User talk:Lalit Jagannath/Archive 1

India
Thanks for your edits. You seem to have made a large number of changes in a single edit and it becomes difficult for others to verify. It is a good practice to mention the changes you are going to make in the article talk page beforehand.  Docku:  What up?  16:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I second what Docku wrote above. Also, please use edit-summaries. Abecedare (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have reverted your massive edits to India page. Please note that the change in important figures done by you were not referenced with reliable sources. WP follows the policy of WP:RS. Also, this is a summary style article, meaning lead of Economy of India, which a FA class article, is used as a section here. Please discuss the changes on Talk:India page before you do so much fundamental changes to India page in future. Your contributions are welcome. -- GP  Pande  13:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They all have inline references to World Bank, OECD, and United Nations documents as recommended by Wikipedia. These organizations sure make mistakes but there are few more reliable sources. If you think you have found a problem please say where it is? Removing obvious problems, like that the claim about GDP growth which was not backed up by the given source, does not need to be discussed in the talk page, but if you disagree, please explain what you think is exactly wrong. You only made a huge unexplained revert which reintroduced obvious errors.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Lalit, Although your edits to India and its economy articles do have a distinct slant, that is fine as long as you lay down your specific proposals and reasoning on talk page, and wait to establish consensus. Your current strategy of making bulk changes repeatedly despite reversions from multiple established editors is not constructive and is unlikely to make your edits stick. So I urge you to discuss the issues individually and calmly on the talk page so that the the best way to present the issues you raise can be determined through discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Please see WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS and WP:NOR. You seem to be a good editor and a good researcher but your edits are systematically intended to make India look bad. Critical information is okay and fair but it should not bias the article. Compare your edited version of Education in India to Education in Pakistan, or Poverty in Pakistan, for instance, which more provide balanced information. Also, try to make more your edits like these ones, which are based on legitimate points (which is why I didn't change them).

Signswork (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! It appears that Education in Pakistan, Education in Bangladesh, Education in Nepal, Education in Sri Lanka, Education in Maldives lack many basic World Bank literacy, teacher absence, etc. rates. I would suggest that someone (you?) expanded these articles instead of blanking sections in the Education in India article.


 * You could also help by rephrasing citations to whatever form you think does not "make India look bad". For example, if the paper says it is decreasing (in this case, it was unknown because it was the first large-scale study), you could rephrase a sentence like "the study found that teacher absence rate is around 25%." to "The study found that teacher absence rate is around 25% and decreasing". Lalit Jagannath (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand my point. The articles you cite about other countries are balanced and fair (they contain all the critical information needed in the appropriate amount). Your goal was not to write an article about education in India but write an article about "Indian education is a peice-of-shit affair run by filthy wogs and darkies". Putting excessive critical information is not balanced and constitutes WP:POINT.Signswork (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So your point is... information about the literacy rate and teacher absence rate is offensive or "excessive critical information"? You might have a point that World Bank and other sources focus more on describing the current state and education policy discussion than, for example, the huge progress India has made (in 1881, the literacy rate was around 3%).Lalit Jagannath (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You really need to read WP:POINT more carefully. Tendentious edits designed to advance any particular bias to established articles is simply not acceptable.Signswork (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool down and explain your points citation by citation?Lalit Jagannath (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about citations. It's about wikipedia policies. Specifically WP:POINT and WP:SYN. I know that it is difficult for many Indians to understand, since neutrality isn't in our psyche, but it's important to keep neutral for the purposes of encyclopedia and not use words and sources that are selectively and tendentiously quoted for the purposes of advancing a point of view.Signswork (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So you can't explain the rational for removing each citation? Lalit Jagannath (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay this edit is better . At least it mentions everything. But I would simplify the lead.Signswork (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Standard of living in India has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and you already unreverted.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bangalore
Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions to Bangalore. I have had to revert your recent edits, for want of consensus on the additional text and images. I ask that you start a section on Talk:Bangalore and build consensus before making your edits. Should you choose to do this, I for one will happily support the inclusion of your City Market image – I think it's a refreshing departure from the images of obscure buildings with glass facades that have been peppered all over the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was just a suggestion to have a perceptive to ordinary life. Bangalore article is not as bad as Maharashtra, which had five images of the same Mumbai buildings, just from different angles.... Lalit Jagannath (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kerala
From the above, it looks like you're on quite a roll. Please follow the advice given by AreJay when attempting highly controversial deletions of referenced material at Kerala. Regards. Saravask (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong user. As you would see in the edit history, I attempted to add who was saying that (a British Green activist) and move it to a proper section. Someone else removed it.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bihar
before making changes to the entrys on Bihar I suggest, like others, you discuss your edits first with those who have spent a long time building these entrys. Not-Ashamed (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Expanding the article with Bihar's GDSP and growth rate should not warrant any discussion. What is the meaning of "but their are pockets of higher then the average per capita income like the capital city, Patna"? Lalit Jagannath (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seek consensus
Wikipedia is a project which works on consensus. In your effort to show "the larger picture", you have systematically entered your own bias and have failed to discuss your edits which many find objectionable. I don't say that your edits are not in good faith, but you do need to seek consensus. I have reverted your edits to Culture of India and would encourage you to mention the reasons of why you would like to make those changes on the talkpage. Failure to do so would take the matter to Administrators' Noticeboard which can also result in an indefinite block. Thanks and have a nice day --67.180.5.41 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool down, and remove citations individually (or Preserve). As you already experienced, Cluebot notices if you remove dozens of citations in a single edit.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Madhya Pradesh
Hi. I notice you've been removing unreferenced material (the share of agricultural output table for example) from this page. In general, unless the facts are clearly wrong or there is some evidence of a POV controversy, it is better to tag the material with a Template:Fact tag, drop a note on the talk page, and wait a bit. Better still, look for a suitable citation (or a corrected table) on your own. There are numerous editors on wikipedia who track missing citation tags and hunt for appropriate references and it is worthwhile giving them the opportunity to find a reference rather than removing potentially useful and correct information. Of course, if you're reasonably convinced that the material is incorrect or inappropriate, immediately deleting it is the right thing to do (with a note on the talk page). I'm not going to revert your removal because, perhaps, your reasons are good so this is just a heads up. Thanks! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything I removed is still in the main article Economy of Madhya Pradesh (unreferenced, of course). Lalit Jagannath (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I missed that. Apologies. (But do think about dropping a note on the talk page before deleting material - that way there will be no confusion!) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for History of Agriculture in India
Hi Lalit! I have nominated History of agriculture in India, article created by you for  Did you know? section on the Main Page of wikipedia. If verified it will soon appear on the Main Page. I would really appreciate your contrubution to wikipedia. Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 07:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for History of agriculture in India
--Dravecky (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Lalit Jagannath)
Hello, Lalit Jagannath. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Lalit Jagannath, where you may want to participate. -- Enigma Machine (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC) --Enigma Machine (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your new account has been blocked. Lalit Jagannath (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Government of India
I was just trying to solve a cite error problem on this page, and it seems to be to do with a ref name="survey" which you recently added which doesn't exist on this page. Could you please fix this to how you intended it? Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
Your edits are extremely biased, I suggest you read Neutral point of view and No original research. 65.90.133.250 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey! You wrote me a messegae about the article about the Global Hunger Index. Most of the article is copied out the publicationn "The challenge of Hunger 2008". This was released by ourselfs (Welthungerhilfe) Ifpri and Concern Worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaPfitzner (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Transport in India
Can you provide any sources for your claim that bicycles contribute 50% of India's transport needs? --Incidious (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The second sentence has citation to "More than two out of five Indian households own a bicycle". So not precisely 50%, but almost half of families own one. One in ten families has motorcycle.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alrite, I'll search for a suitable, encyclopedic image on bicycle transport in India and make changes. But the previous image you added was of low encyclopedic value since the subject of the image was not bicycle transport. Also, walking is a major form of transport in all countries, so specifically mentioning that beats common-sense. Have a nice day --Incidious (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that you removed sourced, informative captions in the Economy of India article. Please avoid doing so. --Incidious (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Vandalism
Hi, you need to stop vandalising the Mumbai page. It's wiki policy to discuss additions before you add material to the page, espcially for Featured Articles. If you continue, you will be blocked. Nikkul (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such policy. You might think twice who is likely to get blocked - someone who adds Mumbai government statistics on housing, or someone who removes it and censors the Mumbai population who lives in slums and chawls. I will refer to administrators if you remove housing statistics again.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your input on South_Asia
Hello, another user user:Aditiya Kabir is trying to convert this section into a prose section from a list section. I have argued this format is very difficult to read. As a regular editor of South Asia, I am calling on you to give input on which format you feel is better.

Here is his revert diff 

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the list format was easier to read. I added my opinion.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Breakaway article
Sorry about that. If it's a breakaway of an existing article, then by all means please feel free to break it off. Just make sure you list it in the edit summary. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)