→Cana: wholy unwelcome |
Jade Knight (talk | contribs) →Cana: two comments |
||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
: [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite#top|talk]]) 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
: [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite#top|talk]]) 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
::BRD is '''not''' a Wikipedia guideline or policy, though it is clearly your favored editing style (though you seem to use in in instances where the "problem" does not exist?). [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] ([[User talk:Jade Knight|talk]]) 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm afraid I think your involvement at Cana is likely unproductive—you appear to be interested in trailing DoDaCanaDa to "slap his hands", so to speak, and not to actually make any improvements. If you find his edits are unproductive, you are better off staying uninvolved at articles you were not involved in to begin with, and instead notifying me (as his Mentor), or someone else who spends more time at the article about the edits. Whether this is your intention or not, you ''do'' come across as hostile towards DoDaCanaDa, who is sincerely trying to learn more about how to edit productively at Wikipedia. [[WP:DBTN|DBTN]]. [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] ([[User talk:Jade Knight|talk]]) 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:47, 26 February 2009
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
They were vandalism
They were indeed vandalism, first of all he added tags indiscriminately during GA review, continues even now! Removal of material because of some organization does not match my taste is vandalism. --Bluptr (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Lo behold! You can check the user's contributions! More tags added indiscriminately.. this is vandalism indeed. Bluptr (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, see the section "Abuse of tags." Sorry if my words offended you. Very sorry Bluptr (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Ramakrishna article
Yes, quite correct (about uncivil edit summary), and just after saving, I realized it was wrong. I know I shouldn't "save" when angry; but Goethean pushed me over the line with his consistent hatred for the Ramakrishna Mission; his edit expressed this viewpoint, which seems to me to be a kind of fanaticism. Indeed, his thinking seems to be clouded with this fanatical hatred of the Mission, and he suspects the other editors of being stooges of the Mission. He is constantly making offensive remarks, which most other editors bear with patience; sometimes we too lose our cool. I don't know what the solution is; but he seems to be far more out of line than the rest of us with his anger, hatred, sarcasm, and so on. He seems to be the only editor with his views, which may make him all the more hot-headed. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out my incivility in the edit summary. Devadaru (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
further replied. KnowledgeHegemony talk 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Your warning and previous warning removed by user
See this --KnowledgeHegemony talk 15:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry my bad. Got overworked by it. Actually this user miffed me because the "denial" to accept his actions as vandalism by KillerChi as vandalism in some way led to the departure of Shovon76 (talk · contribs), an experienced user from Wikipedia (one of the many reasons). I ll undo my last edit! Regards, --KnowledgeHegemony talk 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I am really puzzled to know how this does not amount to vandalism! Deliberately replacing cited content with false and misleading text IS vandalism! Adil your's edit clearly replaced quoted text from Stein's book (see ref) and "misquoted" it. Nationalistic or not nationalistic...it was vandalism indeed! --KnowledgeHegemony talk 15:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes! Its not vandalism as per WP:VANDALISM but WP:POVPUSH So what can one do to stop a user from disrupting Wikipedia? --KnowledgeHegemony talk 15:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Disputed Facts
I dont want to have an edit war with anybody, lets have a disscussion on what u want to change..... I m willing to change any content that is disputed... I removed the portion saying Indian soldiers killing Kashmiris back to its original state since i had no reference (but i m trying to find one as i have seen reports on TV about the extra judicial killings of Kasmiris by Indian Armed forces)...How about I change hypocrisy to disobedience in General gracie's case (Reference is not a good one but u can visit general gracy's article itself and the incident is also stated in the documentry film Jinnah , its pretty famous.....But I'll find a better and proper reference and put it there)...Is that ok for u..???.......I hope ur happy...... I have also changed what I wrote on Kargil War, I think I was being a little biased there as well even though u didn't point that one out.......I'll act upon ur advice and try to be absolutely Neutral in my Edits......I hope u will stop complainig now....Best Wishes.....
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adil your (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Ray Joseph Cormier
Given that their seems to be a dispute of some sort between you and the subject of said BLP, I'm not sure it makes sense for you to be editing that page. I'd suggest you consider reverting your edits. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Final Solution
Perhaps you are unaware that Final Solution can carry multiple meanings, some of which are mathematical? You may wish to assume better faith. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are you vandalzing the bildenberg articale?
You say im doing disruptive edits when its 100% obusivous to anyone that you are abusing your power by threating me for doing the right thing and undo your disprutive edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcer (talk • contribs)
- You are inserting possibly defamatory information about living persons. Do not do that. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss the edits I made in this Article Talk:Cana, please feel free to do so. DO NOT just undo an edit without discussing your reasons and justifications first. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BRD. Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- BRD is not a Wikipedia guideline or policy, though it is clearly your favored editing style (though you seem to use in in instances where the "problem" does not exist?). The Jade Knight (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I think your involvement at Cana is likely unproductive—you appear to be interested in trailing DoDaCanaDa to "slap his hands", so to speak, and not to actually make any improvements. If you find his edits are unproductive, you are better off staying uninvolved at articles you were not involved in to begin with, and instead notifying me (as his Mentor), or someone else who spends more time at the article about the edits. Whether this is your intention or not, you do come across as hostile towards DoDaCanaDa, who is sincerely trying to learn more about how to edit productively at Wikipedia. DBTN. The Jade Knight (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)