User talk:Deshabhakta

Dear Evox777, your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&oldid=341510090 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&diff=prev&oldid=341510090 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:[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Evox777#Your_Edits_on_RSS_page. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. "From your statements made above one can make out your callousness and sheet intent to vandalise the article" Please refrain from making this kind of remarks in the future. Evox777 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Evox for incorrectly directing the comments at you instead of the edit. It was meant to say The edit showed signs of carelessness with the author having acknowledged that he/she failed to see other edits within the edit. Every edit to Wiki takes effort and a revert should be done with careful consideration. There are chances of edits done without enough care leading to vandalism. --Deshabhakta (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted and no hard feelings. Regarding the edits see my response above. From now on, please post a {Talkback|your username}} (replace '{' with '{{') on my talk page, if you leave a reply on yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evox777 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you and Goethan on the use of opinion sources. See the talk section on Doniger.

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Communist Party of India (Marxist). 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Soman (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were to remove vandalism done without discussion. Even those who participated in the discussion are only interest in reverting the entire set of edits even if they mention one reason saying too much emphasis on lead section. Some are mentioning unsubstantiated claims about non-reliability of The New Indian Express newspaper. Instead of coming to a discussion and constructively contributing, if people resort to vandalistic edits, an editor is bound to revert such vandalism to maintain quality of the article.--Deshabhakta (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deshabhakta's definitely not in 3RR territory here. This is clear vandalism that he/she's undoing. My only complaint with Deshabhakta is that he/she hasn't warned the IP and now the account, which would have alerted others that this is vandalism. See the warning templates at

WP:VANDALISM and use them on the vandalizing editor's talk page next time. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that your edits are completely in the right about the violence and other items. Who ever this other person is obviously believes that the edits you made were not under the

I think I am going to bring Arbitrarily0 into the discussion just to see what his opinion on the matter is. He is also an admin so I think he could be helpful. Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 23:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Communist Party of India (Marxist). 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -Ravivajpayee (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalistic edits does not fall under 3RR. The reverts I have made are purely of those vandalism edits. Please participate in discussion on talk of the article while removing well sourced content. At least, provide valid reasons in the edit summary. --Deshabhakta (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Communist Party of India (Marxist). If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. -Viplovecomm (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oho, a final warning for making constructive and wiki policy based edits! Sorry, as explained in talk page of the article my edits in no way amount to vandalism. Please refer to my queries and explanations on talk page. --Deshabhakta (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Past 4 months you are just focusing on Harmath, and nothing else, It is simply known as pushing forward an biased agenda. The policies of wikipedia which it are against too, are well answred on talk page please see. THIS FINAL WARNING is no joke either, I am going to take the issue to ArbComm, very soon. -Viplovecomm (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my edits lead to a 'pushing of baised agenda' do its reversals for four months also not constitute the same? Which policies are listed on talk page? Just opinions and no policy based questions on talk page from the editors removing my edits. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The

I apologize. I have been completely un-involved in the mediation right now. I am going to come back in to the discussions. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As noticed by you, Mediation is certainly required to bring that article to an acceptable state. Will wait for your time. --Deshabhakta (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Ronk01, I have noticed that you have some edits that might be NPOV violations. Just a friendly reminder. Thank you, Ronk01 talk, 19:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is this note meant to be? --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it's a reminder note for all of those involved in the CPI(M) mediation since it has become rather heated. Ronk01 talk, 04:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please be more specific. all my edits have been based on reliable sources. --Deshabhakta (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

I am just a regular editor and nothing official like an administrator or Wikimedia contractor...I am an editor probably a lot like yourself. One important thing for me is to express thanks to other editors in a personal message to their talk page. This is not a template. I am just leaving this note for you to express my appreciation for your recent participation in voting for Arbatration Committee Members. Your vote is a great thing and with as many people participating as possible there is an excellent chance that we will have good representation on this committee. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]