User talk:VeryVerily
Thanks for reverting my user page! Angela 09:05, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
I think it's fairly clear that, in the weeks leading up to hostilities, the administration's stance was shifting and inconsistent, and that that should be made clear in the article. At no point did Saddam cooperate with the first demands made by the U.S., so there was no reason whatever to alter those demands when preparing to take military action.
As far as allegedly devious and considered sinister, I probably would have left that if that's what it had said, but it wasn't. - Hephaestos 22:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
On PNAC,
- The text was This quote (allegedly publishing their devious plans) is considered the "proof" of a sinister plot....
Right. That means the plans were allegedly published, not that they were allegedly devious. That it was considered proof, not that it was considered "sinister." Completely different meaning. "Sinister" and "devious" are POV judgments we shouldn't be making here in any case.
On the other article, I took a look at your new change, and I think we're pretty close, although it needs a tweak; let me know what you think. - Hephaestos 00:35, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I, for one, appreciate your effort on the attacks on humanitarian workers page!2toise 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks! :) VV 20:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi, IMHO protecting 2002 Gujarat violence would just draw attention to it and achieve what the other person wants. There are about 5 of us who have it in our watchlist, so its much easier for us to revert it than for them to repeatedly vandalize it (its very likely that all the 3 new users are the same person). So I say lets not make a fuss about it :) They'll realize after a while that they're obviously wasting their time and either go away or start making useful contributions to other articles. -- Arvindn 04:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm duns0014, from the ancap turmoil. so who are you anyway? are you libertarian or what?
- No, not libertarian (though not unsympathetic), just trying to keep up Wikipedia. Unfortunately, defending against bad edits seems to be quite an undertaking, which is distracting me from tasks such as fixing existing misinformation (so much). Anyway, we'll see if this ancap thing quiets down soon or not.... -- VV 01:37, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Re: Bush family conspiracy theory
It is not an opinion to state that matters surrounding the Florida election were the subject of fierce public debate. It is not an opinion to state that claims of wrongdoing over the US election are the most serious allegations.
You have been replacing a factually incorrect version of the article on Kashmir. I would refer this as an NPOV however the trouble is there is no "point of view" issue in question here. These are historic facts that are easily verified and acknowledged by everyone.
Firstly, the correct term for the entire region is Jammu and Kashmir, which comprises the southern Jammu region, the Kashmir valley(which is where the trouble is concentrated) and the Ladakh plateau region. "Kashmir" is used for brevity as it is the region where the trouble is mainly concentrated. However Kashmir in reality only refers to Kashmir Valley.
Secondly, Aksai Chin is NOT the same as the chunk in North Kashmir that was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1959. Aksai Chin is Indian territory in Eastern Kashmir that was occupied by China in 1962.
Again, before you start off, there is absolutely no question of "POV" and "NPOV" here, as these are well known and verifiable historical facts.
-conradx
Bravo verily, Verily Verily, for your very worthwhile IMHO recent addition to the Genocide page. Puts a lot of controversies in context. TonyClarke 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi VV -- I know you haven't been a major contributor to 2002 Gujarat violence, but I just wanted to let you know that Angela asked me to mediate, and I am in the process of reviewing (I would not characterize it as "investigating") the article, the edit history of the article and its talk page, the various comments linked to this page, and the email traffic here, here, here, here, and here (and a few other threads) on the mailing list related to it. Even though the page is unprotected, I would ask all parties involved to hold off editing this article voluntarily until I can offer a few suggestions, which I will do within a few hours. Thanks for your forbearance, BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
NOTE: See bottom of page for mediation proposal
Hello VV -- just wanted to say I understand your position (that you wrote on Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence), and of course I'm just following up on what I've been asked to do by the well-respected Angela. Perhaps you should write her a note on her talk page...but FWIW I think that it may be beyond the point that a temporary protection will work, and I don't think it's feasible to have the page permanently protected. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:50, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi again -- only one person has made any edits whatsoever to 2002 Gujarat violence/revision, and it was tiny. You are "officially" invited to take a stab at it. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:34, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for you note on my talk page. What can I say -- I agree, but I figure it's worth following up on this since it was put out there...and it's probably good practice anyway :-) BCorr ¤ Брайен 15:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
---
Hi,
I just thought I will intervene because of the back and forth reversions.I want to clarify what I think is a wrong notion you have. Aryans did come to the sub-continent from outside, this is not disputed by serious academicians.However, though the Aryan invasion theory is widely known, it does not mean that it is widely accepted. It is known well because it is quite old. The present dispute is not over whether the Aryans came from outside at all( which is a pseudo- scientific speculation), but whether the influx was through an invasion or gradual(which is a legitimate academic subject). KRS 14:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yup. Agree with KRS 100%. Arvindn 16:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I don't understand these comments. The "back and forth" thing you mentioned ended three weeks ago, and has not recurred. The user doing so was one who'd been cited on Wikipedia:Problem users at least twice for Hindu nationalist POV, and so reverting the biased changes seemed natural. You are not correct that that that is the present dispute, either. The user in question is promoting the idea that the IVT is continuous with Vedic culture, and there was no Aryan immigration at all. See The Anome's apt summary on Talk:Aryan invasion theory. -- VV 19:24, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)