User talk:Cathyh

Manmohan Singh Article

Thanks for your message regarding the above article on Manmohan Singh. I have the article "on Watch" and will keep an eye out for any vandalism. Kind regards and best wishes, --Hari Singh 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means you did not read my edits carefully and assumed irressponsibly that I was a vandal. You have added references for these POVs, but they still remain POVs. Just because a glorififying article has been published on BBC does not mean that its not POV. You have merely referenced the POV. I am going to add back some information as Ziggurat suggested, but I will remove your POV reversion. If you continue to revert these POVs I will refer you to an administrator. POVremover 04:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not discuss the edits on talk page before reverting and this is the second time you have done it. POVremover 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathyh, you did not read the changes I made and blamed them as vandalism and immediately reverted back the article. You did not consult with me and others on talk page. The changes I have made have only removed POV. Statements like;

"Architect of modern India". "most highly respected", etc are POVs. This is an encyclopedia and I already discussed this on Manmohan Singh talk page. I believe that in reverting the article without discussing on talk page you have vandalised it. if you have a different opinion you are welcome to discuss it on the talk page. POVremover 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversion at Manmohan Singh, while you're quite entitled to disagree with the edits, I don't think it's possible or prudent to characterise them as vandalism ("Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism" WP:VAND). Contrary to your edit summary ("Unilateral changes not acceptable by wikipedia code of conduct. Must reach consensus on talk page before any changes"), the opposite is actually true: editors are encouraged to make changes and discuss them only if there is disagreement. Having given a quick lookover of POVremover's edits, they seem to be clearly in good faith and have in several cases removed quite point-of-view sentences. I don't agree with the entire edit, as it looks like some useful information was removed that should just have been tagged with Template:Fact, but please be more careful with the accusations of vandalism in future. Ziggurat 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - no probs, I get frustrated with the vandalism too! It's sometimes difficult to work out what's vandalism and what's in good faith, so it's always best to be careful with that particular tag. I've made some suggestions at POVremover's page too, so hopefully you guys can work towards a much improved article :) Ziggurat 04:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the references you're providing, but the person to talk with isn't me - get a dialogue going with POVremover and I'm sure you two can work it out. I'd look into it further myself (the more eyes on an article, the better it's likely to be) but I'm afraid that I'm off home for the weekend now and just don't have the time! Good luck, Ziggurat 04:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing about the current revert wars on Manmohan Singh page. However , I can only keep the article on my watchlist and revert clear vandalism. I don't know much about him. Anyway, the article and its talk page is on my watchlist. If anything gets out of control (and I am online), I will try to help.

And one more thing, POVremover was not banned for behaviour, he was banned for improper nickname. So, please don't use his/her ban for for proving your point. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers. --Emre D. | Talk 11:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]