User talk:Vedant/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Washington Court House?

Out of sheer curiosity, may I ask where you get the idea that Yu was at Washington Court House? GSMR (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're feeling bored...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etSivpBHUmE

That block really seems to have upset him... :D GSMR (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: U of T

Nope, right country, wrong province ;) More to the west. Don't want to get more specific than that. GSMR (talk)

EDIT: Where are you able to see what a certain person's GPA is? GSMR (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing new on my YT page :\ GSMR (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Try it now, reduced privacy settings & sent invite. GSMR (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Perhaps review the article's history first before assuming they're vandalising? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• How is this vandalism?, as well as this. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And the other two edits? How are they vandalism? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the reference and statement he removed I consider valid, the reference archived here doesn't mention the G20 summit at all. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw review this edit closely, let me know once you've thought about it what you think their intentions were. Cos to me it looks like they accidentally removed a bottom paragraph while they were compressing a subsection into a single section, titled "East Asia". Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This one, too. Did you spot the referenced paragraph they added? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that I see evidence that you have trouble differentiating between what is and what is not vandalism. Fixing your mistakes and making apologies are all good and well, but I'm concerned about this reoccuring. Surely you're aware that possibly good faith edits should ideally be discussed, but never labelled vandalism, ever. Talk pages are there for a reason. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

76.69.62.12

How about trying to understand my edits before you revert? Clearly the List of Space Agencies was recent vandalism I reverted. Other edits are removing false claims not in the ref

Vedant, don't understand why you are jumping to conclusions. WHen it is clear that sources and fact DO NOT back the statemtn then it should definitely be removed. also formatting changes are NOT vandalism I am assuming you are not pro-Indian, anti-Pak, If so we can discuss this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.62.12 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind you rewording stuff. Your commonweath article eidt was good in my opinion. Frankly the tone of many Bharat articles are not balanced and leaves a poor taste in the mouth.

Fair enough i wont combat bias with bias ok?. And the sames goes with your inappropriate reverts which i take issue with Though balancing is much needed on these articles and you cannot say anything I added is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.62.12 (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Yes well regarding regional power. I thought it was appropriate that Pak was mentioned in the case of India since it the country is that most relavent to India though the relatioinship is unstable. But yeah I see your point the whole article is messed. ALso India is 12th largest economy not sure how you got 11th. Cna you fix it 76.69.62.12 (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I would appreciate if you dont' just to conclusions AGAIN. I unded that edit before I supposedly "pledged". I hope you understand what is bias and what isnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.62.12 (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

fine to compromise ive left the doha statement but made a minor adjustment to clarify. and i'll only remove refs without discussing if they are patently false just like the g20/doha round but will leave them if there is some truth to it.

well i am only basing it on the ref you want to use. it seems to almost squarely blame it on india. so technically i am right if you want you can cite another source.

Ok cool for the BBC ref. For the space agencies article i have rved your edit. india does not have lunar landing capbility only lunar crashing capability even though the moon probe was intentionally impacted. do some research before reinstating patently false claim added by a boasting indian. heck even china, esa, japan do not have lunar landing capability adn tehy are much more advanced than isro. anyway i have no bones to pick since india's space prog is much more advanced than pak's and i dont see that changing anytime soon. interesting article List of artificial objects on the Moon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.62.12 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...

They have. I have made a small program using the MediaWiki APIs to monitor a certain user's contributions, so I'll be aware when/if they wake up. GSMR (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mustn't get our hopes up. GSMR (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pak-India

Pak is lower malnutrition, starvation and hunger, disease than India. indians have one of the highest AIDS rates in teh world. Malnourished Indians by far teh largest in the world live wretched lives in squalor and filth as you well know being an Indian. it is a third world country from an academic view look at the article and map. now to be fair, pak is also a third world country with similar problems. i don't deny that india is slightly better than pak in some measures like gdp per cap and also i already admitted before in space capabilities. pak used to be higher gdp/cap a few years ago for your interest. now i only said this cuz u asked alright it is not my business to disparage india. thre are also some reasons why pak IS better than INdia. pak has the full support of the two superpowers in the world: america and china. hu jintao and barack obama always welcome ali asif zaidari with open arms and friendship. they also have paks best interest in mind and listen to our concerns. india has support of neither and is more than often used and abused. my point is that if india and pak could learn from each other and the world would be a better off place. now for chindia article, i am not against making productive edits but your edits of dictatorship and removal of information that is not pro-india clearly show bias. is it any wonder that the term of pulled out of a hat by an India politician ramesh hahaha. im sure if you say this term to any non-indian they will laugh out loud and there are in completely separate leagues. ameripak, chinapak and hopefully pakindia are more appropriate terms that should if not already are coined. your point being not cited is well taken but the article has no citations at all so if your gonna remove then remove the whole article. i will try to see if i can find some sources in any case but before that dont make disputed changes until our dispute is settled ok. and i removed our disucssion because our dispute was settled do yuou want to bring it back from the dead again? 76.69.62.12 (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

you obviously have a deep-seated hatred of pakistan and india loving bias. funny how every single world you wrongly described of pak is being applied to india by scholars and experts in even more strong terms: corrupt, bloated-belly, fly-circling terrorist indians making trouble for pak and its neighbors. notice how all of india's neighbors revile india. latest bombing of indian embassy is an indication of those feelings. india is and is seen as the laughing stock of the world and endlessly boast about its hungry billion. you well know the many genocides committed in india including in ind-occupied kashmir where hundreds of thoudsands of muslims have been slaughtered mercilessly. yet for all of india's troublemaking, pak is admired around the world for its courage to combat india-encouraged terror. this explained why america and china are investing billions upon billions to us to avert further terrorist attacks. to this chindia nonsense, let me remind you in no uncertain terms, china is a developing superpower that has our committed and unshakable support, india is a third world country in every sense of the world with its backwardness and crudeness. america shares the same belief as us and our allies in the first against terror and the southern menace. i see no further point socializing with a pak-hating editor. consider this the last conversation—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.62.12 (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments left on 76.69.62.12s talk page (were deleted by user)

If I may be frank

I feel that very few of your edits seem to leave a very good taste in the mouth including your recent edits to Regional Power. Your edits to the commonwealth games including the addition of the third world country tag and your continued removal of citations leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. Attempting to combat bias with bias is hardly the solution and to me it appears that is exactly what you are trying to do. Thus no, we are not "cool". Vedant (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you note I have not contested any of your valid edits but I would appreciate if you sought consensus before making such drastic changes. Vedant (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, to compromise I will not contest your edits to the various missile pages but in the future do not remove valid citations just because you may not fully agree with them. Vedant (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am not in denial that said country has its problems and suffers from wide levels poverty, illiteracy, disease and what not but pointing these issues out at every turn turns things into a POV conflict (notice the China entry on Regional Power and how we do not mention said nation's many flaws because it would be inappropriate on such a page). Vedant (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll fix it. For the record, I never actually made half the claims on that article, I simply reworded them. I have also corrected the Foreign Relations of India page and removed the claim about India representing the G20 THOUGH I did make mention of the fact that India is seen as one of the major representatives of the developing world and that Kamal Nath was speaking for more than 30 other developing nations (as given by the cite). Vedant (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the entry in Regional power. Vedant (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont dispute that the two countries have had a turbulent relationship and that it could probably be documented in the India-Pakistan relations page since it is pertinent. However, I don't think it needs to be stated on EVERY page. Do you agree? Vedant (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not in dispute. India was NOT reprsenting the G20 at the Doha round and removing that claim is good but the article does state that India does speak for atleast some sizable portion of the developing world. Vedant (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

While it may have partially caused the collapse of the round, the fault was not only India's. Indeed the Americans, French, Chinese and Brazilians all contributed to the failure of the round so laying the blame squarely on one country seems a little misleading to me as well. Vedant (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have cited the BBC source with regards to the 2008 Doha Development Round talks. Vedant (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can agree that it wasn't a landing per se so I will not challenge your edit. Vedant (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chindia

None of it is cited. I could dig up a dozen articles that state Pakistan is a bankrupt state that is on the verge of collapse (just look at the Failed States Index). What does on a high level mean? Both Pakistan's PPP GDP and Nominal GDP per capita are less than India's... that is unless you are trying to introduce bias into the article? Vedant (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, I'm kind of curious why you removed our previous discussion from your talk page. Vedant (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the Google books article you posted doesn't have any relationship to the citation. For the record, I never brought Pakistan into the discussion until you introduced your anti-India bias into the article which is wholly inappropriate. Not to mention, the majority of sources state Pakistan is a bankrupt, ineffective, corrupt, unstable, poverty-ridden state and many consider it to be a FAILED STATE but I wouldn't introduce that into many articles because it would start a flame war. I have no objection to you introducing sources and even making modifications but the wording that you used was NOT neutral and is just biased towards one side of the argument. In addition, I feel it necessary to add that China isn't a superpower either and like India it is still a developing country with millions mired in poverty and numerous other environmental, political, and social issues to deal with. I'm not denying that it's probably a decade ahead of India in most fields but to call it a superpower is a dilution of the term to say the least.

I do think that if you want to make a political statement, do so on a forum that's dedicated for that and don't attempt to introduce POV into articles. I don't question your productive edits but your Chindia article was definitely not a neutral edit IMO. Vedant (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Right....

You can go ahead and delete this if you want (truth be told, I could care less). I personally feel your bias comes out in every single one of your edits. Looking at the comments you left on my talk page it seems like you're the one who needs to take a look at how to make NEUTRAL edits which to date has apparently eluded you. You may practice the politics of hate elsewhere like Facebook, YouTube, MySpace or elsewhere, I hear they don't care about objectivity at all :). If I might add, there is no such thing as a "developing superpower", its an oxymoron, you are either a superpower or you are not... As for your other claims, you're certainly free to your opinion even if I think it is biased, poorly researched and full of hate. Vedant (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Does he believe what he's saying, with that last comment he left on your talk page? No one else does. GSMR (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way... you can delete this comment but I thought I'd let you know that the page history is saved so I can pull up our past discussions (FYI). Vedant (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User_talk:Vedant. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. GSMR (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)