Talk:Digvijaya Singh/Archive 2

1453:

paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession that is common in North India but rare in the South." After i gave numerous examples of dynastic succession in south india, Sitush had truncated his edit to "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession". When i further objected that the phrase 'dynastic succession' is not present in the reference cited and has negative connotations thus violating the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV and so he should not use this phrase which he himself has concocted, he argued with for some time and then allowed me to have the last word. So i changed the edit to " "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected". User:Sitush got so upset with this that he changed his edit back to his original edit i.e. "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession that is common in North India but rare in the South." Furthermore, i removed the freely speculative reasons given by Aditi Phadnis for the Congress defeat in MP elections together with a direct POV quote by Phadnis. Sitush re-added the disputed material which is based on a solitary source and violative of

1890:

read or b) are editing in bad faith). Furthermore, I hate editors that go and whine on noticeboards and drop stupid templates on user talk pages so that's why I didn't report (plus strictly 3 edits may/may not be a blockable offense). You have demonstrated that you did not even read the sources cited, which spoke to the "long-term significance" of Digvijaya being a "controversial" figure because he spews statements that rile up people across the political spectrum often. This dispute is over the removal of sources. The statement that the sources backed up is notable (and a large part of his notability), it is unsourced, and it is related to material in the article. I added multiple reliable sources, which means my edits here followed the policies of

246:. There was next to no support among experienced contributors for your claims of bias etc and several commented favourably regarding the content removal; even A.amitkumar, while unhappy with it, did not want to push it further. Since you have said both there and on this talk page that you do not want to deal with me, I'm not sure how this can be progressed. What I do know is that you need to stop attacking me and you need to stop nopw. Not because I am bothered personally - I soak up much worse than this, regularly - but because if some passing admin see it then they may decide that enough is enough, per 513:

opinion polls. Further, in Tamil Nadu, the two largest parties are DMK and AIADMK. The children of former chief minister and DMK leader M. Karunanidhi (particularly his son Stalin) have assumed control over the party. In another South Indian state Karnataka, the son of former Chief Minister and Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda has himself been a Chief Minister. His name is HD Kumaraswami and he has his own party (Janta Dal Secular) which is the second largest party in the Karnataka assembly. The son of former Karnataka BJP chief minister BS Yeddyurappa is also in politics and is a member of parliament.

664:

it is a fact that the process of anointment has begun. I recall that only recently you asked for a similar comment about Singh's son to be excluded on the basis that it was a violation of his privacy because whatever his father might wish has no bearing on what the son might wish. Clearly, that argument is now blown out of the water. I really, really do not understand what you want to see in this article: aside from using it to rebut anything said about Singh, you seem not to desire anything. Least of all, constructive development of it in the manner that I have doing. -

790:

succession.". Two things to note. First, the phrase 'dynastic succession' which has negative connotations is not present in the reference article given by Sitush. The phrase has been used by Sitush of his own accord. Second, Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA is not Jaivardhana's father. In other words, even if we assume that Jaivardhana becomes the next elected MLA, it is not a case of dynastic succession because Mool Singh is not Jaivardhana's father. So, in my opinion, Sitush is obliged to remove the the phrase he coined on his own ('dynastic succession') from his edit.

631:

over a constituency. By adding that info, we slightly reduce the impression that this is somehow a "corrupt" process (bad choice of word but you'll know what I mean). Of course. the politics of India are notoriously corrupt anyway - something like two-thirds of members in the 14th Lok Sabha had either been found guilty or were facing charges for one thing or another, according to a BBC report of a few years ago - but at least here we can show that, at worst, the practice adopted by the Singh family is common to the region and not some sort of oddball roguery etc. -

1799:

This article is presently under the spotlight at ANI and has been recently there and at DRN on past recent occasions but, so far, the consensus appears to be that I am operating within policy and, in particular, with regard to BLP standards. Those, of course, can be an exemption to 3RR and given the manner in which you boldly reinstated content that was generally considered to be unacceptable, my reverts of you do not count as such. I can only imagine that you were at that point unaware of the discussions here and elsewhere. Now you are not. -

2609:, I'm no more in this debate, my apology for my reverts, if you people think that my edit is relevant edit then add it or let it go. Because if Digvijaya's remark on other issues which are already mentioned in this article are relevant then I think my edit is also relevant and I attached plenty of sources to it from national media. But anyway I don't insist that my edit should feature in article or I will not participate on any dispute board. Because I think that this is not so big issue. Thank you. -- 2153:. There is no particular reason why parity should be a dominant feature. Look, it is quite obvious that your purpose here is to promote Modi and denigrate Singh - it is not really a position from which you are going to be able to argue in good faith because you have allowed your politics to get in the way of neutrality. I can envisage a single sentence along the lines of Singh being known for putting his foot in his mouth but, really, you've already demonstrated that the two men are not comparable. - 1701:, the lead is a summary of significant features from the article, and the lead should not be written first. In particular, the BLP of a politician does not feature "foot-in-mouth" type commentary in the lead—that kind of thing goes in blogs or news-of-the-day opinion pieces. Anyone can see that the three links above do nothing more than add in-your-face political commentary, and that is not appropriate here. Readers will have to work out how to vote based on other reports, not this article. 1218:

reliable sources should be included, and would appear to have been adopted as a bright-line test to resolve disputes just such as this one. It would take some digging to find it, but long ago I went to some effort to find out what "multiple sources" means in Knowledge policy (though more in the context of the various notability standards, rather than this particular policy) and found a very clear answer that it merely means "more than one," and does not mean "many." This is the link:

1795:

integrated, proportionate and - most importantly - not used in a manner that turns the article into a platform for people who are campaigning for or against Singh in the real world. Soham, for example, has been keen to stress that there is a mass campaign against Singh orchestrated by the Indian media. I've no idea if this is true: it seems improbable on the scale that they were implying, but it is not impossible and so care is required when using such sources.

820:, while "succession" itself is "a number of people or things of a similar kind following one after the other". You will be aware that, for example, the US Kennedy family is often referred to as a dynasty and you should be aware that dynasties include indirect lines of succession (eg: appointment of a regent or some other figure not directly in the primogenitural family line). Are you happy with this bit now? If so, I'll turn to your other specious points. - 1264:

cow"), I presume that your contention must relate to the situation described by Phadnis - a seemingly respected political commentator - as existing in 1985 or to the statements that there were significant problems with electricity supply in the post-Chhattisgarh period around 2003. To resolve that you will need to provide an alternate source and then we can either show both opinions or none. Alternatively, you could take the Phadnis source to

31: 1759:

objecting to suitable text concerning "controversy" in the article, and when that happens the lead will naturally follow. However, experience shows that every politician (particularly those facing election) gets excited commentary based on news-of-the-day reports added to their articles, so there is a need to write the article carefully because any "list of bad things this person has done" section will be removed eventually.

1335:@Soham321: The above is an improvement, thanks—you didn't put the name of a user in the heading, and the heading is neutral and on-topic, good! After that, I'm afraid it went down hill. Please understand that there are literally hundreds of editors posting indignant rants on talk pages at this very moment—experienced editors see them all the time, and such comments are filtered out. By contrast, a post which does 1745:- all within the last month). Your veiled accusations that I have a political axe to grind and am trying to influence votes is laughable. Anyone searching Digvijay on google will find out he is a controversial politician. They don't need Knowledge to see that; yet also, we need to accurately take into account the factors that make him notable. As I have demonstrated(without violating 1723:

is myopic, and your comment extremely patronizing. You implicitly endorse edit-warring above (you honestly can't read through 4 links?), so it is really unsurprising that you have presented some flawed argumentation on the material in question. You say the edit comes at the wrong time. Have you read BLP? I cited a contentious statement that was unsourced. Next, there is no set

944:

identify Mool Singh as a cousin of Digvijaya. So it your carelessness that you did not give reference 10 for the disputed sentence. Furthermore, as i stated earlier: My objection to the phrase 'Dynastic Succession' is twofold. First, it is not present in any of your reference sources. Second, it has a negative connotation and violates the Impartial Tone clause in an

952:. The fact that it does have a negative connotation is accepted by you yourself when in the edit history in the main article you wrote: "I do think this makes the article reflect nastily on Singh". This was when you truncated your earlier erroneous sentence after i pointed out your error and ended up with another problematic sentence. 1845:

didn't wantonly violate Wikipolicies before and some people allegedly lauded you for it, does not mean you are correct in this instance. You have no real consensus for your edits, you have quite obviously violated 3RR, you have revert-warred to institute a BLP violation, and you have vandalized a lead section that was well sourced.

2133:

other hand is not such significant figure internationally, so not mentioned. The sources mentioned above are not from run of the mill local press but from the national media. Now do not term whole of India as the mill. The point is such things have actually occured/ spoken by the person concerned and created controversies.

2736:

We shouldn't have dedicated "Controversy" sections anyway. That type of thing should be worked into the flow of the article. I've not revisited the corruption one and will not be around for a couple of days but the most recent issue, which Human3015 was involved in for a while, does indeed seem to be

2626:

If you feel strongly about inclusion then you should stick to your guns, although simultaneously sticking within the limits of our policy. I'll say it again: I haven't familiarised myself with the detail of the particular event and so right now I have no opinion for or against inclusion. I am open to

1798:

Much of politics, and in particular the reporting of it in news media, is a series of here-today, gone-tomorrow events that involve the participants taking pot-shots at each other and defending themselves from the shots fired by others. Very little of such stuff is lasting, encyclopaedic information.

1791:

The example of Modi is poor. There are academic sources that call him controversial and the nature of the claim extends well beyond India, including past boycotts by the EU, by the UK as a standalone entity and by the US (which even withdrew his visa rights). Perhaps similar international reprobation

1404:

an article should among other things "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Digvijay is notable for being a maker of controversy, as the multiple reliable sources I cited in the lead indicate. The main controversy is cited in

721:

My problem with this is that first the phrase 'dynastic succession' is not present in the reference source which Sitush gives. In other words, Sitush himself came up with this phrase. Second, it is very common for children of Indian politician to enter politics. The way Sitush has framed his sentence

377:

Complete nonsense. The fact that the community is so tolerant of misguided editors often confuses them into thinking that they can continue indefinitely. That is not correct, and this talk page is available only for the discussion of actionable proposals regarding article content, based on policy. If

2128:

About the article in Hindustan Times, it is only for reference about whether Digvijay Singh is controversial or not. Infact each and every sentence spoken by him becomes a controversy, and thats why he is called controversial. Politicians are asked about their views and its what they speak is termed

1794:

This article already notes some aspects of controversy but does so in a balanced manner; for example, it mentions the divided opinion among academics regarding the results of his decentralisation policies and the fallout from the Jogi/Chhattisgarh situation. There is more to be said but it should be

1722:

and disputes over various policies- which directly stem from the content of the article. When a user has violated 3RR (and yes Sitush, I can count, and you clearly made three reverts in under 24 hours) that is germane to note on the talk page. Your refusal to look at editing behavior in this context

1516:

I reiterate that it was a trick. You had an inaccurate edit (edit 1). When i convinced you that your edit is inaccurate, you modified it (so it became edit 2). But even edit 2 had problems. We discussed this at length in the talk page and you let me have the last word. So i modified edit 2 to remove

1501:

It was not a trick - the edit summary and some earlier comments made by me here make that abundantly clear. Now, please retract your disgusting claim that I have somehow acted in an underhand manner. We both know that there is nothing wrong with your command of the English language, so there was no

1452:

User:Sitush has renewed edit warring in the main article and continues to make edits in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines. He had earlier made this edit: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections,

1123:

Further, In an earlier DRN involving me it was pointed out by the wiki admin TransporterMan that for any disputed edit, at least two reliable sources must be given. Sitush must give at least two reliable sources for any edit of his which is disputed otherwise he would not be complying with wikipedia

943:

This is the disputed sentence: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession.". This sentence only cites reference 28 which does not

924:

That reference is already in the article, currently as citation #10, and I'd previously told you this in my message above stamped at 14:53 today. I cannot be held responsible for your own carelessness. You still have not answered whether or not you accept the definition of dynastic succession. Let's

901:

Sigh from me as well. Why didn't you give this new reference in the main article? The only reference you gave did not identify Mool Singh as a cousin of Digvijaya. My objection to the phrase 'Dynastic Succession' is twofold. First, it is not present in any of your reference sources. Second, it has a

663:

do not say that it is less common in the south than in the north: the source says that and it is arguably the most reliable of all newspapers in India. I've said previously that I prefer academic sources to news media but this development is far too recent for peer-reviewed academic sourcing and yet

512:

Of the four South Indian states, the two largest in terms of population and land area are Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. In Andhra Pradesh, the son of former Chief Minister Y.S. Rajashekhar Reddy now has his own party which is favored to do very well in the upcoming elections according to the latest

272:

The 'experienced editors' who were showing up in ANI had never contributed to the article under discussion. (Another 'experienced editor' was seen advising you on your talk page on how to handle me.) User:A.amitkumar had specifically said that he believes you have taken ownership of the main article

2517:

I made required changes in sources and wrote a neutral sub section. And I already explained how much it is relevant, but some people here do have their own POV, they are calling it "bold" and "not-relevant" and involved in edit warring. Without making consensus here. Specially they are tagging each

1187:

He had said this during a DRN and that DRN discussion is not available for view now. As long as we are writing on wikipedia we have to follow wikipedia rules and guidelines. If there is any doubt in your mind about what i am saying he is personally available and you can ask him to confirm what i am

630:

I do not dispute your information but you have not provided a source that says it is no less common in the north compared to the south. That is the key point because it offsets what might otherwise seem to be a particularly unusual situation where a family pretty much has an expectation of "rights"

410:

If you think that meatpuppetry is going on then you need to go back to ANI. Making that accusation here is just going to land you in a whole heap of trouble. If I were you, I would back off with such accusations but if you must pursue them then I suggest that you get your ammunition laid out in the

314:

clearly states: "No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." My contention is that you have taken ownership of the main article. As evidence to support my claim I refer to your own admission

215:

In the edits which he claims he has removed, there is no mention by Sitush of his removal of Singh's views and criticism of RSS which has endorsed Narendra Modi and is the ideological fountainhead of Modi's party and which gets to choose the Prime Ministerial candidate and party president of Modi's

210:

by Sitush who has now taken over control of the main article in violation of wikipedia rules. In the ANI dispute, Sitush has conceded that the main article now consists almost entirely of words written by him and in my opinion this is unacceptable and in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines.

2241:

We've got a bit of a problem with caste claims for this person. It is easy to verify that he comes from a former ruling family but, for example, his own biography (which I have just removed) describes him as a Raja, which is complete nonsense because such titles were abolished many decades ago. We

2132:

Major or minor news articles outside India about a person depends upon the popularity/ significance of a person. If international media mention something, it does not become gospel truth and same holds for the reverse of also. Even academic sources are based on media reports. Digvijay Singh on the

1172:

1 source does the job, another would argue that the existing source is simply adequate and a fourth might say just ignore the person who is disputing. Context is important and I'd be interested to see the context of TransporterMan's comment. TM is, of course, just one more contributor to Knowledge

1087:

Does anyone have a problem with changing "... that is common in North India but rare in the South" to "... that is a feature of politics in North India." ? I think it better represents the source yet maintains the most important element, ie: that the reader should not infer from the situation that

2095:

Oh, and please also note that the "controversial" nature of Modi resulted from lengthy discussions that demonstrated the man was considered controversial by academics and major news sources outside India - it wasn't run-of-the-mill local press with a sensationalist command of language. So, if you

1889:

You have not, in any of your posts, mentioned anything about the subject in question, instead attacking my talk page posts with inane generalities (by the way the evidence is above - and if you call my statements, cited by multiple reliable sources, "evidence-free" - you either a) cannot count or

1696:

The primary point concerning this edit is that it comes at the wrong time. What should happen is that the article is written to a satisfactory standard, including anything encyclopedic that can be said about controversies. When all that is done, and the two tags removed from the article, then the

988:

I consider this a signal that you have conceded the argument. You did not reference your edit properly and instead of being man enough and accepting your mistake you turn around and start making accusations at me. Further, you come up with your own concocted phrase 'Dynastic Succession' which has

1818:

Digvijaya is not as notable as Modi, and hence does not pique the interest of as many academics. A large body of reliable sources still treats Digvijaya as controversial, and his current notability is undeniably tied to that. Obvious facts supported by multiple reliable sources easily constitute

1555:

I have absolutely no problem with noting that a politician is controversial if they are so to a degree that exceeds what might be considered normal. After all, almost all politicians are highly opinionated people and if you hold trenchant opinions then you will attract opposition (although not a

1263:

Found it, thanks. I note that TransporterMan qualifies that quote in their next paragraph, but I can live with that. Since it is self-defeating to source to anyone else a quotation made by one person in a book, and since it has already been verified that Singh was giving away electricity ("milch

1170:

Soham, you keep saying that TransporterMan said this thing about two cites but I have yet to see you provide a diff for it and that would be useful. I mean, there is an art even to defining when something is genuinely disputed and when it is just the work of idiot pov-pushers or similar (who are

615:

I am not doing any original research since the information i gave is widely available. Your edit is wrong because your source is wrong. Further, for any disputed edit, you must use at least two reliable sources to even be allowed to insert the edit in a wiki page according to wikipedia rules and

2058:

confidence if you were to register an account and use it in future - that is not a requirement for contributing to Knowledge but it does much to allay the concerns of people who spend many hours trying to keep these articles in order, faced as they are with partisan people who are determined to

1844:

you have broke. Cut the idiotic justifications of your revert warring. This was a pure and simple content dispute, and given that my edits literally solved a BLP problem and added verifiable reliable sources, you had absolutely no justification to revert three times in one day. Just because you

1758:

If you are concerned about BLP issues, just remove the statement with an edit summary indicating that it should later be incorporated into the article, with suitable encylopedic context. How about focusing any future discussions on what should happen to the article? I don't think anyone here is

1066:

Now, unlike you, I tend to do some reading before I type. Thus, I can assure you that there are plenty of other sources that refer to the dynastic successions. I don't mind ameliorating the "north/south" bit - perhaps to "that is more common in the North than the South" or "that is a feature of

110:

of a political storm-in-a-teacup. We are not a news website, nor a facility for Singh's detractors and supporters to get involved in a real-world bunfight. Given the ambiguity, given the recentism, given the almost-certain ephemeral nature, why do we bother with this type of "he said, she said"

1777:

Why remove it? If a statement has the potential to be well-sourced, notable, and verifiable there is no reason to remove it, only to improve it, which is exactly what I did. What I think should be present in the article is exactly what I placed in the article, before Sitush violated 3RR. Next,

1641:

because you clearly do not understand why it is unnecessary to cite in the lead when, for example, the "controversy" (if it is such) is mentioned in the body with regard to the RSS and encounter incidents. Whether they are worth mentioning is moot but I'm prepared to let them stand and merely

1271:

Regarding your second point, I am aware that there have also been comments about the state of the roads causing significant unrest - he didn't invest in them and they deteriorated - but I've not yet read enough about this to be happy with paraphrasing. The opinions given to explain the defeat

1217:

This is what TransporterMan had written: "Whereas WP:V or WP:BLPREMOVE provide minimum standards for inclusion, the "belongs in the article" language of WP:WELLKNOWN (and it's repeated in the second example of that section, not reproduced here), seems to say that material reported in multiple

291:

Sigh. Soham, what do you want to happen? What is the purpose of this section? You clearly do not understand policy, nor do you understand the role of DRN or ANI, but posting a message here to "record my deep concern" etc is not improving the article. Seriously, I am at a loss regarding how to

138:"controversy" concerning the Thakeray family. Why does it matter what Singh thinks of that family, or what they think of him? I can see that there might be an argument for including material of this type in the various Thackeray family articles but I really do not see the significance here. - 1603:

since that would be rubber-stamping "contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". Not only that, but it was backed up by the "controversy section" of sorts in the article, so even under your argument it reflects material in the body. Conclusion? Your edits

1792:

and academic discourse has happened with regard to Singh but, if so, I've not seen it yet aside from perhaps the Israel issue, which appears to have been a storm in a teacup. Not surprisingly, Israel has a long history of being prickly when people compare pretty much anything with the Nazis.

1727:

on what order to edit sections of a page, so don't be intellectually dishonest and pretend there is. Anyone can edit the lead whenever they want, tags or no tags. Furthermore, there is material in the article that already shows the media storm from a sample of his more notable controversial

2712:

I've checked again and still feel the same. There doesn't seem to be any longlasting notabilty of this (i.e there aren't any reports even after just one day of the incident, hence NOTNEWS), just like numerous other things we don't mention about him. I'm strict about this mainly because of

789:

As of now this is the sentence having the objectionable phrase in User:Sitush's edit: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic

1423:

There is nothing here that is not already been discussed elsewhere and opening yet another section to discuss the same alleged pov etc regarding dynastic successions and electricity is just muddying the waters. If you really believe that there is a behavioural issue here then take it to

738:

Just stop it, Soham. I've had enough of this - go read some policies properly. I am bending over backwards to accommodate your bizarre requests and have a good mind to reinstate that which I've just removed because, as my edit summary says, I'm not actually happy with it. Our role is to

2081:(your point #1) should be included in the article? Please bear in mind that we don't usually mention politicians taking verbal pot-shots at each other: all politicians do that and it is almost always "of the moment" (which is why such things were not accepted in the Modi article). - 504:

Here is another example of an inaccurate edit of User:Sitush. In the main article, Sitush writes:"Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in

834:

There is no mention in the reference you have given that Mool Singh--the incumbent MLA-- is related to Jaivardhana in any way. If it is your original research that the two are related then your edit is not permissible because it violates the rules and guidelines mentioned in

1202:

The DRN will be in the archives. You must remember what the subject matter was, surely? From that you could locate it in the archives and sort out a diff or even a plain link to that particular discussion. In any event, if you cannot prove it then do not say it, please. -

1823:

itself, and not random specific incidents. Therefore they deserves mention in the article. Furthermore at the end of the day, you and your friend above cannot reasonably argue that less reliable sources on a page are good. Not to mention the other issues of violating

2282:

are a bad practice in general. If Singh does indeed make a controversy that affects his whole life and would be relevant to his biography, then such events would be covered by the news even after a few days or maybe even have international coverage. Good day, Joel.

1835:

Now, onto the massive walls of text between you and Soham. This talk page is a giant argument between you and Soham, with 2-5 other people leaving minor comments here and there. More importantly, there is no "consensus" of any sort that you claim for your edits in

1866:

throughout Knowledge to remove drive-by text of the form "politician X is controversial because of Y silly event". Articles are not based on cherry-picked factoids—instead, stick to facts with long-term significance. If a politician says something outrageous

867:

I am sorry but the reference article does not identify Mool Singh-the incumbent MLA--as either a cousin of Digvijaya or a cousin of Jaivardhana. If this is original research on your part, then your edit is not permissible for reasons mentioned earlier.

2476:

I am not yet up to speed regarding the recent back-and-forth relating to this issue. However, Human3015, you boldly added the material and were reverted, so you should have come here to seek consensus for your changes, not continued to edit war. Per

2265:

belongs to his biography. No point in adding multiple refs to it, one is enough for verifiability/RS sake. Most Indian politicians/media people are always reported in such a way in the news and it happens frequently. In the same manner, we could add

359:. With respect to the ANI, you fail to mention that the only other editor who has both participated in writing the main article under consideration and also participated in the ANI discussion had agreed with my position that you are in violation of 2382:

Who will decide that what is relevant and what is not relevant? If you think that news mentioned in national media is not relevant then many things on wikipedia will get reverted?? Kindly don't make it a issue of prestige. Its a sourced material.

798:) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, the reference article does not state that Mool Singh is related to Jaivardhana in any way. This is additional evidence as to why this phrase which has been coined by Sitush is not suitable for this edit. 1599:(by the way its BRD, not BRRRD as you seem to think it is). Moving away from your violations of Wikipolicy to article content. You kept the sentence with "controversial" in the article. I cited that, as to do not do so, would literally violate 1268:

and ask whether or not it is reliable for the statements made ... but I can tell you already what the outcome of that will be because, sorry, it is something that you learn with experience. Basically, Phadnis is a reliable source for their own

1945:

before his death. 2) Views on Indian Mujahiddin that "I doubt whether such an organisation exist". 3) His beating of BJYM activists and running after them with a rod in his hand during protest by the activists in Ujjain. 4) His reference to

2652:, Ok, you can read sources and decide what you want to do. It is sourced from reliable sources. You can read my earlier comments to know why it is relevant. And I think that it has NPOV and it is not a Synthesis or Vandalism. Thank you. -- 717:

In the main page, Sitush writes: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic

2034:

I suppose this much proof is enough to add contents into this article. His own party disown many of his controversial statements. Many news reports have termed him controversial. Without these contents the article is incomplete.

185:. I am invoking wikipedia rules and guidelines when i make this accusation. Furthermore, i would like you to identify yourself as to whether you are a wikipedia admin in view of the kind of warning you have left on my talk page. 1343:

on the text in question gets careful attention. No editors here are working with the devil—just slowly explain an actual problem and the matter will be addressed. You may have to wait a day or two, but again, that is standard.

2484:

This article is a BLP and its subject has been quite a controversial character at times, so we need to tread carefully. If consensus for inclusion/exclusion cannot be resolved here then the next stage would be as outlined at

2305:

Don't revert the highly sourced material without making consensus in talk. Your sentence "A person of Singh's caliber, no doubt would have the biggest such list" shows your personal POV. kindly read my discussion with admin

1046:

Jaivardhan, the son of ... Digvijay Singh, on Saturday formally joined the Congress party in his father’s pocket borough Raghogarh. had been waiting in the wings to reign in Raghogarh — a former princely state ruled by his

886:

last year. If you know differently then please do tell but otherwise try reducing the degree of pedantry by a tad or two. Or would you be insisting on a DNA test? I'm still awaiting your opinion regarding the definition. -

1637:. I may be mistaken but I can usually count ok. You were bold in reinstating material that had been removed some time ago and had been mentioned in a prior ANI report, where it generally got approval. You should also read 2110:

Perfect question about the political POV. I suppose that following the Knowledge policies, either you include criticism/ allegations for all, or for none. This is somehow is missing when one come through the article of

87:. I am sure that every national politician worldwide, and a goodly proportion of the general population, have opinions concerning that guy. Why is mentioning Singh's tuppence-ha'penny so important to this article? - 1778:

spurious "experience" is hardly a logical appeal. If multiple well-regarded news organizations throughout India dedicate articles to displaying how "controversial" Singh is, then Knowledge has to reflect that (a la

2208:

3 , "Digvijay Singh, who created a flutter by stating that slain Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare was under threat from right-wing groups, .....he has spoken to the police officer a few hours before the 26/11

1642:

improved them pending comment from others. That is, I have compromised for now. Perhaps I am wrong on policy regarding this general issue but, well, it is a rare event if so and I will apologise if appropriate. -

1486:

There is new stuff here. For instance your trick of reverting back to an edit which you yourself had corrected after the evidence i produced and which you had accepted (due to which you had corrected your edit).

1071:

is a BLP issue but we do need to explain the dynasty thing because a lot of potential readers of this article will know little or nothing of how politics works in the feudal, backward North Indian regions. -

1059:

Unlike South India, where royal families of large States like Travancore and Mysore do not wield political clout, “here, people believe that god resides within the king even if he’s technically not a king"

2119:(or any other alleged controversial politician). When it has been already done by users, its termed CONSENSUS , but when I wanted to bring parity, it is called pushing POV. Nothing can be more hypocritic. 1116:

Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding a POV comment (a direct quote) of the political commentator Aditi Phadnis. This comment has no place in a WP:BLP.

659:

Certainly, I am happy to look around for another source but it does not alter the fact that you are drawing your own conclusions from your own research and that is not permitted in the article itself.

645:

Au contraire, the key point is that in your edit you say that 'dynastic succession' is 'rare' in the South. I gave multiple examples (and can give even more examples) demonstrating that this is false.

277:; so in this he is in agreement with my position. I agree that the admins will be keeping a watchful eye on me henceforth; what you forget is that they will also be keeping a watchful eye over you. 2721:. His views on right-wing groups is a recurring feature and that maybe deserves another section. The corruption one isn't a controversy because it says later about the court ruling in his favour. - 1119:

Violated the Balance and Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by giving freely speculative reasons for Digvijaya's defeat in the Madhya Pradesh elections in 2003 based on a solitary source.

989:

negative connotations and is not present in any of your reference sources and use it in your edit. You yourself admit that this 'reflects nastily on Singh'. Instead of continuing to violate

250:. And, believe me, now that your ANI report has drawn some attention from other admins, the chances are reasonable that some are keeping an eye on things. You might also want to read about 2191:

Do I have to repeat all the allegations again? Views on RSS and Batla House are only tip of the iceberg. Kindly refer to the sources as mentioned by me above along with some more as below;

1276:

given but you are welcome to suggest any others that might be out there, including any extra info that you might have regarding the roads issue, which is currently only vaguely covered. -

1235:

Thanks. Can you provide a link to the actual discussion or, at least, give me the title of it. The discussions on that page are collapsed and make it difficult to find one contribution. -

925:

get that out of the way and then I suggest that before you pursue the two points that you have just raised (lack of presence in the source and POV), you re-read the source itself and also

296:

and that really would be a last resort because I do think the difficulty here is entirely one of confusion, not ill-will/vandalism. So, what do you want me (or anyone else) to do next? -

1663:. It would be much better if there were to be a serious discussion about the issues rather than an attempt to see how many links can be inserted in a comment. We appear to be discussing 1062:

Requesting anonymity, a senior IAS officer said: “Even though you may write that India is changing and there’s a development mantra and whatnot, I can tell you, family lineage works here

2054:. The contradiction shows a clear political POV and as such you do your case no great good: if you want to soapbox then please do it somewhere else, not on Knowledge. It would inspire 757:

The words "Dynastic Succession" have a negative connotation. The original article did not use this phrase; you did. And by using this phrase you violated the Impartial Tone clause in

2447: 2314:, If source mentions it is a controversy then there was no problem in adding this to article. I'm reverting your edit in good faith and please make consensus here before editing. -- 2212:

4 , , " ......slapped some activists of the Bharatiya Janata Party's youth wing" , " .... the Sessions Court here had issued non- bailable warrants against Singh and Guddu ....".

1171:

common on caste articles, for example). Bad cases might cause someone to invoke the notion that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, whilst another person might say : -->

883: 392:

If any admin is reading this, he should note that this editor has not been involved at all in making edits on the main article. Quite possibly he is unaware of the rules regarding

315:

in ANI that as of now the entire article consists of words written almost entirely by you. Also, User:A.amitkumar agrees with my view that you have taken ownership of the article.

1564:

is intended to be a summary of an article and not a dumping ground for random citations of random sources. If the point is worth making then make it in the body of the article. -

2457:

Now don't say that when UN calls "sahab" is relevant but when Digvijay calls "sahab" is not relevant because Digvijaya also got same media coverage and criticism. Thank you. --

1737: 1595:). You made three reverts before discussing, and I made one before going to talk. Therefore, you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to lecturing others about 1472:

This is all still been discussed above. Yet again, you have started a new section for stuff that is still proceeding elsewhere. I was half-minded to collapse this thread. -

3190: 1915:

I am going to remove the stuff again as unnecessary. Leads summarise articles and should not need citations. Go learn how to write properly and stop following me around. -

211:

My allegation against Sitush was supported by User:A.amitkumar with me in ANI that Sitush has indeed taken ownership of this article. I wish to record a few other things:

1400:

Speaking on that topic, two-way discussions between two opposed editors means no consensus exists. Digvijay's current notability literally stems from his controversy. Per

1291:

The freely speculative reasons you are giving for the defeat of the Congress in the 2003 MP elections based on one solitary source is simply unacceptable and violative of

2242:

thus cannot rely on the man's statements because they are puffed-up. His precise caste is in any event, and as with most people, not really important. Best to omit it. -

1067:

politics in the North" but it is absolutely vital that we make the point that in adopting this course Singh is not somehow exceptionally "corrupt" compared to his peers.

3025: 2078: 1683: 378:

there is some text you think should be added, explain what it is and why it is warranted. If there is some text you think should be removed, explain what it is and why.

2134: 2036: 2202:

1 , , " Digvijay Singh has raised question about the existence of terror outfit Indian Mujahideen...."I don’t know Indian Mujahideen exists or not": Digvijay Singh".

226:

The fact that Sitush, based on his posting history, apparently spends all his working time in making wikipedia edits and interacting with other wikipedia editors.

1299:

because it is a POV quote. The phrase 'milch cow' has derogatory and negative connotations and implications and violates the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in

2967: 2963: 2949: 2829: 2825: 2811: 1954:

as respectable words like Laden 'ji' and Hafeez Sayeed 'sahib'. 5) His alleged link with the land scam relating to a mall "Treasure Island" in Indore. 6) Accused

1156:

Are you disputing the fact that you need to give two reliable sources for any disputed edit? I am only asking you to comply with wikipedia rules and guidelines.

337:

speaking out further in the same vein here. As you were told at ANI, you have misunderstood the ownership issue. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you. -

1108:

Just wanted to reiterate some of the reasons why i have placed a POV tag in the main article. Sitush, now the sole author of the main article (in the face of

3069: 3212: 1364:

Why there is no controversy section for this politician who is the other name for controversy? This is simply not mentioning all aspects of that person.

2270:

much more to their articles and make literally a list of controversies. A person of Singh's caliber, no doubt would have the biggest such list. :) See

1740: 220: 3102: 115:

would be the time to mention it. For example, if the party decide that he should not stand for election in 2014 because of his history of gaffes. -

2215:

You can repeat yourself as often as you wish but it probably will not make any difference, given the links I've provided to prior discussions. See

3091: 678:

bla bla bla but no counter to the widely known examples i gave, which required no original research, and which proved your edit to be erroneous.

2685:

I've not had much time on this matter either, I'll comment more on this tomorrow...even I admit I could be wrong. Human note that no one called

1854:

This page has enough evidence-free accusations. If anyone believes a particular editor has broken a bunch of rules, please report the matter at

1039: 2205:

2 , , " Congress leader Digvijay Singh on Friday targeted Comptroller and Auditor General Vinod Rai suggesting he has a political agenda....."

1743: 3146: 1431:

I disagree. There is definitely new content in this section and it has to do with your going back and forth in your edits in a way that makes

3047: 1968: 1371: 219:

Digvijaya Singh's claim that paid professionals hired by his political rival Narendra Modi have been assigned the task of blackballing him (

1689: 1517:

the inaccuracy (and made it edit 3). You became so angry and agitated at this that you played the trick of reverting edit 3 back to edit 1.

2138: 2059:

undermine our procedures. Most of the points you raise above look to have been discussed previously here in recent months and rejected per

2040: 2175:). You'll note that the Batla House and RSS stuff is still in the article - I was trying to be fair then and I'm trying to be fair now. - 3191:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-12-13/news/27568753_1_hindu-terror-groups-congress-leader-digvijay-singh-malegaon-blast

3179: 3113: 2451: 3058: 3168: 3036: 3026:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Quote-Unquote-Digvijaya-Singh-10-most-controversial-statements/Article1-1098792.aspx

1677: 1941:

There is no mention of his controversial statements regarding his views and actions as per following: 1) Regarding getting call from

3201: 3080: 1038:

OK, since it seems that I have to live with this incompetence still further, here are some snippets from the "dynastic succession"

2573: 2442:, his remarks do matters. If you think that calling anyone "Sahab" is not-relevant, then read reaction of Indian government when 447:

Well, I suggest then that you keep those concerns inside your head because you are going to be sanctioned if you keep this up. -

3124: 2718: 59: 1053:

A number of them , such as Jaivardhan and Vikram, are from families of former royals — a valued qualification in the State.

3070:

http://www.siasat.com/english/news/digvijay-singh-makes-sexist-remarks-against-meenakshi-calls-her-tunch-maal-bjp-says-hes

1749:

or justifying edit-warring), there are ample reliable sources and a broad journalistic consensus to back up my assertions.

3213:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-30/news/38930148_1_digvijay-congress-general-secretary-indore-bench

2789: 2015:. Creating controversy by saying a co-incidence between BJP rally and Patna blasts, and BJP to be biggest beneficiary. 882:

Sigh. There has been no by-election since Mool took on the seat - that is a matter of official record - and Digvijay

1782:- who is also called controversial in the lead and who newspapers call "controversial" to the degree that Singh is). 2927: 2717:. As to why other controversies are mentioned in the article, I see only three. The Batla one was discussed before 1871:

there are reliable sources which subsequently write that something important followed from the outrageous comment,

221:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1861820/report-digvijay-singh-accuses-narendra-modi-rss-of-painting-him-as-anti-hindu

38: 1840:

instance. I There are a number of policies which I have in massive good faith, illustrated quite logically to you

1386:

Please could you read the contents of this talk page - there have been various discussions about this recently. -

1219: 3103:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-26/news/40815024_1_digvijay-singh-batla-house-encounter-maal

2917: 1972: 1375: 163: 2966:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2828:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1088:

Singh's and his family are somehow exceptional in their repeated involvement with the Raghogarh constituency. -

310:

I am going to continue speaking out against what i perceive to be violations of wikipedia rules and guidelines.

3092:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/cbi-registers-case-in-indore-mall-irregularities-digvijaya-singh-named-292890

2439: 813: 461:

I have no intention of doing so. You are entitled to express any concerns you may have, and likewise for me.

1592:). Most of what needs to be said was said in my edit to the talk page in between my first and second revert ( 814:

a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field

393: 355:

which prevents me from voicing my concern over someone taking over ownership of an article in violation of

3147:

http://twocircles.net/?q=2010sep24/i_don%E2%80%99t_know_indian_mujahideen_exists_or_not_digvijay_singh.html

3048:

http://www.indiatvnews.com/politics/national/digivijay-singh-congress-leader-who-loves-controve-11541.html

2726: 2698: 2674: 2577: 2412: 2366: 2288: 3005: 2985:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2973: 2867: 2847:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2835: 2538:

and I've already explained that I'm not familiar with the specific incident (yet). I'm merely following

2508: 2307: 1556:

politician, you can see that happening to me all the time here on this project). I did nonetheless just

3180:

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-in-school/bjp-has-double-standards-digvijay/article3908889.ece

1718:

Johnuniq, I am perfectly aware of what an article talk page is for. This dispute is as also over user

1405:

the article. Any reverts of the cited statement in the beginning should be considered simple vandalism

543:

Why should i read your biased/prejudiced source when i have already explained why your edit is wrong.

3114:

http://article.wn.com/view/2013/08/10/Digvijaya_Singh_should_stop_respecting_Osama_BJP/#/related_news

2569: 2341:

and I don't see any admin supporting it's inclusion, but I'm fine with your way. What I mean is, see

2096:

seek parity between that article and this one, I guess you'll need to find some sources like that. -

2050:

I find it difficult to take you seriously when you have been pushing for removal of such things from

1964: 1367: 177:

The basic question really is whether Sitush has taken over ownership of this article in violation of

159: 47: 17: 3059:

http://www.firstpost.com/india/live-shinde-to-visit-patna-says-modi-has-enough-security-1196755.html

853:

The fact that he is a cousin is sourced. Now, I repeat, do you accept the defintion of a dynasty? -

3169:

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/cag-vinod-rai-has-political-ambitions-slams-digvijay/20120831.htm

3037:

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-digvijay-Singh-the-controversy-king/20110720.htm

2556:

This might end up in RfC or any other similar process. For now I hope that this edit war is stale.

2514: 2338: 2311: 2060: 1951: 1819:

encyclopedic information, especially as these sources talk of him regarding the general subject of

1526: 1454: 1432: 1292: 1109: 994: 990: 360: 356: 311: 274: 207: 203: 182: 178: 3202:

http://news.oneindia.in/2011/07/18/congress-digvijay-singh-slaps-bjp-youth-activists-aid0120.html

3081:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/digvijaya-singh-to-face-cbi-probe-into-mall-scam/1/225371.html

2279: 1880: 1764: 1706: 1534: 1522: 1492: 1462: 1440: 1349: 1308: 1254: 1226: 1193: 1161: 1129: 1002: 957: 915: 873: 844: 803: 795: 766: 727: 683: 650: 621: 584: 548: 518: 466: 438: 401: 383: 368: 320: 282: 231: 190: 2970:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2832:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1671:

Comments made by him have sometimes attracted controversy both inside his party and more widely.

419:

you make the report. And this is me done here: as far as I am concerned, this thread is dead. -

2986: 2848: 2899: 2793: 2771: 2722: 2694: 2670: 2604: 2433: 2408: 2400: 2377: 2362: 2346: 2300: 2284: 2271: 111:

thing? If at some point in the future it turns out that Singh's career is affected by it then

3125:

http://post.jagran.com/digvijay-singh-gives-respect-to-hafiz-saeed-calls-him-saheb-1358767611

1056:

the phenomenon of inheriting seats is deeply ingrained in the political psyche of North India

3001: 2863: 2742: 2632: 2547: 2494: 2275: 2247: 2224: 2180: 2158: 2101: 2086: 2068: 1920: 1804: 1647: 1569: 1507: 1477: 1391: 1281: 1240: 1208: 1178: 1147: 1093: 1077: 979: 934: 892: 858: 825: 780: 748: 669: 636: 606: 570: 534: 452: 424: 342: 301: 263: 255: 143: 120: 92: 3157: 2993: 2855: 2907: 2889: 2779: 2761: 2690: 2600: 2557: 2404: 2342: 1947: 80: 1875:

the article should discuss the topic (was an election lost? did the politician resign?).

2952:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2814:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2686: 2653: 2610: 2519: 2518:

other for help and making it a issue of prestige otherwise it is a very small issue. --

2458: 2443: 2384: 2350: 2349:, just because there are sources documenting something doesn't mean it's relevant. The 2315: 2116: 1942: 1903: 1855: 1729: 1698: 1638: 1617: 1561: 1401: 1300: 971: 945: 926: 903: 758: 412: 293: 3013: 2992:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2875: 2854:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2746: 2730: 2702: 2678: 2663: 2636: 2620: 2582: 2551: 2529: 2498: 2468: 2416: 2394: 2370: 2325: 2292: 2251: 2228: 2184: 2162: 2142: 2105: 2090: 2072: 2044: 1998: 1976: 1924: 1910: 1884: 1849: 1808: 1786: 1768: 1753: 1710: 1651: 1624: 1573: 1538: 1511: 1496: 1481: 1466: 1444: 1409: 1395: 1379: 1353: 1312: 1285: 1258: 1244: 1230: 1212: 1197: 1182: 1165: 1151: 1133: 1097: 1081: 1006: 983: 961: 938: 919: 896: 877: 862: 848: 829: 807: 784: 770: 752: 731: 687: 673: 654: 640: 625: 610: 588: 574: 552: 538: 522: 470: 456: 442: 428: 405: 387: 372: 346: 324: 305: 286: 267: 235: 194: 167: 147: 124: 96: 2714: 2539: 2535: 2478: 2172: 2150: 2112: 2051: 1899: 1876: 1859: 1829: 1779: 1760: 1746: 1702: 1634: 1609: 1605: 1600: 1596: 1580: 1530: 1518: 1488: 1458: 1436: 1425: 1345: 1304: 1296: 1265: 1250: 1222: 1189: 1157: 1125: 998: 970:

and stop citing policies etc that you do not understand. I may well soon be adopting

967: 953: 949: 911: 907: 869: 840: 799: 791: 762: 723: 679: 646: 617: 580: 544: 514: 462: 434: 397: 379: 364: 352: 330: 316: 278: 247: 227: 186: 2790:

https://web.archive.org/20130703153629/http://aicc.org.in:80/index.php/officebearers

2486: 2216: 1984: 1907: 1895: 1846: 1783: 1750: 1621: 1525:) 19:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC) What this kind of behavior does also is that it makes 1406: 1139: 929:

because you clearly are failing to understand. So, do you accept the definition? -

836: 616:

guidelines. This was pointed out during a DRN by the wikipedia admin TransportMan.

598: 562: 251: 2446:

called Hafiz Saeed as "Sahab". Indian government protested against it. read here,

2438:

Digvijaya is among foremost politicians of main opposition party of India that is

1670: 812:

Let's do the easy bit first: the Oxford English Dictionary defines "dynasty" as "

507:

a form of dynastic succession that is common in North India but rare in the South

2959: 2928:

https://web.archive.org/20101220093325/http://www.zeenews.com:80/news675416.html

2821: 2738: 2647: 2628: 2596: 2543: 2490: 2356: 2243: 2220: 2176: 2154: 2097: 2082: 2064: 1916: 1891: 1825: 1800: 1643: 1613: 1565: 1503: 1473: 1387: 1277: 1236: 1204: 1174: 1143: 1089: 1073: 975: 930: 888: 854: 821: 776: 744: 665: 632: 602: 594: 566: 558: 530: 448: 420: 338: 297: 259: 139: 116: 88: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2921: 3135: 2958:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2918:

https://web.archive.org/20100704202817/http://cg.gov.in:80/profile/corigin.htm

2820:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1988: 2149:

Knowledge articles are generally treated in the abstract - see, for example,

2024:. His own party Congress distancing itself from his controversial statements. 2693:

and in future, indent your posts while replying like how I just did. -Joel.

1987:

that report on this. Then we can decide what can be added to the article. --

1736:). He is notable currently for consistently being in random controversies ( 1220:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_71

2931: 2027:. Digvijay Singh referring to Osama bin Laden respectfully as "Osama ji". 2904:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

2776:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

2129:

their views (remember the puppy remark so mentioned in Modi's article).

1862:. I do not know what areas those commenting have worked in, but it is 433:

I am only sharing my concerns; i am not making any direct accusation.

2627:

being persuaded either way and will try to read the sources later. -

1616:(by adding unsourced material), and also do not uphold the policy of 593:

Soham, these are core policies of Knowledge. The edit complies with

902:

negative connotation and violates the Impartial Tone clause in an

202:

I wish to record here my deep concern for the blatant violation of

2912:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

2784:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

2030:, , referring to terrorist Hafeez Sayeed respectfull as "Sahib". 1958:, Comptroller and Auditor General of India to be acting for BJP. 1937:

No mentioning of his controversial statements on important issues

2448:

India furious as UN calls Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Saeed 'Sahib'

1684:

Quote, Unquote Digvijaya Singh: 10 most controversial statements

1050:

It was nothing less than a coronation for the young Congressman

1955: 25: 1690:

Digvijay Singh wonders why his comments trigger controversies

1579:

You are in fact edit warring and have at this point violated

2937:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2799:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

329:

Well, I suggest that you take a look at another guideline -

2794:

http://www.aicc.org.in/index.php/officebearers#.UeSDOc6YNBk

2063:. Nonetheless, I'll make an effort to review them again. - 1669:

which added references to a statement in the lead, namely "

1961:

This and many more. This should be part of this article.

3158:

http://dp.4cplus.net/304958/A-method-to-his-madness.html

2760:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

1339:

talk about another editor, and does not rant, and which

722:

seems to show as if something aberrant is taking place.

2893: 2888:

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

2765: 2262: 2171:

and the links therein to discussions elsewhere (eg: at

2168: 1733: 1665: 1593: 1590: 1587: 1584: 1557: 243: 135: 107: 84: 153:

Biased Edits of Sitush in violation of wikipedia rules

2077:

Can you tell me which of the 10 points raised by the

997:, may i suggest that you remove the disputed phrase? 1295:. The direct quote of Phadnis is unacceptable in a 79:

I removed a statement concerning Singh's opinion of

2962:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2824:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1173:and they do not have any overarching authority. - 2399:Like how I mentioned above in the starting. See 1142:. Time for bed. I might not bother waking up. - 2948:This message was posted before February 2018. 2810:This message was posted before February 2018. 2452:India furious as UN calls Hafiz Saeed 'Sahib' 2353:is on you to prove that it's relevant. Right, 8: 2922:http://cg.gov.in/profile/corigin.htm#prathak 2534:Be careful what you say, Human3015. I have 2021:, . He's an accused in mall scam in Indore. 974:here because it is becoming a time-sink. - 3136:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEntI6pRJlM 2018:. Sexist remark against a Congress leader. 2012:. More proof about his controversial tag. 1678:Digvijaya singh and foot-in-mouth syndrome 258:that can be imposed in this topic area. - 2337:was a joke. Getting your consensus? see 1732:, you did not address my earlier point ( 1697:lead can be written. In accordance with 743:, not to copy a source word-for-word. - 712:Inappropriate phrase used by User:Sitush 158:Stop with the personal attacks Soham321 3018: 2007:* 1) . His most controversial comments. 2932:http://www.zeenews.com/news675416.html 1659:@Pectore: This page is to discuss the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2737:minor and a candidate for NOTNEWS. - 7: 1692:Financial Express- November 6, 2011 1551:BRD of "controversial" in the lead 24: 2892:. Please take a moment to review 2764:. Please take a moment to review 1983:To start with, you must provide 29: 2167:You might benefit from reading 1686:Hindustan Times - July 26, 2013 1249:The title is 'Narendra Modi'. 499:Inaccurate Edit of User:Sitush 292:respond, other than to invoke 1: 3014:00:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 2335:"A person of Singh's caliber" 1999:14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC) 1977:10:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC) 242:The hatted ANI discussion is 2876:06:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC) 2229:07:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC) 2185:07:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 2163:06:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 2143:06:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 2106:11:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2091:11:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2073:11:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 2045:10:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 1864:standard operating procedure 1728:statements. On the topic of 1112:) , has done the following: 1925:07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 1911:00:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC) 1885:03:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC) 1850:00:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC) 3231: 2979:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2910:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 2885:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2841:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2782:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 2757:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2747:18:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC) 2731:07:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC) 2703:14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2679:14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2664:13:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2637:13:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2621:13:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2583:12:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2552:12:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2530:12:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2499:12:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2469:12:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2417:11:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2395:10:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2371:10:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2326:09:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2293:09:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2135:2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 2037:2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 1809:13:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1787:04:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1769:03:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1754:03:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1711:01:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1652:00:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1625:00:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1574:00:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1539:20:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1512:18:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1497:18:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1482:18:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1467:18:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1445:21:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1410:00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1396:12:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1380:11:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1354:01:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1313:17:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1286:16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1259:15:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1245:15:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1231:15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1213:15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1198:13:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1183:12:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1166:03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1152:01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1134:01:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1098:13:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1082:18:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 1007:17:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 984:17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 962:16:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 948:which is essential in any 939:16:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 920:15:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 906:which is essential in any 897:15:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 878:15:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 863:14:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 849:13:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 830:10:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 808:03:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 785:01:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 771:01:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 753:01:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 732:01:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC) 688:23:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 674:23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 655:22:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 641:19:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 626:18:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 611:18:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 589:18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 575:18:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 553:18:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 539:18:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 523:18:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 471:23:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 457:23:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 443:23:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 429:22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 406:22:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 388:22:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 373:18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 347:18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 325:17:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 306:17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 287:17:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 268:17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 236:16:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 195:18:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 168:18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 148:19:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 125:18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 97:18:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 2513:as directed by you on my 597:, while your analysis is 2691:our talk page guidelines 2542:, which you were not. - 2440:Indian National Congress 2252:13:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2881:External links modified 2753:External links modified 1673:" The three refs were: 1529:impossible to achieve. 1435:impossible to achieve. 818:(subscription required) 2280:"Controversy" sections 1680:Rediff - July 20, 2011 1124:rules and guidelines. 884:said they were cousins 2536:no horse in this race 1902:and the guideline of 1104:Regarding the POV tag 42:of past discussions. 2960:regular verification 2945:to let others know. 2896:. If necessary, add 2822:regular verification 2807:to let others know. 2768:. If necessary, add 2257:"Sahab" ControversyP 1734:link 4/4 cited above 351:There is nothing in 18:Talk:Digvijaya Singh 2950:After February 2018 2941:parameter below to 2812:After February 2018 2803:parameter below to 2687:your edit vandalism 1360:Controversy section 529:Read the source. - 273:in accordance with 252:tendentious editing 2955:InternetArchiveBot 2817:InternetArchiveBot 2487:dispute resolution 2261:I don't feel that 1604:certainly violate 3012: 2980: 2874: 2842: 2682: 2669:(indented by me - 2581: 2274:or less relevant 1967:comment added by 1502:call for this. - 1370:comment added by 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3222: 3215: 3210: 3204: 3199: 3193: 3188: 3182: 3177: 3171: 3166: 3160: 3155: 3149: 3144: 3138: 3133: 3127: 3122: 3116: 3111: 3105: 3100: 3094: 3089: 3083: 3078: 3072: 3067: 3061: 3056: 3050: 3045: 3039: 3034: 3028: 3023: 3008: 3007:Talk to my owner 3003: 2978: 2977: 2956: 2911: 2903: 2870: 2869:Talk to my owner 2865: 2840: 2839: 2818: 2783: 2775: 2668: 2660: 2657: 2651: 2617: 2614: 2608: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2526: 2523: 2512: 2465: 2462: 2437: 2391: 2388: 2381: 2360: 2322: 2319: 2304: 2237:Caste claims etc 1995: 1994: 1985:reliable sources 1979: 1672: 1668: 1382: 819: 394:WP:Meat puppetry 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3230: 3229: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3211: 3207: 3200: 3196: 3189: 3185: 3178: 3174: 3167: 3163: 3156: 3152: 3145: 3141: 3134: 3130: 3123: 3119: 3112: 3108: 3101: 3097: 3090: 3086: 3079: 3075: 3068: 3064: 3057: 3053: 3046: 3042: 3035: 3031: 3024: 3020: 3011: 3006: 2971: 2964:have permission 2954: 2905: 2897: 2890:Digvijaya Singh 2883: 2873: 2868: 2833: 2826:have permission 2816: 2777: 2769: 2762:Digvijaya Singh 2755: 2658: 2655: 2645: 2615: 2612: 2594: 2562: 2559: 2524: 2521: 2506: 2463: 2460: 2431: 2389: 2386: 2375: 2354: 2320: 2317: 2298: 2259: 2239: 2079:Hindustan Times 1992: 1990: 1969:210.212.144.141 1962: 1948:Osama Bin Laden 1939: 1664: 1553: 1420: 1372:210.212.144.141 1365: 1362: 1106: 817: 714: 501: 333:- and consider 160:Darkness Shines 155: 132: 104: 81:Osama bin Laden 77: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3228: 3226: 3217: 3216: 3205: 3194: 3183: 3172: 3161: 3150: 3139: 3128: 3117: 3106: 3095: 3084: 3073: 3062: 3051: 3040: 3029: 3017: 3004: 2998: 2997: 2990: 2935: 2934: 2926:Added archive 2924: 2916:Added archive 2882: 2879: 2866: 2860: 2859: 2852: 2797: 2796: 2788:Added archive 2754: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2666: 2640: 2639: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2455: 2450:and this also 2444:United Nations 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2329: 2328: 2258: 2255: 2238: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2210: 2206: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2146: 2145: 2130: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2117:Digvijay Singh 2032: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2022: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2002: 2001: 1943:Hemant Karkare 1938: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1833: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1694: 1693: 1687: 1681: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1628: 1627: 1552: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1419: 1418:Disputed Edits 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1361: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1105: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1064: 1063: 1060: 1057: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 735: 734: 719: 713: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 579:Non-sequitur. 557:OK, then read 526: 525: 510: 500: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 239: 238: 224: 217: 200: 199: 198: 197: 172: 171: 154: 151: 131: 128: 103: 100: 76: 73: 70: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3227: 3214: 3209: 3206: 3203: 3198: 3195: 3192: 3187: 3184: 3181: 3176: 3173: 3170: 3165: 3162: 3159: 3154: 3151: 3148: 3143: 3140: 3137: 3132: 3129: 3126: 3121: 3118: 3115: 3110: 3107: 3104: 3099: 3096: 3093: 3088: 3085: 3082: 3077: 3074: 3071: 3066: 3063: 3060: 3055: 3052: 3049: 3044: 3041: 3038: 3033: 3030: 3027: 3022: 3019: 3016: 3015: 3009: 3002: 2995: 2991: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2975: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2951: 2946: 2944: 2940: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2909: 2901: 2895: 2891: 2886: 2880: 2878: 2877: 2871: 2864: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2837: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2813: 2808: 2806: 2802: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2781: 2773: 2767: 2763: 2758: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2683: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2667: 2665: 2662: 2661: 2649: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2584: 2579: 2575: 2574:Contributions 2571: 2566: 2565: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2528: 2527: 2516: 2510: 2509:Malik Shabazz 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2482: 2481:, basically. 2480: 2470: 2467: 2466: 2456: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2435: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2393: 2392: 2379: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2358: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2327: 2324: 2323: 2313: 2309: 2308:Malik Shabazz 2302: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2264: 2256: 2254: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2236: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213: 2211: 2207: 2204: 2201: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2147: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2131: 2127: 2126: 2118: 2114: 2113:Narendra Modi 2109: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2057: 2053: 2052:Narendra Modi 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2029: 2026: 2023: 2020: 2017: 2014: 2011: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2000: 1997: 1996: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1959: 1957: 1953: 1952:Hafeez Sayeed 1949: 1944: 1936: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1848: 1843: 1839: 1834: 1831: 1827: 1822: 1817: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1796: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1785: 1781: 1780:Narendra Modi 1776: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1726: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1667: 1662: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1591: 1588: 1585: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1550: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1427: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1411: 1408: 1403: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1267: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1118: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1111: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1070: 1061: 1058: 1055: 1052: 1049: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1041: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 986: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 942: 941: 940: 936: 932: 928: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 900: 899: 898: 894: 890: 885: 881: 880: 879: 875: 871: 866: 865: 864: 860: 856: 852: 851: 850: 846: 842: 838: 833: 832: 831: 827: 823: 815: 811: 810: 809: 805: 801: 797: 793: 788: 787: 786: 782: 778: 774: 773: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 755: 754: 750: 746: 742: 737: 736: 733: 729: 725: 720: 718:succession.". 716: 715: 711: 689: 685: 681: 677: 676: 675: 671: 667: 662: 658: 657: 656: 652: 648: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 629: 628: 627: 623: 619: 614: 613: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 591: 590: 586: 582: 578: 577: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 555: 554: 550: 546: 542: 541: 540: 536: 532: 528: 527: 524: 520: 516: 511: 508: 503: 502: 498: 472: 468: 464: 460: 459: 458: 454: 450: 446: 445: 444: 440: 436: 432: 431: 430: 426: 422: 418: 414: 409: 408: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 390: 389: 385: 381: 376: 375: 374: 370: 366: 362: 358: 354: 350: 349: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 327: 326: 322: 318: 313: 309: 308: 307: 303: 299: 295: 290: 289: 288: 284: 280: 276: 271: 270: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 240: 237: 233: 229: 225: 222: 218: 214: 213: 212: 209: 205: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 175: 174: 173: 169: 165: 161: 157: 156: 152: 150: 149: 145: 141: 137: 129: 127: 126: 122: 118: 114: 109: 101: 99: 98: 94: 90: 86: 82: 74: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3208: 3197: 3186: 3175: 3164: 3153: 3142: 3131: 3120: 3109: 3098: 3087: 3076: 3065: 3054: 3043: 3032: 3021: 2999: 2974:source check 2953: 2947: 2942: 2938: 2936: 2887: 2884: 2861: 2836:source check 2815: 2809: 2804: 2800: 2798: 2759: 2756: 2723:Ugog Nizdast 2711: 2695:Ugog Nizdast 2689:. Also, see 2671:Ugog Nizdast 2654: 2611: 2605:Ugog Nizdast 2593: 2558: 2520: 2489:. Thanks. - 2483: 2475: 2459: 2434:Ugog Nizdast 2409:Ugog Nizdast 2385: 2378:Ugog Nizdast 2363:Ugog Nizdast 2339:WP:STATUSQUO 2334: 2316: 2301:Ugog Nizdast 2285:Ugog Nizdast 2267: 2260: 2240: 2061:WP:CONSENSUS 2055: 2033: 1989: 1963:— Preceding 1960: 1940: 1872: 1868: 1863: 1841: 1837: 1820: 1797: 1793: 1724: 1719: 1695: 1660: 1658: 1633:Please read 1562:lead section 1554: 1527:WP:Consensus 1455:WP:WELLKNOWN 1451: 1433:WP:Consensus 1366:— Preceding 1363: 1340: 1336: 1293:WP:WELLKNOWN 1273: 1270: 1122: 1110:WP:Ownership 1107: 1068: 1065: 1037: 995:WP:Consensus 991:WP:Ownership 966:Please read 775:Bollocks. - 740: 660: 506: 416: 361:WP:Ownership 357:WP:Ownership 334: 312:WP:Ownership 275:WP:Ownership 208:WP:Consensus 204:WP:Ownership 201: 183:WP:Consensus 179:WP:Ownership 133: 112: 108:this example 105: 78: 65: 43: 37: 2169:this report 1821:controversy 1558:revert here 36:This is an 2601:OccultZone 2401:WP:NOTNEWS 2347:WP:NOTNEWS 2272:WP:NOTNEWS 741:paraphrase 134:I removed 106:I removed 2994:this tool 2987:this tool 2856:this tool 2849:this tool 2515:talk page 2407:. -Joel. 2312:talk page 2276:WP:RECENT 2209:attacks." 1666:this edit 256:sanctions 130:Thackeray 102:Pure/sexy 75:bin Laden 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3000:Cheers.— 2900:cbignore 2862:Cheers.— 2772:cbignore 2405:WP:UNDUE 2343:WP:UNDUE 1965:unsigned 1877:Johnuniq 1761:Johnuniq 1703:Johnuniq 1531:Soham321 1519:Soham321 1489:Soham321 1459:Soham321 1437:Soham321 1368:unsigned 1346:Johnuniq 1305:Soham321 1269:opinion. 1251:Soham321 1223:Soham321 1190:Soham321 1188:saying. 1158:Soham321 1126:Soham321 999:Soham321 954:Soham321 912:Soham321 870:Soham321 841:Soham321 800:Soham321 792:Soham321 763:Soham321 724:Soham321 680:Soham321 647:Soham321 618:Soham321 581:Soham321 545:Soham321 515:Soham321 463:Soham321 435:Soham321 411:form of 398:Soham321 380:Johnuniq 365:Soham321 317:Soham321 279:Soham321 254:and the 228:Soham321 187:Soham321 3010::Online 2939:checked 2894:my edit 2872::Online 2801:checked 2766:my edit 2603:, and 1908:Pectore 1904:WP:LEAD 1856:WP:ANEW 1847:Pectore 1784:Pectore 1751:Pectore 1730:WP:LEAD 1720:conduct 1699:WP:LEAD 1661:article 1639:WP:LEAD 1622:Pectore 1618:WP:LEAD 1407:Pectore 1402:WP:LEAD 1341:focuses 1301:WP:NPOV 1047:family. 972:WP:DFTT 946:WP:NPOV 927:WP:NPOV 904:WP:NPOV 759:WP:NPOV 294:WP:DENY 39:archive 2908:nobots 2780:nobots 2739:Sitush 2715:WP:BLP 2648:Sitush 2629:Sitush 2597:Sitush 2560:Occult 2544:Sitush 2540:policy 2491:Sitush 2479:WP:BRD 2357:Sitush 2310:on my 2244:Sitush 2221:Sitush 2177:Sitush 2173:WP:DRN 2155:Sitush 2151:WP:OSE 2098:Sitush 2083:Sitush 2065:Sitush 1917:Sitush 1900:WP:BLP 1860:WP:ANI 1830:WP:BLP 1801:Sitush 1747:WP:3rr 1725:policy 1644:Sitush 1635:WP:3RR 1610:WP:BLP 1606:WP:3RR 1601:WP:BLP 1597:WP:BRD 1581:WP:3RR 1566:Sitush 1560:. The 1504:Sitush 1474:Sitush 1426:WP:ANI 1388:Sitush 1297:WP:BLP 1278:Sitush 1266:WP:RSN 1237:Sitush 1205:Sitush 1175:Sitush 1144:Sitush 1090:Sitush 1074:Sitush 1040:source 976:Sitush 968:WP:CIR 950:WP:BLP 931:Sitush 908:WP:BLP 889:Sitush 855:Sitush 822:Sitush 777:Sitush 745:Sitush 666:Sitush 633:Sitush 603:Sitush 567:Sitush 531:Sitush 449:Sitush 421:Sitush 417:before 353:WP:TPG 339:Sitush 331:WP:TPG 298:Sitush 260:Sitush 248:WP:NPA 216:party. 140:Sitush 117:Sitush 89:Sitush 83:- see 2656:Human 2613:Human 2522:Human 2461:Human 2387:Human 2318:Human 2217:WP:TE 1896:WP:RS 837:WP:OR 599:WP:OR 563:WP:OR 413:diffs 16:< 2943:true 2805:true 2743:talk 2727:talk 2719:here 2699:talk 2675:talk 2659:3015 2633:talk 2616:3015 2570:Talk 2563:Zone 2548:talk 2525:3015 2495:talk 2464:3015 2413:talk 2403:and 2390:3015 2367:talk 2351:ONUS 2345:and 2321:3015 2289:talk 2263:this 2248:talk 2225:talk 2219:. - 2181:talk 2159:talk 2139:talk 2115:and 2102:talk 2087:talk 2069:talk 2056:some 2041:talk 1991:Neil 1973:talk 1950:and 1921:talk 1892:WP:V 1881:talk 1873:then 1838:this 1828:and 1826:WP:V 1805:talk 1765:talk 1707:talk 1648:talk 1614:WP:V 1612:and 1608:and 1570:talk 1535:talk 1523:talk 1508:talk 1493:talk 1478:talk 1463:talk 1441:talk 1392:talk 1376:talk 1350:talk 1309:talk 1282:talk 1255:talk 1241:talk 1227:talk 1209:talk 1194:talk 1179:talk 1162:talk 1148:talk 1140:Yawn 1130:talk 1094:talk 1078:talk 1069:That 1003:talk 993:and 980:talk 958:talk 935:talk 916:talk 893:talk 874:talk 859:talk 845:talk 826:talk 804:talk 796:talk 781:talk 767:talk 749:talk 728:talk 684:talk 670:talk 651:talk 637:talk 622:talk 607:talk 601:. - 595:WP:V 585:talk 571:talk 565:. - 561:and 559:WP:V 549:talk 535:talk 519:talk 467:talk 453:talk 439:talk 425:talk 415:etc 402:talk 384:talk 369:talk 343:talk 321:talk 302:talk 283:talk 264:talk 244:here 232:talk 206:and 191:talk 181:and 164:talk 144:talk 136:this 121:talk 113:that 93:talk 85:here 2968:RfC 2930:to 2920:to 2830:RfC 2792:to 2578:Log 2361:? - 1956:CAG 1869:and 1858:or 1842:how 1337:not 1274:are 335:not 2981:. 2976:}} 2972:{{ 2906:{{ 2902:}} 2898:{{ 2843:. 2838:}} 2834:{{ 2778:{{ 2774:}} 2770:{{ 2745:) 2729:) 2701:) 2677:) 2635:) 2599:, 2576:• 2572:• 2550:) 2497:) 2415:) 2383:-- 2369:) 2291:) 2278:; 2268:so 2250:) 2227:) 2183:) 2161:) 2141:) 2104:) 2089:) 2071:) 2043:) 1975:) 1923:) 1898:, 1894:, 1883:) 1807:) 1767:) 1709:) 1650:) 1620:. 1572:) 1537:) 1510:) 1495:) 1480:) 1465:) 1457:. 1443:) 1428:. 1394:) 1378:) 1352:) 1311:) 1303:. 1284:) 1257:) 1243:) 1229:) 1211:) 1196:) 1181:) 1164:) 1150:) 1132:) 1096:) 1080:) 1042:: 1005:) 982:) 960:) 937:) 918:) 910:. 895:) 876:) 861:) 847:) 839:. 828:) 816:" 806:) 783:) 769:) 761:. 751:) 730:) 686:) 672:) 653:) 639:) 624:) 609:) 587:) 573:) 551:) 537:) 521:) 509:." 469:) 455:) 441:) 427:) 404:) 396:. 386:) 371:) 363:. 345:) 323:) 304:) 285:) 266:) 234:) 223:). 193:) 170:}} 166:) 146:) 123:) 95:) 2996:. 2989:. 2858:. 2851:. 2741:( 2725:( 2697:( 2681:) 2673:( 2650:: 2646:@ 2631:( 2607:: 2595:@ 2580:) 2568:( 2546:( 2511:: 2507:@ 2493:( 2454:. 2436:: 2432:@ 2411:( 2380:: 2376:@ 2365:( 2359:: 2355:@ 2303:: 2299:@ 2287:( 2246:( 2223:( 2179:( 2157:( 2137:( 2100:( 2085:( 2067:( 2039:( 1993:N 1971:( 1919:( 1906:. 1879:( 1832:. 1803:( 1763:( 1742:, 1739:, 1705:( 1646:( 1589:, 1586:, 1583:( 1568:( 1533:( 1521:( 1506:( 1491:( 1476:( 1461:( 1439:( 1390:( 1374:( 1348:( 1307:( 1280:( 1253:( 1239:( 1225:( 1207:( 1192:( 1177:( 1160:( 1146:( 1128:( 1092:( 1076:( 1001:( 978:( 956:( 933:( 914:( 891:( 872:( 857:( 843:( 824:( 802:( 794:( 779:( 765:( 747:( 726:( 682:( 668:( 661:I 649:( 635:( 620:( 605:( 583:( 569:( 547:( 533:( 517:( 465:( 451:( 437:( 423:( 400:( 382:( 367:( 341:( 319:( 300:( 281:( 262:( 230:( 189:( 162:( 142:( 119:( 91:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index