User talk:Pectore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5

thanks pectore for creating a userpage for me !! (?)[edit]

thanks pectore for creating a userpage for me !! (?)

Naveen Reddy Naveen Reddy 06:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ramnarayan Rawat[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Ramnarayan Rawat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Speciate (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tomin Thachankary[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Tomin Thachankary has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tomin Thachankary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulf states (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) 12:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomin Thachankary[edit]

Your edit at Tomin Thachankary was reverted for several reasons. You are restoring BLP-violating material by re-introducing poorly sourced (the links provided do not support the statements made and one falls under WP:BLPCRIME) and undue material to the article. You also restored a WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS category that was also removed to meet policy requirements, as well as persondata, interwikis and stub templates. The article was reviewed by OTRS request and was found to have major issues, hence it being stubbed. In order for any of the contentious information to be restored you will need to get consensus to do so; I've found the quickest route to determining consensus with regard to BLP concerns is this noticeboard. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

See articles talk page (which is something you should use if you revert). Don't insult my intelligence by spamming me with policies I have already read and internalized without any logic for 'why'/'how' my edits violate policy.. You actively reverted the page (which is fine), so please dispose of the patronizing passive voice. As for the other non-policy related issues, my apologies.Pectoretalk 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD Notice[edit]

Nomination of Pragya_Singh_Thakur for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pragya_Singh_Thakur is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pragya_Singh_Thakur until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --sarvajna (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --sarvajna (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Teesta Setalvad[edit]

I've reverted you there as I see this as a BLP violation (and I note that the section heading was clearly a BLP violation as it suggests she misappropriated funds). This is at the moment just a letter, and contested.[1]. It may belong in the article at some point, especially if it leads to court proceedings, but not yet. Please don't replace it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2010 Deganga riots, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Left Front and Gujarat riots (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) 15:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

India Development and Relief Fund[edit]

I have again reverted your change where you called The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate a "coalition of leftists". The term "leftist" is often considered derogatory, and is not used by the cited source. With an article on a somewhat controversial topic like this, it is important to stay as close to the sources as possible. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India[edit]

After the failed attempt to move 2002 Gujarat violence to "Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002", User:Darkness Shines went on to create the article Anti-Muslim pogroms in India as well as the category with the same name. The article was deleted and he created it again, some of us believe the sources are cherry-picked as you mentioned here. There are more issues, we couldn't move a page from Godhra train burning to Godhra train violence even though the name is imprecise and vague, precisely because the majority of the sources didn't call it by that name.

Going by this logic,

  1. Abuse of the word "pogrom": This term originates from 19th-century Tsarist Russia where it was first used to label attacks against Jewish civilians that were instigated and condoned by the authorities but carried out by civilian mobs who acted with impunity while the police watched idly. Two issues:
    The trigger cause of the '02 violence was Godhra Train burning. It was not instigated/approved/condoned by the Gujarat authorities. That accusation has been nullified in the court of law. Far from stoking violence, the authorities, in an attempt to quell the riot, actually declared a curfew immediately after the first signs of attack — and this was spelled out even in media reports. Thus, the police didn't sit back and watch idly. In fact Modi has been exonerated by the SIT.
  2. Common name: If we take the most controversial story of them all, Gujarat Violence in 2002.
    Google returns 478,000 hits for "2002 Gujarat violence"
    Google returns 498 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002"
    Google returns 1 hit for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 Gujarat"
    If we generalize even further and perform a sweeping search of all the articles about anti-muslim pogroms in 2002 irrespective of location, even then google returns only 11,000 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002". It is not at all referred to as "pogrom" by general media.

Apart from that, how on earth could Bombay Riots or Nellie massacre, or 1989 Bhagalpur violence be labelled as "pogroms"? I am not trying to deny that religious violence existed in India as a pestilence since the very inception of this civilization, but to label them as "pogroms" is grossly biased. I would just like to ask you what should we do about it? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please[edit]

Do not restore that junk again. Be aware that this topic falls under WP:ARBIP your restoration of unreliably and downtight partisan content most certainly violates WP:RS & WP:NPOV.I respectfully request you do not do this again. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing[edit]

In your latest edits to India Development and Relief Fund, Angana P. Chatterji‎ and Ekal Vidyalaya‎ you seem determined to show that anyone critical of a Hindu Nationalist organization must be a corrupt, "leftist" agent of Pakistan. I ask you to respect Wikipedia policies: stick to a balanced view of what is said by reliable sources. Do not remove sourced content because you disagree with the author's position, and do not selectively choose only the content that supports your views. For example, you have been littering articles with serious allegations (stated as fact) from this article, which does not name its source, while ignoring this article, which casts significant doubts on the accuracy of the report. You have been similarly adding a very selective extract from this source to various articles, failing to point out that Chatterji denied being aware of Fai's position, and removing sourced content that points out that Fai was jailed for concealing his position. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your wild characterizations of my editing. Holding these pages hostage to promote your biased view has obviously coloured your view of the editing process. Adding the opposite perspective and removing questionable sources ironically of course is the epitome of "balanced editing". It might behoove you in fact to internalize this meaningless lecture you have given me. You continue to remove criticism of questionable sources, and reinstate biased sources (like Sabrang) with reckless abandon.Pectoretalk 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit[edit]

[2] Is a duplication of content already in the article, can you self revert please. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead is meant to reflect the material of an article.Pectoretalk 19:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Angana P. Chatterji[edit]

Restore that BLP violation again and you will be reported, read WP:BLPPRIMARY Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Meetup[edit]

Hi, I'm Saqib, from Pakistan currently admin on Wikivoyage. I'm planning to visit Sri Lanka next week. I was wondering if we could arrange first meetup of Wikipedians in Sri Lanka during I visit there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.158.139 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Saqib, I unfortunately am not in Sri Lanka at the time. Perhaps you can try approaching the Sri Lanka Wikiproject?Pectoretalk 03:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Please could you re-read WP:BLPCAT and WP:BURDEN. Not to mention WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:MOSDATE, WP:INDICSCRIPT, WP:Overcategorisation and, well, quite a few other policies, guidelines and well-respected essays. Most of your reverts made earlier this morning (UTC) seem to suffer from problems, eg: Anna Katharina Valayil, Digvijaya Singh, Chandu Borde. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Digvijaya Singh[edit]

Not only are you now edit warring at Digvijaya Singh but it is blatantly obvious why you have suddenly taken an interest and got your knickers in a twist. I suggest that you self-revert and discuss because as things stand you are on the wrong side of consensus - not perhaps about whether or not the guy in controversial but certainly about the usage of a lead section. I must admit to being surprised because I've seen you around a lot, generally thought good of what you were doing and rather assumed that you had a decent understanding of policies and guidelines. Perhaps this one has passed you by but, hey, a revert and discussion fixes it. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

see Talk:Digvijaya Singh.Pectoretalk 00:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shiv Sena. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. 12:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ambox warning pn.svg 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 notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Fut.Perf. 12:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


Namantar Andolan[edit]

Dear Pectore,

  • You have removed the category "persecution by Hindus" from Namantar Andolan. In edit note you have explained "secular caste violence of marathas vs dalits is not "persecution by Hindus".
  • In support of category "persecution by Hindus" for Namantar Andolan please read 1, 2 3etc... The Hindu community have persecuted neo-Buddhist people. Hinduism and Buddhism are different religion, so "persecution by Hindus" is accurate category. Additionally, Hindus have killed people from Mang(Dalit community) also. Therefor it falls under "secular caste violence" also.
  • Please let me know if you have any comments.

Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Find me quotes from these sources that back up what you're saying and I'll bite. Thanks for explaining though.Pectoretalk 00:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Pectore. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-Vatsan34 (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing categories[edit]

Hi Pectore, Why have you removed category: Dalit People from some of the pages? --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2002 Gujarat violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (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) 13:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pectore[edit]

Greetings,
I had seen your contributions for Article Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and want to thank you for the same. Your effort is greatly appreciated, you had tried to make article neutral and encyclopedic. However I had also seen some users are involved in distortion and hard criticism, it seem they are biased editors. They are hard critiquing and beyond the limits, However I need you support to make it Good article and also to mock them for biased editing but according to wikipedia regulations. I will be grateful for your help. KLS 16:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswarrior (talkcontribs)

Can you share Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom, Catharine Cookson (ed.), Taylor & Francis, 2003, ISBN 978-0-415-94181-5, p. 180[edit]

I basically want to validate this statement:

Saffronization or saffronisation is an Indian political neologism (named after the saffron robes worn by Hindu sannyasis[1]) used by critics[2][3] and others[1][4] to refer to the policies of right-wing Hindu nationalists (Hindutva) that seek to recall and glorify ancient Hindu cultural history (the term "Hindu" in their view encompassing Dharmic Indian religions including Hinduism and the Sikh, Jain and Buddhist traditions), while de-emphasizing the more recent Islamic or Christian contributions.[5]

From the Saffronization page. I doubt that the book has any such content. Jyoti (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)