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.
- Thanks ! —ClickerClock (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Sent an email
- @Kazitor No, did u get my email? —ClickerClock (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
being a ballot reader
- @Christopher explain —ClickerClock (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's some stuff on RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations, you probably want to talk to FCP. My impression is that someone is needed to read the poll results, and presumably that person shouldn't be a candidate so they can't alter the results in their favour. —Kazitor, pending 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
OpenSTV is a Python program that reads a ballot file. David Gerard would grab the ballot file, I would regex out some stuff that OpenSTV can't read and add in candidate names, etc. You'd confirm that the changes I made were reasonable (literally just removing candidate IDs that OpenSTV reads as weights), read the ballot file for irregularities (eg, a bunch of accounts voting in the exact same way in a short time period), and read the results that OpenSTV outputs to confirm that they're reasonable (eg, widely hated candidates don't win). If you're comfortable with Python, we'd also love it if you ran OpenSTV yourself. If this sounds intimidating, it's not, and I'd be there to help. Hopefully David too, though that's less probable. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato Sure —ClickerClock (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
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)