Issues with other user
Hi. One user has made accusations against me and reverted all my edits and revoked my user rights. I was not given any warnings prior to any of his reverts.
With regard to his accusations, this is what he said "1. You seem to be a BJP proponent editing BJP-related pages. 2. You've engaged in plagiarism".
He has not said from where the plagiarism is supposed to come, and has not asked me about it. I used an old version of wikipedia for some of the information, but most of it was rewritten or clearly referenced to websites.
His other accusation about BJP (the BJP is the current ruling party in India) is also wrong. I'm not a proponent of the BJP. I'm also not aware that RationalWiki forbids editors on the basis of political affiliation.
On the other hands, due to the work of one editor, all Hinduism articles are extremely biased not only against the BJP, but against all aspects of Hinduism in general (like factual errors about Hindu educational institutions, ...). That user clearly was a SPA with the mission of Hindu-baiting. My edits were trying to make them a bit more factual and balanced.
For example, in the honor killings article I removed the category Hinduism , because it is not supported by any Hindu text or authority or guru, and is not practicised in Hinduism. I'm open to the possibility that it happens also among Hindus (I don't know), but is not part of Hinduism (which category implies).
- My issue was not that honor killings do or do not occur among Hindus (I simply don't know enough about it), but that it is not part of Hinduism and Hindu doctrine (which I am sure about), which the categorization implies. My issue was solely about the categorization.
In the David Frawley article (about a fairly mainstream Hindu writer on Hinduism and Yoga) I balanced some extreme smears with actual quotes from the author. It is a "Biography of A Living People" article and therefore should be held to some higher standards.
And in an article about a Hindu educational institution, I pointed out that there are factual errors in the claims in the article , which still have not been fixed.
The tea competition
It seems that Archivist removed the topic (more precisely, the topic's not on the saloon bar any more). It also seems you haven't been around for over two weeks (wow, how horrible). So, um. Just informing you. —Kazitor, pending 03:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- It cool —ClickerClock (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
—ClickerClock (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ooh, that's fancy. Thanks :) —Kazitor, pending 05:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
March for our lives
- @18.104.22.168 Breitbart is a trash site. The photos in that Breitbart article may have been photoshopped. It's only okay to post links from untrustworthy sites if the reporting has been collaborated by other better sources or as a joke. The Vice source is okay as it has been collaborated or it's a joke post. Not picking up rubbish isn't very important. Imagine how petty I would be, if I complain about pro-life protesters littering? Gotcha pro-lifers ha you littered! LOL. HAHA. See I'm not being petty at all. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Some of the stuff on the page was actually going to put in a book of mine, and I've got no where else to put it. The PIE related stuff was meant to be the basis of a translator, but that didn't end well. Darthmaul (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)