User talk:Jobxavier

Orissa communal violence

Jobxavier your [edit on Orissa communal violence] is really not assisting in getting accurate information. It is best if you channel your edit efforts accoring to wiki guidelines. I recommend you first read The five pillars of Wikipedia Thanks and continue with your edits. Recordfreenow (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orissa communal violence

Reply to talk conversation on talk. its better for continuity. dont get me wrong, i dont mind, but shoudl future flare-ups ocu its better there. Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the edits sound off. can you add you description as to why you remove or add or even edit in the future. Lihaas (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ORISSA VIOLENCE

Press protest against Italy intereference in Khandmal. Daily Pioneer Editorial dt 30th August 2008.

Go to Daily Pioneer Scroll down to Archive Search. Use the counter to the right. Search date 30 August 2008. Go to Edits. Click 'Insult in Italian'. You can check the article easier this way.

The Address Link of the article works, but takes time.=====

In any communalism debate in India after 1984, the Sonia Factor cannot be ignored. 1984 was the year in which her husband became PM and she finally became an Indian citizen.

That all the appointments made by her have been Christian as far as she could find any, is significant. Her posting of AK Anthony known for his lack of administrative ability, ignorance of anything except Kerala, as Defence Minister is one. Earlier, she had Hormis Tharakan as RAW Chief for the first two years of her administration.The list is fairly long including that of making Rajashekhar Reddy the CM of AP. The article speaks of anti-Christian violence during the past decade. It was after she became Leader of the Opposition in 1999 that the Bishops' Council of India began to openly be hostile to other communities. It would not be 'bent' to bring in Sonia into the discussion.

Jobxavier (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what your edits are about. The article is about history of violence in Orissa. Not on conversion debate or on Sonya Gandhi. Recordfreenow (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A pro-proselytisation stand is not to be favoured. We have to be neutral. Is it that no Hindu has suffered in history? From 1984, Catholic and Christian aggressiveness has much to do with the Sonia phenomemenon in India. Jobxavier (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion or a reliabe source. Again. Make your viewpoint based on reliable sources. Recordfreenow (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you suggest something like a government or court statement that Sonia , a practising Catholic has made an impact on Christianity in India? Jobxavier (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the Australian mission funded by Indians? Jobxavier (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Jobxavier (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

NCM

I take your [this edit] as unacceptable. Especially as you did not explain your edit. NCM is an extremely reliable source. You take NCM out and you don't have a democracy anymore. Recordfreenow (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Going on and on that only Hindus are the culprits is okay. But when you use the NMC, you must mention that its members are only non-Hindus. Jobxavier (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rev.Fr, I suggest that we rename the Page as 'The Christian Version of.....'

Jobxavier (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I really would like to work with you and would like to engage in constructive discussion. Please talk and let me know one by one which edits you have a problem with. This article is on Orissa violence and NOT on coversion debate. You can go to Forced conversion if you feel like making edits about conversions in Orissa. Thanks Recordfreenow (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As a priest, should you not be more honest about ground-truths? Instead, you seem to be playing for one side. You are trying to make the Page into leaflet. This is all very sad.

Jobxavier (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me which edits? Discuss. Discuss. I do not desire to just have edit war. I have a job and life and I assume so do you :) Recordfreenow (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you say this is your job.....?

The issue is about Dalit-dom. The priests and the missionaries are all about money; but the killers and the killed might be more benefited if their Dalit-hood is confirmed by law.

What is Dalit-hood? How does it compare and exist in Christianity? How have the 'forward' Christians been manipulating things?

The Sonia factor is behind the puffed up valour of the Mallu priests. That she is as communal as the next person is evident; but minus the philosophy/other-worldly background of an Indian.

I suggest your cutting down on the sob-stories; and providing more of the real background. The WHY of the issue is pertinent.

Jobxavier (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous

Sir- Your edits to Orissa communal violence make no effort to be even-handed, and bespeak a strong pro-Sangh Parivar POV. How can you possibly justify deleting the sourced information about the killers of Graham Staines? Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am saddened that I, a Church-going Catholic with a sense of honesty, should be accused of bias. The information about the so-called murderers is not relevant. I suggested earlier that the Page could be re-captioned as the 'Missionary Version of the....'

Jobxavier (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is largely pro-Christian stuff in the Net. You are using it extensively without searching for the other side's versions.

Why do you object to mentioning that the NMC is a pro-minority body of non-Hindus; yet quote extensively from it?

Why do you insist that the John Dayal mission is an NIC committee, when the link itself denies it?

Again, while you go on adding sob-stories about Christian suffering, you do not mention the 10 attacks on the Swami with equal emphasis. If the Hindus had Bishops, the Swami would have been someone like a Bishop. Why is it that you do not deem the repeated attacks on him, and his final elimination as of consequence while you quote the same pages again and again on Christian suffering with figures upto 10000 etc.

The population figures of the Christian converts do not match favourably with the sky-high statistics of Christian churches and homes alleged to be destroyeed. Does every Convert have a church building each?

The so-called churches are merely huts where the tribals are collected together by the missionaries for proselytisation. You refer to them as churches to give the impression that they are Basilicas.

Why is it that a pic of the slain Swami is not given along with the dubious pic of a burned 'Christian' girl?

Steines has a lot about him in the Net, including stuff about his paedophilia and religious intolerance. His wife about the forgiveness is mere charade because she only wants to continue in India to enjoy the Charity funds.

Jobxavier (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, the majority of what you have just said is nonsense. Both your edits and your comments bespeak a POV that you insist on inserting into the article. I further object to your entirely unsupported accusation of sockpuppetry. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are upset. You insist that you dont use sockpuppets? I agree that christian intolerance is not unusual [a la the Inquisition]; especially among the neo-converts. Well, you agree that your slant cannot be accepted? Try to take a neutral view. By the way, you do not wish to point out nonsense specifically? Jobxavier (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not use sockpuppets. I do not agree that I have a slant, while yours is remarkably self-evident. I suggest you heed your own counsel on taking a neutral view.

As for specific instances of nonsense, your previous comment suggests that I'm responsible for every aspect of the current page, when I began editing it just a few days ago. I have not added anything on Christian suffering; you allege that the use of the term "church" is itself biased, then you derisively describe churches in offensive terms. I could go on... Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you been to Orissa and seen these alleged "churches"? I suggest that you do. i am not into any Hindu slant. But the Page was and is propaganda. I only tried to be Christian-honest. The Page, when Recordfree was watching it , just stopped short of describing Hindus as barbarian heathen!

Jobxavier (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we ought to call a truce and ask for third-party intervention. I'm slapping a NPOV tag on the article, and I'll see about what kind of assistance is necessary. Gabrielthursday (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier - your complaint about sockpuppets is ludicrous. you've created your account 5 days ago, and it is a Single-Purpose Account at best, though you're probably a sockpuppet yourself. You are also indulging in hate-speech. Please refrain from doing this. This is a civil discussion board. --vvarkey (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Vvarkey - No, it is just that I was away for a few months and have again found time to help here, after my retirement. Only a sockpuppet need be this angry at a mere doubt expressed...As you are not one, please shun Orissa-christian violence in your reaction. I had asked Gabrielthursday if he was one; not you. And it is you who are violently responding; are you him?

Hate speech? Dear me! Might watch your un-Christian words...we must not boost our BP and bring on a heart attack, must we? Forgive 7 times 70 is good for health. You are setting a good example in civility, for which I am grateful.

Jobxavier (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

you have again engaged in vandalism by deleting info on the sentencing of the killers of Staines. if this happens again, I will have to report you.

also, please see User talk:116.68.97.102‎ . this IP seems to have a history of putting back your deleted edits. please be careful if you want to continue editing. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 09:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Vvarkey: -I am sad that you are showing true 'Crusade'-ing spirit in keeping the Page a Missionary pamphlet. In doing so, you are showing true Inquisition-zeal against neutrality.

Anyway, the Page's neutrality is already in question.

Jobxavier (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orissa_religious_violence&diff=239186829&oldid=239185952 You have again deleted this same section. The text is well referenced, and has no POV. This is vandalism and I have reported you. --vvarkey (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

if you feel

Job, Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The link above was incorrect and I have deleted the request that you made there because it would have not been noticed. If you wish to make a CheckUser request, you need to follow the procedures at WP:RFCU. But CheckUser is not a place to handle an editing dispute. Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the policy on handling disputed edits. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:job , please try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets ; or else try to contact admin ( maybe gogo dodo) in case you suspect sock puppets.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Job, you can also use this link (http://www.ptinews.com/pti/ptisite.nsf/all/4E013998C5B553B1652574C5004C0174?Opendocument) as a ref for that . Further, I think that even the foreign funds flowing to Orissa should be included in the article. (Pls see http://www.orissa.gov.in/p&c/index.htm).-Bharatveer (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RELIGION-BASED VIOLENCE

RELIGION-BASED VIOLENCE The population of Orissa practise many religions; not Hinduism or Christianity alone. However, only Christians and Hindus fight and kill each other.

It is as such only 'Christian - Hindu clashes'; not religious violence in Orissa. And the issue is not religion; it is allurement-based conversions and benefits of affirmative action, that cause the clashes; as the Page itself says.

Jobxavier (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC

From Religious violence: "Religious violence is a term that covers all phenomena where religion, in any of its forms, is either the subject or object of individual or collective violent behaviour." The underlying cause of the affirmative action and allurement-based conversions in Orissa is religion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning

If you continue with your blatant POV edits, I will take all actions open to me to bring you to account. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gabrielthursday -That they are POV is only your POV. a third party can judge it, Mr. Vvarkey; not you and me.

Jobxavier (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I saw this dispute while patrolling using Huggle. What is the article in question? I'd be happy to read it over for WP:NPOV violations. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. I would like to add further (and will be saying this to both of you): please refrain from editing the page until I've read it and made my comments. Alternatively, I would be happy to mediate this in a more deliberate fashion at WP:MEDCAB, if one or both of you feels like opening a case. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.

Jobxavier (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Lovely, thank you. Am I correct in assuming that you will be happy with me simply reviewing the article and commenting on the talk page? Or would you like to pursue resolution in another way? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Might comment; and then discuss. My stand is that the Page is being made into a Missionary pamphlet by Vvarkey and the other dubious IDs like gabrielle, recordfree etc Jobxavier (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the content, not the other editors. I have asked a question on the talk page at the article. Would you like to respond? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi there. I have opened a case for everyone to settle their disagreements at the Mediation Cabal, here. The dispute is beyond what I think I can work with, so I think someone more experienced will be able to help you all respect each other, find common ground, and continue to make Wikipedia better. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.

The 'who is a hindu' link had been re-inserted after your message. It needs to be removed, as such.

Jobxavier (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. But as I will be busy for the next two weeks, I will not be in a position to contribute to the discussion.-Bharatveer (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm the mediator. Recordfreenow has told me [and I have confirmed that] both of you have contributed to the mess. This is what makes this case so difficult. I suggest you return to the mediation page and settle this. —Sunday [speak+] 11:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest tht u talk to vvarkey and gabrielle as well; unless they r both Fr. recordfree himself

Jobxavier (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

During the past 72 hours, many POV edits have been made in the Page. This cannot be allowed. The Page is under Dispute.

Jobxavier (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PrinceOfCanada"

Wikiquette

This is an unacceptable and uncivilized method of discourse engaged by Jobxavier, and it is typical of the tone he uses in these talk pages. I have just made a Wikiquette complaint on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Jobxavier --vvarkey (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The issues related to Religious violence in Orissa are currently in Mediation. Please remember to act in a civil manner at all times with editors, and participate honestly and politely within mediation. BMW(drive) 22:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did nt understand what vvarkey meant. What does he mean about violent intercourse with him?? Jobxavier (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

The page was protected. One user got the protection removed. I thought you had agreed not to edit until the rewrite is done? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Large Scale POV edits were done during the past 3 days while I sat watching. However, please check history about how minor my edit was. And the POV of the last 3 days.

Jobxavier (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Any edits that are being made now don't matter, because the whole page is being rewritten. Your edits are also POV, they're just the opposite POV. I strongly suggest that you leave the page alone, go edit other things, and wait for the rewrite to be completed. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 07:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Any comment on the page moves mentioned on my talk page? You might also look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Cheers.--chaser - t 05:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier, please do not move the article Anti-Christian Violence articles unilaterally. The article is now under Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please cast a vote in the relevant places. Thanks --vvarkey (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka/Comments

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FlyingToaster (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Creation and subsequent deletion of page: "Talk:Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka/Comments"

Hello Jobxavier. If you're concerned that an article is not neutral, please discuss this in the Talk page of the article itself rather than creating a new article. Also, having references to specific instances of NPOV writing rather than what reads like attacks will undoubtedly help your case. Happy editing! -FlyingToaster (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Anti-Christian violence in India

Jobxavier: you have again vandalized the article. you've removed the well sourced image yet again. You have inserted the same unreferenced text about Sonia Gandhi, again. You do this on an almost daily basis. Please consider this as a final warning. The next time I will be forced to report you. Thanks. --vvarkey (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Varkeys : You are indulging in anti-India POV. I do not have an anti-Indian POV. You are reverting pro-Indian POV anywhere in WP carelessly. You vandalised all my well-sourced edits. Please desist from your Anti-India POV since it is affecting neutrality here very badly.

Jobxavier (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

POV warning

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 12:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your anti-India POV in the matter is not appreciated; thank you.

Jobxavier (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no pro or anti India POV. I do, however, have an anti-POV-pushing POV. See next section.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see comments in next section. Your POV is evident. Jobxavier (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been clearly warned to stop your POV editing, you've chosen to ignore the warnings and discuss changes before implementing your point of view, you've removed legitimate material, and so because of your insistence of ignoring warnings and continuing with your POV editing, you've been blocked for 31 hours. Once the block expires, I would strongly urge you to propose your changes on the talk page before making them, and hold off on making them until you have established a clear consensus to do so. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your POV is evident. You have not gone through my various discussion points which vvarkey etc have not replied to. Undiscussed editions/deletions/reversions by anti-Indian editors have been mindlessly ignored.

Jobxavier (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier - welcome back! i'm not happy you were banned, but it was only a matter of time. I'm glad to see you're discussing the image in question, rather than just deleting it. I will add my comments to the section you created. Please let me know of anything else you wish to discuss. Happy editing! --vvarkey (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add raped nun's pic also, as I suggested earlier.

Jobxavier (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier, this is your one and only warning from me this time around to stop your disruptive editing and POV pushing. It has no place here. If you persist in grinding your axe on this article - meaning pushing your POV about the subject, and you uncivil comments - you will be blocked further from editing. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You have made an uncivil remark without substantiation. You are pushing your anti-India POV. Please show evidence of disruptive editing. I am taking up the matter at the appropriate site. You cannot be allowed to push your POV. This is your last warning. Jobxavier (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of POV and disruptive editing? A reasonable request. Here you go: [1], [2] (there's no evidence of this in the ref), [3] (no record of any discussion), [4]...need I go on (and I didn't bother including the vandalism to my user page, BTW)? I'm not involved in editing this article, and I have no pro or anti India POV. I care only about ensuring that editors from various perspectives work together in a constructive and harmonious way, which is the sole reason I'm intervening here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through the 3 links you showed of my alleged bad edits. I find them to be minor edits of no shift in direction. I am now convinced of your POV. I repeat that your POV and whimsical admn acts are most unfortunate for WP, [pending report against you]] Jobxavier (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop it now.

Jobxavier, I noticed this diff, which shows your insertion of an irrelevant, POV and inflammatory "reference" from a virulently anti-Catholic source. Kindly stop such actions. Gabrielthursday (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

Because of your highly contentious POV-pushing edits to September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore and Anti-Christian violence in India despite multiple warnings not to engage in such behavior, you have demonstrated that you have little regard for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have received a final warning already, and chose to disregard it. Therefore I have no choice but to block your editing account again. Please use this time to consider how you can make your edits more constructive, and how you can work in a more cooperative manner with the other editors here. You have made it blatantly clear that you don't like this article and don't think it should exist, and you seem to be willing to stop at nothing to either tear it down or to twist it to your personal point of view on the issue. That's not the Wikipedia way. Please consider approaching these things from an unbiased, neutral point of view and document, via non-inflammatory text, both sides of the issue, while supporting your edits with non-POV reliable sources, and thus avoiding original research. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You are only pushing your own pro-proselytisation POV. I presume that this is an American Baptist agenda. Sad for WP. No wonder there is violence http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0401/p01s04-wosc.html Jobxavier (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Your user talk page evidences your POV deletions and blockings. Try to be neutral for WP's sake. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0401/p01s04-wosc.htm Jobxavier (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through the 3 links you showed of my alleged bad edits. I find them to be minor edits of no shift in direction. I am now convinced of your POV. I repeat that your POV and whimsical admn acts are most unfortunate for WP, [pending report against you]] Jobxavier (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier, you are saying too many lies without any reference or evidence. Please add evidences, instead of blindly put your blatant pov remarks/reverts, which is absolutely disrupting others. --Googlean (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lies? That is a very childish statement. You want to push an anti-India, pro-Christian POV. You seem to be blind to everything else. Most unfortunate for WP Jobxavier (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Another POV warning

Job, as you requested, I looked over the recent edits very carefully, as well as your accusation that other editors are pushing their POV. I found that accusation to be untrue. The only POV pushing I see is yours. I've reverted your recent edits, and you can consider this yet another final warning. I carefully went over your refs. Most of the news sources presented an unbiased view of the situation, meaning they presented both sides of the arguments. Your edits which quoted the refs only presented your preferred viewpoint. In other words, by only adding half the story, you made it look like the ref said one thing when it actually said another. In addition, in at least one place, you used a very biased POV blog as a supposedly "neutral" reliable source, which it clearly wasn't.

Your accusations of POV-pushing simply are no longer believeable, because you say that about everyone, including this neutral admin who's trying to get you guys to calm down and discuss the situation rationally and like adults. The first step has to be that you stop with the accusations. If I see any comment from you accusing another editor of POV pushing, I'll take that as yet another uncivil comment and that will trigger a block.

I am very tempted to lock down this article so that no one can edit until this is calmly discussed and resolved. I'll forgo the protection for now, but I don't want to see any more mass-edits or edit warring from you. Here's what you need to do if you want to keep this article open for everyone to edit: First, propose your changes, along with supporting references here on the talk page. Do it in a neutral way without accusations. I will be advising the other participants that they should then discuss with you (and without bias on their part) whether the ref actually supports the statement or is being twisted, and whether the statement is appropriate for the article. This takes time, so everyone needs to be patient. I've seen this process work and bring edit wars to a peaceful close, but it takes everyone's cooperation, and at the moment it's clear that you need to become more cooperative, congenial, and more compromising. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Blog was given to show that the Hindus feared the Italian Catholic Christian. Such fears if any should be submitted through their own sources. However, you will agree that against a consolidation of missionaries, any NPOV that tries to present the other side is futile. It might be that WP is to remain an anti-Indian, pro-missionary place where India-based missionaries push blatant POVs with the help of POVs from abroad to present funny pages before their foreign donors to induce them to open their purses. Most shameful. You have not found any POV in the other editors and that evidences your POV. As for your history of Admin acts, I have already stated my position before. Carry on. If WP is to be taken seriously, the present attitudes ought to be changed. Let the misuse of WP for anti-India propaganda to get more donations continue. All the best!

Jobxavier (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blogs like that are unacceptable, period. If an unbiased media source discusses this, fine, but this is exactly why Wikipedia's guidance says that blogs are generally unreliable sources. I will not agree...the news sources I read presented both sides just fine, it's just that you only quoted them as presenting one side. Your statements such as "It might be that WP is to remain an anti-Indian, pro-missionary place where India-based missionaries push blatant POVs with the help of POVs from abroad to present funny pages before their foreign donors to induce them to open their purses" is exactly the kind of uncivil, non-collegial statements that you should avoid making here if you want people to take you seriously. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Job, you were clearly warned, and instead of working with the other editors here you continued the edit war. That's simply unacceptable. Your actions have given me no choice but to impose a much longer block. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am done with this charade. This is no situation for an honest Christian to be involved any longer with. I am not Christ to drive out money changers; and this is no temple either. Carry on.

Jobxavier (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you as an Admin, wish to keep WP as a pro=proselytisation POV affair, I can no longer do anything here. I am sure the POV pages did or would help someone or ones in the manner I suggested above.

Jobxavier (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"I found that accusation to be untrue. The only POV pushing I see is yours" Jobxavier (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why this is so hard for you. From WP:CIVIL: "Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. ...The civility policy is a code of conduct, setting out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always be civil to each other. Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment."

All you were asked to do is talk about the changes that you feel should be made, and to talk in a courteous manner. Is that so hard? I don't know where you're from (I assume India), but here in America, there's a famous little bit of prose by Robert Fulghum that goes "Most of what I really need to know about how to live and what to do, and how to be, I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sandbox at nursery school. These are the things I learned:

Share everything. Play fair. Don't hit people. Put things back where you found them. Clean up your own mess. Don't take things that aren't yours. Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody." (And it goes on.) It's a good code of conduct for Wikipedia, as well. Wikipedia is about people from all nations, all beliefs, all religions working together, even when they disagree. The whole idea of neutrality is to see both sides of the argument, to be able to see beyond the passions. That's all that's asked of everyone here. And if you are so passionate about a particular subject, take a deep breath, go edit a different subject, and come back when you feel better. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Play fair" is what I would suggest that you do. But I am convinced that it is of no use to tell you. I agree with you that you have not studied much after KG; except perhaps, from the movies. Hence the Rambo attitudes.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nun rape description

I did not make that edit. I do believe that the above edit maybe a little too illustrative and as such reduced. I dont know why you are always complaining against me. I have even stopped making **significant** contribution to the article. I highly recommend you do the same and let others manage it. Recordfreenow (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, has the police not acknoledged that there was a rape? Aren't there variafiable references for this? Yes, in both cases. You have an opinion. You know that I do too. So what is the issue of talking about the vaginal state mentioned in a magazine article? If you had the medical report itself and if there were doubts then it would matter. Are you understanding the thoughts process here? Recordfreenow (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the allegation of the rape was originally denied by the nun before the Police; and subsequently complained longer afterwards only on the doctor's reporting the semen, and since this info is sourced from PTI, mention of the Report should be made. However, if suppressing it in this Page would help more foreign donations, I am agreeable to suppressing it. The more the rapes, the more the dollars, as you know. Anyway, the Church has hidden the nun now. I feel she might not re-appear again except to claim the compensation. Jobxavier (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maoist facts

your [this edit] is being undone as it removed the well stated facts. Also, you left the mention of two Christian arrests but removed the reference of 1000 hindus arrested. Any reasons? Recordfreenow (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Several Maoists' making claims is not sourced. 1000 Hindus have been arrested for the murder? Look at the title of the para. If you want to say that 1000 oe even 10000 [killing the 116000 converts] have been arrested, you can do it elsewhere with sources. So, put it back. Were you the one that removed my mention of the 2 plus 3 = 5 lakhs compensation, thus giving the game away? Jobxavier (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Anti-Christian Rape of nuns in India

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Ceran (Strike!) 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Anti-Christian Rape of nuns in India

A tag has been placed on Anti-Christian Rape of nuns in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —Ceran (Strike!) 00 {{hangon}} Jobxavier (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Christian violence against Adoration Monastery in Mangalore

{{Speedy deletion}} --Googlean ^Results 07:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pl see the talk page of article too. --Googlean ^Results 07:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing advice

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you are going to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent editing in blatant violation of the NPOV policy. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

India has 1.1 bn people, one-sixth of all humanity. The penetration of the Net is very large and it is rising vey steeply. If Wikipedia goes on in this manner encouraging pro-Christian POV to the exclusion of all NPOV, the encyclopaedia's prestige and standing would suffer in India. The anti-India POV with sources and opinions from Christian sites is okay if the above are the prospects that you want about WP. It is unfortunate that marketing of Evangelist missions in India to collect more from abroad is being permitted in WP, knowingly or otherwise.

I am not appealing against any BLOCK..

Jobxavier (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel power cuts also could be reasons why rising Indian population (may be doubled to 2.2 bn soon :) together with violence, which is why I support Indo-US nuclear deal (see my user page). --Googlean ^Results 10:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Googlean - "No legislation can stop or even hinder the faithful from being generous in having more children", says Cardinal Vithayathil. "Church leaders in Kerala state, southern India, want local Catholics to have larger families.",Father Stephen Alathara, spokesperson for the Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC), says. . Rationalists have however, suggested that nuns should no longer be made to abort by the concerned priests or Church-run hospitals, so that population might increase easier as desired by the Church. Some also suggested that priests be allowed to have four wives, as in Islam, and that priestly homosexuality and Onanism not be condoned any longer.

Jobxavier (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your action is highly laughable at. You are the true Crusader and Inquisionist! You have raised me to the levels of Galileo. Jobxavier (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jobxavier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This Admin first blocked me for 2 weeks and now indefinitely, without discussion.She has not pointed out the personal attacks. She should also have read through those parts where some POV editors were personally attacking me childishly. The admin's actions have been whimsical.

Decline reason:

These edits made the article less neutral and make unsourced vast increases in numbers. These edits do the same thing- make the article less neutral and make unsourced enormous increases to statistics. From looking at your edits, I am not convinced that you have a complete understanding of the neutral point of view policy or of the verifiability policy, and so I'm reluctant to unblock you. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I notice that you seem to just add an extra '1' or '11' to the front of statistics, and also that you claim in the second of my cited edits that Hindus raped a Christmas decoration, which seems improbable. In a difficult and conflict-filled subject, your contributions seem to be unnecessarily disruptive. After a closer look at some of your recent edits, I fully support this indefinite block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comment - making personal attacks via email when appealing a block is unacceptable. Jobxavier, you need to first look into improving your own conduct before worrying about others. At the present time, I see no reason as to why you should be unblocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As an admin who has blocked this guy before for incivility, POV-pushing and edit warring, I also endorse the current block status. This editor has been asked numerous times to take a look at his edits in light of policy, and has declined to do so. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with you, after seeing the POV changes in the anti-India articles, after I have been blocked. Let this site continue to be used for donation-begging of the kind that Asian beggars do through exhibition of fake wounds and amputations. I admire the treasonous missionaries for their excellent craft. It is good that Christ cannot be here to drive out the Pharisees and money-changers where petty soldiers and mechanics, and paedophile priests sit in judgement over history and knowledge. Jobxavier (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: it is still your claim, then that verifiable sources report that Hindus raped Christmas decorations? Could you share one of those sources? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Only to whet your curiosity, a Catholic seminarian friend had looked at the open Page while I had moved away for some time. Disgusted by the lies and propaganda and the graphic description of the rape [the Khandmal victims have already been granted $12000 each as compensation by the Hindu government; and a rape doubles the money], he did some Christian editing and left, which our dear priest/missionaries did not yet object to because the figures had only been increased. The insertion of rape everywhere was an expression of his disgust. Hindus might not rape decorations unless they convert and become priests. Jobxavier (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. I sort of assumed that you actually were a Christian, but now I'm wondering if that's a claim that you're making to be disruptive. Christianity isn't a political position; it's a religion, and falsely accusing others of deeds they have not committed would not be 'Christian editing'. In fact, not 'bearing false witness' is one of the Ten Commandments. Another central tenet of Christianity is forgiving one's enemies, which is one of the things that distinguishes Christianity from other religions. A Christian would know that, and a seminarian definitely would I'm afraid you've given yourself away as someone who's here only to disrupt the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

'Christian' is also a word in the English language that denotes an irreligious idea. It is sad that you can see the word only as religious or political. Imagine how disgusting the stuff here is to move a Seminarian to do what he did. As for forgiving, the Mammon Christians here have been forgiving me throughout for objecting to their lies. And I need not prove my Christian-ness to you; I have been doing it plainly by standing for truth here, and taking the stupid Block with amusement. Jobxavier (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done

This has gone on long enough. The editor has been indef blocked, and yet continues his behavior and commentary that led him to where we are in the first place. Thus, after conflabbing with FisherQueen to ensure that she'd have no objections, I'm invoking WP:DENY and protecting this page. It's time to move on. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)