User talk:Desione

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Bakaman 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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
  • 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.[1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Re:British Raj

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia'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\ talk / 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

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. — Stephen 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] March 2008

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Or perhaps he is fair. I really don't know. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how can I ascertain if it was Rockybiggs who vandalized my page? DemolitionMan (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP originates from London. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Yep that was my suspicion. I will proceed to do so. KBN (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

Please note that you have made four reverts in less than 24 hours on Company rule in India: Revert1, Revert2, Revert3, Revert4. This constitutes a 3RR violation, which is non-negotiable. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't push it Fowler, you know as well as I do that the second revert failed. Desione (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
How did it fail? Each of the reverts above shows your European Coastal Settlements Map (click on the links and scroll to the bottom). That only exists in your version. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I am more worried about reverting the biased text than the map. thanks Desione (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You say in your reply on my talk page: Here is a link to the text after second revert [2]. The revert was partial half-way revert, so I fixed it in next revert (see [3]) with edit summary "fixing bad revert. 2nd revert: article is not npov. any POV can be properly sourced. Thank you." After that fowler reverted my changes again as expected with edit summary rv desione's second revert. Please take a look at the sequence in [4]. So again, three reverts not one and this is confirmed by your own revert whose edit summary says rv desione's second revert. Does it hold water now?
As I said above I did not count the first revert you mention above (the partial half-way one with time stamp 04:13), only the second (with edit summary "fixing bad revert" with time stamp 04:14). My edit summary said "second revert" only because at first I believed you, but when I examined the history, I realized your statement was incorrect. The sequence of four reverts is:

[edit] RfC

If you want to go ahead and file an RfC, please do so. Can't stop you. Based on the soundness of your arguments and looking at the whole situation from a strictly neutral perspective, I may support you. However, I shall not file an RfC of my own accord :) - Best of Luck. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

55 hours for edit-warring and 3RR violation on Company rule in India. Moreschi (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info

Don't worry about him. He is a troll, and it is best to not feed the trolls.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] en:Religious harmony in India listed for deletion

The article en:Religious harmony in India listed for deletion second time.I wonder why people should have POV against en:Religious harmony in India but that POV is quite apparant that is the reason it is listed en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India here.
I request those who want to keep this article do vote at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India so I can keep working further on this article.
If every 10 minutes if some one or other wants to delete the article how do I spend more time to improve the article ? Openion from people working on India related projects is needed urgently.

Thanks and looking forward to support

Mahitgar (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD reverts

Hi Desione, I reverted your post-closure edits to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_harmony_in_India. The proper venue for voicing any objections to an AFD closure by an admin is WP:DRV; the archived AFDs themselves should not be modified as the notice on the top of the page states. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hi! You are feeding the troll and giving him the legitimacy he wants to have. Probably it is too late now since he got an article in poor condition deleted and will now waive it around like a prize, and you started participating in an orchestrated poll. You can put 1000 votes into it and even then he will come up with a reason. He is POV pusher, and our job is to keep him out of our actions - not to deal with him everyday.

You should have listened to me: as an "established editor"[sic], I have spent past 5 years on Wikipedia watching cabals and trolls. And the project has good rules. All one has to do is to follow by the book. There is no polling on Wikipedia. And trolls are not to be fed. Sooner or later an admin would realize his disruption and ban him for good. People like him generally like to use sock puppets, and also meat puppetry, and extend there own ban.--talk 06:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jokes, personal and otherwise

I assume your recent comment at WP:AN referred to Vishnu and his Tendev. FWIW, I didn't take that particular comment personally I don't think I ever indicated I was offended by it. In fact, my wife thought it was hilarious. DM was topic banned for a whole lot of things but not for that. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Religious violence in India, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] You are Wellcome to edit article on North India!

Hi User:Desione would you like to help with the article on North India and improve it a little bit, thanks --Himhifi 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Violence in India

With due respects desione, the historical content in this article is getting ridiculously long. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a quick read of WP:TD? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting the page

You can tag it for deletion if you like but I don't think it'll get deleted (you won't get enough support). I'm ambivalent about the article, but mainly because it seems to be a placeholder for disparate acts of violence with little relation to each other (other than the fact that they are in India). On the other hand, religious violence is endemic in India and if someone can make the article coherent, I wouldn't be against it. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious violence in India

Keep up the good work on this article, appreciate the time you put in, as the article was otherwise likely to depict India primarily as a place where Hindus are never bothered, and instead frequently attempt to perform genocide on its minorities and are involved in a Hindu anti-minority conspiracy. Trips (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to move article Invasion of Goa incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Invasion of Goa to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page.

[edit] British Raj

I note that you are in danger of breaking the 3 revert rule on British Raj. Please discuss future changes on the talk page. Thanks. Leithp 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relax!!

take it easy. Edit warring will only earn you punitiv e action. There are better ways to get your point accross.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please respect results of Move Requests

Hi. Your move request to re-title Invasion of Goa as Liberation of Goa was closed as no consensus. Please respect that and do not move the page anyway. Otherwise, what was the point? Thanks. El_C 10:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of British Raj Apologist

I have nominated British Raj Apologist, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Raj Apologist. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Raj

If you want to put the particular text, seek consensus first. Also before accusing some of vandalism, read WP:VANDALISM first. What you are doing is a blatant POV pushing is is reverted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have complaint against me, take it to WP:AIV. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The editor reported the behavior to AIV. It was rejected. See below. Toddst1 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations

Please be advised that discussing things on talk pages is not considered disruption. Further accusations of editors along this line will be considered a personal attack and a violation of wikipedia policy.. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, can you leave a general message on the British Raj talk pages asking people to back up their arguments using WP:RS or even that asking too much. Desione (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence Talk:British Raj. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. I am specifically talking about this edit. This is your final warning. Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)