User talk:AdhunikaSarvajna

CONSIDERING RETIREMENT

AdhunikaSarvajna is strongly considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...

Anti-Hindu violence

Even though there are multiple very closely-related articles, DS is creating an article about Anti-Muslim violence in India. And I presume it will stick since there are many who will like to see an exclusive and utterly one-sided focus on only anti-Muslim violence, who incessantly strive to blindly label every anti-Muslim violence in India as "pogrom".

In light of this and the fact that we already have an article about Anti-Christian violence in India, will it unethical to create an article about Anti-Hindu violence in India as well? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If the consensus is that Religious violence in India should be split up, i see nothing wrong in starting one on Hindus either. One would think that those "neutral" editors would themselves do it. But that says something on how neutral they actually are. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dharmadhyaksha, if we can have Ant-Muslim/Christian violence articles, we need Anti-Hindu one also, the part of the problem is that there are some highly motivated editors with tremendous energy and time, unfortunately I lack both. Take for example, I had plans of starting an article about Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits which itself is a part of Anti-Hindu violence and too huge and notable enough to have its own article, but somehow I could not create one.-sarvajna (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I am saying too.
unfortunately I lack both - don't worry. Wikipedia has no deadline. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're right Dharma, that is the problem with Wikipedia (cf. flaws). Although we like to think that the same yardstick is used to measure neutrality of every editor, the truth simply is far from it. IMHO whatever the consensus is, it doesn't, rather mustn't, supersede the neutrality-policy of Wikipedia. I mean, it can't be that only anti-Muslim or anti-Christian violence need to be covered in separate article but when it comes to coverage of anti-Hindu violence, that need for separate articles magically vanishes. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

let us wait and see how things progress, there were editors who voted for delete not just because of the name of the article but also because the content was duplicate and a separate article was not required -sarvajna (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As if duplication is even being considered at the DR. They will all come up with that same article with a different name, hopefully with a neutral title this time. About Kashmiri Pandits, dump all the source you have at User:Ratnakar.kulkarni/Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits and we can start writing it as and when we get time. I usually have many such articles and work on them whenever i get time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There are more common perfectly encyclopedic topics which are now redlinked for exampe Minority appeasement in India. I tried to create a partial timeline and got frustuated. For example I have heard many rumors that the Malappuram district in Kerala was carved to secure Muslim votes. Can anyone here knows reliable sources of it. I have seen plenty of sorces from RSS but not a single from any neutral source. Why? it is frustuating. The Legend of Zorro 12:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Some subjects just do not have encyclopaedic value other times it is just not possible to gather enough sources to cover a subject comprehensively. However to show you how to find sources and since you chose to write about Minority appeasement in India here are some ways to find sources:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ←Hope these help. Although I understand why you consider creating an article on that subject, my advise, watching the sheer lack of sources, would be don't waste your time on that unencyclopaedic subject. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, I will dump my sources there, that would be a good idea, I was also planning to rely on books like Our Moon has blood clots which are not available online. User:Solomon7968 it is very very difficult to get sources for such a thing, even if you find any, I am sure it would be labelled as unreliable source. -sarvajna (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

How about some help on semi-complete User:Mrt3366/Discrimination against minorities in Pakistan? (passes GNG "Discrimination against minorities in Pakistan" I guess??) Somebody please conform the intro to WP:LEAD and WP:BEGIN. Shift unsuitable claims to the correct section in the body. That is a headache I can't seem to surmount. Please help me there & I will be very grateful. I will take care of the overuse of quotes myself :). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(tps) I suggest simplifying the lead a lot - along the lines of who these minorites are, that they face discrimination and religious intolerance, and stating the key forms of discrimination and/or major incidents. But, the article and topic look legit to me and there's no reason why it can't be put in wikispace. --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Quite simply, no sources for this particular subject. Regardless of my lack of "NPOV" lmao do you think I have not looked into this? An extremely good article could be written on this subject, just ask. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence

I believe that 'Godhra train burning' section makes reader believe that the fire was an accident. I tried to give other side but my edit was reverted by Qwyrxian. I am discussing on article talkpage and improving draft here. Your feedback is invited. neo (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that those theories were before the court verdict and should not be given much importance but just a passing reference. -sarvajna (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, but he is giving so-called 'academic sources' and admin Qwyrxian is impressed by it. So statements of uninvolved reputed bodies and reliable sources are necessary. I will include court verdict also. But if edit was ensues, some admin like RegentsPark will protect his version FOREVER. Please keep it in mind. neo (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Either correct your source misrepresentation here or be reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

do not act like something is on fire, I am adding sources.-sarvajna (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

And now you had added synthesis to your policy violations, well done. I am reverting you, do not restore that content unless you have a single source which explicitly supports it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Self revert now or be reported for source misrepresentation, edit warring and synthesis. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

And this is your forth revert Please self revert and stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not a revert it is a correction, regarding the source I have provided my explanation on talk, I feel that you have not really read source. -sarvajna (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, you had already done that edit once and it was reverted[1] I am now going to report you as you refuse to self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh!! Some one has written something wrong, you reverted my edit for a different reason, now you play a smart tactic to bait me into 3RR violation? Hope the admin overseeing it will note that. All I did in my previous edit was to correct things according to the source. -sarvajna (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Tell it to the judge[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Sarvajna:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Already reported

Already reported that person for edit warring, thanks for reverting the India's page edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good work.-sarvajna (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a look here Persecution of Hindus, the version i prefer was [3], see the talk page too. "Vanamonde93" had disputed the figure first, now we see fabrication of sources for justifying a Scholarly accepted figure. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time you have canvassed for the removal of a reliable source. Do this again and I will report you. StuffandTruth (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)