitionMan (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1857

Hi Desione. Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. If you look at the History textbook for Std. XII (which was the one I looked at), the chapter is called "Great Revolt of 1857", with "First war of independence" not even mentioned in parantheses. Funnily enough, the Tamil version of the Std. X textbook uses the word "perumpuratchi" - which actually means 'great revolution' or 'great uprising' - rather than "perunkalakam", which means 'great revolt.' Anyway, as you say, it seems to have been sorted out now. -- Arvind (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Just a word of advice - don't violate the 3RR rule. You are soon gonna be in the same boat as I. If the British POV pushers on this board can't stop you - they will get you banned. Too bad they don't realize the worth of negotiating or civil talk. And beware of Ronnotel - he will do everything in his power to get you banned. I really don't know what his grouse is - he intermittently comes across as fair and at times utterly biased. Perhaps he got Bangalored. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)