Talk:2012 Mangalore homestay attack

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

India: Karnataka / Mangalore Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mangalore.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vandalism

User Vvarkey is deleting references and then claiming "THIS IS NOT IN SOURCE". Wikipedia is not the place for agenda driven reporting. Reverting all edits to WP:NPOV.WBRSin (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend I went over the source for that 1 edit and felt the text did not reflect the source. You're welcome to put that back if you feel I am incorrect, and I will freely apologize if I am indeed mistaken. But why undo ALL my changes? I hope I have as much right to add information and not have it deleted as you do! Love and Peace vvarkey (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert the changes before a consensus is reached here. You seem to have an agenda trying to paint one group as the culprits, this is against wikipedia norms, all articles need to NPOV. Report the facts with proper citation, don't create a personal ego fight over this. WBRSin (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfair that you have undone some 10 of my edits because you object to one of my comments about NOT IN SOURCE. But ok, I won't revert, I'll do my edits again. I request you to let me know if you object to any edit, rather than undoing them all again. Thanks vvarkey (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are again pushing your own POV and slandering people and organisations which is against wikipedia guidelines, you claim "a gang of 50 drunk activists belonging to the Hindu Jagarana Vedike, a right-wing Sangh Parivar organization attacked, stripped and molested", but the TOI link has no such words.

Stop editing if you don't understand, this is not your private blog WBRSin (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Friend There are three sources listed for that line. Please review them all and you will see the relevant information. It's from combining them that I put together that line. Also, you continue reverting any changes I make, even though you yourself requested we stop reverting. I am confused, what exactly do you want me to do? vvarkey (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu and TOI articles you cite http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Mangalore/article3700530.ece and http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-04/mangalore/33034531_1_satyajit-hindu-jagaran-vedike-hjv doesn't claim "a gang of 50 drunk activists belonging to the Hindu Jagarana Vedike, a right-wing Sangh Parivar organization attacked, stripped and molested", these are your own inferences. Avoid doing that. The sundayindian article you cite is an interview with the person who himself is an accused in this case and booked by the police. This is not an NPOV worthy source. I have reverted the article to NPOV, if you have any additions to make point it out here.WBRSin (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have removed "50" and "drunk", since perhaps the source could be taken as NPOV. Note that I don't need to get my additions approved here. If you object to any of my changes, please state it here and let me know, rather than blindly reverting all my changes. Thanks. vvarkey (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit before a consensus is reached, that's what talk page is for, And I guess you don't understand what NPOV means. you have again made slanderous accusations on a living person and a organisation. And finally there is no need to break up the articles in sections. Only large articles are written that way. WBRSin (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you raised 2 specific points that I have already addressed, I assume to your satisfaction since you did not further comment on them. However, you continue to bulk-revert my changes without specific explanations. Please refrain from doing this so we can make the article better together. Please point out what you mean by slanderous accusations so I can address them. Regarding sections, it is standard practice and helps any article be better organized. Please see Help:Section:

A page can and should be divided into sections, using the section heading syntax.

Thanks again and in good faith. vvarkey (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you labelling a group of people as "gang" infering they are part of some criminal group. your edits are malicious in intent and you just cant seem to understand how wikipedia works. Stop your personal vendetta and take heed of the norms. I will continue to revert the article to neutral point of view. WBRSin (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I felt "gang" is an appropriate word to describe a large group of people that violently disrupted a private birthday party. However, if you object, I am open to any alternative words you suggest.

Please do not blindly revert all my changes again, as it constitutes vandalism against my work, which cost me time and effort.

Thanks, and in good faith. vvarkey (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to push your personal agenda and defame people which is against wikipedia standards. I have tried to make you understand this many times but you fail to take heed. I will continue reverting this article to neutral POV, if you have anything positive to contribute please do so or else quit your vandalism. WBRSin (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re "I felt 'gang' is an appropriate word to describe a large group of people that violently disrupted a private birthday party. However, if you object, I am open to any alternative words you suggest." I have a suggestion: how about "band of vigilantes"? These moral policing activities are far from legal, so it's unclear to me why WBRSin is so intent on protecting the non-existent virtue of these violent Hindutvadis. I think the accusations of vandalism and "personal agenda" are radically misplaced in this exchange. Clocke (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clocke, Keep your personal negative opinion of people to yourself and follow wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. This is not a muslim brotherhood or a jehadi forum where every other non-muslim is painted as a sub-human by people like you. So sorry to burst your bubble of hatred, there will be no defamatory words allowed to describe groups you personally hate. WBRSin (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]