| Revision as of 13:57, 7 April 2007 editDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,754 edits -br← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:31, 7 April 2007 edit undoDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits →Hindutva deletionNext edit → | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ''Currently:'' '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>''', and will be back at a reasonable hour tomorrow (Easter Sunday). ''']''' 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | ''Currently:'' '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>''', and will be back at a reasonable hour tomorrow (Easter Sunday). ''']''' 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Hindutva deletion == | |||
| I happen to consider your deletion far beyond anything arguable under deletion policy. You have deleted a well referenced article based on a blatantly bad faith AfD, where half of the "delete" votes were from pov-pushing accounts, and even counting those no "consensus" to delete was in sight. If we deleted articles because religionists campaign against them, you should be off and delete the ] article this instant. Your alleged | |||
| :''much stronger argument in this debate, based on official policy.'' | |||
| is appalling. Since when do we delete articles because of alleged NPOV concerns? Your judgement that ''The responses to the delete comments based on NPOV and OR were less than satisfactory'' is beyond me. All "pov" in the article was closely referenced to academic publications (Routledge, Rutgers, peer-reviewed journals, '''not''' blogs). So the article reported on opinions. Since when is that a problem? Would you say the same of ] etc. because it is inherently about a certain pov and you "cannot see these concerns being fixed anytime soon"? | |||
| I know you acted in good faith. But you made a big mistake. You deleted a fully referenced article on a controversial political topic. I will take this to DRV and RfC of course, quite apart from re-introducing the deleted material into existing articles, but you could save me the trouble by going back and undeleting. This is a disheartening precedent of Misplaced Pages caving in under the sustained Hindutva attack, and I care enough about the project's immunity from ideological subversion to take your decision all the way to arbcom if necessary. regards, ] <small>]</small> 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:31, 7 April 2007
User:Daniel.Bryant/Userpage/Header/Icons User:Daniel.Bryant/Userpage/Header User:Daniel.Bryant/Userpage/TalkLayout
Currently: I'm sleeping, and will be back at a reasonable hour tomorrow (Easter Sunday). Daniel Bryant 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hindutva deletion
I happen to consider your deletion far beyond anything arguable under deletion policy. You have deleted a well referenced article based on a blatantly bad faith AfD, where half of the "delete" votes were from pov-pushing accounts, and even counting those no "consensus" to delete was in sight. If we deleted articles because religionists campaign against them, you should be off and delete the Muhammad cartoons article this instant. Your alleged
- much stronger argument in this debate, based on official policy.
is appalling. Since when do we delete articles because of alleged NPOV concerns? Your judgement that The responses to the delete comments based on NPOV and OR were less than satisfactory is beyond me. All "pov" in the article was closely referenced to academic publications (Routledge, Rutgers, peer-reviewed journals, not blogs). So the article reported on opinions. Since when is that a problem? Would you say the same of Criticism of Islam etc. because it is inherently about a certain pov and you "cannot see these concerns being fixed anytime soon"? I know you acted in good faith. But you made a big mistake. You deleted a fully referenced article on a controversial political topic. I will take this to DRV and RfC of course, quite apart from re-introducing the deleted material into existing articles, but you could save me the trouble by going back and undeleting. This is a disheartening precedent of Misplaced Pages caving in under the sustained Hindutva attack, and I care enough about the project's immunity from ideological subversion to take your decision all the way to arbcom if necessary. regards, dab (𒁳) 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)