User talk:Zuggernaut/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome

Hello, Zuggernaut! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Redtigerxyz Talk 17:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

August 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Maharashtra. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. the statement you have referenced to two books finds no mention in either. If you continue to add this without consensus you will be blocked —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your claim is wrong. Please check the sources properly and you will find the following statements per the citation: The first problem they faced was which variety was to be taken as standard for description. This they solved by adopting the speech of Deshastha Brahmans of Pune. This is no original research. I have reported the matter to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-15/Deshastha Brahmin due to your belligerent attitude and derogatory language used here.[1] Zuggernaut (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Maharashtra#Marathi_statement_dispute discussion. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maharashtrian Bhakti saints

The article Maharashtrian Bhakti saints has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, orpahned article with no content other than a list of apparently non-notable people.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Svick (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

August 18 2010

STOP! Vandalising and spreading false info of your own or from unreliable websites in many wiki pages, like upanishad for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.80.122 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to one of those Islamic or christian fundamentalist who wants to spread false info against other faiths from unrelaiable source. STOP VANDALISING WIKI PAGES AND SPREADING HATRED OTHERS FAITHS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR BELIEFS.

You were already warned many times by moderators for vandalising and spreading false info and hatred against other faiths from unreliable sources. Watch it.

TempUser1234567 comment added by TempUser1234567 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ayodhya debate

The article Ayodhya debate has been renamed to Ayodhya conflict by an editor without any reference or discussion. I must note here that Ayodhya dispute is clearly not an armed conflict like Kargil Conflict and neither the mainstream media or government refers to the Ayodhya dispute as conflict. Even the term Ayodhya conflict has never been used in the article itself. Could you revert the name of the article back to Ayodhya debate or dispute.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of Sockpuppetry

You have accused me on the British Empire FARC page of being a sock puppet. If you have any reasonable grounds of suspecting this please request a check user as I said on that page I have nothing to hide. If you do not have any reasonable grounds then you owe me an unreserved apology. Outofsinc (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Zuggernaut, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! Lunalet (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ganga move

Please contribute to discussion on talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Zuggernaut, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Saw your edit count 3000+ since July, you are moving fast. I didn't mean to hurt you about your table, sorry nevertheless. Don't forget wp:GREATWRONGS. Can't leave the discussion untill it has reached its logical conclusion, but hence forth I will engage myself in simple editing and creating new pages, instead of wasting time arguing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about the table and no need to apologize for it. I'm not sure GREATWRONGS is applicable here because we aren't dealing with problems with content. It's more about the bias faced due to an under-representation of a particular community and it needs to be fixed in a better way than by having a project or simply a FAQ in the NPOV. Otherwise 100s of millions of readers are going to read misleading articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Like you said it is a numbers game, if more and more editors from a diverse background start editing English Wikipedia, the articles are bound to reflect the diversity of the backgrounds, competent, careful, wikilaw abiding editors. Wonder what you think of the table on Ganges' discussion page, have a go at it if you wish.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Some ot these 100s of millions of readers have to turn into good editors, then the bias would be lost.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That would take a while, perhaps decades. I'm beginning to find that the existing mechanisms (project for countering systemic bias, a mere mention in the NPOV FAQ) to combat the bias aren't sufficient. One last avenue that I am aware of and haven't tried out is the village pumps. I will give it a shot shortly and see where it leads. Waiting for those 100s of millions of readers to turn in to editors isn't a timely solution and the articles like British Empire, Famine in India and Ganga need to change sooner than later. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(1)British Empire is a clear breach of Wikipedia rules like wp:V the units part, wp:OR the maps, and wp:UNDUE, it is not balanced, the process for FA scrutiny is too lax, it comes across as an obit., the whole tone is poor, it is not bias, it is beyond that, somehow the system has been circumvented, but is it really worth the trouble to raise Cain. (2)One can write an article a day and stay out of trouble, and hope that more and more editors from diverse backgrounds, open minds, and brave hearts come around. (3)Having said that at Ganges Jayen has done a fantastic job, why don't we talk at the Ganges page, so that we do not have to face allegations of canvassing and what not. (4)On famine have you read Henry Hyndman? And other socialists? (5)You have been coming up with great paper sources, where do you find all the books you quote from? (6)Freedom at midnight and another book has mentioned Savarkar's homosexuality, I wrote to the other book's author but received no reply, I did not find contact information for Dominique Lapierre, I wrote to www.savarkar.org they said that Gopal Godse has refuted the allegations but gave no sources???? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of Henry Hyndman. The leads for the sources come from general reading. Freedom at Midnight is not peer reviewed material. It's just a book. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hyndman was very critical of the Imperial Establishment, and even the Indian's in UK (early 20th century) found him too radical. I suggest you write articles written by him.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(I have a problem logging in perhaps because of a virus resident on my PC so this anon edit. user:Yogesh Khandke)I had written to Dominique Lapierre seeking his consent to a discussion on Freedom at midnight, he wrote back agreeing to it. Do you have access to Freedom, will it be possible for you to send a scan of the text related to Savarkar from Freedom? What has Dominique based his allegations on? Are there footnotes or references. I had read Freedom a long time ago in the summer of '82 when I was in 9th standard, a hazy recollection is that Savarkar's homosexuality is mentioned as a footnote related to Gandhi's assasination.117.195.64.67 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have only a peripheral interest in this and I do not have a recollection of reading the book. I googled the quote today, here's what it came back with:

“ At the age of twenty-eight, Godse had finally taken that ancient Hindu vow whose observance had so concerned and troubled Gandhi, that of the Brahmacharya, the voluntary renunciation of sex in all its forms. He apparently remained faithful to it for the rest of his life. Before taking it, he had only one known sexual relationship. It was homosexual. His partner was his political mentor, Veer Savarkar. ”

Zuggernaut (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not enough, we need page numbers, edition, and other things, thanks a lot nevertheless. Any go?Yogesh117.195.65.78 (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

from my experiences at ANI, administrators hardly get involved unless the issue is clearly black and white or some procedural violation. This case, being a procedural violation, there is a chance for someone stepping in. it is better to leave the ANI thread short and express major concerns and leave it at it unless we are absolutely required to respond. the concerns are often well understood without us having to rehash it multiple times. i know it is hard to resist. --CarTick (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will stay away and watch from a distance from now on. If the problems are not sorted out, I will start preparations to take the issues through WP:DRR. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Upanishads

Upanishads

Hello Zuggernaut, I don't think adhering to one style of citation is as important as keeping those quotes in the footnotes. They are among the best pieces of information in the article. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

{{tone}} on Upanishads#Criticism_of_the_Upanishads

Happy to help The initial sentence: "Criticisms of the Upanishads range from an ill-conceived and half-thought out bluster, to scholarly but scathing ones." is not encyclopedic. Either these weak arguments are really just nonsense--in which case, there is no point in engaging them--or they are legitimate and strong criticisms which deserve to not be disregarded by calling them "ill-conceived and half-though out bluster." Please post on my talk if you think I can be of further assistance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, I've moved that quote to footnotes. If you think it still needs work, please feel free add back the tag. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at Yogesh Khandke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of Upanishads

The article Upanishads you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Upanishads for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at King Zebu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--King Zebu (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Deshastha

Deshastha

You wrote, Shakher59, you have uploaded several pictures on Wikipedia, some of which are being used in Deshastha Brahmin. It'll be a lot of help if you can provide more information about the pictures. Things like location of the pictures, when they were taken, the occasion, whether they are Deshastha Rigvedi or Yajurvedi and perhaps their last names, etc will be of great help. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The pictures' title has the period when they were taken. If I give names of the people, the photographs will be immediately deleted for being of non-notables. These pictures are there simply to show what deshastha people look like to the average wikipedia reader who would have no idea as to what a deshastha person looks like. That is why I am not happy about the picture of contemporary deshastha couple being deleted. I don't see anybody else putting a new picture of contemporary deshastha family either. All my B & W photos are from 1950s and 1970s. Having a color picture does make sense so if you have one, please add it to the article. By the way, all the people in the photographs are deshastha, mostly yajurvedi. The munj ceremony is of a yajurvedi family.Shakher59 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I;ve responded at your peer review page.Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted your content "disgraced and ruined...." because Arthur Crawford on page 127 of your reference in the footnote only alludes to Bajeerao disgracing one deshastha man for having a copy of Sahyadree khand and not the whole deshstha community. Also I have noticed that in recent edits,a lot of people including you and at times myself, have started relying on free books available on google as references. These are very old books by western authors and don't always have a neutral point of view. Use these references but even in the text mention that "according to so and so..... That way the reader can make his or her own conclusions rather than going through the reference list.74.9.96.122 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi anon (74.9.96.122), Thanks for pointing out the detail - I have fixed the Crawford citation to accurately state that one reputed Deshastha Brahmin was disgraced. While promoting the article Upanishads as a GA, my reviewer pointed out that it is not a good practice to name a reference in the article [2]. The use of Google books is quite helpful as long as we stick to WP:Sources and particularly WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Verifiable. I have also provided another citation in addition to Jadunath Sarkar regarding the social war. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Jaggannath, Please provide solid references that all deshasthas are the original brahmin inhabitants of maharashtra. the reference below on Nasik brahmins speculates that Madhyandin yajurvedis came from Gujarat within last 600 years. [3]74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More than 95% of this article is about Deshasthas. You are welcome to start a new and separate article on Yajurvedis if you want to focus on the differences rather than the similarities. The current citations already substantiate the claim. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If current claims substantiate the claim then please cite it after "original"74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion to improve the article. Feel free to improve the article in places you think we can provide accurate information. Please consider signing up and getting a username. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Young Mr. Jaggannath, Send me your email address and I will send you the image of the article74.9.96.122 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Take a look at Burden of evidence [4] Go on read [5]. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources and that does not mean I don't have complete faith in the claims of the article.
2. Per burden of evidence, provide the full citation. The following minimum details are missing from your citation:
   1. Full author names. done
   2. The exact page number. The current range 241-262 is too large for the simple one line used in the article. Can I conclude that you are not from a research or scientific background ? this paper ( Mastana et al ) is not a review but original research involving blood samples taken from the four groups. most of the pages are tables of data. from what I have read about Wikipedia policy on verifiability, I don't think I have to quote the results verbatim.
   3. Provide the issue number of Annals of Human biology. VOL. 21.
   4. Provide the month of publication of that issue. why ?
3. The content we are talking is tiny. Provide the 2-3 lines of conclusion that supports your claim. You can type it out in the talk space of the article. I would be very surprised if the authors do not use the word immigrant to describe the Parsi.
4. I am removing the entire line from article space as we need to establish verifiability of the source to satisfaction before we can add it to the article per WP:Sources This is as bonafide as it gets.
5. Suggested solution: given the universal knowledge/multiple sources stating that the Parsi are an immigrant community, consider adding "immigrant" before Parsi and we can consider this closed. Your explanation of Paris being native in the talk space of the article is WP:OR
6. Consider signing up and getting an account, go to preferences and add your e-mail address. We can then exchange e-mails. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC) No, the authors don't use that term and so there is no need to. If you want to take it to higher level so be it. I have just started with one of your reference on "Social war" and you had put your own POV. So if you want to verify my reference, then get ready for a fine tooth comb investigation of all your claims in this article!

74.9.96.122 (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure go ahead with "fine tooth comb investigation of all your claims in this article" It will only help make the article better. The more errors you can find, the better! Please consider using a colon to indent your responses. And please also consider signing up to get a username. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for copyedit. Moving {{copyedit}} to article as convention. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Deshastha Brahmins

Hi, i noticed that you have reverted my corrections to the image captions under the claim that it violates WP:MOS. Well, i beg to differ. The common convention is that captions that form a complete sentence should end with punctuation. If you take a look at my edits, then yo u should notice that all i did was to correct the image captions which formed complete sentences. Let me quote it for you:

Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (noun phrases, sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period.

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 06:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Divisions of Maharashtra" is a fragment and the Til-gul caption is probably a fragment. Feel free to undo my revert if you disagree, it's not that big a deal. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a minor issue, but i'm not the sort of person who enjoys edit-warring, which is why i bothered to message you. In the Maharastra image, the fragment follows the sentence and the Til-gul captions are both succeeding sentences. The other caption i corrected was a sentence. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 06:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Is it all right with you if i open a request for copy-edit regarding the anglicization of the spellings and dating, or do you plan on making the necessary changes yourself? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My spell check is set to American English and I don't want to change it. So go ahead with the CE request. But make sure it is Indianization, not Anglicization given that the template added is {{Indian English}} not {{British English}} :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The spellings of Indian English correspond to that of British English. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!}

I have opened a request here. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to spellings like the now disputed 'lakh' (current) versus 'lac' (earlier era). Numerous "Indian English" spellings from the British era have weird spellings, for example, I remember reading "Punah" for Pune somewhere in 19th century British literature. Thanks for your help in improving the article! Zuggernaut (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually enjoyed reading the article. Given the dismal state of most Indian ethnic group articles, i must say that i am impressed by the effort you have put into promoting it to GA. Do you plan on improving it to FA status later on? Our spellings have changed from the British Raj era. As such, i think it would be more appropriate to use the current spellings instead. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have enough time to improve it to FA right now. Perhaps a few months later. Thanks for the encouragement. I would be glad to offer whatever little help I can to improve Roman Catholic Brahmin to a GA. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! Likewise, don't hesitate to contact me when a review of the article is needed in the future. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 11:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like you already got started on the article. I could not find too many sources on the topic. Do you know any that we can use? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I found some content about marriage practices in this book:

Kurzon, D. (2004), Where East looks West: success in English in Goa and on the Konkan Coast, Multilingual Matters, ISBN 9781853596735

Take a look at page 72 and let me know if this information is still current, can we include it in the article? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but the page says nothing about the marriage customs. It talks about the matrimonial Ads of Goan Catholic families of the Bamonn caste. At least in Mangalore, we do not use such ads any more. Currently, Mangalorean Catholics of the Bamonn and Charodi (Roman Catholic Kshatriya) castes intermarry in the cities. Perhaps, it is still not the case in the villages, as small town and village folks tend to be more traditional. Since the caste is very little known, it is very hard to come across materials on it. Furthermore, as it is present among both the Mangalorean and Goan Catholics, the contemporaries on both communities have different histories and are culturally distinct. Their marriage customs as well are indistinguishable from the other castes. This article will require a lot of research. To make matters more difficult, many of the books i need are out of print and very hard to get. I reside outside India, which makes obtaining them from a local library impossible. I do have a list of books on Konkani Catholics that i plan on purchasing during my next trip to Mangalore and Bangalore. So, these might eventually help me to expand the article to at least B-class. However, at present, i have different aspirations. For the time being, i am planning on working on certain Konkani related articles. These articles are almost neglected and in a sad pitiable state. After i am done with them, i plan on improving the Mangalorean Catholics and Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam article to FA status. It is only then that i will work on the Roman Catholic Brahmin and Roman Catholic Kshatriya articles using whatever limited materials i have. Thank you once again! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could call them modern day customs but even those newspaper ads must be outdated now since I know that many people who want to marry within the caste now use Internet matrimony websites. The problem I faced in this article was there were no references to make that claim (maybe I did not look hard enough). Good luck with your work on the Konkani articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

British Empire

British Empire

[6] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I have raised the fact you have been canvassing over the India/British Empire articles at the Admins notice board here. Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I'm going Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Vandalism before actually talking to the founders and co-owners... But before that, I'll make a sadbox out of the history section and present it for discussion and then let's see what happens from there...

thanks :)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We are attempting to do just that :D ... I've more amendments to suggest :P

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DisruptiveConstructive behaviour

British Empire is a featured article which was reviewed by the community a long time before you got here [7]. So, unlike your recently and unilaterally created categories, it is the subject of community agreement. Please do not be disruptive and remove things from it just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out a problem with the maps in the article - they are inaccurate because they show Goa, Daman, Diu and Oman as parts of the British Empire when they were under Portuguese and French control well beyond the 1940s. I've then provided a possible solution to how the problem can be fixed [8]. Our FAs need to meet the criterion of the finest article so I am trying to help you keep the FA status. You have ignored several questions from unique editors over several months about the maps including one from a color-blind person who clearly has a genuine question about making the map accessible to him or her [9]. It is your behavior here that's disruptive. You've been wikihounding me for weeks to India, Famine in India, American Revolutionary war where you repeatedly violate a pillar of Wikipedia - WP:Civility as has been pointed out by multiple different and unrelated editors [10] [11]. You've added POV tags to the India and Famine in India articles because the article asserted 37 million deaths from starvation during British rule. From this pattern of behavior, it is easy to see that you have an agenda on Wikipedia - to glorify the British Empire and stifle any information (even though it meets WP:Sources and other WP policies) that brings forward the negative aspects of the British Empire. Clearly it's your behavior that's the problem. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"POV"

You are misusing/misunderstanding the term "POV". The purpose of this tag is not to denote "someone did something I don't agree with" or "something hasn't been adequately responded to on the talk page". It is "this section/article is not written using a neutral point of view", which in turn means it does not "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

• Western/Christian - Yogesh asked which word the source used, without making any point. I replied. You view that as justification for a POV tag. Why? We can't read your mind, or his mind for that matter, even though you seem to think you can. Explain yourself please.
• Bangladesh/other Indian conflicts - Yogesh took a sentence which was sourced (all conflicts listed there are explicitly stated to be legacies of the BE by the cited author) and then decided to add his own conflicts, without any supporting sources. You view that as a justification for a POV tag. Why? Yogesh violated policies on WP:V (adding unsourced material), that was why he was reverted. If he wants to continue the discussion, he can start a new thread on the talk page.
• maps ... a mistake on a map (or indeed failure to be 100.000000% accurate by not showing something the size of 1 pixel which is barely visible when blown up to full size) is not a POV matter - regardless of whether your requests to fix things was actioned or not. (Incidentally, why don't you fix it yourself?)

In future, if you feel something has "POV" problems, I advise you first read WP:NPOV, find the section of that which you think is not being followed, then you quote the exact text in the article and on the article talk page, put the two next to each other and explain your thinking. Continuing to slap POV tags everywhere is not going to endear you to your fellow editors and is liable to be viewed as disruptive. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dickens

I've been through this once. See history of Dickens and came up vindicated. The mention of racism of Dickens in the article is the result of that effort. I too did not know about this angle of Dickens before I made those edits. Dickens is related to 1857 more than you think perhaps. These guys are trolling, I am too old to react wildly. Generally. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple comments

Just a couple comments. I can understand your apparent frustration about the British Empire page. There are a group of editors there ready to defend the page, perhaps to a fault. There are others, like myself who, if I may be so bold, might support some of your complaints. I think I might qualify as a neutral party: I have no vested interest in the BE page; I think there is a systematic pro-British bias in English language sources in general; and I have worked to rectify this in small ways on Wikipedia (mainly on issues relating to the North American Pacific Northwest). Furthermore, I know little about India and the BE's history in India--so while I may not be able to speak as an authority I might at least play a role as a neutral party. However, your methods have come across, to me at least, less as a desire for improving Wikipedia and more as a broadside attack on the BE page and a few others. While I can understand the frustration you might feel when faced with a team of Britons defending the BE page, I have to say your methods have not exactly lent themselves to sympathy from people like me. Taking the page to FAR was, for me, going to far, and since then I've been mostly watching from the sidelines out of curiosity. Perhaps the best thing at this point would be to step back, wait a while, and then bring up single points, resolving them one at a time, at some future date. Just a suggestion. Best, Pfly. Pfly (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some advise

I really suggest you spend more time on article talk pages working with other editors. So far you have rushed issues to two forums without real discussion and now we have a nonsensical ANI report. Add that to your canvassing of pages hoping to create an anti-imperial alliance and your behaviour starts to become an issue. You are also (on articles such as British Empire) simply playing into the hands of the pro-British Empire lobby by taking too extreme a position. Please try and work with other editors, moderate what you doing and stop trying to game the system. --Snowded ^TALK 06:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:YellowMonkey#Blocked_editor_humbly_requests_explanations Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Would this be of help in handling a cabal?

[12] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that Zuggernaut has managed to unite editors who normally have profound political disagreements I think calling it a cabal is a bit far fetched --Snowded ^TALK 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

British Empire

Just wanted to say how delighted I am that your attempts to have British Empire delisted have failed. Bye. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

British Raj

The templates have caused text to touch the table edges. Can you give a small white outer border so that the text stays clear of the template? AshLin (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It'll be nice if you succeed. AshLin (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Really happy to see encouraging words. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Great work. Have already seen your template discussion. Nothing useful to contribute as of now. Will let you know. Keep up the good work. AshLin (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories - British Empire.

Thank you for youre invitation but I think that it would be more prudent to decline as the powers ranged against us are too powerful to be attacked by direct means. Will look for your work elsewhere and will contribute where appropriate and where it's likely to meet with success. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Z please stop labeling everyone who disagrees with your POV a "British Nationalist" (I for one find it insulting) and stop canvassing. You have been warned about this before. --Snowded ^TALK 23:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Snowded - I do not think I have canvassed Laurel. If you think otherwise, please provide a diff. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

See your language here --Snowded ^TALK 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something but I don't see any canvassing in asking someone (who works on categories) about the viability of re-creation of a category that's been dead for 4-5 months? Zuggernaut (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking for help in a neutral way possibly --Snowded ^TALK 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Laurel - I will do likewise but I will steer clear of British Empire for now. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)