User talk:Evox777

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

Your Edits on RSS page[edit]

The commissions of enquiry (take Liberhan for instance)is full of glaring mistakes and hypothesis of their own and suspicions they have. See the article below in Indian Express. Its like RSS being banned and blamed for Gandhiji's murder - it was just a suspicion with no truth behind it - hence the reversal of the ban. RSS can rightly be said as the 'most mis-understood organisation' in India. IT Milan (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

please prove by neutral references and edits that article is not neutral before making any tag on it so that together we can make proper and neutral as per wiki until then request you not to make any tag on the article--Sandeep (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Evox777, your edit is clearly Wikipedia:Vandalism. You reverted my entire edit in which supporting reference was provided for each and every in sentence or phrase. Also, you are mentioning the structure at Ayodhya to be a mosque. The case is in the courts and there is no consensus that the structure was a mosque. No prayers were offered at that structure for decades. It is general knowledge that the structure is under dispute for centuries. If you had issues with the removal of the phrase mentioning Savarkar's influence on Hedgewar (for which I provided reasoning), you could have only reverted that. When you say "If Hedgewar wasn't influenced by Savarkar, he wouldn't have formed RSS", this is an entirely hypothetical statement. Please refrain from vandalizing the article Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all i am not the only one calling the "structure at Ayodhya to be a mosque", the words were picked up from BBC and other reliable sources. If you bothered looking at the sources, you would have seen that. I reverted your edit because you removed many well referenced sources and not because you added something, which i don't recall seeing. If you have any problem with the reliability of my sources DO NOT just remove well referenced material. You are free to take the matter to the Reliable Sources Notice board, I have posted the link multiple times on the talk page. I just don't want you to engage in edit wars, because its gonna tempt me to do the same. ThanksEvox777 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mosque/Structure was not the only change that i had done as part of that edit. There were other edits as well which were based on references provided by you only. The only removal was because the statement was unnecessarily mentioned in the article twice.--Deshabhakta (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall the order but these are some of the reasons why i undid your edits:

  • You removed material which cited Britannica encyclopedia by repeatedly attacking the author wendi doniger. (The guys at RSNB and the admin decided that Britannica e. is a reliable source and the material should be reinstated).
  • You removed a well referenced quote by Justice Vithayithil inquiry commission by again attacking the author A. G. Noorani.
  • You removed well referenced material which talked about Hedgewar.
  • You moved around some material, which i would say wasn't with the best of intentions. Plus you marked the edit as a minor edit. Minor edits are only marked when you know that the change could never be the subject of a dispute.
  • You removed a well referenced list of commissions which censured RSS for its role in communal riots.
  • You removed a complete section on anti-christian activities.

Regarding the last 2 points, I am not sure if it was you or the user unspokentruth. My brain tends to group you guys into one.

If there were any minor edits hidden among these removals, I probably failed to see those. Please let me know what i missed.

I am happy that you have have chosen to contact me rather than fight it out on the edit page. If you believe some sources are unrealiable or material has been made up (synthesis), feel free to contact me or the appropriate notice board. Evox777 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are bringing in things not related to the edit with oldid=341510090. I am specifically questioning this particular edit of yours. My edit which you reverted with this edit did not do the things which you have listed above. I had not removed Wendy's comment; i had instead rephrased and mentioned her quote as well. I even provided reference to Wiki page about Wendy. Even statements from A G Noorani were mentioned as they were in your edit plus the phrase that the article is written by AG Noorani. The only thing which could have been contested in that article was the stuff regarding "Hedgewar was influenced by Savarkar". From your statements made above one can make out your callousness and sheet intent to vandalise the article; you are not even trying make out whether a particular edit is by which user (me or unspokentruth) and you say you failed to see other edits within edit. Removing a particular edit without any reason and claiming i did not see that edit!!! Wiki provides History feature; users need not try to recall from memory. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

KEEP THE DISCUSSION CIVIL. If you are gonna personally attack me, i suggest you are better off contacting the noticeboards.

You have vandalized the article multiple times and when you said "my entire edit", i had no idea which edit you were referring to. This is why i tried to list all your possible edits (at the top of my head) so you can pick and choose which one you were referring to. You can't expect me to read your mind and figure out what you were talking about. You should have been specific and mentioned the article id at the beginning itself. Here are your edits and my reasons for removal:

  1. Removed well referenced material about Hedgewar
  2. "and was acquitted later of all charges by the Supreme Court of India and the appointed commission of enquiry." -- no reference. I have no objection to this line, if references are added.
  3. Moved quote by Sardar patel to the end of the introduction --- Even thou i don't approve of it, the current article has it in your preferred location.
  4. Added Wendi Doniger's name to the Britannica article as if she is a famous personality. This is no longer needed as that particular sentence has been removed.
  5. "An article in the Frontline magazine by A G Noorani, who was once censured by the courts of India and had to apologize for making defamatory statements against RSS, says that the RSS has been censured for its involvement in communal riots in at least six reports by judges who presided over commissions of inquiry:" -- This is just blatant twisting of words to make it sound as if A G Noorani has made up these reports. These are government appointed commissions and these reports are readily available if you want to look at them (definitely shows your intentions). If you still think I am wrong on this, I would be more than happy to present my side to the guys at the notice board.
  6. Changed mosque to structure despite me presenting multiple references on the talk page. Not a single reference has been posted in support of your change.

I am hoping further discussions with you would be civil with little or no mud slinging. --Evox777 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC) "i had not idea which edit you were referring to": This very thread of discussion between two of us begins with me giving the URL of the edit which i am referring to. Please see the start of this conversation.regarding points mentioned above:

  1. Moved quote by Sardar patel to the end of the introduction - I dont see anything wrong with it as it is making the article more organized by moving certain statement into a section created specifically for the topic. I find no reason to revert this.
  2. Added Wendi Doniger's name to the Britannica article - If she is not a famous personality, why quote from her article? That too this was just wiki-linking and there was absolutely no reason to revert this.
  3. "An article in the Frontline magazine by A G Noorani, who was once censured by the courts of India and had to apologize for making defamatory statements against RSS, says that the RSS has been censured for its involvement in communal riots in at least six reports by judges who presided over commissions of inquiry:" - What is factually wrong in this? Is anything in this statement not well referenced? I would be happier to know the Wiki rule which made reversion of this edit necessary.
  4. Changed mosque to structure - What kind of reference are you looking at? The matter is in courts and calling it mosque or mandir will be a judgemental statement. To avoid getting into legal tangles, we should use a safer term 'structure'.

Civilized discussions should avoid phrases like "blatant twisting" and "show your intentions' as well.--Deshabhakta (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Please accept my sincere apology for not seeing that link, i don't know how i missed it.
2. She is not a famous personality and i did not go around looking for an article by her name. It just so happens that she was employed by Britannica encyclopedia.
3. Again, this is just blatant twisting of words. If you still think I am wrong on this, I would be more than happy to present my side to the guys at the notice board.
4. Again, citation needed.
Phrases like "blatant twisting" and "shows your intentions" would be considered mild in comparison to say something like i don't know "one can make out your callousness and sheet intent to vandalise the article". Have a great day.--Evox777 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sandeep (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Taelus (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


(Removed talkback) I have replied at my talk page once again, providing you with the link to the old article, however I thought I would quickly explain how to do so if you are unsure. When viewing a page's history, you can refer specifically to a single version of the page by clicking the time and date which are located before the username of the contributor. This will load the page with an "oldid". If you cut and paste that address from the address bar in your browser, you can link it to other users so that they can view that specific old version of the page without you needing to list times, dates and other details. Hope this helps, if you have any other questions feel free to ask. --Taelus (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)



Hello, Evox777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Taelus (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

These links may also help you out with various things. --Taelus (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Reliable Sources Noticeboard[edit]

I would say that consensus is agreeing your sources are reliable, and you can add them in. However may I recommend also doing a quick bit of research and also adding in the other sources which disagree with your sources? This would hopefully calm the entire neutrality scenario down, and allow lots of reliable content to be put into the article.

If you need any further help, or have any questions, feel free to contact me again. --Taelus (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please post a note on the talk page, asking people not to remove well referenced edits and to make use of the noticeboards in cases of disagreement.
I am planning on reinstating my material today or tomorrow and hopefully from now on, Sandeep and the other 3 editors will make use of the noticeboards, instead of engaging in edit wars. When sandeep first removed my edits, i clearly explained to him the reliability of my sources and told him i do not wish to get in an edit war with him. But even after a month, not only did he not reinstate my material, but he also continued to remove my new edits. --
Some things just tick you off sometimes and thats exactly what happened to me. So i would like to apologize again for edit-waring with sandeep and his friends. And thank you so much for your help.--Evox777 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I will tag the talk page, and put an edit-notice on the page which will pop-up at the top of the editing display. Your welcome for the help, and thank you very much for taking the time to discuss this and gain consensus! Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done, I have placed the notices. Hopefully this resolves the dispute peacefully! Again, happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not the judge to make any judgement on the notice board of reliable source and i am free hear to put my point no mater whatever way i feel and abide by the policy. --Sandeep (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)--Sandeep (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your revert to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh[edit]

Please don't toss the term "Vandalism" around in non-blatant cases, as it only serves to intensify differences. I see you have contacted the user asking them to clarify, which is a good move, but I would recommend you manually undo such edits on that page with custom edit summaries as to avoid further conflict. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Taleus, I am sorry i didn't see your message early. That was done at the height of the edit war and i have already promised you that i will be careful from now on. Thanks for keeping an eye on me :) and the article.

Evox777 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, I am here to help. I have asked WikiProject India to look over the article however, as they should probably be able to help out. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the images[edit]

What sort of proof you want as the images are taken by a group of mine. how can you claim that the man in the picture are no RSS man its you who is raising the doubt so you have to prove that the man in the pic are not the RSS man and not me--Sandeep (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As per wikipedia's guidlines, the burden of proof is on you not me.
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." ---
PS: You did not reply to my first question. The RSNB already reached a consensus that britannica e. is a reliable source, why are you raising questions about its reliability again?----Evox777 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well i think you misunderstood the notice board they had said that both references can be used with the proper way and that's what the admin had suggested me, but some of your friends are not allowing me doing so and showing there intention of editing this article. --Sandeep (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please restrain your self by advising any for stoping editing. You are not the owner who can advice any one. I am warning you for using this type of sentences Sandeep (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

lol --Evox777 (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Worldbruce with this edit that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)