You recently removed the Category links I made to Category:Hindu terrorism, which were the same categories as in the Saffron terror category that was deleted, with the intention for them to be moved over. I ask you to please revert yourself, as this is looking like you are trying to be tendentious in your editing. SilverserenC 22:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you have not responded yet (and quite possibly have gone to bed or something similar), i'm going to go ahead and revert you. Please do not, when you get on, just revert me again. Please, instead, respond here. SilverserenC 00:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have added information not supported by any references to said articles in question. the Malegaon attacks and the Samjhauta express were orchestrated by Muslim groups, so how can they be Hindu terror? The Mecca Masjid bombing has either Saffron or Islamic terrorists as suspected perpetrators (aka nobobdy has been charged yet with anything), and Terrorism in India does not belong in the category for navigation purposes (comes in a myriad of forms and cannot be tied to one ideology). I categorically reject your allegations of tendentious editing and will report you if you continue to add your personal POV or unjustifiably accuse me of doing anything than actually reflecting what is written in reliable sources.Pectoretalk 15:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. you have to justify inclusion, I do not have to justify removal (though I have done the latter multiple times and you still have not done the former).Pectoretalk 15:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lastly the AFD is over and I found no such intention for them to be moved over. The admin merely said that someone could create it if they wanted to. If the intention was to be moved, a bot would have been commissioned to do so. So wrong again.Pectoretalk 15:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rude much? Fine about the first two, however, the Mecca Masjid bombing, as by your own admission, has links to either Saffron terror or Islamic terrorism. Thus, it should have category links to both, as a possible example of either. SilverserenC 16:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it unfortunate that you had to go and blindly revert me without even reading who the perpetrators were, and then on top of that had the gall to accuse me of POV-pushing, when it was obviously you who made the unjustified edits. That's far more rude than my response, which was infact generously civil, given the severity of the aforementioned accusations. On to the actual subject matter, there should be no categories added on the identity of the suspected bombers until there appears to be some consensus (as always it needs to be alluded to by reliable sources). We as editors, do not make inferences, we merely should parrot what the sources on the matter say. In the same vein "Hindu terrorism" shouldn't exist as a category either, since "Saffron terror" is actually the preferred phrase for this brand of "political (not religious) terror".Pectoretalk 16:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have reverted edits made on Mecca Masjid blasts page. Do not edit the page but discuss further on the talk page for the article on respond here. jazzy83jazzy83C 00:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hai pectore, i am seeing lot of time you are changing original information and finally you are saying islamic terrorism. I am also tamil guy only, touch your heart and say in our tamil nadu any islamic terrorism is there, only one incident occur in coimbatore, that is not a attack by muslims. al umma is a one of the org that's all. Don,t blame total muslims. samy pathukuttuthan eruku, thabbu pannathe.Mohasik (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you are saying in Tamil, but in terms of original information, I am not the one creating pages on phrases (like "Hindu jihad") unused by the mainstream media and unrepresentative of informed discourse on Religious violence in India.Pectoretalk 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. SilverserenC 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you.Pectoretalk 22:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you take another look at the recent edits to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh by User:Profitoftruth85? He surreptiously reinserted edits you had withdrawn earlier.59.160.210.68 (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is regarding your edits you made at article Hindu extremism. Please refer to talk page if you have any suggestions, improvements. Sarmadhassan (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I've been trying to reference Sumon Barua and I noticed that a two years ago you added Category:Bangladeshi Buddhists to the article. So I was wondering if you had a reference for that which could be added to the article? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you had reverted some of edits on the page Saffron terror, where I had started a new section on the page. The reason you had given was that the information was already present in other sections. However, since the information is present only in diffused form, should not the section be allowed? Apoorv020 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also you reverted an edit by me, in which I had removed an useless reference. Please read through the article again before considering adding it. Apoorv020 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you take a look at this article, particularly at the edits of User: Profitoftruth85[1][2], which seem to be deliberately inserting bias (with misleading edit summaries) to an otherwise very stable and well-written lead[3]? Particularly problematic are his violations of WP:POINT and WP:RECENTISM in this case.117.194.192.68 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing the Category:Hindu terrorism from all articles? Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and are unconstructive. Also, why did you revert my change here? These tags don't apply to categories and are misplaced here. Your edits are construed as being in bad faith; I hope you give an explanation or reason for your behaviour. Mar4d (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Please see my userpage, where I am called a "fan of Digvijay Singh" (a politician who shares your obsession with this unused and inappropriate term). Since both sides claim I'm with (or against) them, I think I am well within my rights to assume that I'm in the NPOV path. I've repeated my (hitherto unanswered) points ad nauseam where its patently obvious that people not charged of crimes and crimes with unknown perpetrators do not belong in "xxx terrorism" categories (and for the record, I have removed cases from Category:Islamic terrorism as well).Pectoretalk 21:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I am well within my rights to assume, based on your behaviour, that you are heading in the WP:POV path. Your edits are highly problematic because you don't seem to understand the purpose of categorisation or how categories apply. Your claims of "crimes with unknown perpetrators" are misplaced because these incidents have implicated (and mostly established) the action of certain Hindu terror groups and many of them are high profile cases; Wikipedia holds WP:Reliable sources in higher esteem than user POV. Perhaps you should read the whole article first before quickly rushing to all articles to undo my edits. Unfortunately, I'm not the only one you seem to be reverting as I can see here and here. You have also called me a "troll" here when it's clearly you who's started the pointless edit warring because of your controversial edits. While I will not choose to directly reply to your opinion of Hindu terrorism being an "unused and inappropriate term," I would certainly recommend you do a research on the topic and read articles (backed with WP:RS offcourse) such as Saffron terror and Hindu Taliban. Most of your arguments and actions lack clarity because you seem to be inspired by the intention to remove this category from as many articles as possible which is clearly flagged as vandalism. Don't undo my edits with your POV again without discussion first. If you choose to persist in your editing behaviour, I have a valid reason to take you to the Administrators' incidents noticeboard. Mar4d (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will continue to persist with my editing behavior, which consists of removing flawed categorization based on allegations, deceving nomenclature, and political posturing. Again I will ask you "Has anyone been convicted of a crime?" No? Then placing the category is absolutely akin to placing unsourced attacks on the page (since no source has verified any convictions). Furthermore, what does "mostly established" mean? Could this possibly be that the cases are incomplete, and that Wikipedians should wait before they point fingers? Next, are you really going to cite the fact that you have someone on your side as some sort of point in this argument (though granted I could say I have "my people" too? That itself displays an obvious disregard for objectivity. Don't ever comment on my political or religious views (which you, as some anonymous internet user have no inkling or understanding of). My actions and arguments have been crystal clear from the beginning: If no one has been convicted of a crime, the category does not belong. As stated before (and ad nauseam), I have removed the Islamic terrorism category multiple times from the pages as well, since no Muslims have been convicted either, so your shoddy attempts at pinning me as some Hindu nationalist fall by the the wayside. I have consistently advocated for a proper appraisal of categories and sources, it is frankly obvious you have done the opposite.Pectoretalk 15:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose deletion of the article List of Masjid attacked by Hindu Terrorist just created by a person with a Anti Hindu agenda. 117.201.255.105 (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at this section and comment? I'd informed the editor about consensus on not categorizing people in this cat and he brought up a very valid point that the current title is quite ambiguous and therefore could be misinterpreted as a people category. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Mecca Masjid bombing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Punjab
- Vikar Ahmed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Hyderabad
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the [[4]]. McKinseies (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.
As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.
If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide.
Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.
You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.
ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)
Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. The Helpful Bot 01:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Hi. When you recently edited List of converts to Hinduism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have been involved in editing or discussing this article in the past, you may want to comment on the proposal at Talk:John Dayal#Deletion of Criticism section.
I have notified User:Pectore, User:Recordfreenow, User:Hornplease, User:Bakasuprman and User:Magicalsaumy. If you feel any other editors could contribute to this discuss, please invite them, Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Indrajit Gupta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pectore,
You have decided to undo the verification I've done on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam. The reason for the removal is that some of the sources do not exist, therefore those are unverified claims. Other claims are from a biased source so cannot be used to spam Wikipedia.
Thanks,
Unmaiyin_kural — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmaiyin kural (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is because the page is well-sourced. If you are going to delete a substantial chunk of text after being reverted multiple times by different users, at least take your case to the talk page so that you can justify your edits to the wider community.Pectoretalk 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
|
| Dear Pectore, thank you for the kindness that you've shown towards me recently. I do not believe that we've ever interacted on Wikipedia before but nevertheless, you stood up for me and the positive contributions that I've made here at Wikipedia. I really appreciate this act of charity and hope that God will bless you and your family in abundance. The image in this barnstar has a smile in it, which you brought to my face today. I hope that this barnstar will do the same to you. Your new friend, AnupamTalk 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Thanks. I hope you come out from this process a better Wikipedian and continue your strong contributions to India-related content.Pectoretalk 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
