User talk:Kanga Roo in the Zoo

Kanga Roo in the Zoo, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Please take a brief survey about The Wikipedia Adventure
Hi! Thanks for playing The Wikipedia Adventure, or at least considering it. We'd like to hear about your thoughts and feelings on the game, to help us improve it. Please take this brief survey: 10 minute survey.
 * --thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 20:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Indian National Congress
Hi, I noticed you added a "verify source" tag to a reference I inserted in the INC article. Precisely why did you do that? Your edit summary was not very clear. Of course the perception is subjective: that is why I use the analysis of a well known historian. Are you suggesting I'm mis-representing the source? In that case, why on earth do you think I would do such a thing? You need to have a better reason that that for tagging. I have removed the tag for now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, comparing Nehru and Patel and citing the reason being that Patel was 'more conservative and less secular' is subjective. Also that relevant text about Nehru coming to power over Patel on the quoted basis was not found in the source, (Guha) you have mentioned Pages 19 - 115, I searched through the book and didn't find it. Nehru won, that is fact. Other sources claim the victory was based on merit and that the divide was actually exaggerated. Thus the tag 'verify source'. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the page revision as it now stands, but you're still being incredibly pedantic. Virtually every statement in that article, and in most historical articles, are subjective. "Great stature" from the previous sentence, is subjective. "Nehru embraced secularism" is also subjective. "Nehru was more secular than Patel" is as valid as any of the others, when it is sourced. And it was. You can't find a direct quote, to be sure, but there are certainly pages talking about why Nehru was entrusted with the top job; because he was more widely acceptable. The schism between them because of their views on Hindutva were explicitly stated. And speaking of subjective, "merit" is the most subjective criterion you can come up with. What is merit, if not acceptance among the electorate and the people he works with? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Guha is a very good source but it doesn't have the previously quoted comparison about the two statesmen. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)"
 * No comparison, you say? try this. "Nehru felt that it was the responsibility of the Congress and the government to make the Muslims in India feel secure. Patel, on the other hand, was inclined to place the responsibility on the minorities themselves. He had once told Nehru that the ‘Muslims citizens in India have a responsibility to remove the doubts and misgivings entertained by a large section of the people about their loyalty founded largely on their past association with the demand for Pakistan and the unfortunate activities of some of them." And also, "He meant here that Patel was friendly with capitalists while Nehru believed in state control of the economy; that Patel was more inclined to support the West in the emerging Cold War; and that Patel was more forgiving of Hindu extremism and harsher on Pakistan."


 * If you insist that the sentence under contention be removed, I am fine with that, but this disagreement has to be mentioned, as it was a major factor in shaping the politics of the time as well as subsequent congress history. It does not have to be linked to the prime-ministership. If you object to "less secular," which I find to be a rather moderate phrasing of the idea, I am fine with quoting, and saying "more forgiving of Hindu extremism and harsher on Pakistan." Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I found a few sources which claimed that it was 'done purely on merit' but their reliability is doubtful so I never included that statement in the article. The INC article is a very important one which many people will read. I understand that there are other subjective details as well but I haven't been able to take note of all of them. I only took note of a few that I could chance upon.

Statements like 'Nehru embraced secularism and socialism' and that 'Patel embraced capitalism' and was Hindutva right-wing leaning are fine with sources. But the context here is the reason 'why Nehru won the post over Patel' which is not as was stated. The schism and the reasons need to be mentioned but they existed even after Nehru's election as well and I need a statement that says that Nehru was elected due to this particular reason. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind me copy-pasting (you may call it 'shameless' ! ) I can use the quotes that you mentioned (such as "more forgiving of Hindu extremism and harsher on Pakistan." ) as well about Patel in some of the Wikipedia articles. :) Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Better still, you can add it yourself in the article Vallabhbhai Patel under Criticism and legacy. That section al ready has a 'needs additional citations for verification' tag. You can help improve that section. Thanks. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kodava maaple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tulu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Early Coorgs for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Early Coorgs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Early Coorgs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sitush (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

AfD mention
Hi, I have mentioned you at Articles for deletion/The Early Coorgs. There is something a little peculiar going on, sorry. It may be nothing of significance, and I know that you haven't edited for a while, but it is unusual behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)