Talk:The Goa Inquisition

message: Please email me a copy of the article. I will delete it after I verify that what is asserted is what is written. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: :Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg

message: :Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg

message: Regarding recent edits by an IP user who has been labelling any revert by any user citing "vandalism", I would recommend reading WP:VANDALISM before than leaving disruptive, misleading edit summaries. Coming to the content itself, the major issues that abjure good faith are listing propaganda as genre (completely irreconcilable) and the attempt at WP:LEADFIXATION, there is no way even if the sources used were not opinion pieces to begin with, that despite there being a reception section, single review labelling is going in the lead. Find a credible source and add it to the reception, the attempts at infobox and lead disruption are not going to pass. Gotitbro (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The only disruption and POV pushing is yours, according to your criteria Gerald M. Moser's opinion piece would not be included in the "Reception" section because the source isn't credible at all. It's a book review in the 1960s from a non-historian: Moser taught French, Spanish, and its' literatures, Portuguese language and literature, Brazilian and Luso-African literatures at Penn State University. Source:
https://libraries.psu.edu/findingaids/6213.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:C8F:2D2A:D325:2D53:6D7:AF0E (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vandalism" 

message: The user User:Gotitbro has vandalised this article repeatedly, removing Georgetown University researcher Dale Luis Menezes' analysis of the book while claiming POV pushing. However, note that this same user (he has also vandalised a lot of other articles on Goa and Goans) didn't bother to remove Mosser's own POV opinion of the book. Could this vandalism please be reverted? 2402:3A80:C8F:2D2A:D325:2D53:6D7:AF0E (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You think WP:CANVASSing is going to help you in any way? The contentious edits by the user you summoned not withstanding you clearly have no idea what vandalism is and isn't. As to not removing a certain review it has nothing do with POV but with sourcing. Your editing wouldn't be disruptive if you stuck to the reception here without attempting the lead fixation and clearly un-excusable infobox handling. ,  take a look here before this meta-puppeting gets a hold. Gotitbro (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw that you already made a section, added response. The Mosser opinion piece isn't credible either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:C8F:2D2A:D325:2D53:6D7:AF0E (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Note also that User:Gotitbro vandalized sourced information about Anant Priolkar being President of the Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Sahitya Sammelan, the citizenship information of Remo Fernandes, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.84.59 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by [[User:Gotitbro]]